For SUV haters

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/10/france.suvs/index.html
SUV's don't belong in city streets.

 

Well,since we are into hating a whole class of the motoring public for
silly and frivolous reasons,I will add that I think that BICYCLISTS do
not belong on city streets either;but then again,nobody really CARES
what I think and I really doubt anyone cares what you think either as
minorities of one generally do not carry much weight a regards public
domain usage.

 

hopefully they pass that law before Hybrid SUVs hit the
street or else they wont have valid cause to ban them.

its just like cell phones, you curse the ones who have em
until you get one for yourself.

the world gets less free with every new law.

 

Agreed. There's always some special interest group who wants something and
anything banned just because they don't like it or it's perceived as being
dangerous, be it cell phone or SUVs. The funny thing is that neither are
dangerous if responsibly used. They only law that would have any real
benefit would be to ban stupidity. Then all the problems would be solved.

Sean

 

Who care what those BlueCheeses want to do in their city. I never ever
come to their country, nor buy their product.

 

Should the US return the Statue of Liberty then?

 

be careful with the word Never, thats a word that only the
naive(french) and ignorant use. those Michelins on your Honda
wouldn't be French would they?

 

The ban on stupidity would certainly help! I agree with you on that.
In defense of the French, though, I don't think their main objection
is safety of the SUVs. It's environmental. The Greens are very
powerful politically throughout Europe. As citizens of oil-importing
nations, vehicles like SUVs used in roles other than "Sports-Utility,"
are offensive to them. They have every right to voice an objection to
anything they feel is not in the best interest of their society. If
the majority of their fellow citizens agree, SUVs and, presumably,
other gas-guzzlers will be limited in some way. If the majority feel
otherwise, they will not. It's what we call democracy, not stupidity.

 

I assumed it was a space issue. Many (most?) European cities are much
older than the US ones and have pretty narrow streets. It might be the
case that Paris (not Hilton) has streets on which an SUV couldn't pass
another SUV going the opposite direction.

 

The passing of laws to satisfy some prejudice of a majority is *not*
democracy - it's mob rule and is treading a fine line approaching fascism!
We all belong to some "minority" of the population in some way or another
and it is the job of a democratic govt. to defend minorities against
prejudices, however they were cultivated. Unfortunately we seem to be
living in times where govt. takes upon itself the role of disseminator of
lies and half-truths, usually based on the ubiquitous junk science, in
order to appear to be the protector of society in general - a cheap and
tawdry trick which has more to do with self-aggrandizement of the political
manipulators than any notion of altruism.

While I hate SUVs as much, or even more, than most, and have said as much
several times in this NG, I am vehemently against laws to ban them, even in
specific areas such as cities. I just figure that, if govt. is allowed to
act so capriciously on a routine basis, sooner or later they're going to
get around to banning something to which I (and everyone else) attach some
value.

Besides, for the "purposes" of the politicos in the article, it would
appear that a big car would fit their agenda for banning just as easily as
an SUV. You only have to observe the behavior of many (majority of) SUV
drivers to see that they are fundamentally selfish, unaware individuals: as
well as insisting they *need* the vehicle, they ignorantly hog the left
lanes of freeways even when the lanes to the right are sparsely populated;
they apparently cannot live without running their fog-lamps with low-beams,
even when following another vehicle; they love their high commanding view
without being able to conclude that if we all had SUVs their highness
would be nullified, etc. etc.

My point form the above is that taking away their SUVs is not going to
change their character - the people will always be a public nuisance.:-(

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

 

I'd like to see a two laws enacted to protect the public:

1. SUV's, Pickup's and Vans would not be allowed to have a full frame ahead
of the front axels and
2. There be a maximum driver's seat height for all non-commercial vehicles
be mandated.

These two design requirements would save thousands of lives each year by
making the roads safer for people who do not drive the gas-guzzling,
dangerous SUV's, Pickups and Vans.

.... then all drivers would be treated fairly.

 

I think I will buy one of those WW2 vintage re-conditioned Sherman
battle tanks and drive it on the highways and byways........that way
'defensive driving' won't be a concern,even with ego-centric idiots who
pilot SUV's.

 

They will just run out and buy the new Abrams based SUV.

This is exactly the reason why some things have to be regulated and
regulated properly.

 

this post has turned into an argument advocating communism.
communism is a great ideal, but good luck in america.
y'all are talking like a bunch of nazi's, single out the ones that
are different from you and limit their freedoms.

my buddy is 6'4 270(muscle) and he is super uncomfortable
in a midsized car. therefore he drives either a caddy or a jeep.
both of which share similar mass and a similar threat to others.
the nazi in you wants to hinder his lifestyle to enhance your own.
go to the source, don't ban the SUVs, ban the ones who need/want
them. get rid of the ones who inconvience you in order the live like
you. why should you have to park a few spaces further to accomodate
the guy with no legs, its not YOUR problem.

as George said, sooner or later they will tread on you soil and YOU
will be the victim. instead of trying to lower people to your level, try
raising yourself...called tolerance and progress.

 

Good points all, George. All except the one about the prejudice of
the majority. It's difficult for me to see how the majority's
insistence on conservation of precious resources, some of which are
nonrenewable, would be construed as a "prejudice." I doubt that you
are vehemently against all conservation laws, and in the minds of many
of these Parisians, I believe this may be simply about conservation --
conservation of fossil fuel and conservation of precious and vanishing
space on city streets. Just because one has the financial wherewithal
to deplete these resources doesn't mean that society must allow him to
ingratiate himself simply to protect the individual's freedom of
choice. In indulging himself, he is, in effect, taking away the
freedoms of his fellow citizens, as you point out so eloquently.
Although I'd stop short of calling laws enacted by elected
representatives mob rule, I think I hate capricious usurpation of my
rights almost as much as you. However, I fail to see how these views
can be classified as "capricious."
As Churchill said (to paraphrase) "Democracy is the worst possible
form of government . . . except for all the others."

Ron

 

6'4 270(muscle)... muscle or fat he could fit in a Mercedes Smart car that
gets 80 mpg.... size has nothing to do with it... maybe the size of one's
ego...

 

nothing an aftermarket 9" lift kit wont get around...

unless they ban those, or the cops actually *enforce* bumper-height
laws. seems they only do that if they wanna pic on you anyway.

 

The term SUVs can span a wide range of vehicle. For example, at one end of the
spectrum we have the Mazda Tribute and at the other end there's the Hummer. A
vehicle like the Tribute is designed for the Urban environment while the Hummer
is not. It makes sense to have the owner pay a premium to own the real trucks
since they are special purpose vehicles. The simplest way to impose this premium
without getting political is to hike gas prices and increase the gas tax for new
vehicles (while giving a credit to those vehicle that are fuel efficient) .
Personally, I'm looking forward to the higher gas prices so that the pompous
assholes driving the SUVs (not all SUV owners are assholes) will pay!

An out right ban on SUVs does seem like a poor way to manage the issue. But, a
city like Paris could get away with it since the streets can only accommodate
smaller cars. I don't see any up roar about banning tractor trailers from
neighborhood streets here in North America.

Pars
98 DX Hatch (~40mpg)

 

Hmmm, it's difficult for me to see where to draw the line here when it
comes to waste of resources when I look around at the profligate waste
everywhere. Is it right for the "majority" to define its level of waste as
the appropriate one for all of society? SUVs are to be banned but river
pleasure craft whose fuel consumption is measured in gallons per mile are
overlooked? Everyone is doing something which accelerates resource waste.
Singling out SUV owners is prejudice.

I visited Paris ~6months ago and it didn't seem that much different,
traffic circulation-wise than when I lived there many years ago. The
street air may have been slightly less smelly of exhaust fumes since they
adopted the catalytic converter and stricter emission controls... only
12years ago. The space on city streets is still overloaded to near
saturation point, as in most large cities, and banning SUVs is not going to
change that.

If you want to prevent the richer folks from over indulging, there are many
other things in their lifestyle which would yield much larger conservation
if that's what you're after. It's a thorny issue though... which is
generally attacked with taxation of some form, e.g. the recent entry
charges to inner London. Then again, overdo it and they leave and take
their tax contribution with them.

As in most major cities there is a whole host of vehicles which are much
larger than average: commercial vans & pickups, minivans, which are very
popular in France among the well off, and large cars which take as much
space as many SUVs. With the fairly recent cross-over vehicles I think
they're going to have a hard time defining "SUV" but considering all the
other conspicuous "wasters", singling out the SUV for an outright ban is
capricious to me. There's no single line which can be drawn, but they are
going to draw one anyway.

One of the "problems" with democracy as implemented is that whomever is
elected generally proceeds as though they have a mandate to enact whatever
crackpot idea du jour they come up with. Just because they've been elected
does not mean that they actually represent the opinion of the majority for
every single issue. Add in their efforts to shape public opinion -- with
today's media access, usually successfully -- and I believe that far too
often, and certainly in this case, they are exeeding the terms of their
mandate.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

 

i dont have em cruising through my neighborhood. on surface streets,
theyre forced to use "truck routes"- major thoroughfares, unless theyre
making a delivery.

theres hardly any room for them to make a 90 degree turn anyway.