Cars kill cities

Re:Cars kill cities by paganel on Thursday January 26, 2012 @05:13AM (#3513524)

> Actually, the post doesn't ignore the benefits of cars. It says for example that an SUV is a great option for a family of 6 going to the suburbs. Perhaps you had some other benefits in mind?

Those benefits will go the way of the dodo once all the externalities will finally go into gasoline prices, at least in the US. Right now the EU I think does it better, it tries to inhibit owning a car by taxing gasoline prices extensively, while the US has chosen to start and fight apparently useless wars just to keep those gasoline prices under control.

And before I get accused of being a conspiracy freak just for stating the obvious, just remember that Japan's forays into SE Asia and Germany's desperate try to put its hands on Caspian Sea oil reserves during WW2 were made because of the exact same reasons: control of natural resources.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Cars kill cities by toyg on Thursday January 26, 2012 @06:38AM (#3513689)

ahhahahaha, "it tries to inhibit"... It tries not; almost every EU country will have a number of subsidies for car ownership and a number of processes that, under the guise of promoting "environmental" and "safety" standards, really just force people to periodically upgrade their cars for the benefit of the car industry.

What it originally tried to inhibit was the depletion of oil; most EU members introduced it 30 or 40 years ago, during the oil-shock period. Nowadays gasoline taxation is just that, a tax, and a profitable one: it's grown to be one of the largest income items for most states.

(and if you think the various Middle-East wars were fought to keep oil prices under control, you're sorely mistaken; they were fought to maintain oil availability for corporations to exploit. Big difference.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Cars kill cities by JonnieCache on Thursday January 26, 2012 @07:13AM (#3513760)

>almost every EU country will have a number of subsidies for car ownership and a number of processes that, under the guise of promoting "environmental" and "safety" standards, really just force people to periodically upgrade their cars for the benefit of the car industry.

Could you elaborate?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Cars kill cities by toyg on Thursday January 26, 2012 @08:24AM (#3513993)

For example, UK Road Tax is now heavier on "polluting" cars, which mostly means "old". After two years, all cars have to be officially checked every year, forcing old vehicles off the road when the cost of mostly-optional maintenance becomes higher than the actual car value. Several cities block access to certain areas depending again on the "environmental impact" (i.e. age) of the vehicle; the European Emission Standards have been changed on average every three years, so anything linked to that standard changed accordingly. Most countries run, or have run in the past 10 years, "scrapping" schemes where people trading in their old car would get a direct government subsidy when buying a new one. This is all fairly useless, considering how study after study demonstrated that the largest threats to air quality in cities are old heating systems and industrial activity, and 90% of accidents are not due to mechanical breakdowns; but it does push people to get newer cars.

I'm not saying this is a negative thing (in theory it's quite nice), but in practice it's just another way to help car-makers.

Most countries also dish out subsidies directly to struggling car-makers; companies like Renault and FIAT are seen as "national champions" and treated accordingly -- although this is now illegal under EU competition law, nobody complains because every manufacturer based in Europe will have enjoyed some "public love" at some point. After all, car manufacturing still employs, directly or indirectly, a lot of people.

[ Parent | on HN ]