I'm curious -- how are the French reacting to the imposition of
a surcharge of up to 3,500 Euros on gas guzzling cars and SUVs
(with corresponding rebates for fuel-efficient vehicles)? Any
media play on this yet?

See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/sto...245187,00.html

-- Ron
Hamilton, ON

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:23:07 -0400, Ronald Hands wrote:

    > I'm curious -- how are the French reacting to the imposition of
    > a surcharge of up to 3,500 Euros on gas guzzling cars and SUVs
    > (with corresponding rebates for fuel-efficient vehicles)? Any
    > media play on this yet?
    >
    > See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/sto...245187,00.html


Many most likely agree this is not a bad idea?

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 22:50:00 GMT, devil <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:23:07 -0400, Ronald Hands wrote:
    >> I'm curious -- how are the French reacting to the imposition of
    >> a surcharge of up to 3,500 Euros on gas guzzling cars and SUVs
    >> (with corresponding rebates for fuel-efficient vehicles)? Any
    >> media play on this yet?
    >>
    >> See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/sto...245187,00.html
    >Many most likely agree this is not a bad idea?

I see why the French auto industry (whose vehicles are largely
unaffected) is not opposed. Kind of a de facto protectionist scheme.
I'm surprised the French have trailed the US in thinking up this tax.

Gordon

On 26/06/04 4:07, in article [email protected],
"Gordon Forbess" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 22:50:00 GMT, devil <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:23:07 -0400, Ronald Hands wrote:
    >>
    >>> I'm curious -- how are the French reacting to the imposition of
    >>> a surcharge of up to 3,500 Euros on gas guzzling cars and SUVs
    >>> (with corresponding rebates for fuel-efficient vehicles)? Any
    >>> media play on this yet?
    >>>
    >>> See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/sto...245187,00.html
    >>
    >>
    >> Many most likely agree this is not a bad idea?
    >
    > I see why the French auto industry (whose vehicles are largely
    > unaffected) is not opposed. Kind of a de facto protectionist scheme.
    > I'm surprised the French have trailed the US in thinking up this tax.
    >

In fact the manufacturers did complain on one point. The system proposed
would also reduce the price on efficient smaller cars (I think 600 euros
is the figure). So the term "bonus-malus" is employed. The problem is with
the proposed starting date, January 1 of 2005. This would stimulate people
to buy their big cars now but postpone a small car purchase until next year.
The car makers don't like that.

The French used to have a system of "vignettes" for yearly car
"registration" and the price varied according to motor power rating.

This was discontinued about 6-7 years ago but the sums charged for a
large 16 CV monster was over $1000, and about $100 for 4-5 CV small
cars. This particularly tax hit foreign cars since the French did not
manufacturer 16 CV size cars and I think the Bruxelles or the European
Court acted against it as protectionist. French cars are larger now,
the top of the Peugeot line (607) is a big car.

I don't think this time around it is protectionist. The worry about
air pollution is big in Paris for instance, and it is showing up
on health statistics. In addition, I think there is a general consensus
feeling that something has to be done about the automobile in the urban
environment. It is absolutely absurd to see that most of the cars
only have one person in them while the vehicle itself is taking
up space which is a multiple of what one person should have in
a restricted urban space area. it appears egoist by its very
nature (we have a car, by the way, but never drive it around Paris,
it remains parked until the weekends).


The current Parisian administration is putting the squeeze on the automobile
and this new measure is also part of the squeeze. Next, the economic impact
of squeezing the car is dubious, the industry is already not a growth
industry and in slow decline in terms of the number of people employed.

Parisians will cheer on any attempt to bring the vehicular traffic
under control. I think tourists will too.

Earl

devil <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected] >...
    > On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:23:07 -0400, Ronald Hands wrote:
    >
    > > I'm curious -- how are the French reacting to the imposition of
    > > a surcharge of up to 3,500 Euros on gas guzzling cars and SUVs
    > > (with corresponding rebates for fuel-efficient vehicles)? Any
    > > media play on this yet?
    > >
    > > See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/sto...245187,00.html
    >
    >
    > Many most likely agree this is not a bad idea?

I even heard a radio comment in Western Switzerland
(the french speaking part) complaining Swiss government
not having started with comparable taxes yet.

And by the way, German government seems to reconsider
the major tax breaks for heavy SUVs - even the most
luxurious SUVs are treated as small "commercial trucks"
provided they are diesel-powered and heavy enough,
so the owners dont have to pay the much higher taxes
applicable for cars!

devil wrote:

    > On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:23:07 -0400, Ronald Hands wrote:
    >
    >
    >> I'm curious -- how are the French reacting to the imposition of
    >>a surcharge of up to 3,500 Euros on gas guzzling cars and SUVs
    >>(with corresponding rebates for fuel-efficient vehicles)? Any
    >>media play on this yet?
    >>See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/sto...245187,00.html
    >
    >
    >
    > Many most likely agree this is not a bad idea?

It may do more good than it seems to have in the U.S. - even with gas
prices at an all time high as well, folks here keep right on buying the
damned things! (I saw an article on one of the news sites about the
U.S. importing some of those neat little European cars, but I guess it
will be several years for them to get around to those cute little
two-seaters that barely sip fuel, and can be parked in all the spaces
full-sized cars can't quite fit into.)

EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:

    > It may do more good than it seems to have in the U.S. - even with gas
    > prices at an all time high as well, folks here keep right on buying the
    > damned things! (I saw an article on one of the news sites about the
    > U.S. importing some of those neat little European cars, but I guess it
    > will be several years for them to get around to those cute little
    > two-seaters that barely sip fuel, and can be parked in all the spaces
    > full-sized cars can't quite fit into.)


Those little cars would probably not meet US Federal safety regulations for
crash worthiness. I could see them being popular in NYC, perhaps Chicago,
Washington, San Francisco, Boston.....

[gas prices BTW are nowhere near their historical high, adjusted for
inflation...natcherly most folks don't take that into consideration when
filling up their tanks in 2004, but as recently as the early 80's we were
paying well over $3.00 (in adjusted for inflation dollars) per gallon...]

USAin's have simply never cottoned to really small cars. Back in the 70's -
early 80's Detroit produced some truly ghastly small cars (Chevy Vega, AMC
Gremlin, Plymouth Omni, etc.) in reaction to cheap Japanese imports but
they soon fell by the wayside. Earlier c. 1960 Detroit produced compact
cars as a reaction to the popularity of the Volkswagen, etc. and Detroit
even imported Simcas, Opels, English Fords, Vauxhalls, and the like (in the
late 40's GM and Ford designed small cars for the US market, but ultimately
it was decided that the market simply wasn't there, and these cars were
produced by the European subsidiaries of Ford and GM...same thing happened
with the compact front wheel drive 1962 Ford Cardinal - designed for the US
market, it was postponed at the last moment and eventually wound up in
Germany as a Ford Taunus model). Within a few years the US compacts grew
larger and more elaborate with V-8 engines, flash interiors, power options,
etc. "Thrifty" brands such as Rambler and Studebaker eventually went under.

US *cars* (not SUV's, which are considered trucks) today are smaller than
the behemoths of old, but they are also more effecient in interior space
utilisation, get much greater gas mileage, and have far better build
quality, not to mention *vastly* better brakes, steering, and
suspensions...the cheapest US car is *miles* better in every way than a 1956
Cadillac Fleetwood or Chrysler Imperial (though perhaps not esthetically ;-)

--
Best
Greg

Earl Evleth <[email protected]> wandered out of a yurt and mumbled:

    >This was discontinued about 6-7 years ago but the sums charged for a
    >large 16 CV monster was over $1000, and about $100 for 4-5 CV small
    >cars. This particularly tax hit foreign cars since the French did not
    >manufacturer 16 CV size cars and I think the Bruxelles or the European
    >Court acted against it as protectionist. French cars are larger now,
    >the top of the Peugeot line (607) is a big car.

What do the terms "16 CV", etc. mean? I know what a Citroen 2CV is
(wonderfully weird -- I'd love to bring one to the US), but this
apparently refers to something different.


--
Bozone(n.) -- The invisible substance surrounding stupid people
that prevents smart ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer,
unfortunately, shows little sign of breaking down.

"Charles Hawtrey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

    > What do the terms "16 CV", etc. mean?

"Chevaux" "Horsepower" Not actually real horsepower, but a rating based
entirely on engine displacement. A hold-over from the ancient past. I
can't find the formula.

"Gregory Morrow" wrote
    | Those little cars would probably not meet US Federal safety regulations
    | for crash worthiness.

I thought the US had eventually adopted the more stringent European safety
standards on cars?

Owain

"Gregory Morrow" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected] hlink.net>...
    > EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
    >
    > > It may do more good than it seems to have in the U.S. - even with gas
    > > prices at an all time high as well, folks here keep right on buying the
    > > damned things! (I saw an article on one of the news sites about the
    > > U.S. importing some of those neat little European cars, but I guess it
    > > will be several years for them to get around to those cute little
    > > two-seaters that barely sip fuel, and can be parked in all the spaces
    > > full-sized cars can't quite fit into.)
    >
    >
    > Those little cars would probably not meet US Federal safety regulations for
    > crash worthiness. I could see them being popular in NYC, perhaps Chicago,
    > Washington, San Francisco, Boston.....

A few years back I saw a special on Top Gear where they reported on a
trek from the US east to west coast with a Smart, so I'm pretty sure
they're road-legal in the US.

    >
    > [gas prices BTW are nowhere near their historical high, adjusted for
    > inflation...natcherly most folks don't take that into consideration when
    > filling up their tanks in 2004, but as recently as the early 80's we were
    > paying well over $3.00 (in adjusted for inflation dollars) per gallon...]
    >
    > USAin's have simply never cottoned to really small cars. Back in the 70's -

Efficient cars don't have to be small. HT/HP diesels are not an
uncommon sight over here in top of the line cars.

    > early 80's Detroit produced some truly ghastly small cars (Chevy Vega, AMC
    > Gremlin, Plymouth Omni, etc.) in reaction to cheap Japanese imports but
    > they soon fell by the wayside. Earlier c. 1960 Detroit produced compact
    > cars as a reaction to the popularity of the Volkswagen, etc. and Detroit
    > even imported Simcas, Opels, English Fords, Vauxhalls, and the like (in the
    > late 40's GM and Ford designed small cars for the US market, but ultimately
    > it was decided that the market simply wasn't there, and these cars were
    > produced by the European subsidiaries of Ford and GM...same thing happened
    > with the compact front wheel drive 1962 Ford Cardinal - designed for the US
    > market, it was postponed at the last moment and eventually wound up in
    > Germany as a Ford Taunus model). Within a few years the US compacts grew
    > larger and more elaborate with V-8 engines, flash interiors, power options,
    > etc. "Thrifty" brands such as Rambler and Studebaker eventually went under.
    >
    > US *cars* (not SUV's, which are considered trucks) today are smaller than
    > the behemoths of old, but they are also more effecient in interior space
    > utilisation, get much greater gas mileage, and have far better build
    > quality, not to mention *vastly* better brakes, steering, and
    > suspensions...the cheapest US car is *miles* better in every way than a 1956
    > Cadillac Fleetwood or Chrysler Imperial (though perhaps not esthetically ;-)

Eloy van Herckenrode extrapolated from data available...


    >
    > A few years back I saw a special on Top Gear where they reported on a
    > trek from the US east to west coast with a Smart, so I'm pretty sure
    > they're road-legal in the US.
    >
Given that a much higher percentage of US (as compared to European) driving
occurs on highways and rural areas at relatively high speeds, most US auto
buyers have displayed something less than frenzy at lining up for little
cars. Perhaps it's the sight of what remains after Janiebelle, the high
school cheerleader, took on the SUV in her Minimoke (bought for her by her
gas-cost conscious Dad).

Two unassailable facts remain in the forefront of the minds of those
Americans who purchase and operate large cars and SUVs....

The current crop, even the monsters, deliver better gas mileage than did
our everyday cars of the 50s, back when we started working and driving.

Gasoline, already declining in price from its Memorial Day peak, costs less
today in inflation adjusted dollars, the sort that we elderly big car
drivers count our fortunes with, than it did in the early 80s or even in
the halcyon days of our youth in the 50s.

Should we spend our money on public transit instead of gas and big
cars/SUVs?

Well, there's little or no "public transit" out here in the big open middle
of the US from whence cometh much of the nations productivity. Nor is
there a venue likely to attract rail or other mass transit.

....and the clincher, that most of the mass transit schemes outside a
handful of developed monstro-urban markets, end up consuming as much energy
as is required for the same folks to travel in cars.

As for diesels, none of the European sort and only a couple of the USAian
ones will meet the particulate standards due in 2007, Diesels are
economical, but dirty, and the low sulphur distillate required for their
clean operation will be more expensive than MOGAS (and take as much if not
more crude to produce).

TMO



    >>
    >> [gas prices BTW are nowhere near their historical high, adjusted for
    >> inflation...natcherly most folks don't take that into consideration
    >> when filling up their tanks in 2004, but as recently as the early
    >> 80's we were paying well over $3.00 (in adjusted for inflation
    >> dollars) per gallon...]
    >>
    >> USAin's have simply never cottoned to really small cars. Back in the
    >> 70's -
    >
    > Efficient cars don't have to be small. HT/HP diesels are not an
    > uncommon sight over here in top of the line cars.
    >
    >> early 80's Detroit produced some truly ghastly small cars (Chevy
    >> Vega, AMC Gremlin, Plymouth Omni, etc.) in reaction to cheap
    >> Japanese imports but they soon fell by the wayside. Earlier c. 1960
    >> Detroit produced compact cars as a reaction to the popularity of the
    >> Volkswagen, etc. and Detroit even imported Simcas, Opels, English
    >> Fords, Vauxhalls, and the like (in the late 40's GM and Ford designed
    >> small cars for the US market, but ultimately it was decided that the
    >> market simply wasn't there, and these cars were produced by the
    >> European subsidiaries of Ford and GM...same thing happened with the
    >> compact front wheel drive 1962 Ford Cardinal - designed for the US
    >> market, it was postponed at the last moment and eventually wound up
    >> in Germany as a Ford Taunus model). Within a few years the US
    >> compacts grew larger and more elaborate with V-8 engines, flash
    >> interiors, power options, etc. "Thrifty" brands such as Rambler and
    >> Studebaker eventually went under.
    >>
    >> US *cars* (not SUV's, which are considered trucks) today are smaller
    >> than the behemoths of old, but they are also more effecient in
    >> interior space utilisation, get much greater gas mileage, and have
    >> far better build quality, not to mention *vastly* better brakes,
    >> steering, and suspensions...the cheapest US car is *miles* better in
    >> every way than a 1956 Cadillac Fleetwood or Chrysler Imperial (though
    >> perhaps not esthetically ;-)
    >

Olivers wrote:

    > Eloy van Herckenrode extrapolated from data available...
    > >
    > > A few years back I saw a special on Top Gear where they reported on a
    > > trek from the US east to west coast with a Smart, so I'm pretty sure
    > > they're road-legal in the US.
    > >
    > Given that a much higher percentage of US (as compared to European)
driving
    > occurs on highways and rural areas at relatively high speeds, most US auto
    > buyers have displayed something less than frenzy at lining up for little
    > cars. Perhaps it's the sight of what remains after Janiebelle, the high
    > school cheerleader, took on the SUV in her Minimoke (bought for her by her
    > gas-cost conscious Dad).


Yep, that is a big consideration....


    > Two unassailable facts remain in the forefront of the minds of those
    > Americans who purchase and operate large cars and SUVs....
    > The current crop, even the monsters, deliver better gas mileage than did
    > our everyday cars of the 50s, back when we started working and driving.


Our 1965 Plymouth Fury coupe got about 17 mpg at highway speeds. This was a
car that only had an automatic transmission and power steering as options
(not energy - hogging air conditioning or more power options ), the engine
was a small 318 V-8. This was considered very decent mileage at the
time....

A real gas hog like a 1966 Olds Toronado (absurdly heavy, front - wheel -
drive, monster V-8, stuffed with power and convenience options and gadgets)
would be lucky to get anthing more than 10 mpg....


    > Gasoline, already declining in price from its Memorial Day peak, costs
less
    > today in inflation adjusted dollars, the sort that we elderly big car
    > drivers count our fortunes with, than it did in the early 80s or even in
    > the halcyon days of our youth in the 50s.
    > Should we spend our money on public transit instead of gas and big
    > cars/SUVs?
    > Well, there's little or no "public transit" out here in the big open
middle
    > of the US from whence cometh much of the nations productivity. Nor is
    > there a venue likely to attract rail or other mass transit.

Look at a railroad atlas or maps from a century ago and you'll see that most
every town of any size in even the most rural areas was linked to the
railroad system. By the twenties paved highways were being built (my 80+
year - old parents still refer to them as "hard roads")...this was a big
boon for farmers who wanted to get their goods to market faster and to
generally enable small townsfolk and farmers to get around much better.
Internal combustion replaced the railroads, and we never looked back. In my
very rural downstate Illinois county, the last passenger train (called the
"Dolly", it ran the length of the county) ceased ops in 1954. The same
tracks carried freight until 1973, when the tracks were torn up and the rail
right - of - way was made into a nature trail...

Multiply the above by many thousands of times and you have the story of rail
transport in the US. Yes, we *did* have a very dense passenger rail system
at one time even in the sticks, but it was superseded by something
*better*.....


    > ....and the clincher, that most of the mass transit schemes outside a
    > handful of developed monstro-urban markets, end up consuming as much
energy
    > as is required for the same folks to travel in cars.


Not to mention the cost - how many billions did it cost to extend BART to
San Francisco Airport? Will we ever get high - speed TGV - type rail
service here in the Midwest (with Chicago as a hub), factoring in the cost?
Wasn't there a high - speed rail scheme afoot in Texas a few years ago?
ISTR that the costs were so enormous that it was finally dropped - it was
estimated that you could buy every potential user of the system a lifetime
pass on Southwest Airlines and it would *still* be cheaper than the proposed
system....

--
Best
Greg

In article <[email protected] >,
[email protected] (Eloy van Herckenrode) wrote:

    > "Gregory Morrow" <[email protected]> wrote in
    > message news:<[email protected] hlink.net>...
    > > EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
    > >
    > > > It may do more good than it seems to have in the U.S. - even with gas
    > > > prices at an all time high as well, folks here keep right on buying the
    > > > damned things! (I saw an article on one of the news sites about the
    > > > U.S. importing some of those neat little European cars, but I guess it
    > > > will be several years for them to get around to those cute little
    > > > two-seaters that barely sip fuel, and can be parked in all the spaces
    > > > full-sized cars can't quite fit into.)
    > >
    > >
    > > Those little cars would probably not meet US Federal safety regulations for
    > > crash worthiness. I could see them being popular in NYC, perhaps Chicago,
    > > Washington, San Francisco, Boston.....
    >
    > A few years back I saw a special on Top Gear where they reported on a
    > trek from the US east to west coast with a Smart, so I'm pretty sure
    > they're road-legal in the US.

Might be a special one-time import/permit venture. FWIW, M-B/D-B
advertised the things for sale in Canada about 3 months ago.

On 26 Jun 2004 01:13:21 -0700, j.e.r. wrote:

    > I even heard a radio comment in Western Switzerland
    > (the french speaking part) complaining Swiss government
    > not having started with comparable taxes yet.

That will be difficult in Switzerland, as many people in the mountains
depend on 4-wheel-drive cars to get through the snow and ice in winter. At
least in the mountains there are lot's of SUV's, especially the farmers
love them, as you can acces remote pastures and transports things around. I
doubt that the swiss government wants to angry its farmers ;-)

    > And by the way, German government seems to reconsider
    > the major tax breaks for heavy SUVs - even the most
    > luxurious SUVs are treated as small "commercial trucks"
    > provided they are diesel-powered and heavy enough,
    > so the owners dont have to pay the much higher taxes
    > applicable for cars!

Right, you can even make the car heavier to have it pass as "truck" ;-)

Regards,

Frank