The Latest Internal Combustion Bans Are So Badly Thought Out It's Hilarious

If you asked the councils of Paris and Oxford which end of a horse the cart should go, we're fairly confident they wouldn't have a clue, judging by their ridiculous bum-first bans on internal combustion
The Latest Internal Combustion Bans Are So Badly Thought Out It's Hilarious

We couldn’t ignore the strength of feeling among you guys surrounding this week’s two new bans on internal combustion; in Paris and Oxford. The authorities have clearly struck a nerve, whether you live in these two cities or not.

We don’t, luckily. No CT staff members live in either of them, and we’re pretty sure we’re not suddenly going to decide that moving there looks like a great plan. But before cities closer to us get the same idea, we’d like to have our say.

The Latest Internal Combustion Bans Are So Badly Thought Out It's Hilarious

Both of these bans are rash, low on detail and potentially counter-productive. Let’s start with the Paris one. All internal combustion-engined cars will be banned from setting a single tyre inside set boundaries somewhere in the city’s outer reaches. What they haven’t specified is whether hybrids will be allowed or not; a fundamental oversight in any such plans. Someone will probably remind them soon, but for now it’s just evidence of how little thought has gone into it.

Let’s also look at the start date: 2030. It’s a nice, round number and a neat 10-year wedge ahead of the France-wide ban on new internal combustion-engined car sales. It’s a little too neat, if you ask me. Why 2030? Why not 2031, or 2033? This number was chosen for no good, research-backed reason: it just looks neat on paper.

Image: Wikipedia Commons/Benh Lieu Song
Image: Wikipedia Commons/Benh Lieu Song

There have been no talks with the industry to estimate a practical switch-over year when EVs will be sustainable. No talks with infrastructure builders to make sure 2030 is an achievable deadline to have hundreds of thousands of charging points installed. No talks to make sure energy supplies will be readily on tap to feed the ravenous electricity monster.

It’s just a nice, neat number plucked out of the Parisian authorities’ backsides, disregarding the 50 per cent or so of Parisians who still have a car – almost all of which are petrol or diesel. This is legislation that hasn’t been thought out. They’ve just gone and done it anyway.

Now let’s look at Oxford. As one of the least car-friendly built-up areas I’ve ever had the misfortune to drive through (along with Paris), the only surprise in its gradual banning of anything with an engine is that Brighton, with its Green Party MP, didn’t get there first. But the timing, again, shows how little thought has actually gone into it.

The Latest Internal Combustion Bans Are So Badly Thought Out It's Hilarious

2020 is another neat number; the next neat year on the calendar. ‘Great for marketing soundbites!’ they probably thought, forgetting that 2020 is only just over two years away. That simply isn’t enough time for residents, local companies and visitors to adjust. In 26 and a half months’ time streets will start being closed to anything burning fossil fuels.

There won’t be bollards; there’ll just be big fines for anyone who breaks the rules. To avoid these roads, more traffic will be forced onto fewer roads, making the jams – and the pollution concentration – even worse. Local emissions on the EV-only streets will surely plummet, but if they double on the neighbouring roads, what was the point?

Oxford residents have no doubt bought new, efficient diesels this year on three-year finance deals. Now they’re being told that in the last year of their deals their car is going to be barred from parts of the city they live in. Stunning work, Oxford City Council. And how, exactly, is a delivery van supposed to get packages to streets affected by the ban? Renault Kangoo Z.E.s and Nissan e-NV200s aren’t exactly the match of a Mercedes Sprinter when it comes to multi-drop deliveries.

Image: Wikipedia Commons/Kaihsu Tai
Image: Wikipedia Commons/Kaihsu Tai

Do these swivel-eyed fantasists expect not just the postal companies to replace entire van fleets, but manufacturers to research, develop, perfect and bring to market affordable, large, long-range electric vans, all inside two years?

This is obvious stuff that we thought of within seconds of learning about the ban, but there’s no hint from the authorities that this sort of thing has occurred to them at all, yet. From public servants we should expect better. We just never seem to get it.

Sponsored Posts

Comments

CatHat

They were ELECTRIFIYED by the idea so the rushed it.

10/15/2017 - 10:08 |
18 | 0
Metrickzcz (Prelude Squad)

In reply to by CatHat

Must have been shocked

10/15/2017 - 10:21 |
12 | 0
Wogmidget

In reply to by CatHat

You could say there’s a bit of a reVOLT against the idea . . .

10/15/2017 - 11:23 |
12 | 0
Olivier (CT's grammar commie)

In reply to by CatHat

10/16/2017 - 11:25 |
2 | 0
Anonymous

The best part is that, in the end, it’s actually more polluting to build all those electric cars and their batteries than it is to keep running the fossil fuel-powered ones (at least the newer models).

10/15/2017 - 10:09 |
100 | 4
Olivier (CT's grammar commie)

In reply to by Anonymous (not verified)

Source? I honestly doubt that one.

10/16/2017 - 11:25 |
2 | 2
Anonymous

Maybe Paris and Oxford have been taught by Max Dillon (Electro) from The Amazing Spiderman 2 to use electricity everywhere.

10/15/2017 - 10:25 |
4 | 0
Ali Mahfooz

What these ministers and politicians don’t see is that a mechanism configuration could work in a different manner (say a different fuel) but to ban the entire mechanism by a specified date is clearly dumb. It’s like banning kitchen knives because they have the potential to kill people just like guns.

I do wonder does this ban include aeroplanes as well because all commercial airliners are combustion engine powered. Will they be not allowed to land in those cities? 🤔😂

10/15/2017 - 10:26 |
336 | 0

Well spoken Ali, you’re a good man.

10/15/2017 - 10:50 |
2 | 0

I hadn’t even thought about aeroplanes. I’m sure they want to electrify those as well. 😂

10/15/2017 - 10:53 |
64 | 0

And what about riding lawnmowers?

10/15/2017 - 15:15 |
42 | 0

im pretty sure commercial jets create more pollution than all the petrol/diesel cars in paris alone, why are they not being banned? Maybe cause it’s easy to blame cars :/

10/15/2017 - 19:43 |
20 | 2

Ive always wondered about the plane thing, when are they going to ban petrol planes and bring in electric or hydrogen ones…then what about ships what would happen to ships

10/15/2017 - 23:59 |
0 | 0
Aaron Dawson

What should be banned are people that use the car for only a few minutes because they are too lazy to walk 10 minutes!

10/15/2017 - 10:28 |
98 | 0

Agreed

10/15/2017 - 14:07 |
6 | 0

I do the same, why not walk and loose fat? Every 10 kg you loose is 10p more for your car

10/15/2017 - 15:18 |
12 | 0

disabilities, sure makes sense, laziness, well thats when people get annoyed at you

10/15/2017 - 19:44 |
2 | 0
lowie t

It’s stupid.
Forcing millions of people to buy new “clean” cars and what happens to the dirty ones? They go to poland and drive there, then the wind is blowing towards france and all the emission are there again….

10/15/2017 - 10:30 |
124 | 0
Dzonny the e36 maniaq

In reply to by lowie t

*Poland, man, have some respect

10/15/2017 - 15:06 |
14 | 8

Your point also notes something quite important-the recycle/removal of the hundreds, probably thousands of petrol and diesel powered vehicles that had once roamed the streets. If they are illegal, people have no use for them. Destroying that many cars at once will probably contribute that much more to pollution anyway, even if they are recycled.

10/18/2017 - 02:08 |
2 | 0
DL🏁

It’s like Brexit - make the decision, and then think how to sort things out sometime later. Then realise you f*cked up and just hopee everyone forgets and this never happens.

Btw, what about motorcycles? Will those be allowed? And emergency services?

10/15/2017 - 10:30 |
54 | 2

A Renault Kangoo ambulance sounds utterly pathetic and the sad thing is, it’s probably gonna appear very soon xD

10/15/2017 - 11:02 |
20 | 0
TheMindGarage

Cars are just being used as a scapegoat because they’re easy to ban. Well guess what, politicians? These electric cars ACTUALLY HAVE TO BE CHARGED SOMEWHERE. So unless you’re planning to build lots of renewable power stations, you’re just moving the emissions to somewhere else. And if you try to build ANY type of power station in the UK, you’ll be greeted by a mob of old people complaining that it “ruins the landscape”. So good luck.

10/15/2017 - 10:40 |
76 | 0

And unless people in those cities have enough money to buy new electric cars they’ll be well and truly f*cked.

10/15/2017 - 15:11 |
10 | 2
Anonymous

I used to live in Oxford and one of my favourite things to do was drive through the city centre with a stupidly loud decat and bounce off the limiter outside the council building. Sorry everyone.

That aside, during their trial period the six streets that ban cars probably won’t notice a difference in roadside air pollution because of the pollutants from the rest of the city reaching equilibrium with the air in the streets that’s lacking in pollutants, and as mentioned in the article the overall number of internal combustion vehicles isn’t going to change so the overall number of pollution in the city won’t vary. The extra congestion will just make it worse.

10/15/2017 - 10:49 |
16 | 0
Anonymous

In reply to by Anonymous (not verified)

Indeed, basic chemistry quells all idiocy

10/15/2017 - 11:22 |
6 | 0
Callum Luker

In reply to by Anonymous (not verified)

This ban is your fault Tom. Well done, have a Twizy 😁

10/15/2017 - 14:11 |
4 | 0
Anonymous

The thing that worries me the most about the IC ban (besides where will we get our fuel) is how the hell are they going to make enough electricity to charge all these vehicles (100s at a time) without causing the same or even more amount of pollution? Sure the energy from nukes is fairly clean… well if you don’t mind the huge amounts of toxic waste and the risk of destroying a big chunk of the country where the nuke is when something goes wrong. Then there is wind which is pretty usable, but there you have hippies that are worried about the bird hitting the blades and put the whole operation to a halt. Solar is also pretty neat but kinda expensive or not enough efficient (it also needs quite a bit of space). Water is already pretty common, but there you also have to consider the ecosystem where the plant is stationed.

TL,DR: Unless they come up with a way to power all these EVs (or hydrogen cars which still need huge amounts of electricity to make the fuel) without cancelling out the emissions reduction, all these plans and bans are destined to fail.

10/15/2017 - 11:04 |
26 | 0
Anonymous

In reply to by Anonymous (not verified)

Actually nuclear power nowadays is extremely safe, and the most recent nuclear disaster in japan was caused by an earthquake and a tsunami. And dont call nuclear power nukes, nukes refer to bombs, nuclear power plants refer to nuclear power plants, and the waste is not the doomsday figures people say, they just see the monthly output and multiple by a certain number of years, while in reality, many of the items leaving a nuclear only have to be stored for a year or two due to their relatively short half lives.

10/15/2017 - 12:59 |
28 | 0
Anonymous

In reply to by Anonymous (not verified)

But i do mostly agree with you.

10/15/2017 - 12:59 |
6 | 0