Europe Considers BAN ON SPORTS CARS to Combat Global Warming

I'm all for this ban but the real reason should be to stop the killing
on our roads. Only a psychopath drives 100 mph.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...Gw8&refer=home

Cutting CO2 or a Sneak Attack on Porsche, Ferrari?: Doron Levin

By Doron Levin

July 10 (Bloomberg) -- If one of the more extreme responses to global
warming comes true, driving a sports car anywhere but on a racetrack
might be relegated to history's dustbin.

Fast, powerful cars within a few years may be outlawed in Europe, an
idea that has been raised ostensibly because Ferraris and Porsches
produce too much carbon dioxide. For those who abhor sports cars as
vulgar symbols of affluence (along with vacation homes, furs and fancy
jewelry), such a ban could be a two-fer: Saving the planet while cutting
economic inequality.

Who are these people anyway who decide on behalf of everyone what car is
proper to drive? In the U.S. they're members of Congress, which is
considering fuel-efficiency standards that will affect vehicle size. In
Europe, it's the ministers and parliamentarians of the European Union,
which wants to limit how much CO2 cars can emit as a proxy for a fuel-
consumption standard.

Chris Davies, a British member of the European Parliament, is proposing
one of the most-extreme measures -- a prohibition on any car that goes
faster than 162 kilometers (101 miles) an hour, a speed that everything
from the humble Honda Civic on up can exceed. He ridiculed fast cars as
``boys' toys.''

The proposed ban would take effect in 2013. Davies told the Guardian
newspaper that ``cars designed to go at stupid speeds have to be built
to withstand the effects of a crash at those speeds. They are heavier
than necessary, less fuel-efficient and produce too many emissions.''

His last point is telling, even though there are many reasons why cars
are heavier, including safety measures such as air bags and
steel-reinforced crumple zones.

The idea is to limit CO2, a so-called greenhouse gas blamed for causing
the earth's temperature to rise.

But the debate isn't just about how much carbon dioxide to allow into
the atmosphere and whether the amount actually matters. It's also about
disdain some hold for the size or speed of the cars others drive.

(snip)

In article et>,
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS > wrote:

> I'm all for this ban but the real reason should be to stop the killing
> on our roads. Only a psychopath drives 100 mph.

German autobahns are safer than our highways...

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS > wrote:
>
> I'm all for this ban but the real reason should be to stop the killing
> on our roads. Only a psychopath drives 100 mph.
>
> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...Gw8&refer=home
> (snip)

There's one back bench guy in the european parliament who wants to read
his name in the newspaper and you declare that 'Europe considers ban on
sports cars'? Do you consider every quote of Obama or Romney as 'US
policy', too?

Funnily, I wouldn't have an issue with this; I've done thousands of
miles at triple digit speeds, and usually the time that you won by
driving fast is being lost at the fuel pump. There's no benefit in
driving faster than 80-90 mph in my eyes.

The proposed approach is not to ban sportscars, but to put a speed
limiter on cars. Nothing more. It probably wouldn't change a bit in how
cars are being built, and you'd be able to drive 300hp cars - at exactly
the same speeds those cars are driving today, because in the end hardly
anybody drives that quick.

I liked another approach better, sadly it'll have as much of a chance.
EU insists that cars should produce not more than 130g/CO2 per km in
2020 - a ridiculously high number, considering a 2004 Prius is at 104.
If they'd add a provision to refuse any kind of tax benefit on cars
higher than this output, the big company car providers (Audi/VW, BMW,
Mercedes etc) would offer low polluting cars within months.

cu
.\\arc

Marc Gerges wrote:

>
> Funnily, I wouldn't have an issue with this; I've done thousands of
> miles at triple digit speeds, and usually the time that you won by
> driving fast is being lost at the fuel pump. There's no benefit in
> driving faster than 80-90 mph in my eyes.
>

Idiot. You mean 50 mph.

"Marc Gerges" > wrote in message
...
> There's no benefit in driving faster than 80-90 mph in my eyes.
>

The benefit is that you get where you're going sooner. Duh.

Sandy

Speeders are BETTER DRIVERS wrote:
> Marc Gerges wrote:

>> Funnily, I wouldn't have an issue with this; I've done thousands of
>> miles at triple digit speeds, and usually the time that you won by
>> driving fast is being lost at the fuel pump. There's no benefit in
>> driving faster than 80-90 mph in my eyes.

> Idiot. I was referring to my 3 inch weiner.

Why can't you stay on topic you stupid troll.

"Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" > wrote in
message nk.net...
>
> I'm all for this ban but the real reason should be to stop the killing on
> our roads. Only a psychopath drives 100 mph.
>
> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...Gw8&refer=home
>
> Cutting CO2 or a Sneak Attack on Porsche, Ferrari?: Doron Levin
>
> By Doron Levin
>
> July 10 (Bloomberg) -- If one of the more extreme responses to global
> warming comes true, driving a sports car anywhere but on a racetrack might
> be relegated to history's dustbin.
>
> Fast, powerful cars within a few years may be outlawed in Europe, an idea
> that has been raised ostensibly because Ferraris and Porsches produce too
> much carbon dioxide. For those who abhor sports cars as vulgar symbols of
> affluence (along with vacation homes, furs and fancy jewelry), such a ban
> could be a two-fer: Saving the planet while cutting economic inequality.
>
> Who are these people anyway who decide on behalf of everyone what car is
> proper to drive? In the U.S. they're members of Congress, which is
> considering fuel-efficiency standards that will affect vehicle size. In
> Europe, it's the ministers and parliamentarians of the European Union,
> which wants to limit how much CO2 cars can emit as a proxy for a fuel-
> consumption standard.
>
> Chris Davies, a British member of the European Parliament, is proposing
> one of the most-extreme measures -- a prohibition on any car that goes
> faster than 162 kilometers (101 miles) an hour, a speed that everything
> from the humble Honda Civic on up can exceed. He ridiculed fast cars as
> ``boys' toys.''
>
> The proposed ban would take effect in 2013. Davies told the Guardian
> newspaper that ``cars designed to go at stupid speeds have to be built to
> withstand the effects of a crash at those speeds. They are heavier than
> necessary, less fuel-efficient and produce too many emissions.''
>
> His last point is telling, even though there are many reasons why cars are
> heavier, including safety measures such as air bags and steel-reinforced
> crumple zones.
>
> The idea is to limit CO2, a so-called greenhouse gas blamed for causing
> the earth's temperature to rise.
>
> But the debate isn't just about how much carbon dioxide to allow into the
> atmosphere and whether the amount actually matters. It's also about
> disdain some hold for the size or speed of the cars others drive.
>


This story is way up there witht he ban on bent cucumbers and ban on Mr
Spock toy dolls... a story turning into an urban myth .... yet again

Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>
> I'm all for this ban but the real reason should be to stop the killing
> on our roads. Only a psychopath drives 100 mph.
>
> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...Gw8&refer=home
>
> Cutting CO2 or a Sneak Attack on Porsche, Ferrari?: Doron Levin
>
> By Doron Levin
>
> July 10 (Bloomberg) -- If one of the more extreme responses to global
> warming comes true, driving a sports car anywhere but on a racetrack
> might be relegated to history's dustbin.
>
> Fast, powerful cars within a few years may be outlawed in Europe, an
> idea that has been raised ostensibly because Ferraris and Porsches
> produce too much carbon dioxide. For those who abhor sports cars as
> vulgar symbols of affluence (along with vacation homes, furs and fancy
> jewelry), such a ban could be a two-fer: Saving the planet while cutting
> economic inequality.

Vulgar symbols of affluence? My Porsche cost me about $3500 and gets
better gas mileage than my company car. Plus it was already built when
I bought it used, therefore I wasn't contributing to the energy cost of
building a new automobile.

Don't get me wrong, for a car guy I actually have some strong
environmentalist tendencies, but this is a steaming bowl of cack.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Jul 11, 3:55 pm, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
> wrote:
> Marc Gerges wrote:
>
> > Funnily, I wouldn't have an issue with this; I've done thousands of
> > miles at triple digit speeds, and usually the time that you won by
> > driving fast is being lost at the fuel pump. There's no benefit in
> > driving faster than 80-90 mph in my eyes.
>
> Idiot. You mean 50 mph.

50? Not 41? Did you get a new pair of shoes for the use of police
dental work?

Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>
>I'm all for this ban but the real reason should be to stop the killing
>on our roads. Only a psychopath drives 100 mph.

You're for the ban? No surprise, considering you secretly dream of
America becoming a communist nation.


--

We're all here
because we're not all there.