ABG: German cities can ban older diesel cars immediately Hamburg will start enforcing new rules by the end of the month

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

GRA

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
14,018
Location
East side of San Francisco Bay
https://www.autoblog.com/2018/05/18/german-cities-can-ban-older-diesel-cars-immediately/

BERLIN - German cities are entitled to ban older diesel vehicles from streets with immediate effect to bring air pollution levels in line with European Union rules, Germany's top administrative court confirmed on Friday.

Germany opened the door to diesel bans in February when it allowed environmental groups to sue cities which fail to enforce Europe's clean air rules, despite fierce lobbying to oppose bans from carmakers.

In a 30-page statement on the ruling which was published on Friday, Germany's administrative court in Leipzig said there should be no grace periods for driving bans. . . .

Immediate driving bans on major roads or road sections would be legitimate and could affect all models excluding those meeting the latest Euro-6 emissions standards, the ruling statement said. Euro-6 was phased in 2014.

For wider city areas encompassing a multitude of main roads and side streets, the court recommended a phased implementation of bans, starting with older cars that meet Euro-4 emissions standards. The Euro-4 standard was replaced by Euro-5 beginning in 2009.

The Leipzig court had said in February that Euro-5 vehicles should not be banned until Sept. 1, 2019. Tradesmen and some residents too should be exempted, it said at the time. . . .
 
Wow that is fairly aggressive in retroactive reaching. So cars bought in 2009 through 2013 under the guidelines in place at the time the car was made and sold can be banned from use now? A car buyer in Europe doesn't even get over 5 years of use before it get's banned?

I'm in favor of reducing emissions, but such retroactively punitive actions against lawful (and due to misleading advertising also innocent) buyers is going to spark some nasty backlash against environmentalism.
 
^^ Except the cars are illegal and on the roads due to lies. Save the backlash for the automakers.
 
SageBrush said:
^^ Except the cars are illegal and on the roads due to lies. Save the backlash for the automakers.

Really? Every diesel sold from 2009 to 2013 is illegal? Odd that only VW is in real trouble. A lot of other brand diesels are running around Europe from that timeframe. Also, doesn't VW already have their settlements worked out? So piling on penalties on owners at this point just shafts them, not the automaker.
 
DarthPuppy said:
SageBrush said:
^^ Except the cars are illegal and on the roads due to lies. Save the backlash for the automakers.

Really? Every diesel sold from 2009 to 2013 is illegal? Odd that only VW is in real trouble. A lot of other brand diesels are running around Europe from that timeframe. Also, doesn't VW already have their settlements worked out? So piling on penalties on owners at this point just shafts them, not the automaker.
Yes, they almost all emit multiples of Euro 5 allowed emissions.

VW has a settlement with the German government. Now they can deal with the consumers they lied to.
The German consumer, government and manufacturers have a reasonably aligned interest in migrating to domestic electric cars. I expect (hope ?) that compromise can be worked out that offers consumers a substantial discount to turn in their diesels for EVs. Perhaps the manufacturers can pay 50%, and the consumer and government 25% each, for the upgrade cost. The consumer will make up the difference in fuel costs, the government will keep their industrial base, and the manufacturers keep their customers.

The only real fly in the ointment is the currrent snail pace of battery production capacity. They better get a move on and start investing 10x - 50x their current rate.
 
DarthPuppy said:
SageBrush said:
^^ Except the cars are illegal and on the roads due to lies. Save the backlash for the automakers.

Really? Every diesel sold from 2009 to 2013 is illegal? Odd that only VW is in real trouble. A lot of other brand diesels are running around Europe from that timeframe. Also, doesn't VW already have their settlements worked out? So piling on penalties on owners at this point just shafts them, not the automaker.

Those who have Netflix should watch the episode of "Dirty Money" entitled "Hard NOx." It shows in great detail not just how Volkswagen cheated the world by selling very dirty diesel engines as "Clean Diesel" but also how all of the OTHER European manufacturers did - and still do - the same thing. This latter fact is much less known than the former. Basically, because of the way EU clean air enforcement works, the manufacturers, including Mercedes, shop for jurisdictions with lax enforcement, then build auto plants there, to further discourage them from removal of the huge, amazing loophole in the emissions laws there: there is an exception to emissions regulations for "Protection of the engine." That's right: they "protect" the diesel engines rather than the people affected by them. For years the EU has been wondering why their cities have repeatedly failed to meet the NOx limits set by the EU. They now know the reason: "clean" diesel engines. They have measured NOx levels in suburban kindergartens that exceeded the acceptable level for breathable air, despite there being no major highways nearby.

This is a slow-motion train wreck, and the auto manufacturers are trying very hard to keep it out of the news. They have threatened journalists with huge, punishing lawsuits, but the issue is slowly, slowly, reaching the public perception - in the EU. Not yet in the US..
 
Government and industry replacing the diesels with EVs at some point in the future would be really neat if that could be worked out somehow. I'm not that optimistic.

However, banning the use of these cars in these locations now will hit immediately. And it will hit the wrong targets. People are driving these for a reason - probably because they need to get to work. They simply can't afford to dump all these cars and buy EVs. Banning them now without a real replacement program in place is very unfair to them. Yes, we can attempt to blame the makers. But if we don't provide a real solution and a realistic transition period, we will be punishing the wrong target. And that is very likely to come back to bite in the form of the wrong candidates getting elected and environmentally-friendly policies gutted.
 
Let's muddy the waters a little bit further, I read somewhere last week that SJWs are starting to accuse us driver's of EVs are responsible for child labor violations in some of the source countries for the materials for our batteries? Shouldn't these cities be banning EVs if they are going to be socially responsible?

Hmm, that would hit us unfairly since we all have near new cars with long durability and will have to discard them promptly as they are now banned. But hey, if diesel owners don't deserve a transition period, why should we?

It is starting to sound like the only morally decent transportation option is FCV...

Let's all be responsible, buy a FCV to help the transition, and start campaigning for this common sense technology and ban other modes now. No need for transition periods. Ban ICEV, PHEV and EVs now, not just the sales of these, but ban the use of them. I'm sure the millions of current car owners will accept that the hardships they are facing are all the automakers' fault and there will not be any backlash against the government for these reasonable regulations at the next election. Hope the FCV and infrastructure will be put in place by wise and efficient government and industry before too long.

And I don't plan to dismiss the fact that it will hit the wrong targets simply because we are not the ones hit.

I would much favor banning the manufacture and sale of new diesel cars. That hits the automakers, not the consumer. Yes, it will take time to get the existing diesels off the road. A government/industry settlement to provide replacements can help tremendously with that. But we got to get the horse in front of the cart. Banning the use of the existing cars now is not the solution.
 
Yes, we can attempt to blame the makers.

The makers of the cars are to blame. They know this and have tried to hide their guilt. There is no need to "attempt to blame" them.

I would much favor banning the manufacture and sale of new diesel cars. That hits the automakers, not the consumer. Yes, it will take time to get the existing diesels off the road. A government/industry settlement to provide replacements can help tremendously with that. But we got to get the horse in front of the cart. Banning the use of the existing cars now is not the solution.

You don't seem to understand the magnitude of the problem you want to keep as an interim measure. These engines are killing people every year, in large numbers. They have prevented Europe from achieving the air quality that they have determined they need to achieve in order to prevent thousands of needless deaths from high NOx levels. They could just replace each diesel car with a 10 year old gasoline car, and far fewer people would die as a result. You are essentially regurgitating the manufacturers' propaganda (minus the new car ban), probably with no realization of doing so. It isn't as if there is a worldwide shortage of automobiles, new or used. What is needed is the will to ban diesel engines, at the very least from urban areas. What isn't needed is 10 years of excuses for delay following 10 years of criminally negligent homicide by VW, Mercedes, and the other EU diesel manufacturers.
 
DarthPuppy said:
But if we don't provide a real solution and a realistic transition period
"Realistic" to a diesel owner is for the the life of *their* car.
The rest of Europe is not willing to wait.

Solution: swap car or take public/clean transport in urban centers.

And honestly ? Diesel buyers are not exactly victims in this mess. They bought the cars to save a few pennies on petrol and enjoy the diesel torque and were happy to swallow the manufacturer swill about "clean diesel" -- if they cared about pollution at all. I'm not going to lose any sleep over any forced contribution to clean up the mess, although I do agree that the manufacturers should shoulder the majority of the burden.

If the diesel owners are unhappy, they can "petition" the manufacturers for more assistance.
 
I do think that the manufacturers should be made to take back the older diesels, and give the owners either a substantial credit towards a new gasoline or electric car, or enough cash to buy a decent used one. Europe needs a "Cash for Stinkers" program.
 
LeftieBiker said:
I do think that the manufacturers should be made to take back the older diesels, and give the owners either a substantial credit towards a new gasoline or electric car, or enough cash to buy a decent used one. Europe needs a "Cash for Stinkers" program.

That would also be a viable solution. But unfortunately, I doubt that is part of the settlements that have happened/are in process.
 
SageBrush said:
DarthPuppy said:
And honestly ? Diesel buyers are not exactly victims in this mess. They bought the cars to save a few pennies on petrol and enjoy the diesel torque and were happy to swallow the manufacturer swill about "clean diesel" -- if they cared about pollution at all. I'm not going to lose any sleep over any forced contribution to clean up the mess.

And by the same logic you and all EV drivers belong in prison for child slavery. Careful about assuming guilt of large groups of innocent consumers because you think they should have known something at the time.

"Happy to swallow?" Really? The information at the time, backed up by the EPA stickers and the government watchdogs allowing these cars to be sold, was supportive of these being 'clean diesel'. And it is very plausible argument to fall for. Diesels are well known to get more mpg. Fewer gallons burned should translate to less exhaust. Nice attempt to rewrite history and the motives of lots of people though. Keep drinking that cool-aid.
 
LeftieBiker said:
Yes, we can attempt to blame the makers.

The makers of the cars are to blame. They know this and have tried to hide their guilt. There is no need to "attempt to blame" them.

Ah, I see. So society and the automakers have already agreed on this as you have clearly succeeded in blaming them. Good job! Glad to know you solved the problem. You are so right. There is no longer any need to attempt. Mission accomplished.
 
LeftieBiker said:
You don't seem to understand the magnitude of the problem you want to keep as an interim measure. These engines are killing people every year, in large numbers.
Interesting. I was not aware so many people had murder by car exhaust as a contributing factor on their death certificates. Europe really does have a problem then. Perhaps someone is placing too much faith in 'studies' that are conducted to provide a desired outcome.

Tell me please, how many child slaves does it take to register as an issue for you? Or does the fact that happens in one of Trump's "sh*&%hole" countries mean they don't matter? Do only European lives matter and warrant immediate bans on cars that contribute to the problem?

Put forward a real solution that is fair to the consumer. Bashing innocent consumers because they selected a different car than we did is not a good path forward.

As noted above, I'm agreeable to requiring the automakers being forced to replace with cleaner cars. And I agree the sooner the better. But sadly, apparently, people in Europe don't really care that much about holding the car makers accountable. The political will isn't there to oppose the political power and money of the car makers. Absent that, you haven't put forward a real solution other than to punish innocent consumers. And insisting on punishing diesel owners because they must be evil since they bought a diesel thinking it was better while it is ok to be an EV owner because we aren't evil since we bought it thinking it was better is really quite a double standard.

Also sadly, too many EV owners think they are saints and everyone else should be punished for not following the correct faith. This attitude will alienate the general public and may impede EV adoption. Punishing a large group of innocent consumers is likely to cause a bad political backlash. And I don't seriously believe the automakers are going to be the ones to pay the price for that - they have and always will have too much money and therefore political power for this to be a reality.
 
People really need to be aware of 'studies' and their 'conclusions'. So-called 'scientists' can design studies to assert whatever they want.

Yes, I'm aware that car exhaust is a serious problem. But if I was so inclined, I could design a study that demonstrates no one is killed. Let me demonstrate.

In most jurisdictions, autopsies are conducted by trained medical professionals. Regulations preclude them from falsifying the cause of death or contributing factors. Therefore, my study has determined that death certificates are the most accurate way to assess whether car exhaust was a contributing factor in someone's death.

I've reviewed a large, statistically valid sampling of the death certificates from the most polluted urban areas in Europe. With the oddball exception of suicide where the person deliberately ran their engine in a closed garage, no death certificates indicated car exhaust as the cause of death or even as a contributing factor.

From this, my study has scientifically demonstrated that car exhaust is not responsible for deaths in Europe.



Now, there are no doubt very sound studies that conclude car exhaust is a contributing factor in x% of deaths in areas with high air pollution. But to grab those and then make claims that diesel car owners are killing people is rather absurd. And good luck convincing them. There are a lot of them and some of them might be registered to vote. If we really piss them off, you can bet many more will register and we will have a huge setback in advancing environmentally friendly policies. Don't treat large parts of the consumer base as the enemy.
 
DarthPuppy said:
Yes, I'm aware that car exhaust is a serious problem. But if I was so inclined, I could design a study that demonstrates no one is killed. Let me demonstrate.

In most jurisdictions, autopsies are conducted by trained medical professionals. Regulations preclude them from falsifying the cause of death or contributing factors. Therefore, my study has determined that death certificates are the most accurate way to assess whether car exhaust was a contributing factor in someone's death.

I've reviewed a large, statistically valid sampling of the death certificates from the most polluted urban areas in Europe. With the oddball exception of suicide where the person deliberately ran their engine in a closed garage, no death certificates indicated car exhaust as the cause of death or even as a contributing factor.

From this, my study has scientifically demonstrated that car exhaust is not responsible for deaths in Europe.
All you have demonstrated is a profound ignorance of epidemiology and the role of autopsies.
 
SageBrush said:
All you have demonstrated is a profound ignorance of epidemiology and the role of autopsies.

That is what you got from this exercise? So you fail to comprehend that someone can produce a shody study to advocate whatever stance they want to? Even after I've pointed out quite clearly how it can be done? Wow.
 
Why is the fact that shoddy studies can be produced being used by you to assume that studies by reputable groups are therefore shoddy? Are you really going to just deny solid epidemiological research? If so, I've just lost much respect for you...
 
Back
Top