What is good with environmentalists is that they are terribly predictable. In the name of lower CO2 in France, they imagine in the first place, among a package of 150 measures, to lower the speed of vehicles on the highway. The 110 km/h, in this context autophobe which extends to the insolent provocation of Ms. Hidalgo, Paris with its 30 km/h on the device, is a matter of logic. And the communication felt good, because, of all the proposals, there was obviously successful as this one.
The initiative is not in any case supported by a vision of sociological and economic problem. Through the ‘convention’ which met during the seven weekends of work 148 so-called experts make 150 proposals in favour of the climate, leads us necessarily to an “anti car” that is beyond imagination. In attempting the passage of prop a in praise of slowness even if the proposal only included 60 % of the vote, compared with 96 or 98 % to other suggestions.
Read also “‘Convention’: the choice of decay ”
change from 130 to 110 km/h would thus, according to these experts, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 % on average, savings of 1.40 euro per 100 km on the cost of fuel, and to reduce the mortality and injury. Except that the highways are already four times safer than the roads.
If one kills (269 persons in 2018), it is because we die of boredom and fall asleep. It is the second cause of accidents (statistics motorway companies 2017) almost a tie with the first, the belt unattached and almost as many for the third, the excessive consumption of alcohol, drugs or narcotics. These three, these causes each account for roughly a quarter of all accidents.
Mortality : the speed after the pedestrians
The speed accounts for 12 % of accidents, and yet, it is often a result of other factors. It has become so secondary that it does not appear that after the death of pedestrian fatalities (14.7 per cent), the fourth leading cause of death on the highway ! Talk about speed in these conditions is simply a manipulation coarse information.
But the goal assigned to them is reduction of 40% in our greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, a goal exponential of 263 million tonnes spared in the sky French. Just the sky, at no moment the experts do not consider to slow the flight of the aircraft, because they are beautiful plumes of white above our heads. But they are moving away for the time being of any rule serious in terms of polluting emissions.
there is No question that the reduction of the speed of the supertankers that ply with impunity on the seas. They use, however, a fuel is very heavy and fat, the residue from the refining, which is exceeded only by the bitumen. However, the pollution by oxides of sulfur from a single tanker is equivalent to that of one million cars. Not, of course, it is easier to tackle as a matter of urgency “the car”, to the exhaust more visible than reactors, aircraft or boats passing far offshore. As if no progress had been made since 1990.
So, let’s talk about-in 1990, the year the starting point to any goal of reduction of polluting emissions. This year, the French car takes its last fireworks before the impoverishment of the market resulting from the first oil shock of 1973. Citroën presents the sublime SM engine Maserati and won the title of car of the year with the XM, the latest car top of the range French.
efforts not recognized
The inquisition overland has not yet hit but the vise will, in the following years, quickly restrict the use of cars, while Germany obtains better results than we are in terms of mortality, without affecting its speed on the highway. On 29 November of that year a decree sets the speed in town is 50 km/h instead of 60 – a very late – so that we are driving at 130 km/h on the highway since 1974.
On a comparative basis, therefore, between 1990 and 2019, the decrease of the average consumption of a passenger car is of the order of 22 %. This figure is calculated in a rigorous manner, putting to one side the vehicles to new energy, such as electric vehicles which further improve the balance sheet. It is, therefore, a net gain of the total thermal cars. But the philistine tends to ignore the progress of the models of last generation to retain only what he sees, that is to say, a car fleet obsolete, old of 8.4 years.
Admittedly, the public authorities complain of a rise in average consumption in 2017 and 2018, but it is less due to the success of the SUV, stigmatized, because they are at the centre of obsessions environmentalists, that the calamitous case of the dieselgate. The latter has contracted the market for the diesel, despite its real virtues, because it is a big contributor to lower emissions of CO2 and, therefore, consumption. Since 1990, the total circulation of vehicles in france and abroad on the French territory increased from 44.4 % ; CO2 emissions combined, net of renewable energy sources, have, however, risen only 9.6 %.
Since 1990, the total circulation of vehicles in france and abroad on the French territory increased from 44.4 % ; CO2 emissions combined, net of renewable energy sources, have, however, risen only 9.6 %. © CCFA
The vehicle gasoline is structurally more energy efficient with, in 2018, an average consumption of petrol is 7.2 l vs. 6.0 l diesel. Least in the odor of sanctity, the diesel left, the builders have carried forward the technological efforts on the gasoline engine to the point that, still in 2018, the average consumption of new gasoline vehicles has decreased by 1.8% compared with 0.9% for the diesel.
The threat of road train
By restricting the diesel, Europe, and, with it, the French government have shot themselves in the foot and caused a real crisis of the market, hoping foolishly to replace the diesel by the batteries of electric cars. The market doesn’t want them in such proportions and the industrial reality is quite different. Instead of adapting to the demand of the consumers, it is the legislature which imposes the offer.
there is now a real risk of provoking a break of the global economic with standards unattainable in the time allotted. Justify the 110 km/h, which is at this stage that a proposal not endorsed by the government, is nothing to the natural use of a car. The criterion of speed, which is a measure of the progress in all the activities of our modern societies, would be an exception when it comes to automotive.
We can even anticipate other issues arising out of the 110 km/h as the subordination of the feed motor to the trucks. Because, as in the United States, the pace of travel on the major routes will be 110 km/h, driven by heavy goods vehicles and buses due to a differential pace too low with the cars. It will no longer be allowed to a motorist of the double.
The parade of cars line up, in addition to-Atlantic, on the pace of moving trucks, up to form little trains, is not compatible with a road safety improved. As for pollution, it will have to still explain to manufacturers of cars and users who have made the effort to buy vehicles decontaminated state of the art, this descent is generalized to the 110 km/h. And, why not, then, according to the logic Hidalgo, even less with exactly the same arguments.
also Read “Hidalgo wants to impose 30 km/h in Paris and to create pedestrian crossings on the device”
Already, the 80 km/h on roads, enacted as experience, and in the name of the only road safety, has caused uproar and triggered, in part, the movement of the yellow Vests. Experienced as a humiliation in paris by the province, 80 km/h has inflamed the passions, and he will not fail to do so again when Édouard Philippe and the results will necessarily be positive – experience truncated and statistically as malleable as the studies on chloroquine.
