Safe Speed Forums

Bid to ban fast cars from Europe
By Mark Mardell
BBC Europe editor, Brussels

Most EU states have top speed limits in the region of 80mph
There are calls for the European Union to ban the making of cars that can go at more than 101mph (162km/h).

The proposal comes in a report to the European Parliament on EU plans for a law to curb CO2 emissions from cars.

MEPs will vote on the plan this autumn but the BBC has seen an early draft of the report, which will be released to parliament later this month.

Its author, British Lib Dem MEP Chris Davies, says 101mph is 25% more than the top speed limit in most EU states.

He says cars have gradually increased in power and weight, which increases their CO2 emissions, even though people cannot legally use that extra power.

His report also suggests that a fifth of car advertisements should be devoted to cars' fuel consumption and CO2 emissions.

The European Commission is preparing legislation that would limit CO2 emissions of the average new car sold in Europe to 130g per kilometre, by 2012.

Mr Davies says this deadline will be costly for industry to meet, and proposes instead a target of 120g/km by 2015, followed by a second target of 95g/km by 2020.

Europe diary: MEPs and motors


SHINY TOYS
Do car manufacturers appeal to the child in us?
Should you be allowed to drive cars that can do a ton, even if you'd be breaking the law? We all know that boys - and girls - of all ages love shiny, big, powerful toys.

But do car manufacturers appeal to the child in us all who loves to go "Vrrrrm!" the expense of the world's climate?

Members of the European Parliament are being urged to think so and to stand up to them. The European Parliament is going to be asked to beef up plans to fight global warming by stopping cars pumping out so much carbon dioxide.


NOT SO FAST
The European Commission came up with its own idea for the laws in February and since then I've been trying to track what is happening to this proposed law, which will affect how we drive all over Europe.

The first really major step since then is upon us. Parliament is getting involved. The basis of this is a report which has just gone to the translators, who will doubtless have fun finding out the Maltese, Irish and Latvian for technical terms like "limit value curve". It will then be debated in a committee at the end of this month.

The MEPs will then have a chance to vote on further changes in September and the full parliament will debate it in October. I've had a sneak preview of the report that the debate will be based on. It's written by the Lib Dem MEP Chris Davies, who is what is known in the jargon as the "rapporteur" on the proposal.

He wants to ban cars that are capable of doing more than 101mph... that's 162km/h. (It's based on 25% more than the average upper speed limit.) Only military, emergency and police cars would be exempt from the law, which would come into force in four years' time.

Mr Davies notes that between 1994 and 2004 the power of new cars went up by 28%, making them a lot heavier, and so increasing the amount of CO2 they put out, even though no country raised its speed limit to allow cars to use this increased power.


HEALTH WARNING
The report that the parliament will vote on also calls for a big change in the way cars are advertised.

A fifth of ads would have to be given over to a variation on the health warning on cigarette packets. It wouldn't actually point out the dangers of CO2 emission, but would highlight the car's fuel efficiency (or lack of it) and its CO2 emissions. It would also be made illegal for adverts to boast about cars being able to go faster than the national speed limit, although not being an avid reader of car ads I don't know whether they really do this on a regular basis anyway.

But what do you think: is it right to ban the wannabe boy racers and help fight climate change, or is this more EU interference in the way we live our lives? You can also listen to my report on the report, and an interview with the author, on Radio 4's PM programme on Friday 8 June. I'm planning to drive a big powerful car to illustrate the allure. And, well, just for the hell of it. But rest assured, gentle reader, it won't cost the licence payer a penny. And I won't break the speed limit.

The car manufacturers probably won't like the idea of cutting the power of their machines, but Chris Davies has listened to their demands for more time to implement any changes.

He says the commission proposal to make them cut average CO2 emissions to 130g for every kilometre driven by 2012 is "too costly". So he's suggesting giving them another three years on top of that, but at the price of making further cuts.

He'll be asking the parliament to back his suggestion of a law making the average emission 120g from 2015, and not allowing any new car to go on the market if it produces more than double that, which would really hit the posh sports car market. And he wants a further tightening to just 95g by 2020.


FINES AND REWARDS
One of the big questions in this whole debate is how to punish offenders. The report comes up with the idea of fining manufacturers who break the limits. The scheme would come into effect in three years' time and would also contain an element of reward for good behaviour.

Mr Davies has called this the Carbon Allowance Reduction System (CARS: geddit?). The fines, at a level to be set by the commission, could be offset by credits for new cars that produce less carbon dioxide than the legal standard. It's going to be interesting to see how much of this Mr Davies' colleagues accept when they come to debate it.


GOING BLOGGING
I wrote a while ago about turning this diary into a blog and some of my apprehensions. But I'm told it can still appear regularly on Thursdays with the additional benefit of filing stuff (that's a technical term) whenever I like it and replying to some of your comments.

Be warned. It's the sort of thing I get caught up in and can spend ages agonising over criticisms and mulling over rebuttals, denials and old-fashioned abuse when I ought to be reading another fascinating commission report or actually talking to people. Sometimes editors of newspaper columns announce, "This correspondence is closed," but I bet I am one of the few journalists to have bored one complainant (by letter) into submission. After several exchanges he concluded, "This correspondence is now closed." I can't remember what my alleged offence had been but I regarded that as a sweet victory.

Anyway, I will start the blogging process next week, on plans for a new European treaty in place of the constitution rejected two years and a month ago. We're getting close to the summit at the end of the month and things are hotting up. Watch this space.


Please use the post form [below] to comment on any of the issues raised in the diary.

Mr Davies notes that between 1994 and 2004 the power of new cars went up by 28%, making them a lot heavier, and so increasing the amount of CO2 they put out, even though no country raised its speed limit to allow cars to use this increased power.

Mr Davies notes that between 1994 and 2004 the power of new cars went up by 28%, making them a lot heavier, and so increasing the amount of CO2 they put out

What about trackdays where it is perfectly lawful to exceed 70mph and the 101 mph?

It's fundamentally flawed...

Mr Davies notes that ...........no country raised its speed limit to allow cars to use this increased power.

Well, that depends. If it's part of a process that brands motorists as sinners who must pay tax, feel guilt and repent, then I'd suggest it's right on the money.

Gentlemen, beware. The Church of Green is emerging and we're not required to believe, only obey in silence.

Sounds like a reasonable idea.

Speeds above this are pointless,

and if it concentrates engineering efforts onto lighter, more economical cars that are torquey, accelerate superbly and are more fun to drive then I'm all for it!

I for one would rather have usable real world power anywhere in the rev range at the expense of relatively useless high top speeds!

Britain 'smothered' with EU laws

Britain is being "smothered" with EU laws, imposed without proper debate, say peers behind a bid to investigate the effects and cost of EU membership.

UKIP's Lord Pearson said most laws affecting British business originated in Brussels and were merely "rubber stamped" in the Commons and the Lords.

He said it meant there was a "growing divorce" between MPs and the public.

His bill, to be debated by peers on Friday, urges an inquiry into the implications of withdrawal from the EU.

Lord Pearson, a former Conservative backbencher who switched to UKIP in January, has the backing of several MPs and peers including Labour's Austin Mitchell, Conservatives Lord Tebbit and Lord Vinson and Independent Labour peer Lord Stoddart.

Cost of membership

The European Union (Implications of Withdrawal) Bill, calls for an independent committee to examine the implications for the UK of withdrawing from the EU.

This would include outlining the financial cost of EU membership and its effects on its economy, constitution and security.

I believe this inquiry would be a breath of fresh air

Lord Pearson

On Thursday, Lord Pearson said much legislation merely being rubber stamped by Parliament - if it was seen at all - leading to "a growing divorce between the people of this country and the discredited hen-coop of Westminster".

He added: "I believe this inquiry would be a breath of fresh air. It would blow away a lot of myths and it would open up a genuine debate in this country."

But he said the government would "go a long way to avoid any inquiry of this kind".

'Backdoor revival'

Mr Mitchell said the bill was particularly topical, as the European Council appeared to be attempting a "backdoor revival" of the European Constitution - rejected by Dutch and French voters in 2005.

And Lord Vinson added animosity would grow if the state kept getting "its fingers into just about everything".

"Inevitably people will break the law more and more and we will become a more law-breaking society," he said.

"It cannot be helped if you smother people with regulations."

Accountability 'failure'

In May Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett was criticised for not giving evidence to the foreign affairs committee about the government's Europe policy.

And in March the EU scrutiny committee complained MPs had not been given the chance to debate an EU plan to transfer prison inmates between member states.

In both cases the committees complained there had been a failure of accountability to Parliament.

Labour says it is in Britain's interests to be at the heart of Europe and argues it has helped to make the EU work better.

On Tuesday, the prime minister's spokesman said the UK would not give up its veto on crime policies - after the home affairs committee said it saw no justification for "a major transfer of power" to the EU.