Cycling UK Forum

Surely, there are many cars that automatically cut the engine when the car stops at, e.g. traffic lights? Either that, or there are a lot of very conscientious motorists out there. Mind doesn't have that feature, but then it's an older, basic-model car. I don't know how the system works, perhaps someone here can explain?

Ice cream vans/HGVs/buses/taxis all horrible polluters on our roads with regards to idling. School run cars, supermarket/airport/train station drop-off/collect zones are also bad.

But this is still ignoring that the electricity and production parts of electric motor vehicles that use fossil fuels, the electricity in this country is still produced in significantly quantities by using fossil fuels. That's without taking into account using toxic materials that cause pollution up front somewhere else in the world and more pollution at the back end also!
Shouldn't we be taxing that as well?

Some manufacturers only warranty their batteries for three years, the pollution from another is ridiculous and the use of smelting to recover the cobalt and nickel is another load of pollution people forget about and that the lithium is very unlikely to be recovered as it's a lot cheaper to mine fresh A Renault Zoe is 1480kg bare kerb weight, that's 600kg heavier than a MKII Astra (a 5 seat medium hatchback), if they didn't pack the things with so much garbage - like 10" media screens for one, they might actually be able to move the things further, use smaller batteries and waste less energy. Also introducing blanket 20mph speed limits as EVs work most efficiently at this speed, well 18-20mph apparently.

Still, billions used funding/subsidising EVs yet a few coppers down the back of the sofa for cycling. same old garbage that doesn't resolve the big issues, just diverts it elsewhere in terms of pollution and wasting materials.

Audax67 wrote:Don't like the idea. When I lived in Germany I became very conscious of what they called the "anzeigementalität", i.e. a state of mind that takes delight in denouncing petty wrongdoers. E.g. chum turned his ankle on a loose paving and stumbled a bit while walking to his car, police turned up at his flat half an hour later with a breath test because some good citizen had noted his number plate and called the police because he might just have been drunk.

Bleh.

That would be a major concern, and not necessarily the worst of it. Imagine a PoB or PoF suddenly 'feeling faint' in the middle of a small street, and standing there holding up traffic for a minute and five seconds while an accomplice films any cars (but not the cause) from a discrete location. A nice little earner for two miscreants, and even if the police aren't fooled it's still taken up some of their time and added to the total pollution.

Then there's the question of how much fuel is needed for a warm start, and how many old cars would be needlessly replaced with equally-polluting vehicles because they sometimes take a while to start...

I am actually in favour of car engines being switched off at most opportunities, but if the rules are not well thought out they could be end up being as effective as halmits for public health.

Pastychomper wrote:

Audax67 wrote:Don't like the idea. When I lived in Germany I became very conscious of what they called the "anzeigementalität", i.e. a state of mind that takes delight in denouncing petty wrongdoers. E.g. chum turned his ankle on a loose paving and stumbled a bit while walking to his car, police turned up at his flat half an hour later with a breath test because some good citizen had noted his number plate and called the police because he might just have been drunk.

Bleh.

That would be a major concern, and not necessarily the worst of it. Imagine a PoB or PoF suddenly 'feeling faint' in the middle of a small street, and standing there holding up traffic for a minute and five seconds while an accomplice films any cars (but not the cause) from a discrete location. A nice little earner for two miscreants, and even if the police aren't fooled it's still taken up some of their time and added to the total pollution.

You what? Firstly, idling rules apply to parked/waiting vehicles, not those stopped in traffic. Secondly, if they were extended to traffic stops (and a way found to deal with vehicles which don't automatically turn off their engines - maybe forcing the drivers to do so), then the important thing would be the fact of being stopped, not whether the hold up was caused by a red light or a medical emergency. Thirdly, your view of human nature is dubious.

Bmblbzzz wrote:The "rewards for reporting idlers" is a relatively minor point of the Bluebrite proposals though. The increases in VED and fuel tax, ULEZ charging and default 20mph are more significant IMO.

^ This ^

We have a longstanding problem with illegal and dangerous levels of pollution in many of our our towns and cities killing large numbers of people. The main cause of this is motor vehicles. The response of the authorities until very recently (and forced by repeated legal action by Client Earth) was prevarication; typically monitoring studies, consultation exercises and the like, anything to avoid actually tackling the issue which by necessity must involve constraints on the use of motors.

This is a set of serious proposals, from a free-market think-tank that would normally be expected to be ideologically suspicious of state intervention.

Bmblbzzz wrote:

landsurfer wrote:Define "pointless idling" in a legal sense that will lead to a conviction ..... best of luck ...

There already is a definition. I think it was worked out in, of all places, Westminster Council.

Councils interpret the rule in various ways. As far as I can see, many will only ticket you if you have been asked to turn off your engine and you decline to do so, which is a fair cop IMHO.

The Regulation simply says, in effect, that a driver must stop the engine of a vehicle when it is stationary, with the obvious proviso that it doesn't apply to being stopped in traffic. Incidentally, there is no distinction made between an unoccupied (i.e. parked) car and one with the driver in it.

DaveReading wrote:

Bmblbzzz wrote:

landsurfer wrote:Define "pointless idling" in a legal sense that will lead to a conviction ..... best of luck ...

There already is a definition. I think it was worked out in, of all places, Westminster Council.

Councils interpret the rule in various ways. As far as I can see, many will only ticket you if you have been asked to turn off your engine and you decline to do so, which is a fair cop IMHO.

The Regulation simply says, in effect, that a driver must stop the engine of a vehicle when it is stationary, with the obvious proviso that it doesn't apply to being stopped in traffic. Incidentally, there is no distinction made between an unoccupied (i.e. parked) car and one with the driver in it.

There is a difference between an occupied and an unoccupied idling vehicle.
The empty one has nobody there to turn off the engine when bidden.
Does this make a practical difference?

[youtube]xOCsRA01RRo[/youtube]

0:12

landsurfer wrote:Define "pointless idling" in a legal sense that will lead to a conviction ..... best of luck ...

Easy, there is a lifting bridge on my way to work, waiting time is ten minutes, the bridge is an enormous monstrosity visible for miles
Bridge up = motor off!
Bridge comes down: many idiots start their motors long before they can drive off

Great $ourc€ of income, the girls in blue could issue lots of tickets

Mike Sales wrote:

DaveReading wrote:

Bmblbzzz wrote:There already is a definition. I think it was worked out in, of all places, Westminster Council.

Councils interpret the rule in various ways. As far as I can see, many will only ticket you if you have been asked to turn off your engine and you decline to do so, which is a fair cop IMHO.

The Regulation simply says, in effect, that a driver must stop the engine of a vehicle when it is stationary, with the obvious proviso that it doesn't apply to being stopped in traffic. Incidentally, there is no distinction made between an unoccupied (i.e. parked) car and one with the driver in it.

There is a difference between an occupied and an unoccupied idling vehicle.
The empty one has nobody there to turn off the engine when bidden.
Does this make a practical difference?

Makes a big difference if it is not occupied, in neutral, on a hill with the handbrake lightly applied

ATM the enforcement of anti-idling laws is unbelievably lax.

The French actually seem to 'get it' WRT air pollution - they have decent enforcement of anti-idling laws and over there you need to apply for a permit before you can light a bonfire.

Over here the only circumstances whereby a motorist would be fined is if they had been asked to turn off (by a PC/council official or whatever) and then refused.

So basically people know they can leave their stinking polluter idling away with no risk whatsoever of a fine unless some official comes along and asks them to turn off.

Pretty ******* negligent IMO . Surely it would be better to start dishing out the fines - word would soon get around and the desired change in behaviour would surely follow. Maybe they are running scared of the aforementioned tabloid backlash?

My local hospital entrance is festooned with banners reminding people not to smoke or vape but the entrance actually stinks of cancerous diesel exhaust due to idiots sitting in their air conditioned motors with the engine idling away. What better way to deal with these morons than with a financial slap on the wrist? Word would soon get around....why aren't they doing it already??

Mark R wrote:
My local hospital entrance is festooned with banners reminding people not to smoke or vape but the entrance actually stinks of cancerous diesel exhaust due to idiots sitting in their air conditioned motors with the engine idling away. What better way to deal with these morons than with a financial slap on the wrist? Word would soon get around....why aren't they doing it already??

I have seen an ambulance standing at A & E entrance, under a canopy, engine running, for a quarter of a hour.
This is feet from the non-smoking signs!

Mike Sales wrote:

Mark R wrote:
My local hospital entrance is festooned with banners reminding people not to smoke or vape but the entrance actually stinks of cancerous diesel exhaust due to idiots sitting in their air conditioned motors with the engine idling away. What better way to deal with these morons than with a financial slap on the wrist? Word would soon get around....why aren't they doing it already??

I have seen an ambulance standing at A & E entrance, under a canopy, engine running, for a quarter of a hour.
This is feet from the non-smoking signs!

Probably keeping batteries charged for all the equipment inside.

pwa wrote:Probably keeping batteries charged for all the equipment inside.

You think so? I doubt it. There was no patient aboard. I have never heard of such a thing.

Mike Sales wrote:

pwa wrote:Probably keeping batteries charged for all the equipment inside.

You think so? I doubt it. There was no patient aboard. I have never heard of such a thing.

They obviously had a patient aboard when they arrived, so the equipment inside may have been busy and the batteries may be lacking charge. The engine could have been left running to top them up. What is the alternative explanation? That the driver is too lazy to turn the key?

There are other examples I know about. Narrowboaters sometimes idle their engines to top up batteries for the fridge, lighting and so forth. Food delivery vans keep frozen and chilled stuff at the right temperature using refrigeration that runs off the engine, so a driver having a lunch break on a warm day might need to run the engine for a few minutes if the temperatures rise too much, so folk don't get melted icecream.