Reward for reporting idling cars.

Mike Sales
Posts: 3523
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: Reward for reporting idling cars.

Postby Mike Sales » 12 Aug 2019, 8:30pm

pwa wrote:
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?


Many drivers are too lazy to turn the key. It is clear that they never think of it, if they can even sit there in the car with the engine running.
What equipment do you have in mind? Parked ambulances are usually switched off. Starting the engine will immediately supply power, if needed.

Bmblbzzz
Posts: 2912
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Reward for reporting idling cars.

Postby Bmblbzzz » 12 Aug 2019, 8:31pm

Ambulance crew are not paragons of social virtue and environmental responsibility. Neither are medics, nor cyclists for that matter.

Mike Sales
Posts: 3523
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: Reward for reporting idling cars.

Postby Mike Sales » 12 Aug 2019, 8:32pm

Bmblbzzz wrote:Ambulance crew are not paragons of social virtue and environmental responsibility. Neither are medics, nor cyclists for that matter.


Of course they are not, and neither are they above criticism.

pwa
Posts: 10561
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Reward for reporting idling cars.

Postby pwa » 12 Aug 2019, 8:35pm

Mike Sales wrote:
Bmblbzzz wrote:Ambulance crew are not paragons of social virtue and environmental responsibility. Neither are medics, nor cyclists for that matter.


Of course they are not, and neither are they above criticism.

Why do you find it so hard to believe that an ambulance engine might have been left running for a reason? Just to illustrate that battery charge concerns are a thing:

https://www.transporterenergy.co.uk/app ... y-services

Isn't it obvious that they are charging batteries? It is to me.
Last edited by pwa on 12 Aug 2019, 8:40pm, edited 1 time in total.

Bonefishblues
Posts: 6905
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: Reward for reporting idling cars.

Postby Bonefishblues » 12 Aug 2019, 8:38pm

The utility cyclist wrote: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 :roll: 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. :x

Weight is something of a sideshow for EVs because they have such huge torque - most losses are aerodynamic, like any other vehicle. Less is better, of course, but that will come, one hopes, as battery tech improves (or maybe they will just pack more in and ensure that thousand mile range everyone must need) :wink:

pete75
Posts: 11966
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Reward for reporting idling cars.

Postby pete75 » 12 Aug 2019, 8:47pm

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.


It's illegal to leave a vehicle unoccupied on a public road with the engine running and has been for many years. Nothing to do with this regulation.

Mike Sales
Posts: 3523
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: Reward for reporting idling cars.

Postby Mike Sales » 12 Aug 2019, 8:58pm

pwa wrote:Why do you find it so hard to believe that an ambulance engine might have been left running for a reason? Just to illustrate that battery charge concerns are a thing:

https://www.transporterenergy.co.uk/app ... y-services

Isn't it obvious that they are charging batteries? It is to me.


Why do you find it so hard to believe that ambulance drivers are not spotless paragons, but as prone to thoughtlessness as any other driver?

pwa
Posts: 10561
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Reward for reporting idling cars.

Postby pwa » 12 Aug 2019, 9:03pm

Mike Sales wrote:
pwa wrote:Why do you find it so hard to believe that an ambulance engine might have been left running for a reason? Just to illustrate that battery charge concerns are a thing:

https://www.transporterenergy.co.uk/app ... y-services

Isn't it obvious that they are charging batteries? It is to me.


Why do you find it so hard to believe that ambulance drivers are not spotless paragons, but as prone to thoughtlessness as any other driver?

Because I know ambulances are full of kit with batteries and it seems likely that they re-charge stuff via the engine. Defibs and the like. But if you prefer to jump to the conclusion that a professional doing their job is incompetent, go ahead. My default assumption in the absence of other information would be battery charging.

Mike Sales
Posts: 3523
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: Reward for reporting idling cars.

Postby Mike Sales » 12 Aug 2019, 9:08pm

I did not imply that the driver in question was incompetent at his job as a para-medic.
Merely that he carelessly left the engine running, perhaps because he had not been made fully aware of the dangers of pollution.
I really think that your suggestions are far-fetched. Ambulances are not left running usually, no more than other vehicles.

pete75
Posts: 11966
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Reward for reporting idling cars.

Postby pete75 » 12 Aug 2019, 9:11pm

pwa wrote:
Mike Sales wrote:
pwa wrote:Why do you find it so hard to believe that an ambulance engine might have been left running for a reason? Just to illustrate that battery charge concerns are a thing:

https://www.transporterenergy.co.uk/app ... y-services

Isn't it obvious that they are charging batteries? It is to me.


Why do you find it so hard to believe that ambulance drivers are not spotless paragons, but as prone to thoughtlessness as any other driver?

Because I know ambulances are full of kit with batteries and it seems likely that they re-charge stuff via the engine. Defibs and the like. But if you prefer to jump to the conclusion that a professional doing their job is incompetent, go ahead. My default assumption in the absence of other information would be battery charging.

Leaving a vehicle idling or otherwise has nothing to do with a paramedics competence at doing his/her job.

DaveReading
Posts: 68
Joined: 24 Feb 2019, 5:37pm

Re: Reward for reporting idling cars.

Postby DaveReading » 12 Aug 2019, 10:35pm

pete75 wrote:It's illegal to leave a vehicle unoccupied on a public road with the engine running and has been for many years. Nothing to do with this regulation.

I think what you mean is that if you leave your car unattended with the engine running, you are contravening both Regulation 98 and Regulation 107.

Brucey
Posts: 36106
Joined: 4 Jan 2012, 6:25pm

Re: Reward for reporting idling cars.

Postby Brucey » 12 Aug 2019, 10:58pm

Bonefishblues wrote: ……. Weight is something of a sideshow for EVs because they have such huge torque - most losses are aerodynamic, like any other vehicle.....


Unfortunately that is not the case. Most cars have a 'tipping point' where aero losses start to be more significant than rolling resistance losses (mostly from the tyres). Turns out that cars are more aero than they look and car tyres (even so-called low rolling resistance ones) are pretty horrible, so the tipping point for most cars is around 45 or 50mph. Below this speed rolling resistance consumes most of the power. Above it aero losses are greater than rolling resistance losses.

It takes a long motorway journey to get the average speed above about 50mph, and average speeds on other journeys are rarely more than about 40-45mph. So you can be fairly sure that (in the absence of lots of stop-start/braking without regen) the biggest single loss is usually rolling resistance. This loss is pretty much pro-rata with weight, thus if it accounts for 50% of all losses, then increasing the weight of a vehicle (by say 20%) will increase its fuel consumption by about 10%. Simple as that.

If we all turn over to EVs then something like 15% of all energy consumed in passenger cars will be used just carting the added weight of the ruddy batteries about. If the electricity used in these vehicles is generated using fossil fuels then the overall efficiency (raw fuel to batteries) is, between generation, distribution and charging losses) unlikely to be more than 30%.

Car tyres are, when you are going down the motorway, each consuming between about 0.5 and 1 kW. No wonder they get hot! They could be made to roll easier, but then they would be more noisy. The modern trend for low profile car tyres is extremely harmful for fuel consumption; some cars have ~10% higher fuel consumption (on the standard tests) when fitted with the 'low profile' wheel/tyre option.

cheers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Brucey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Pete Owens
Posts: 1583
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: Reward for reporting idling cars.

Postby Pete Owens » 13 Aug 2019, 12:22am

The utility cyclist wrote:But this is still ignoring that the electricity and production parts of electric motor vehicles that use fossil fuels,

I didn't think it would be long before someone tried to distract from the subject by resorting to whataboutery:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
It happens whenever solutions are proposed to mitigate any particular environmental problem - talk about some different problem.
The subject of the report is the toxic pollution from ICE tail pipes that is killing thousands of people a year.
the electricity in this country is still produced in significantly quantities by using fossil fuels.

Indeed so, but even on its own terms your whateboutery fails, since wahatever that proportion is it is very much lower than the 100% used to generate the power for conventional vehicles. And what is more, that proportion is reducing and will continue to reduce. We need to eliminate most of our greenhouse emissions within the next couple of decades - and electricity generation is the low hanging fruit. Eventually it will have to be entirely generated by renewables and nuclear to leave enough of the carbon budget for more difficult problems to solve such as agriculture. To reduce transport emissions we need to switch from burning fossil fuels to electric power. Easy for trains, a bit more difficult for road vehicles and impossible at the moment for aviation - though battery technology is improving rapidly.

Also introducing blanket 20mph speed limits as EVs work most efficiently at this speed, well 18-20mph apparently.

No, the point of the 20mph limit is to reduce the pollution from ICE tail pipes.
... with the added bonus of making the streets safer for us.

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 2517
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

Re: Reward for reporting idling cars.

Postby The utility cyclist » 13 Aug 2019, 1:58am

Bonefishblues wrote:Weight is something of a sideshow for EVs because they have such huge torque - most losses are aerodynamic, like any other vehicle. Less is better, of course, but that will come, one hopes, as battery tech improves (or maybe they will just pack more in and ensure that thousand mile range everyone must need) :wink:

So at 20mph the aero trumps the weight, by how much? As an example the VisioM made a few years back replaced glass with plastics and saved 13kg, this they stated increased range by 2km. the vehicle was 450kg, as a two seater plus space for some luggage that's impressive when you compare it to the Twizzy @492kg. Sadly looks like it didn't go into production and neither has the VELV (second pic) from PSA who are the parent group of Pug/citroen 8.5-kWh lithium-ion battery with a 62-miles range, the latest Renault Zoe has an apparent 262 mile range using 52Kw/h battery, the VELV would get 379 by comparison and it's not even a particularly aero model.

To compare, the EPA rated 2017 90D Model S tesla has an energy consumption of 3.096 miles per kWh, it IS an aerodynamic model but it is massively heavier thus it has less than half the miles/Kw/h to the VELV. One company that was building prototype lightweight EVs were setting a target as high as 15.6 miles per Kw/h! https://www.urban-ev.eu/?About_Urban_Electric_Vehicles

Weight makes a huge difference in normal use, at lower speeds, those in urban areas for instance where aero is less important it would make an even bigger difference.

Bigger/heavier EVs with a bigger range have bigger motors, bigger brakes, bigger tyres, beefier suspension etc and that means more wear and tear on suspension, tyres, road surface etc and also more mass/kinetic energy to kill you with.
visio EV 450kg.JPG

Peugeot-Velv.jpg

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 2517
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

Re: Reward for reporting idling cars.

Postby The utility cyclist » 13 Aug 2019, 2:22am

Pete Owens wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote:But this is still ignoring that the electricity and production parts of electric motor vehicles that use fossil fuels,

I didn't think it would be long before someone tried to distract from the subject by resorting to whataboutery:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
It happens whenever solutions are proposed to mitigate any particular environmental problem - talk about some different problem.
The subject of the report is the toxic pollution from ICE tail pipes that is killing thousands of people a year.
the electricity in this country is still produced in significantly quantities by using fossil fuels.

Indeed so, but even on its own terms your whateboutery fails, since wahatever that proportion is it is very much lower than the 100% used to generate the power for conventional vehicles. And what is more, that proportion is reducing and will continue to reduce. We need to eliminate most of our greenhouse emissions within the next couple of decades - and electricity generation is the low hanging fruit. Eventually it will have to be entirely generated by renewables and nuclear to leave enough of the carbon budget for more difficult problems to solve such as agriculture. To reduce transport emissions we need to switch from burning fossil fuels to electric power. Easy for trains, a bit more difficult for road vehicles and impossible at the moment for aviation - though battery technology is improving rapidly.

Also introducing blanket 20mph speed limits as EVs work most efficiently at this speed, well 18-20mph apparently.

No, the point of the 20mph limit is to reduce the pollution from ICE tail pipes.
... with the added bonus of making the streets safer for us.

it didn't take long for someone to incorrectly use the term whataboutery, particularly when it IS a fact regarding the pollution from building EVs, or are you saying that they are made from unicorn tears and dolphin farts? :roll:

I'm not distracting from anything, pointing out that the 'solution' being put forward is not a solution at all and that heavier EVs increase the amount of energy required not to mention more batteries, more pollution, more materials to build which equals more pollution, all the infrastructure that will be needed to be built = yet more pollution, nope, according to you it's nothing to be concerned about :x
The fact that EVs are more efficient at 20mph is a very good incentive/point to make to change the law carte-blanche, Scotland already said they wouldn't do this saying it wasn't able to have one speed limit yet this is precisely what we have in built up areas, using the fact that EVs are most efficient/less polluting by needing less energy and as I said less fossil fuel required to power such adds more weight to ther argument to get 20mph limits in place. Using tailpipe emissions of ICE vehicles idling won't make any difference on speed limit laws, so your thinking is well off.

You seem to think EVs are not pushing the pollution problem elsewhere and creating a lot more for the additional infra, this is totally untrue, you know it's untrue, the problem of pollution is intertwined with EVs, squabbling over ICE tailpipe emissions from idling is already 75 years and more too late, we need to be already thinking about the next step. Going down the wrong route which is EVs does not solve the problem, it simply shifts it with a small overall benefit locally.
But even then you also fail to grasp that EVs are taking away a lot of focus away from increasing active travel, there's a huge focus on getting people out of one killing machine into another that has a hugely less at the tailpipe emissions but nonetheless still causes pollution both at home and abroad. You fail to grasp that billions given in subsidies for EVs and the infra needed is money that won't be spent on increasing cycling and making it safer.

And using a wiki link, really, stop being so lazy!

Crack on though trying to stymie discussion over serious matters!