Instant fines for drivers idling engines

[Sue]

About bloody time too.

Patience exhausted: UK drivers who sit with engines idling could face instant fines

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/14/patience-exhausted-drivers-who-sit-with-engines-idling-could-face-instant-fines?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

[seenbeen]

good luck policing that..I challenged a van driver about his idling engine and he went crazy at me....he actually told me to ' mind my own bloody business'...

[JohnL]

Sounds like it will be mainly commercial vehicles caught more than once - with company fines.

[Sue]

Well, if companies get large fines, they may spend a bit more time and trouble telling their drivers not to leave their engines idling.

Of course it can't be policed everywhere, much like using mobiles when driving, but at least if it gets publicity and there is more awareness, some people might think twice.

Every little helps, and all that :)

[DulwichFox]

Will that also apply to the little spy camera cars who are the main culprits

when it comes to leaving their engines running.

[Sue]

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Will that also apply to the little spy camera cars

> who are the main culprits

> when it comes to leaving their engines running.

The main culprits??

How many of them are there??

[singalto]

I passed several cars today with their engines idling. I cannot believe how many parents park near their children?s school and leave their engines running. Drives me mad.

[Sue]

singalto Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I passed several cars today with their engines

> idling. I cannot believe how many parents park

> near their children?s school and leave their

> engines running. Drives me mad.

And me.

And the school which used to be the old police station, at the bottom of Whateley Road, has (or had, not sure if it's still there) a large banner asking cars not to do this.

I passed it once with a van sitting directly in front of the banner - with its engine running and, if memory serves, the driver on his mobile.

I didn't do anything. Sometimes I go and ask them to turn the engine off, but too many times I have had the same sort of response as Seenbeen above, so now I only do it if I'm pretty sure I will be able to stay calm and polite.

Which has not been possible on the occasions when they park outside my house and pump fumes into my living room, GRRRRRRR.

[malumbu]

Save your energy and look for battles that you can win. Believe me I've tried for years on this one. It is not practically enforceable and whilst turning off you engine is a no brainer, there are clearly an enormous amount of drivers with no brains. Write to your MP, lobby the political parties to have some hard interventions on drivers, increasing fuel duty, road user charging. No longer should we drive what we want, how we want, where we want and when we want. There are some small victories out there. The ULEZ is a bit of a sledgehammer, there are many other things that can be done on a national, regional and local basis. And start with your own actions!

[Sue]

But if this comes in, it will make a difference.

It may make a small difference, but it will make a difference nevertheless.

Yes of course there are things which will make a bigger difference, but that doesn't mean there can't be this too.

As I said above, it will increase awareness, plus if large fines are brought in for company vehicles, then those companies will take whatever steps are necessary to avoid paying the fines - ie training their drivers to turn engines off when parked.

[TheCat]

singalto Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I passed several cars today with their engines

> idling. I cannot believe how many parents park

> near their children?s school and leave their

> engines running. Drives me mad.

Singalto...did you not know that if you're dropping off or collecting your children from school, you are allowed to ignore all road rules and do whatever the f#ck you want....."Just picking up my kids" is apparently a valid defense for any amount of rudeness,lack of consideration or law-breaking....

[malumbu]

It's piffle. Comes up every few years. You get a higher fine for dropping litter in Westminster than leaving your car idling. I've worked there for years and never seen an enforcement officer do either. This is the same Westminster that will not ban vehicles from Oxford Street as they don't want to offend their core voter.

This forum is interesting when there is proper debate rather than "oh yes I agree with you, how awful". There needs to be more fundamental change and I've told you the sort of things you can do. This forum and thread is not going to end up in a critical mass.

I've also shared my frustrations and that all I've ever got by tapping on windscreens is abuse. My favourite being the police who seem to have no interest at all whilst they eat their sarnies - I've got the video. So from time to time I complain to the IPCC, or today with the ambulances running outside Kings, to the hospital.

Gove is just doing all he can to make a mark as the next PM. Sociopath - whilst the media target Graying as he is the soft target.

It's not just parents - again an easy target particularly due to the school run, but most motorists. Back to my fundamental change.

Anyway here's an article on 20mph zones - quite an interesting read (not sure if I agree with all of it) http://content.tfl.gov.uk/speed-emissions-and-health.pdf Shame this work doesn't get more publicity - a failing of GLA/TfL and boroughs to do more publcising their actions and the reasons/benefits.

Oh and credit Camden for traffic free zones around schools http://www.camdennewjournal.co.uk/article/ban-on-rush-hour-through-traffic-at-primary-schools.

[Seabag]

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> DulwichFox Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Will that also apply to the little spy camera

> cars

> > who are the main culprits

> > when it comes to leaving their engines

> running.

>

>

> The main culprits??

>

> How many of them are there??

Sue, you know not to ask, just take it as fact and move along.

[Sue]

Seabag Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sue Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > DulwichFox Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > Will that also apply to the little spy camera

> > cars

> > > who are the main culprits

> > > when it comes to leaving their engines

> > running.

> >

> >

> > The main culprits??

> >

> > How many of them are there??

>

>

> Sue, you know not to ask, just take it as fact and

> move along.

Yes, obviously I know it's pointless asking as no reply (or no sensible reply) will be forthcoming, but sadly I just can't let some statements go unchallenged.

It would be like accepting that fake news is true :(

[DulwichFox]

This 'Fish' is not biting. Sorry.

[Sue]

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This 'Fish' is not biting. Sorry.

I wasn't fishing.

I was just asking a perfectly reasonable question in response to your statement about "spy camera cars".

As Seabag notes above, for me to ask the question was pointless.

It appears to me that when you don't actually have an answer to a question you just don't reply to it.

But hey ho, fool that I am, I will keep questioning statements you (and others) make which don't appear to be founded on any evidence.

Because if nobody calls false statements out, that's when a new "reality" spreads round the world based on completely false premises.

If you feel your statement was actually based on fact, then all you have to do is say what your evidence is.

Easy!

[singalto]

TheCat, I agree. I live near that school and double yellow lines ?don?t apply if you are dropping off/picking up children? and I actually pointed out the ?no idling? sign to a woman parked in the loading bay by the school. She ?hadn?t noticed it.? Presumably her kids wear gas masks on the way to the 4x4 she was driving!

[exdulwicher]

You could put the law in place but it wouldn't make the blindest bit of difference. The coaches outside Alleyn's have been reported loads of times (to the school, the council, the police) for sitting there engines thumping away for hours as they're waiting to pick the kids up after school and Southwark Council's "enforcement team" said there was nothing they could do and (in response to one complaint) actually said it was OK because (and I quote) "the pollution blows away"

!!??!!

Seriously, when you have an attitude like that in local Government, all the laws in the world won't matter. Personally, if I was in charge of a council and was seeing my annual budget slashed under "austerity measures" year on year, I'd be caning every possible method of fining misdemeanours, especially if it made the borough a more pleasant place. Litter, pollution (like idling engines), anti-social parking. An extra few million ?? there for a council implementing all of that.

What's worse is that most modern cars now have start/stop technology - roll to a stop at the lights, kerb or whatever, the engine cuts out (while still running things like air-con, power to your vital phone charger etc) and then starts again when you press the gas to move off. There shouldn't be any excuse to be idling the engine in any modern car.

[DulwichFox]

Starting the engine possible produces more pollution than an engine idling for a few minutes.

Stop / start stop / start is not good.

[exdulwicher]

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Starting the engine possible produces more

> pollution than an engine idling for a few

> minutes.

> Stop / start stop / start is not good.

Source?

[TheArtfulDogger]

exdulwicher Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> DulwichFox Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Starting the engine possible produces more

> > pollution than an engine idling for a few

> > minutes.

> > Stop / start stop / start is not good.

>

> Source?

I was also told this in relation to older engines as they need more umph to turn over when starting

Not sure it's the same with modern more efficient engines

[JohnL]

TheArtfulDogger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> exdulwicher Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > DulwichFox Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > Starting the engine possible produces more

> > > pollution than an engine idling for a few

> > > minutes.

> > > Stop / start stop / start is not good.

> >

> > Source?

>

> I was also told this in relation to older engines

> as they need more umph to turn over when starting

>

>

> Not sure it's the same with modern more efficient

> engines

I think the new ones are optimised for start/stop - systems power some parts of the car (water pump ?) when the engine is off temporarily (not sure how all this works).

Old cars LOL - I had to pull out the choke to start my car 20 years ago and it immediately released a cloud of pollution :)

[uncleglen]

At one time all children went to the nearest primary school....