Turn It Off.

[jambutty]

Is there no end to local authority crackpot ideas to soak the poor old motorist?

This latest idea as a sop to ‘Global Warming’ is to fine motorists if they are stationary with the engine running.

It obviously makes economic sense to turn the engine off when parked but not at traffic lights or if the stream of traffic is stopped for some reason, which is what the proposal is focussing on. What about buses stopped at bus stops? Fire engines attending an incident?

Once again some bright spark has come up with an idea and not thought it through.

Even on modern cars, starting an engine takes a lot out of a battery and it can take several miles of constant motion to put back what has been taken out. So crossing a city can end up with a flat battery and then your car won’t start at all and will hold up the traffic behind you. And if the car is an automatic you can’t even bump start it. The best that you can hope is if someone has some jump leads, but then they would need to run their engine whilst trying to start yours if they don’t want a flat battery. Plus there is the extra wear and tear on the starter motor.

 

[katex]

I had these same thoughts when I heard it today too Jambutty ... don't know how they could possibly police this ... . Are we going to see special wardens to check if we have been idling for over 5 minutes?

 

[WillowTheWhisp]

I thought it was intended more for those who 'park' outside of someone's house waiting for others to come out but keep the engine running ad nauseum. (word chosen intentionally on account of exhaust fumes make you feel sick)

 

[katex]

Seemed to be part of it Willow, but did mention whilst waiting at Railway crossings/school gates etc.

Most motorists will switch their engine off anyway if held up for any length of time ... know I have when stuck in a Motorway queue for long periods of time.

Was guilty of switching my engine on though when having a cigarette in my car in the car park at work during an extremely cold spell.

 

[jambutty]

As I stated earlier it is an ill thought out idea that is unworkable but I’m sure that the person who dreamed it up will move heaven and earth to get it implemented.

I mean we can’t possibly have a council official being wrong, can we?

Thanks to anonymous for the good Karma. I don't know who to return the favour to.

 

[panther]

Doesnt it cost more money in fuel to keep starting your engine?, or is it cheaper?

 

[Bonnyboy]

I had a look at this review for the Citroen C3 Stop & Start ( Assume other manufacturers will be developing similar ) It seems a good idea and savings seem to be able to be had. It’s fine if the car has been designed to run like this involving specific technology and systems I don’t think it’s a good idea to be doing it with cars without the technology.

Most of us use common sense if we are going to be at a standstill with the engine idling for any length of time and switch the engine off.

 

[mothernature]

Doesnt it cost more money in fuel to keep starting your engine?, or is it cheaper?

Yes it does and no it isn't

 

[polly]

think this law should be primarily aimed at buses and wagons. In other words the vehicles that pump out the most fumes. It appears that as these types of drivers have no reason for turning off their engines (eg its not their money they are burning) they don't.
that said taxi drivers are also guilty of polluting our environment in this way.

 

[banjoman]

My car will tick over using unburnt fuel if stationary. However if I switch it off and on the fuel pump has to pump petrol in to fire it. Add to that that usually you have to give it a bit of accelerator to get it going, its actually more sense to keep it running. Plus think of this. How long would it take everyone to start engines,gear and move off ? How many people will stall. Think what that would do to congestion.

 

[panther]

Agree with ya there polly, the buses are the worst!, sat in the bus stop and all ya get is ruddy fumes in ya face while half of the drivers are having a fag!

 

[jambutty]

Agree with ya there polly, the buses are the worst!, sat in the bus stop and all ya get is ruddy fumes in ya face while half of the drivers are having a fag!

What’s this?

Passive exhaust fumes breathing.

Get it banned!

 

[pipinfort]

Another crackpot idea if you ask me.............

 

[WillowTheWhisp]

My car will tick over using unburnt fuel if stationary. However if I switch it off and on the fuel pump has to pump petrol in to fire it. Add to that that usually you have to give it a bit of accelerator to get it going, its actually more sense to keep it running.

That in itself is not eco friendly either is it? Bigger carbon footprint for using more fuel.

 

[jaysay]

Another crackpot idea if you ask me.............

must agree pipinfort, and it probably cost an arm and a leg in grants to do the reaserch to come up with this clap trap in the first place

 

[Studio25]

Doesnt it cost more money in fuel to keep starting your engine?, or is it cheaper?

The act of starting the engine uses up a little more fuel than idling the engine, but the amount will differ depending on the vehicle, and whether the engine is already hot. As a rule of thumb: If the car will be stationary less than a minute, don't switch off; between one and two minutes it won't make much difference either way; longer than two minutes you'll see the benefit from cutting the engine.

This policy is a monumentally stupid idea. The fuel saved would be far less than the fuel that wardens use to get from junction to junction to "police" this lunacy.

There are bigger savings to be made by preventing people from unnecessarily revving their engine. Not just when stationary, but also with drivers who race their car off from a standstill. The latter would be easy and cheap to implement, too. "Red light" cameras just need to be reconfigured to take three photos based on excessive acceleration.