UK drivers may be penalized for leaving their engines running idle

Run_to_da_hills

In a law that was introduced in 2002 but never really enforced you can be fined for having your motor running idle under anti-pollution rules.

Drivers are being told that leaving a car idling for more than a couple of minutes wastes fuel, and they could be served with on-the-spot fines of up to £40. :eek:

Look like you will need a propane gas heater in your van to heat it up in the morning.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231460/Drivers-leave-engines-running-clear-screens-face-fines-idling-offence-rules.html

biko

Common law already in Stockholm, not more than 1 minute (unless stopped at lights).

Zonda999

Enforcing that may be a problem..

certainly logic behiond it i suppose but surely they'd be better off encouraging people to do it by telling the apparent fuel savings, than penalize people for no doing it

biko

It's a carbon thing too, having 20 taxis idling outside a nightclub all night.
"It's saving fuel" is just a way to try to get the drivers to join the program.

CamperMan

you would think the UK governement would prefer you to leave the engine running, more fuel burnt = more £££££ to the government!

Silvera

Irish drivers can already be prosecuted for leaving their engines idling!

.....thats if they leave their vehicle unattended while running.

I have seen people do this quite often, whether its somebody hopping out of their car to go into a shop, or a truck or van driver doing deliveries. So stupid tbh, very easy for car to be stolen.

Only takes a sec to remove the key and lock the car.

Run_to_da_hills

A lead acid battery has a life span of a certain amount of key turns. Surely this is going to lead to the consumption of more batteries which are in themselves not too good for the environment no matter how "green" they are disposed of.

Cookie_Monster

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

In a law that was introduced in 2002 but never really enforced you can be fined for having your motor running idle under anti-pollution rules.

Drivers are being told that leaving a car idling for more than a couple of minutes wastes fuel, and they could be served with on-the-spot fines of up to £40. :eek:

Look like you will need a propane gas heater in your van to heat it up in the morning.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231460/Drivers-leave-engines-running-clear-screens-face-fines-idling-offence-rules.html

good idea but very difficult to enforce. maybe only really practical at taxi ranks and the like

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

A lead acid battery has a life span of a certain amount of key turns. Surely this is going to lead to the consumption of more batteries which are in themselves not too good for the environment no matter how "green" they are disposed of.

:eek: your battery might run out 5 minutes before it would have otherwise. 5 minutes over 5-7 years:eek::eek::eek::eek:

JHMEG

They should extend this to cover trains too. Connolly station is a health hazard!

Supercell

I like a cuppa whilst my car is busy defrosting the windows and warming up in winter.
Benifit of living in the sticks!

Run_to_da_hills

JHMEG wrote: »

They should extend this to cover trains too. Connolly station is a health hazard!

Not as bad as it used to be. The 1956 era Metropolitan Vicars A & C series locos were so difficult to start in the mornings that CIE found it easier to let them idle over night. The newer 22000 series fortunately do not have this problem. I would prefer a loco train idling in an enclosed station rather than a DMU which would have several undercarriage diesel motors running simultniously belching out fumes.

JHMEG

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Not as bad as it used to be.

It's arguably worse! Since the 2600 class were introduced there can be far more engines under the canopy, all running at the one time (one engine per pair of carriages, as you say). There really is no excuse for leaving them running. I emailed the minister and Barry Kenny after I nearly coughed up a lung one Friday afternoon in Connolly and got no answer from either.

Run_to_da_hills

JHMEG wrote: »

It's arguably worse! Since the 2600 class were introduced there can be far more engines under the canopy, all running at the one time (one engine per pair of carriages, as you say). There really is no excuse for leaving them running. I emailed the minister and Barry Kenny after I nearly coughed up a lung one Friday afternoon in Connolly and got no answer from either.

Remembering the good old days travelling to school / coughing my lungs up in the ParkRoyal / AEC rail cars.

At least today you don't have the fumes coming in on top of you.

Cookie_Monster

JHMEG wrote: »

It's arguably worse! Since the 2600 class were introduced there can be far more engines under the canopy, all running at the one time (one engine per pair of carriages, as you say). There really is no excuse for leaving them running. I emailed the minister and Barry Kenny after I nearly coughed up a lung one Friday afternoon in Connolly and got no answer from either.

numerous smaller engine or 1 larger one that pumps out more crap...

it down to the poor design of Heuston rather than than locos tbh

Run_to_da_hills

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

numerous smaller engine or 1 larger one that pumps out more crap...

it down to the poor design of Heuston rather than than locos tbh

One of the reasons old railway terminals had high roofs was for the despertion of smoke and fumes.

When RENFE moved over to a 100% electric system in Madrid they converted the high roof old Atocha into a botanic garden and rebuilt a new low roof station. It will be a long time before that will happen in Ireland.

Alternatively they could remove the roof from Connolly altogether.

JHMEG

Can't they just turn off the bloody engines on the DMUs? The 1705 to Longford sitting at platform 4 for 45 mins with all engines running is not acceptable, especially with such a moden fleet.

Run_to_da_hills

JHMEG wrote: »

Can't they just turn off the bloody engines on the DMUs? The 1705 to Longford sitting at platform 4 for 45 mins with all engines running is not acceptable, especially with such a modern fleet.

Big mistake having DMU here in the first place. Banana countries around the world have had electric railway systems since the war and such a big deal was made here when we electrified just a small section of suburban railway. :rolleyes:

Pete4779

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

:eek: your battery might run out 5 minutes before it would have otherwise. 5 minutes over 5-7 years:eek::eek::eek::eek:

Not true. The way car batteries are made, they will have at most the ability to hold charge for around 10-12 ignition starts when fully charged. As it takes a while to recharge, then frequent re-ignitions and slow traffic will significantly drain the battery and damage it over a shorter time, perhaps 6 months or one year before it needs to be changed. Not the end of the world, but expect a €200 bill for a new battery at each yearly service.

JHMEG

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Big mistake having DMU here in the first place. Banana countries around the world have had electric railway systems since the war and such a big deal was made here when we electrified just a small section of suburban railway. :rolleyes:

Good points.

Cookie_Monster

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

One of the reasons old railway terminals had high roofs was for the despertion of smoke and fumes.

When RENFE moved over to a 100% electric system in Madrid they converted the high roof old Atocha into a botanic garden and rebuilt a new low roof station. It will be a long time before that will happen in Ireland.

Alternatively they could remove the roof from Connolly altogether.

Many proper terminii in europe have open roofs above the tracks only, with the rest enclosed meaning the exhaust vent directly outside the platform area.

JHMEG wrote: »

Can't they just turn off the bloody engines on the DMUs? The 1705 to Longford sitting at platform 4 for 45 mins with all engines running is not acceptable, especially with such a moden fleet.

I'm sure there is some issue with the motor cooling down just to be restarted and heated back up in short order, bad for maintainence and so forth. All the lighting power is also provided by keeping the engines running.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Big mistake having DMU here in the first place. Banana countries around the world have had electric railway systems since the war and such a big deal was made here when we electrified just a small section of suburban railway. :rolleyes:

the investment required to convert the country to elec is not justifyable (unfortunity). we don't have the network size and usage to justify it. It is cheaper both short and medium term to use deisel. I do think we should convert but just don't see it happening:(


ANYWAY cars and such...

JHMEG

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

ANYWAY cars and such...

See, you killed the thread:p

Absurdum

"may be penalised" and "will be penalised" aren't quite the same thing, load of Daily Mail poop tbh