Engines off when stationary - your say

flybywire

Heard on radio today campaign in Sussex advising drivers to switch off engines when stopped at junctions or in traffic etc - Drivers are being advised to turn off engines to improve air quality :shock:

On my commute there isn't any officials doing this and no signs up at level crossings I encounter. Wondered how driver's could be requested to turn off engines tactfully - any ideas? (could be humorous! )

I find buses and taxis the worst and regulary suffer from a temporary sore throat

prj45

Round my way a lot of the level crossings have got "Please turn off you engine" signs.

I think it's actually illegal to leave a car idling, has been for a long time.

Some of the boggle eye'd comments on the Daily Mail's site are brilliant, going off one how New Labour have brought this country to its knees and this is going to be the straw that breaks the camel's back, neglecting to spot that West Sussex is a Tory council (47 Conservaties and seven Labour).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -jams.html

Mr_Cellophane

prj45 wrote:

I think it's actually illegal to leave a car idling, has been for a long time./quote]

It is ileagal to leave a car unattended with the engine running. Never seems to stop people popping to the cash machine without turning their engine off.

biondino

Does starting an engine use a lot more energy/cause more exhaust gases than leaving it idling? If so, how long would you have to idle for for it to be worth turning the engine off? Genuine questions.

ansbaradigeidfran

My car's manual (Astra) says that every minute of idling uses petrol equivalent to five miles of going somewhere.

flybywire

So for instance you're in traffic jam or level crossing for over 2mins ...

Engine of vehicle(s) in front running and clattering of diesel engine spoiling early morning tranquility/air quality.

Do you take it on yourself to tap on the window & ask tactfully...?

Any suggestions what to say :idea:

No politics or car/bike lobyists here please

Clever Pun

flybywire wrote:

So for instance you're in traffic jam or level crossing for over 2mins ...

Engine of vehicle(s) in front running and clattering of diesel engine spoiling early morning tranquility/air quality.

Do you take it on yourself to tap on the window & ask tactfully...?

Any suggestions what to say :idea:

No politics or car/bike lobyists here please

you do that and you'll get an earful

I tapped on a womans window to let her know I was going to unfold her offside wing mirror... I could lip read the expletives before she realised what I was doing... didn't say thanks

Wrath Rob

Unless your car has a strong battery and a specially designed alternator (see hte new BMWs and their automatic stop/start) then you'll just kill your car in frequent stop start traffic. If it looks like you're going to be stopped for a while, e.g. more than 1 minute, then it makes good sense, if not from an environmental point of view then from a save money POV.

Campaigns like this are good for the press and soundbites but will probably generate more hot air than they save.

another jacko

It seems illogical that you would use more fuel in one minute of standing still than in 5 or more minutes of travelling (which might be a bit of an exageration), but idling engines do seem to be terribly inefficient. I recently hired a campervan for my hols. It had a generator that, if I had used it, consumed a gallon of fuel per hour. That's the same as Mrs J's little hatchback would use to go 60 miles in the same time.

Stop/start drving conditions would put a lot of wear and tear on the starter mechanism. There have been cars around for a few years that are designed to stop at standstill and then automatically restart and they are now becoming more common. I guess they have starter mechanisms that are up to the job - but would an ordinary car be up to it for long, even if it was only turned off for red lights and level crossings?

There's also the driver education issue. I've been out with my nipper recently to get him some drving practice in before his test. I've had arguments with him just to get him to put the handbrake on and knock the car out of gear at red lights. He claims that his instructor says you should be ready to go at any moment. If that's what they are being taught, what chance is there of getting them to turn the engine off?

downfader

I love the cabbie:

'The ones I feel sorry for are the old dears, who won't know what's going on and could end with a £20 fine for not turning off the engine in their Fiat Panda. It's another example of the nanny state.'

If she's that confused she shouldnt be driving And I'm sure he'd be moaning about her if she was driving

marmitecp

The cut off point for saving money is around 30 secs I believe (depends on the car). Worth doing at level crossings and traffic jams. Starting a warm engine won't trouble the starter motor too much.

Milkie

Unless your car has a strong battery and a specially designed alternator (see hte new BMWs and their automatic stop/start) then you'll just kill your car in frequent stop start traffic

I have to agree.. My mini would be dead half way to work! Also big engined car would also be dead! This is because I don't use them much as I cycle to work, and the batteries take a while to top up their charge.

You can't win! I could use my car more, and turn off the engine... Or not use it as much and have a dead car in the middle of rush hour traffic, causing big queues..

They should make it compulsory for all new working vehicles (couriers/taxis/buses/trucks) to be fitted with a device to turn the engine off and turn it back on when stationary.. Just like some BMW cars.

boybiker

Having just passed my driving test I can confirm that they do teach you to leave your car in gear at lights etc. I don''t do it myself as my dad has a fit if I do and starts berating me about burnt out clutches.

Littigator

Why is it that every time the govt. brings in an initiative that seems fairly sensible...they have to back it up with a fine. Take speeding for example, it is quite obviously a bare faced ruse just to make money, not to increase safety at all. The truly effective part of the strategy has been to socially alienate those that speed by making it morally unacceptable, like they did with drink driving in the 80s.

So my point is why does everything have to have a fine to back it up, why can't we at least try and rely on peoples sense of moral right and wrong.

ansbaradigeidfran

My instructor taught me to apply the handbrake if I was stopped for more than a few seconds. That was five years ago. I can't remember any specific instruction on the gears, but neutral gives my foot a rest. Admittedly, up here in North Wales there aren't as many sets of traffic lights to deal with. The town where I grew up has a pedestrian crossing on a one-way system, and that's it.

_Brun_

boybiker wrote:

Having just passed my driving test I can confirm that they do teach you to leave your car in gear at lights etc. I don''t do it myself as my dad has a fit if I do and starts berating me about burnt out clutches.

Did they say why you should stay in gear? Just curious, because I can't stand being told something like that without there being a good reason for it.

_Brun_

Littigator wrote:

...why can't we at least try and rely on peoples sense of moral right and wrong.

Because far too many people simply couldn't give a shit. < << Bloody censor :evil:

Littigator

_Brun_ wrote:

Littigator wrote:

...why can't we at least try and rely on peoples sense of moral right and wrong.

Because far too many people simply couldn't give a shoot. < << Bloody censor :evil:

Sorry, I simply don't agree, most people these days don't drink and drive because of the social stigma created by some very effective campaigns in the past, not because of the risk of a fine and points on your licence.

There will always be those that disobey whether you apply a fine or not, but the majority with the right education will accept the social negativity of such incidents. Mobile phones in cars e.g. yes a few people still do it but most don't, I don't anymore because I think it is dangerous and people will think less of me, not because some copper might fine me a few quid.

_Brun_

Littigator wrote:

_Brun_ wrote:

Littigator wrote:

...why can't we at least try and rely on peoples sense of moral right and wrong.

Because far too many people simply couldn't give a shoot. < << Bloody censor :evil:

Sorry, I simply don't agree, most people these days don't drink and drive because of the social stigma created by some very effective campaigns in the past, not because of the risk of a fine and points on your licence.

What about fine, six-month ban and significantly increased insurance costs?

Clever Pun

Littigator wrote:

Why is it that every time the govt. brings in an initiative that seems fairly sensible...they have to back it up with a fine. Take speeding for example, it is quite obviously a bare faced ruse just to make money, not to increase safety at all. The truly effective part of the strategy has been to socially alienate those that speed by making it morally unacceptable, like they did with drink driving in the 80s.

So my point is why does everything have to have a fine to back it up, why can't we at least try and rely on peoples sense of moral right and wrong.

yeah the fines for mobile phone usage is a really effective deterrent

chuckcork

Clever Pun wrote:

Littigator wrote:

Why is it that every time the govt. brings in an initiative that seems fairly sensible...they have to back it up with a fine. Take speeding for example, it is quite obviously a bare faced ruse just to make money, not to increase safety at all. The truly effective part of the strategy has been to socially alienate those that speed by making it morally unacceptable, like they did with drink driving in the 80s.

So my point is why does everything have to have a fine to back it up, why can't we at least try and rely on peoples sense of moral right and wrong.

yeah the fines for mobile phone usage is a really effective deterrent

Problem is that fines aren't big enough, the chances of being caught are low, everybody knows it, and obeying laws that aren't enforced seems pedantic, and who wants to think of themselves as being like that?

To give an example, I do something a certain way at work. For doing so I'm considered pedantic even if the reasons are better than good will improve consistency of what we do, make fewer mistakes and be faster. But I can explain why until I'm blue in the face, only I wouldn't get that far as i'd be told to shut up well before then. The boss just isn't interested as it isn't part of his scope of interest.

Switch the same to motoring. Speeding can be done safely because you're "careful" about it, and have the skills of a F1 driver. I haven't hurt anyone yet while using the mobile, and I do it "safely". All this cr@p about laws and whatnot, everyone else does it so why shouldn't I?

always_tyred

boybiker wrote:

Having just passed my driving test I can confirm that they do teach you to leave your car in gear at lights etc. I don''t do it myself as my dad has a fit if I do and starts berating me about burnt out clutches.

I was taught to have the foot brake or hand brake on (depending on the situation) to avoid running into the car in front if someone runs into you. But not to have the car in gear. Are you sure your instructor wasn't talking rot? You see I was also taught to drive so as to minimise mechanical wear and tear. As such, the clutch thrust bearings (rather than the clutch surfaces themselves) would be receiving unnecessary wear by keeping the thing in gear the whole time. Besides, if you are in collision and you've got it in gear, is there not a greater likelihood that the car will be caused to jump forward by releasing the clutch?

Wrath Rob

_Brun_ wrote:

What about fine, six-month ban and significantly increased insurance costs?

Which would cause more people to drive without insurance, pushing the cost of insurance for those of us that do pay up further and meaning that if one of them knocks you off your bike they're less likely to stop.

Socially unacceptable is the most effective way, but it costs money instead of earning it for the government

flybywire

More details here http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/drivin ... 769485.ece

JGS

_Brun_ wrote:

boybiker wrote:

Having just passed my driving test I can confirm that they do teach you to leave your car in gear at lights etc. I don''t do it myself as my dad has a fit if I do and starts berating me about burnt out clutches.

Did they say why you should stay in gear? Just curious, because I can't stand being told something like that without there being a good reason for it.

I remember this from my driving lessons 9 years ago, but you are taught to leave the car in gear with the clutch fully depressed and the handbrake on (not footbrake) so that if someone drives into you at speed you will almost always stall the car. This means that in your dazed, or possibly unconcious / dead state your cars engine is not running which in a smash is far safer for all concerned. Generally if your handbrake is on, your car won't move much (if at all!).

lost_in_thought

I'm in with Litts on this one, don't see why the government have to fine everyone for everything.... just another stealth tax!

Also, how on earth are they going to reasonably and fairly police this initiative?

My mum has (not her daily driver) a 1936 Bentley which you have to go through a starting procedure on similar to a space shuttle... extreme example I know, but still. My old x-reg toyota had a rubbish alternator and had to be running for at least 20 minutes to get enough power back in the battery for it to start.... tricky.

gtvlusso

Agree with Lost-in-thought!

Pluses for cutting engine in traffic:

1, Less gases from vehicles.
2, Cleaner environment for everyone

Minuses:

1, not everyone will do it (probably Mr/Mrs Sales in a small exec car that has a more important life than anyone else and will beep their horn when the traffic does not move instantly on a green light)
2, People who have shit cars that don't start to well - blocking up junctions
3, Use more fuel on start up of engine and uses oil at this point (as oil will have drained from the head and pump.
4, Not great for engine/battery life
5, Motorbikes will never do this...ever!!!
6, Cabs will never do this...ever!!
7, Buses will never do this...ever!!!

So, in esence, I don't think it is really worth it unless you are stuck in an absolute jam that has, not moved for 10 mins or so - i.e. M25.

You should always start your car with the clutch in too - less load on the starter motor...less starter motors break - better environment!

Getting people out of cars is really the key to the problem....

nwallace

From "How to be an advanced driver" page 66 (something i am doing miserably at)
"When approaching traffic lights, stop at or just before the stop line. then apply the handbrake and select neutral."
Roadcraft probably says similar.