Toronto to cut idling limit to 1 minute?

[bassrique]

It sure looks like it.

When I lived in a cold Winter climate, I would idle my car for much longer than one minute, as it takes several minutes to warm up the engine of a car parked overnight in 15 degree weather. It also takes more than one minute to scrape the snow and ice of a car. If I were to be slapped with a $100+ ticket for warming up my vehicle I'd not take it well.

There are similar laws in some US cities.

City to cut idling limit to 1 minute

'Should Be Easy'

Natalie Alcoba, National Post

Toronto has moved to toughen its idling bylaw, slapping motorists with a $125 ticket if they are caught with engines running for more than a minute in what the city's medical officer of health acknowledges stems from efforts ''to shift people out of cars.''

Currently, the fine applies to anyone who idles for more than three minutes, but enforcement is admittedly weak: last year, just 88 tickets were handed out. The changes approved yesterday by the Toronto Board of Health include a request that parking enforcement officers be given the power to ticket idlers.

"While we're trying to shift people out of cars, into bikes and other forms of more active transportation, the one thing that should be easy to do is not use our cars when we don't need to," said Dr. David McKeown, Toronto's Medical Officer of Health.

A report presented to the Board of Health estimates idling wastes 90-million litres of fuel every year in the GTA, which suggests that over 215-million tonnes of CO2 are spewed into the air every year. That could mean 105 million tonnes in Toronto alone, according to the report.

"It should be an easy win to get rid of idling," said Dr. McKeown, who said emissions from motor vehicles are responsible for 440 premature deaths, and 1,700 hospitalizations.

The Board of Health also voted to limit the list of exemptions to the bylaw, making it less likely for transit vehicles to idle and eliminating the exemptions for extreme temperatures in the vehicle. Currently, transit buses are allowed to idle for 15 minutes. Police, fire and ambulance are also exempt when idling is not "substantially" for convenience.

"If we have our own city trucks and buses idling for 15 and 20 minutes, how can we possibly tell the public that you can't idle," said Councillor Frances Nunziata (York South-Weston). "I get complaints all the time that buses are going into residential areas and they're ahead of schedule so they're parking on the street to have their coffee. It's irritating," she said.

City council has to ratify the changes before they come into force.

Councillor Howard Moscoe (Eglinton-Lawrence) said the bylaw is meaningless if it's hardly being watched. Currently, tickets are issued by transportation bylaw officers (there are 35 to 40 across the city) and police, who, in addition to the 88 tickets, issued 478 warnings last year.

Compare that to 10 million parking tickets Mr. Moscoe said parking enforcement officers issue every year.

"I think the average motorist would fairly conclude that it's not very likely that they're going to pay a penalty for breaking this particular law. However, there are many more parking officials out there, they are right there by the side of the road where people are likely to be idling, so they are in a good position to enforce this bylaw if it were legally possible," said Dr. McKeown.

Tim Stoll, general manager of Parss Courier, said his drivers have adjusted to the 3-minute rule -- even if they're not happy about it -- so reducing it to one minute will not make much of a difference.

"I understand what they're trying to do," he said. "The only problem that I really foresee is that when you get into extreme weather, 40 degrees in the summer for example, you know how hot a vehicle can get? It's hard to be outside without being able to run the air conditioning," he said.

And in the winter, said Stephen Millard, owner of Avery Moving and Storage, his diesel trucks need to warm up in order to start.

"I understand why people might want to get into a warm car, but the price that we're paying for that is with our health and with climate change," he said, who called the need to warm up a car a myth. "It's much better to get in the car and warm it up as you're driving it."

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/can...tml?id=2982519

How I wish the anti-Happy Meal authoritarian do-gooders would just mind their own business.

[Stingray89]

That's just retarted, who the heck comes up with this crap?

[heytrid]

As i look out the window and see the snow in blowing around the air... climate change is really a threat.

I see them doing this to stop the people that go into stores and leave their car idling, if they bothered anyone while they were clearing the windows OR sitting it while it warms up before driving then i think it is nonsense.

The people that leave them idle for 20 minutes while they run in the store, they should tow the car and let them transit home.

[bassrique]

Originally Posted by heytrid

As i look out the window and see the snow in blowing around the air... climate change is really a threat.

I see them doing this to stop the people that go into stores and leave their car idling, if they bothered anyone while they were clearing the windows OR sitting it while it warms up before driving then i think it is nonsense.

The people that leave them idle for 20 minutes while they run in the store, they should tow the car and let them transit home.

I kinda see what you mean, but what if it's hot or cold and there's one person in the car while another goes into a store to buy some eggs and milk? Should the person in the car be hot or cold to satisfy other people's feelings? It's not my business if you choose to idle your car.

[L-A]

The "warm up the engine" argument doesn't really hold its weight. 30 seconds of idling will allow the oil to spread around and the rest of the warming will happen while you roll in your residential area, drive out of the parking lot, etc. Most Canadians know that.

And a car doesn't lose its cockpit temperature in a minute, if there's one person in it and the windows are closed. Idling won't change a thing, and the chances are good that if the outside temp is inadequate, you set your ventilation to recirculate anyway.

[burk48237]

Originally Posted by L-A

The "warm up the engine" argument doesn't really hold its weight. 30 seconds of idling will allow the oil to spread around and the rest of the warming will happen while you roll in your residential area, drive out of the parking lot, etc. Most Canadians know that.

And a car doesn't lose its cockpit temperature in a minute, if there's one person in it and the windows are closed. Idling won't change a thing, and the chances are good that if the outside temp is inadequate, you set your ventilation to recirculate anyway.

I couldn't disagree more. Unless you have a heated garage, everything from the oil temp to the transmission fluid temp needs to be brought up to running temp. Not only that, cold metals are much more likely to crack or fatigue when set in motion producing friction against each other. I've put over 200K on my last three vehicles and I'm convinced this is one of the reasons. My current Nissan Pathfinder has 287K with no major issues. I never leave the door in winter without a warm up in the neighborhood of five minutes, and it's kept in a garage (not attached or heated).

Not to mention two other issues, one the car will be cold, not close to the heat or defrost working in winter. Second, this is a safety DISASTER, I see people driving all of the time with fogged windows or snow covered windows. I wonder how many Canadians will die because the Eco-nazi's wanted to limit a gas that occurs naturally in nature in huge quantities. You don't clear that stuff off in winter in Toronto with a one minute warm up time.


Audi was right with the commercial about the green police, there is no part of your personal lives these busy bodies don't think they can run better then you

[Let It Fall]

Originally Posted by Stingray89

That's just retarted, who the heck comes up with this crap?

Does it really need to be said?

[Let It Fall]

Originally Posted by heytrid

The people that leave them idle for 20 minutes while they run in the store, they should tow the car and let them transit home.

Umm no..

And Im really glad to see talk bass is finally seeing that this eco police crap is just that.

[bass12]

From what I've read it's not necessary to let a car engine "warm up" for more than forty seconds or so. Anyway, it's Toronto - what are you complaining about? Come over to Montreal and you'll get an idea of what constitutes real cold.

Edit: I just realised the OP is in Florida.

[bass12]

Originally Posted by L-A

The "warm up the engine" argument doesn't really hold its weight. 30 seconds of idling will allow the oil to spread around and the rest of the warming will happen while you roll in your residential area, drive out of the parking lot, etc. Most Canadians know that.

And a car doesn't lose its cockpit temperature in a minute, if there's one person in it and the windows are closed. Idling won't change a thing, and the chances are good that if the outside temp is inadequate, you set your ventilation to recirculate anyway.

+1.

[bassrique]

Originally Posted by L-A

The "warm up the engine" argument doesn't really hold its weight. 30 seconds of idling will allow the oil to spread around and the rest of the warming will happen while you roll in your residential area, drive out of the parking lot, etc. Most Canadians know that.

And a car doesn't lose its cockpit temperature in a minute, if there's one person in it and the windows are closed. Idling won't change a thing, and the chances are good that if the outside temp is inadequate, you set your ventilation to recirculate anyway.

Shtick?

[Joe Gress]

********! My car takes a good three to five minutes to even be able to keep idling at a constant RPM during the winter. A one minute warm up makes it move like crap and therefore cause unnecessary danger to other drivers as it moves at less than tortoise speeds to get across the intersection. I'll let it warm up as much as it needs thank you.

[bassybill]

I don't know whether 215 million tonnes a year of carbon dioxide in a city the size of Toronto is likely to cause climate issues or environmental damage or not. Neither does anybody else in this thread, despite some of the comments that are expressed here with total certainty (based on what, I wonder?).

Nor do I know how accurate that figure may be. But if that's anywhere close to being true, it's a huge amount of carbon dioxide to be pumping into that size air space, in comparison to the quantities present in the atmosphere historically.

[burk48237]

Originally Posted by bassybill

I don't know whether 215 million tonnes a year of carbon dioxide in a city the size of Toronto is likely to cause climate issues or environmental damage or not. Neither does anybody else in this thread, despite some of the comments that are expressed here with total certainty (based on what, I wonder?).

Nor do I know how accurate that figure may be. But if that's anywhere close to being true, it's a huge amount of carbon dioxide to be pumping into that size air space, in comparison to the quantities present in the atmosphere historically.

So then, any imposition of Government force to bring about this result (lower carbon admissions) no matter how invasive, dangerous, costly or draconian is OK?

In other words, this clearly unsafe proposition for many (driving without a functioning defroster could easily cause an accident), could prove to be very costly (engines could be damaged prematurely) and may not at all be effective, is still OK because someone in authority has determined it will be for the greater good? Should government be allowed to search anyones garage without a warrant in order to determine if they are in violation? (I am not aware of Canadian laws on proper search and seizure) Should devices be installed in cars to determine driving history and location to be sure all citizens are abiding?

Bill I can think of many issues that cause human carbon emissions (essentially every activity we particiapate in emits CO2).

Should we limit workout times?

What about the distances people live from their jobs?

Why not house size, I'm sure that the emissions from heating up a large house are much greater then a small one? Should a person be allowed to have more then say 400 square feet of living space?

And speaking of emissions, what about boating? Shouldn't we just ban all recreational boating? ATV's, Motorcycles used for pleasure driving?

Should we limit vacation distances and times? I mean the wealthy take advantage of this one all the time to emit more then us common people.

Should we limit the temps everyone has their thermostat set at? What about lighting fixtures or light usage? Should we allow the Green-police to enter your home at any time for "home energy inspections" and check adherence to these new codes?

What about Large Screen TV's, SVT amps, tube amps in general (certainly less efficient then solid state)? Computer games? Maybe the number of available TV channels (encourage people to get by with non powered recreation).

None of these issues will effect safety, where should we stop? I sincerely can't think of one thing we do that does not emit carbon, including typing this post.

Perhaps we can start by eliminating one of the most unnecessary drains on our power grid we have, let's ban the use of internet forums!

Any reply to this obviously true post should be considered a violation of our new excessive emissions ordinance.

[bassybill]

Originally Posted by burk48237

So then, any imposition of Government force to bring about this result (lower carbon admissions) no matter how invasive, dangerous, costly or draconian is OK?

Where did I say that?

My point was only to do with people posting with apparent certainty that anthropogenic climate change is not occurring, for no other reason than desiring that to be true.

Like I said, I don't know what the ultimate outcome of this controversy will be. Neither does anyone else. But at least I know that I don't know.

Anybody who thinks they're certain about this is mistaken.

Voltaire - "Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd."

[Rune Bivrin]

I live in Sweden where the last winter was the coldest in a good 20 years, and also the snowiest. We've had a 1 minute limit for at least 20 years; in fact I think pretty much ever since the oil crisis in the 70's.

Just a couple of thoughts:
* Ice scrapers. They work wonders for the windows of your cars.
* Electric heating of the engine. Most people in the north have them, and quite a few down south.
* Running the car to heat the engine is terribly inefficient, and hence expensive.
* Running the car to keep the AC running while shopping is so stupid it warrants no comment. Just open the effing windows. Or better yet, get out of the car.
* Every journey starts with a small step. This includes reduction of CO₂ emissions. There is no single Gordian Knot action that will reduce them sufficiently. If the "small amount" argument is applied to all those things we can do, then we're effectively left with nothing.

[Number27]

seems like more of a comfort thing to me. i would say that i don't need to run my car for over a minute before driving, but it sure sucks ass to have to sit in a freezing car for 5-10 minutes before the interior heats up. especially after i've spent the last 10 minutes outside in the cold chipping ice of my windscreen.

Originally Posted by burk48237

Audi was right with the commercial about the green police, there is no part of your personal lives these busy bodies don't think they can run better then you

quoted for emphasis

[Mark Latimour]

Hehe.

[Schlyder]

The total volume of CO2 in the atmosphere is 1/ 25th of 1%
Human activity is said to be responsible for producing 3% of that 1/25ths of 1%
97% of CO2 in the atmosphere is natually occuring.

Humans could double their production of CO2, and would still only be responsible for only 6% of 1/25ths of 1 %

Hardly what I would call a human created issue. Yet the PC Green cult would have us believe we are killing the planet with human related CO2 production.
What a joke.

[Mortiis]

Originally Posted by Schlyder

The total volume of CO2 in the atmosphere is 1/ 25th of 1%
Human activity is said to be responsible for producing 3% of that 1/25ths of 1%
97% of CO2 in the atmosphere is natually occuring.

Humans could double their production of CO2, and would still only be responsible for only 6% of 1/25ths of 1 %

Hardly what I would call a human created issue. Yet the PC Green cult would have us believe we are killing the planet with human related CO2 production.
What a joke.

Just to add the counter argument for this:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/huma...-emissions.htm

When you're dealing with balanced systems even small percentages can knock things off.

Personally I think it's something that shouldn't be dismissed as a joke, even if you are sceptical. Better to be cautious than sorry, plus it's saving you money and helping to conserve depleting oil reserves (which from what little I've read is a much scarier prospect than the wrath of nature.)