$100 Fine for Idling Car

How do you feel about paying $100 for every 3 minutes your car idles? If the 'idling police' do fine you, think of it as a contribution to greening the planet. Letting your car idle in a busy drive-thru would only cost you $200, a bargain in preventing Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

The 3 minute rule would only apply in 'good weather,' i.e. between 41°f and 81°f. And lots of vehicles would be exempt, like armored cars, farm equipment, vehicles in traffic jams, and floats in parades. Fast food drive-thrus would also be exempt, but no definition of 'fast' has been given yet. We don't know if it means a drive thru at a fast food joint or a fast drive thru - if there is such a thing.

Buses would also be exempt, as the driver would get carpal tunnel from switching on and off at every bus stop as he allowed passengers on or off. Vehicles at airports or railway stations would be exempt: I don't understand these two classifications, unless they apply to trains and planes.

The most surprising part of the proposal is that police, fire, and paramedics would be expected to comply with the new bylaw, unless they were on an emergency - that's a relief, then. I'd hate to be getting loaded onto a rescue helicopter and hearing the rotors slowing down because they'd exceeded their 3 minute limit. (Can you really imagine a highway patrolman, armed with his donut and coffee, actually switching his engine off before the 3 minute deadline? No? Me neither.)

The proposed bylaw was put forward in Ottawa, and narrowly failed on its first attempt, but there will be another attempt in a few weeks time. On the face of it, the idea seems like a good one until you examine it carefully. One of the councilors supported the proposal. 'Although it wasn't her first priority,' she said, 'she would support it as it wouldn't cost anything.' Does she live in a world of her own or is she simply naive? Of course it will cost!

If the proposal is adopted, a committee will be convened to examine the methods of catching law breakers and collecting the cash, and working out how many 'temperature police' will be needed, and whether they need to be armed. As if drivers haven't enough to worry about. As well as watching speed limits, they will now need a built in timer for each time the cars stops moving. Not only that, every car will need a thermometer showing the outside temperature. Then the new juggling act will commence. Are you idling for 2.58 minutes and will you have to switch off, or is the temperature below 41° or above 81°?

Equally puzzling will be who, what, and where. It appears that you and I, the ordinary motorist, will be the only ones put out, unless we opt to drive a previously owned ambulance or tractor, and let them idle in a railway station car park. From the long list of places and times when the bylaw would come into force, it seems that it will only apply in car parks or driveways. As for when; remember that the proposals are being made in Canada, which apparently is slightly chilly in winter and very hot in summer. This would mean the bylaw could only be enforced in the months that those temperatures might apply - like, perhaps April or October? In my opinion, this is a farcical waste of time, that will only increase the average motorist's angst against authority, and the problems of trying to enforce it would cost more than letting the car idle.

Possibly the law will apply at stop signs and traffic lights. Why not, you say, it would be a sensible precaution? Think about it from your own point of view. You have driven up to a set of red lights. Do you know what the sequence is? Do the lights really stay red for over 3 minutes? If they do, fine, switch off your engine, but don't expect to be able to start it up immediately. I don't know about your car, but mine has safety features built in before it can be started. Do you wait until the lights turn to green before you select neutral or park and do whatever else you have to do to start up, and possibly get shunted up the butt by the engine revving NASCAR driver behind you who is not as environmentally friendly as you? Me, I'd let it idle - immediate survival before long time survival is a good motto.

If such a law does come into force, whatever you do, don't ever, ever, ever try to steal a few seconds by switching the engine off as you are approaching the lights - that way leads to death and destruction. Without a running engine, the ABS will not work, and trying to stop a car without ABS, by jumping with both feet on the brake pedal and nothing happening is a fast track to a heart attack. Also, your power steering and any other hydraulically operated system will close down.

One expert pontificates that in the early mornings, people leave their engines idling to warm up the engine, and it is unnecessary. An engine heats up in 30 seconds and letting it idle more than that may actually be detrimental; anyway, he continues, idling the engine does not heat up the suspension, tires or brakes, so why do people do it, he asks?

I have news for the expert: People don't idle the engine to warm it up. They idle the engine to either warm or cool the inside of the car. They don't care how the engine feels; as long as they and their family are warm and cozy.

Sources:
sympatico.msn.ca
cornwallseawaynews.com