Motorists could face £20 spot fines if they leave their engines running 
while stuck in traffic.

Traffic wardens will be able to issue the penalties  -  after a warning  - 
in a bid to cut down on pollution.

A pilot scheme is due to be launched in January in Shoreham-by-Sea, West 
Sussex, and will be expanded if it proves successful. West Sussex Council 
said it would target areas where exhaust emissions build up unnecessarily, 
such as rail crossings and town centres.

But drivers branded the plans yet another round of the war on the motorist. 
The AA pointed out that to switch off an engine and start up again within a 
minute actually uses more fuel than letting it idle.

Cabbie Roger Turner, 30, said he was disgusted with the idea,

adding: 'Who gave them the right to tell us to switch off our engines?

'It's not like we try to waste fuel, but can you imagine what would happen 
if everyone starts shutting off their engines?

'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.'

West Sussex Council has already set up two Air Quality Management Areas in 
Shoreham, many of whose 20,000 residents are elderly.

A spokesman said: 'We want to get people out of the habit of leaving their 
cars ticking over out of convenience.

'We would stress that this is just an investigation at this stage. If it 
were ever introduced the fixed penalty would probably be £20, but we would 
hope the vast majority of motorists would be willing to cooperate. Air 
pollution is a particularly important issue for our residents, particularly 
those with asthma, lung and heart conditions.'

Signs have been put up at level crossings, telling drivers to switch off 
when the barriers are down.

AA spokesman Paul Watters said: 'We hope councils will not adopt a 
heavy-handed attitude with this. There is a huge difference between running 
the engine for less than a minute at the traffic lights and idling for a 
quarter of an hour.

'If you are stuck in a traffic jam and a warden slaps a ticket on your 
windscreen, that is ridiculous. The danger of everyone switching off in a 
jam is that some may not start up again. And then there's gridlock.'

Mr Watters added: 'The legislation allowing councils to impose such fines 
has been on the statute books for a few years, but few drivers are aware of 
it.'

The Department for Transport said it had issued guidance to councils 
stressing that they should not issue a £20 penalty notice without first 
giving drivers a warning.

Rule 123 of the Highway Code says: 'If the vehicle is stationary and likely 
to remain so for more than a couple of minutes, you should switch off the 
engine to reduce emissions and oil pollution.

'However, it is permissible to leave the engine running if the vehicle is 
stationary in traffic.'

Why turning the engine off in traffic might not be that green after all...

A car engine is at its most inefficient when it is idling, the AA said last 
night, but turning off the engine is not necessarily an improvement.

A spokesman explained: 'In terms of emissions, the catalytic converter only 
works properly when it's hot, and it cools down when idling.

'This means emission levels of gases and hydrocarbons will rise.

'Our own fuel consumption tests showed that a car uses somewhere between 
0.36 and 0.78 litres an hour when idling - so that's no miles per litre, but 
plenty of carbon dioxide and more toxic emissions.'


An hour of idling can produce around 2.36kg of carbon dioxide - the 
'greenhouse gas' blamed by scientists for global warming.

But switching an engine off is not necessarily a better option, the AA 
warns.

A burst of fuel is needed to start an engine, so switching it off and then 
on again seconds later actually uses more fuel than idling and produces more 
emissions.

The AA said: 'For less than a minute it is not fuel efficient to switch off 
because you will use more fuel starting up than you will save. It only 
becomes fuel efficient to switch off if you are going to be stopped for a 
minute or more.'

How does this tally with some high-up bigwig from WSCC on 5 Live this 
morning saying that the proposal came up during some obscure meeting as 
a talking point and that it was not practical to implement but "now the 
media has got hold of it..."

The chap pretty much said it was a daft idea that would never see the 
light of day.

"reg"  wrote in message news:gas1s8$38m$1@aioe.org...
> Motorists could face £20 spot fines if they leave their engines running 
> while stuck in traffic.
>
> Traffic wardens will be able to issue the penalties  -  after a warning  - 
> in a bid to cut down on pollution.
>
> A pilot scheme is due to be launched in January in Shoreham-by-Sea, West 
> Sussex, and will be expanded if it proves successful. West Sussex Council 
> said it would target areas where exhaust emissions build up unnecessarily, 
> such as rail crossings and town centres.
>
> But drivers branded the plans yet another round of the war on the 
> motorist. The AA pointed out that to switch off an engine and start up 
> again within a minute actually uses more fuel than letting it idle.
>
> Cabbie Roger Turner, 30, said he was disgusted with the idea,
>
> adding: 'Who gave them the right to tell us to switch off our engines?
>
> 'It's not like we try to waste fuel, but can you imagine what would happen 
> if everyone starts shutting off their engines?
>
> '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.'
>
> West Sussex Council has already set up two Air Quality Management Areas in 
> Shoreham, many of whose 20,000 residents are elderly.
>
> A spokesman said: 'We want to get people out of the habit of leaving their 
> cars ticking over out of convenience.
>
> 'We would stress that this is just an investigation at this stage. If it 
> were ever introduced the fixed penalty would probably be £20, but we would 
> hope the vast majority of motorists would be willing to cooperate. Air 
> pollution is a particularly important issue for our residents, 
> particularly those with asthma, lung and heart conditions.'
>
> Signs have been put up at level crossings, telling drivers to switch off 
> when the barriers are down.
>
> AA spokesman Paul Watters said: 'We hope councils will not adopt a 
> heavy-handed attitude with this. There is a huge difference between 
> running the engine for less than a minute at the traffic lights and idling 
> for a quarter of an hour.
>
> 'If you are stuck in a traffic jam and a warden slaps a ticket on your 
> windscreen, that is ridiculous. The danger of everyone switching off in a 
> jam is that some may not start up again. And then there's gridlock.'
>
> Mr Watters added: 'The legislation allowing councils to impose such fines 
> has been on the statute books for a few years, but few drivers are aware 
> of it.'
>
> The Department for Transport said it had issued guidance to councils 
> stressing that they should not issue a £20 penalty notice without first 
> giving drivers a warning.
>
> Rule 123 of the Highway Code says: 'If the vehicle is stationary and 
> likely to remain so for more than a couple of minutes, you should switch 
> off the engine to reduce emissions and oil pollution.
>
> 'However, it is permissible to leave the engine running if the vehicle is 
> stationary in traffic.'
>
> Why turning the engine off in traffic might not be that green after all...
>
> A car engine is at its most inefficient when it is idling, the AA said 
> last night, but turning off the engine is not necessarily an improvement.
>
> A spokesman explained: 'In terms of emissions, the catalytic converter 
> only works properly when it's hot, and it cools down when idling.
>
> 'This means emission levels of gases and hydrocarbons will rise.
>
> 'Our own fuel consumption tests showed that a car uses somewhere between 
> 0.36 and 0.78 litres an hour when idling - so that's no miles per litre, 
> but plenty of carbon dioxide and more toxic emissions.'
>
>
> An hour of idling can produce around 2.36kg of carbon dioxide - the 
> 'greenhouse gas' blamed by scientists for global warming.
>
> But switching an engine off is not necessarily a better option, the AA 
> warns.
>
> A burst of fuel is needed to start an engine, so switching it off and then 
> on again seconds later actually uses more fuel than idling and produces 
> more emissions.
>
> The AA said: 'For less than a minute it is not fuel efficient to switch 
> off because you will use more fuel starting up than you will save. It only 
> becomes fuel efficient to switch off if you are going to be stopped for a 
> minute or more.'
>
>It is or at least was the law in Switzerland, at for example level 
>crossings, its amazing how quiet it was whilst waiting

Tony

"reg"  wrote in message news:gas1s8$38m$1@aioe.org...
> Motorists could face £20 spot fines if they leave their engines running 
> while stuck in traffic.
>

That isn't proper scare-mongering. Why not say they could face £2000 spot 
fines! It's just as true.

"reg"  wrote in message news:gas1s8$38m$1@aioe.org...
> Motorists could face £20 spot fines if they leave their engines running 
> while stuck in traffic.
>
> Traffic wardens will be able to issue the penalties  -  after a warning  - 
> in a bid to cut down on pollution.
>

I would love to see traffic wardens walking miles down a motorway.
Stop cutting trees and rainforests down, then all that CO2 will turn to
lovely oxygen.

On Sep 17, 11:57 pm, "reg"  wrote:
> Motorists could face £20 spot fines if they leave their engines running
> while stuck in traffic.
>
> Traffic wardens will be able to issue the penalties  -  after a warning  -
> in a bid to cut down on pollution.
>
> A pilot scheme is due to be launched in January in Shoreham-by-Sea, West
> Sussex, and will be expanded if it proves successful.
<snap>
I wonder what will be a decisive factor in proving it successful?
Anybody want to hazard a guess?

> The AA said: 'For less than a minute it is not fuel efficient to switch 
> off
> because you will use more fuel starting up than you will save. It only 
> becomes fuel efficient to switch off if you are going to be stopped for a 
> minute or more.'
>
>


So how many Watts of battery power does it take to start an engine? 
Especially a diesel that needs a few cranks?  This also requires fuel to 
drive the alternator to recharge the battery.



Gareth.

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:32:36 +0100, Gareth Magennis  
 wrote:

>> The AA said: 'For less than a minute it is not fuel efficient to switch
>> off
>> because you will use more fuel starting up than you will save. It only
>> becomes fuel efficient to switch off if you are going to be stopped for  
>> a
>> minute or more.'
>>
>>
>
>
> So how many Watts of battery power does it take to start an engine?

It's about 1500W, depends on the car.


> Especially a diesel that needs a few cranks?  This also requires fuel to
> drive the alternator to recharge the battery.
>
>
>
> Gareth.
>
>

It's mainly the overfuelling on start rather than the battery power, & it  
varies from engine to engine. BMW & VW have both done it automatically  
with different timings.

On 2008-09-21, Duncan Wood  wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:32:36 +0100, Gareth Magennis  
> wrote:
>
>>
>> So how many Watts of battery power does it take to start an engine?
>
> It's about 1500W, depends on the car.

Power doesn't matter, it's energy (power x time) that counts.

-- 
David Taylor

"David Taylor"  wrote in message 
news:slrngddeln.2gv.davidt-news@outcold.yadt.co.uk...
> On 2008-09-21, Duncan Wood  wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:32:36 +0100, Gareth Magennis
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> So how many Watts of battery power does it take to start an engine?
>>
>> It's about 1500W, depends on the car.
>
> Power doesn't matter, it's energy (power x time) that counts.
>
> -- 
> David Taylor



In this case a good approximation  I guess would be 1500W for one second, 
approximately half a Watt hour per start. (0.41 actually)

Petrol contains about 10kWh of energy per litre.  I don't know how efficient 
a car is at converting this to topping up the energy lost by the battery, 
but it would give 200 one second(ish) starts per litre for every percent of 
efficiency.

Now, how many starts per litre would you get calculating the fuel used to 
power the engine?




Gareth.

>
> In this case a good approximation  I guess would be 1500W for one second, 
> approximately half a Watt hour per start. (0.41 actually)
>
> Petrol contains about 10kWh of energy per litre.  I don't know how 
> efficient a car is at converting this to topping up the energy lost by the 
> battery, but it would give 200 one second(ish) starts per litre for every 
> percent of efficiency.
>
> Now, how many starts per litre would you get calculating the fuel used to 
> power the engine?
>
>
>
>
> Gareth.
>
>


What I meant to say was how much fuel does it take to start an engine?

I have seen idling figures of around 0.2 to 0.3 gallons per hour bandied 
about on the Net.  This is in the ballpark of 1 litre per hour.  Is this 
realistic?

BTW, I'm not trying to be a pedantic Nerd, just that I long ago stopped 
trusting many of the studies, results, opinions etc you get from various 
organisations with vested interests in skewing their own figures.
Even so called Scientific studies can show virtually the opposite results to 
each other, depending on what data is used (or not included), how accurate 
it is, and how it is interpreted.  And who is paying for the study.  I 
prefer the Newsgroup real life experience kind of data, thank you very much.


Cheers

Gareth.

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:47:19 +0100, Gareth Magennis  
 wrote:

>>
>> In this case a good approximation  I guess would be 1500W for one  
>> second,
>> approximately half a Watt hour per start. (0.41 actually)
>>
>> Petrol contains about 10kWh of energy per litre.  I don't know how
>> efficient a car is at converting this to topping up the energy lost by  
>> the
>> battery, but it would give 200 one second(ish) starts per litre for  
>> every
>> percent of efficiency.
>>
>> Now, how many starts per litre would you get calculating the fuel used  
>> to
>> power the engine?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Gareth.
>>
>>
>
>
> What I meant to say was how much fuel does it take to start an engine?
>
> I have seen idling figures of around 0.2 to 0.3 gallons per hour bandied
> about on the Net.  This is in the ballpark of 1 litre per hour.  Is this
> realistic?
>
> BTW, I'm not trying to be a pedantic Nerd, just that I long ago stopped
> trusting many of the studies, results, opinions etc you get from various
> organisations with vested interests in skewing their own figures.
> Even so called Scientific studies can show virtually the opposite  
> results to
> each other, depending on what data is used (or not included), how  
> accurate
> it is, and how it is interpreted.  And who is paying for the study.  I
> prefer the Newsgroup real life experience kind of data, thank you very  
> much.
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Gareth.
>
>


I doubt anybody round here's ever bothered to measure it accurately though.

"Duncan Wood"  wrote in message 
news:op.uhvtojbshaghkf@lucy...
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:47:19 +0100, Gareth Magennis 
>  wrote:
>
>>>
>>> In this case a good approximation  I guess would be 1500W for one 
>>> second,
>>> approximately half a Watt hour per start. (0.41 actually)
>>>
>>> Petrol contains about 10kWh of energy per litre.  I don't know how
>>> efficient a car is at converting this to topping up the energy lost by 
>>> the
>>> battery, but it would give 200 one second(ish) starts per litre for 
>>> every
>>> percent of efficiency.
>>>
>>> Now, how many starts per litre would you get calculating the fuel used 
>>> to
>>> power the engine?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Gareth.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> What I meant to say was how much fuel does it take to start an engine?
>>
>> I have seen idling figures of around 0.2 to 0.3 gallons per hour bandied
>> about on the Net.  This is in the ballpark of 1 litre per hour.  Is this
>> realistic?
>>
>> BTW, I'm not trying to be a pedantic Nerd, just that I long ago stopped
>> trusting many of the studies, results, opinions etc you get from various
>> organisations with vested interests in skewing their own figures.
>> Even so called Scientific studies can show virtually the opposite 
>> results to
>> each other, depending on what data is used (or not included), how 
>> accurate
>> it is, and how it is interpreted.  And who is paying for the study.  I
>> prefer the Newsgroup real life experience kind of data, thank you very 
>> much.
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Gareth.
>>
>>
>
>
> I doubt anybody round here's ever bothered to measure it accurately 
> though.



Doesn't need to be accurate, just in the correct order of magnitude.   A lot 
of people are saying engines need a big burst of fuel to get them started 
again, so where is the Data?  How big is this burst really?  Google didn't 
turn up much.

Gareth.

"Gareth Magennis"  gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

>>> I have seen idling figures of around 0.2 to 0.3 gallons per hour
>>> bandied about on the Net.  This is in the ballpark of 1 litre per
>>> hour.  Is this realistic?

>> I doubt anybody round here's ever bothered to measure it accurately
>> though.

> Doesn't need to be accurate, just in the correct order of magnitude.

It's obviously going to depend on the engine, but a couple of litres per 
hour sounds about right to me.

> A lot of people are saying engines need a big burst of fuel to get them
> started again, so where is the Data?  How big is this burst really? 

Injection doesn't give a big burst of fuel. It just doesn't. If it did, 
you'd either have a big burst of revs on start-up or a very wet cat - 
which is a nice way to kill 'em quickly.

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 13:53:01 +0100, Gareth Magennis  
 wrote:

> "Duncan Wood"  wrote in message
> news:op.uhvtojbshaghkf@lucy...
>> On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:47:19 +0100, Gareth Magennis
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> In this case a good approximation  I guess would be 1500W for one
>>>> second,
>>>> approximately half a Watt hour per start. (0.41 actually)
>>>>
>>>> Petrol contains about 10kWh of energy per litre.  I don't know how
>>>> efficient a car is at converting this to topping up the energy lost by
>>>> the
>>>> battery, but it would give 200 one second(ish) starts per litre for
>>>> every
>>>> percent of efficiency.
>>>>
>>>> Now, how many starts per litre would you get calculating the fuel used
>>>> to
>>>> power the engine?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gareth.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What I meant to say was how much fuel does it take to start an engine?
>>>
>>> I have seen idling figures of around 0.2 to 0.3 gallons per hour  
>>> bandied
>>> about on the Net.  This is in the ballpark of 1 litre per hour.  Is  
>>> this
>>> realistic?
>>>
>>> BTW, I'm not trying to be a pedantic Nerd, just that I long ago stopped
>>> trusting many of the studies, results, opinions etc you get from  
>>> various
>>> organisations with vested interests in skewing their own figures.
>>> Even so called Scientific studies can show virtually the opposite
>>> results to
>>> each other, depending on what data is used (or not included), how
>>> accurate
>>> it is, and how it is interpreted.  And who is paying for the study.  I
>>> prefer the Newsgroup real life experience kind of data, thank you very
>>> much.
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Gareth.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> I doubt anybody round here's ever bothered to measure it accurately
>> though.
>
>
>
> Doesn't need to be accurate, just in the correct order of magnitude.   A  
> lot
> of people are saying engines need a big burst of fuel to get them started
> again, so where is the Data?  How big is this burst really?  Google  
> didn't
> turn up much.
>
> Gareth.
>
>


Well for order of magnitude a mechanical diesel pump injects about 20  
times as much fuel per revolution when starting than when running.

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 15:02:59 +0100, Adrian  wrote:

> "Duncan Wood"  gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
>
>> Well for order of magnitude a mechanical diesel pump injects about 20
>> times as much fuel per revolution when starting than when running.
>
> How does it "know" to do that?

Err it's a diesel pump, if it didn't do that it'd stall.

> And how many even vaguely recent diesels (let's put a rough cut-out of
> about a decade old, just over the average life expectancy of a new car in
> Britain) have a mechanical pump?

Very few, but I doubt that the ratios changed much. How long you need to  
crank it for may have though.

"Duncan Wood"  gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>>> Well for order of magnitude a mechanical diesel pump injects about 20
>>> times as much fuel per revolution when starting than when running.

>> How does it "know" to do that?

> Err it's a diesel pump, if it didn't do that it'd stall.

All the mechanical pump "knows" is the engine revs, throttle opening, 
injection timing, and probably the boost from any turbo. No more, no less.

>> And how many even vaguely recent diesels (let's put a rough cut-out of
>> about a decade old, just over the average life expectancy of a new car
>> in Britain) have a mechanical pump?

> Very few, but I doubt that the ratios changed much.

I don't know as much about diesel injection as petrols - enough to know 
that the timing is far more critical - but I'm very sceptical about this 
vast amount of fuel being shoved in. VERY sceptical indeed.

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 15:59:45 +0100, Adrian  wrote:

> "Duncan Wood"  gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
>
>>>> Well for order of magnitude a mechanical diesel pump injects about 20
>>>> times as much fuel per revolution when starting than when running.
>
>>> How does it "know" to do that?
>
>> Err it's a diesel pump, if it didn't do that it'd stall.
>
> All the mechanical pump "knows" is the engine revs, throttle opening,
> injection timing, and probably the boost from any turbo. No more, no  
> less.
>

Yes, and if the engine revs are at cranking speed that's off the bottom of  
the governer curve, hence it will inject as much fuel as it practically  
can.

>>> And how many even vaguely recent diesels (let's put a rough cut-out of
>>> about a decade old, just over the average life expectancy of a new car
>>> in Britain) have a mechanical pump?
>
>> Very few, but I doubt that the ratios changed much.
>
> I don't know as much about diesel injection as petrols - enough to know
> that the timing is far more critical - but I'm very sceptical about this
> vast amount of fuel being shoved in. VERY sceptical indeed.

It's not a vast amount, it's the same as it would inject if you stalled  
the engine down.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Duncan Wood"
 saying something like:

Idling fuel consumption.

>I doubt anybody round here's ever bothered to measure it accurately though.

<waves>
I did. It was before FI became universal (so is subject to update) and
on several carburettored vehicles ranging from 1L to 3L it worked out
between 0.4 - 0.5 gallons/hour.
-- 

Dave
SE6a

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Adrian 
saying something like:

>"Duncan Wood"  gurgled happily, sounding much like
>they were saying:
>
>> Well for order of magnitude a mechanical diesel pump injects about 20
>> times as much fuel per revolution when starting than when running.
>
>How does it "know" to do that?

For hot starts, it wouldn't - the rack would be in exactly the same
position as idle. An auxiliary cold start device would shove more in,
which is what Duncan's getting at, I believe.

>And how many even vaguely recent diesels (let's put a rough cut-out of 
>about a decade old, just over the average life expectancy of a new car in 
>Britain) have a mechanical pump?

My 2001 Transit, for one. The 2002 model moved to TDCi.
-- 

Dave
SE6a

Grimly Curmudgeon  gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

>>> Well for order of magnitude a mechanical diesel pump injects about 20
>>> times as much fuel per revolution when starting than when running.

>>How does it "know" to do that?

> For hot starts, it wouldn't - the rack would be in exactly the same
> position as idle. An auxiliary cold start device would shove more in,
> which is what Duncan's getting at, I believe.

Indeed. But we aren't talking about cold starts. We're talking about warm 
re-starts in traffic.

>>And how many even vaguely recent diesels (let's put a rough cut-out of
>>about a decade old, just over the average life expectancy of a new car
>>in Britain) have a mechanical pump?

> My 2001 Transit, for one. The 2002 model moved to TDCi.

The Tranny used a mechanical pump, right up until the move to common 
rail? I'm absolutely astounded. I'd have expected an electronic pump way 
before that.

On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 20:42:30 +0100, Adrian  wrote:

> Grimly Curmudgeon  gurgled happily,
> sounding much like they were saying:
>
>>>> Well for order of magnitude a mechanical diesel pump injects about 20
>>>> times as much fuel per revolution when starting than when running.
>
>>> How does it "know" to do that?
>
>> For hot starts, it wouldn't - the rack would be in exactly the same
>> position as idle. An auxiliary cold start device would shove more in,
>> which is what Duncan's getting at, I believe.
>
> Indeed. But we aren't talking about cold starts. We're talking about warm
> re-starts in traffic.
>
>>> And how many even vaguely recent diesels (let's put a rough cut-out of
>>> about a decade old, just over the average life expectancy of a new car
>>> in Britain) have a mechanical pump?
>
>> My 2001 Transit, for one. The 2002 model moved to TDCi.
>
> The Tranny used a mechanical pump, right up until the move to common
> rail? I'm absolutely astounded. I'd have expected an electronic pump way
> before that.


Only if you had the turbo. & even then it was optional