I'm shocked to learn motorists leave their nasty polluting engines
running.

"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..."

More:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1056633/Drivers-face-20-fine-leaving-engines-running-traffic-jams.html


--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

Doug wrote:
> I'm shocked to learn motorists leave their nasty polluting engines
> running.
>
So you are in favour of "street garaging"?

Doug wrote:
> I'm shocked to learn motorists leave their nasty polluting engines
> running.
> 
> "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..."
> 
> More:
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1056633/Drivers-face-20-fine-leaving-engines-running-traffic-jams.html
> 
> 
> --
> World Carfree Network
> http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

Perhaps you should read all the article, specifically the bit that says
turning the engine off could be more polluting.

Doug, what is your opinion of the same thing happening on the railways?

-- 
Tony the Dragon

On Sep 17, 8:32 am, Tony Dragon  wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > I'm shocked to learn motorists leave their nasty polluting engines
> > running.
>
> > "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..."
>
> > More:
>
> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1056633/Drivers-face-20-fine-...
>
> > --
> > World Carfree Network
> >http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> > Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
>
> Perhaps you should read all the article, specifically the bit that says
> turning the engine off could be more polluting.

Not only that , it'll reduce the life of the catalytic converter, gunk
up the engine and probably wear out the starter motor , pinion and
ring gear in cars that arn't designed for this not to mention the
draining effect it could have on a battery in a long slow moving
queue.

B2003

"Tony Dragon"  wrote in message 
news:TY2dnUmp9MgDL03VnZ2dnUVZ8qTinZ2d@bt.com...
>>
> Doug, what is your opinion of the same thing happening on the railways?
>
> -- 
I doubt If this stupid idea will get very far - its more of a substandard 
council trying to get some good  i.e green press coverage

West Sussex highways authority have half a dozen spin doctors working for 
them and very little common sense.

Lt Col Tex Pemberton was the "cabinet member"or councillor in charge of 
highways but sadly retired  (long held plans) at around the time a high 
court judge slammed the authority and asking for probe after a womans death 
on the local roads   (Littlehampton Gazette may 8th this year)

The new cabinet member got a little friendly with a female member of staff 
so stood down within a few months (at around the time also the Highwayl 
workers decimated an area where the rarest orchids in the UK were- You do it 
and it can be a huge fine per PLANT! - they do it and nothing happens)

Third Time lucky?  I doubt it

On 17 Sep, 06:40, Doug  wrote:
> I'm shocked to learn motorists leave their nasty polluting engines
> running.

Did you used to switch your Land Rover off when idling, Gollum?

Boltar wrote:
> On Sep 17, 8:32 am, Tony Dragon  wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> I'm shocked to learn motorists leave their nasty polluting engines
>>> running.
>>> "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..."
>>> More:
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1056633/Drivers-face-20-fine-...
>>> --
>>> World Carfree Network
>>> http://www.worldcarfree.net/
>>> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
>> Perhaps you should read all the article, specifically the bit that says
>> turning the engine off could be more polluting.
> 
> Not only that , it'll reduce the life of the catalytic converter, gunk
> up the engine and probably wear out the starter motor , pinion and
> ring gear in cars that arn't designed for this not to mention the
> draining effect it could have on a battery in a long slow moving
> queue.
> 
> B2003
> 

Lets see, what you mean is that by stop starting the engine, you could 
be causing more pollution, I think we could all agree with that (except 
for the usual blinkered idiots)

-- 
Tony the Dragon

"BrianW"  wrote in message 
news:2a5c65e5-718f-425d-b89c-507d3f271c33@73g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> On 17 Sep, 06:40, Doug  wrote:
>> I'm shocked to learn motorists leave their nasty polluting engines
>> running.
>
> Did you used to switch your Land Rover off when idling, Gollum?

Is that the same Land Rover that was switched off and left in the Sahara 
Desert ?

In message 
, 
Doug  writes
>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..."
Agreed, I've always said that an idling engine is just wasting fuel.
-- 
Clive

On 17 Sep, 16:18, "Gizmo."  wrote:
> "BrianW"  wrote in message
>
> news:2a5c65e5-718f-425d-b89c-507d3f271c33@73g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 17 Sep, 06:40, Doug  wrote:
> >> I'm shocked to learn motorists leave their nasty polluting engines
> >> running.
>
> > Did you used to switch your Land Rover off when idling, Gollum?
>
> Is that the same Land Rover that was switched off and left in the Sahara
> Desert ?

I believe the Land Rover in question was dumped by the side of the
road in Cornwall when the hypocritical old turd no longer wanted it.
Speaking of deserts, however, did you leave the 2 stroke engine
running, Gollum, when you were idling in Morocco?

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:d0f2afda-bd9d-4362-9157-c450d090b885@r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> I'm shocked to learn motorists leave their nasty polluting engines
> running.

To judge from the response to the radio phone in when this was announced, in 
West Sussex, few, if any do.

Colin Bignell

"BrianW"  wrote in message 
news:c50989be-2ffc-47e7-b600-e8d165ed2f90@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On 17 Sep, 16:18, "Gizmo."  wrote:
>> "BrianW"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:2a5c65e5-718f-425d-b89c-507d3f271c33@73g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On 17 Sep, 06:40, Doug  wrote:
>> >> I'm shocked to learn motorists leave their nasty polluting engines
>> >> running.
>>
>> > Did you used to switch your Land Rover off when idling, Gollum?
>>
>> Is that the same Land Rover that was switched off and left in the Sahara
>> Desert ?
>
> I believe the Land Rover in question was dumped by the side of the
> road in Cornwall when the hypocritical old turd no longer wanted it.
> Speaking of deserts, however, did you leave the 2 stroke engine
> running, Gollum, when you were idling in Morocco?

I stand corrected.
I knew he'd effectively fly tipped a vehicle somewhere.
I wonder who had to pay for it's removal and disposal ?   Not that Doug 
would care.

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:d0f2afda-bd9d-4362-9157-c450d090b885@r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
I'm shocked to learn motorists leave their nasty polluting engines
running.

---

I am shocked that you are shocked at that fact. Do you live in such a bubble 
of isolation from the real world that you weren't aware that people leave 
their engines running in such circumstances?

Anyway, I doubt that the council would have any legal authority to do what 
they are suggesting. It's all just more scaremongering nonsense from that 
well-known purveyor of such, the Daly Wail.

Its typical of West Sussex County Council.

If It had been called a great green idea then the councillors would have 
taken all the credit and plaudits

Unfortunately this idea was received  "extremely" unfavourably so what do 
they do ?

Henry Smith leader of the Council does an u-turn and blames it on officials 
within the council - I wonder  what a Leader Of the Council does?

and just for you Steve /Gizmo - claiming science tells us its bad for the 
environment and bad for the car switching engines off then I wonder why the 
latest BMWs and Minis amongst others have stop start technology to improve 
emmissions and fuel consumption.

Also I guess using that logic you admit car exhausts are responsible for 
"destroying"  the planet?

"Tooommy"  wrote in message 
news:VmxAk.13535$O51.7444@newsfe23.ams2...
> Its typical of West Sussex County Council.
>
> If It had been called a great green idea then the councillors would have 
> taken all the credit and plaudits
>
> Unfortunately this idea was received  "extremely" unfavourably so what do 
> they do ?
>
> Henry Smith leader of the Council does an u-turn and blames it on 
> officials within the council - I wonder  what a Leader Of the Council 
> does?

No one gives a toss.

> and just for you Steve /Gizmo - claiming science tells us its bad for the 
> environment and bad for the car switching engines off then I wonder why 
> the latest BMWs and Minis amongst others have stop start technology to 
> improve emmissions and fuel consumption.

Why have you dragged me in to this ?
Oh sorry, I forgot. You think I'm Steve and Steve is me.  However, you've 
yet to provide any kind of evidence.

Gizmo.  wrote:

> > and just for you Steve /Gizmo - claiming science tells us its bad for the
> > environment and bad for the car switching engines off then I wonder why
> > the latest BMWs and Minis amongst others have stop start technology to
> > improve emmissions and fuel consumption.

Where have I or Gizmo stated what you claim above Toomy?

> Why have you dragged me in to this ?
> Oh sorry, I forgot. You think I'm Steve and Steve is me.  However, you've
> yet to provide any kind of evidence.
>  
The answer's simple, like Toomy.

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:1inilfv.fhvldrwoydzN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> Gizmo.  wrote:
>
>> > and just for you Steve /Gizmo - claiming science tells us its bad for 
>> > the
>> > environment and bad for the car switching engines off then I wonder why
>> > the latest BMWs and Minis amongst others have stop start technology to
>> > improve emmissions and fuel consumption.
>
> Where have I or Gizmo stated what you claim above Toomy?
>
>> Why have you dragged me in to this ?
>> Oh sorry, I forgot. You think I'm Steve and Steve is me.  However, you've
>> yet to provide any kind of evidence.
>>
> The answer's simple, like Toomy.

YOU Steve G Firth are extremely stupid for such a succesful troll - look at 
"his" earlier submissions on this very subject

Remind me of the daywhere on a single subject you were both for and against 
Climate Change :)

On 19 Sep, 15:39, "Tommy"  wrote:
> "Steve Firth" <%ste...@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:1inilfv.fhvldrwoydzN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
>
> > Gizmo.  wrote:
>
> >> > and just for you Steve /Gizmo - claiming science tells us its bad for
> >> > the
> >> > environment and bad for the car switching engines off then I wonder why
> >> > the latest BMWs and Minis amongst others have stop start technology to
> >> > improve emmissions and fuel consumption.
>
> > Where have I or Gizmo stated what you claim above Toomy?
>
> >> Why have you dragged me in to this ?
> >> Oh sorry, I forgot. You think I'm Steve and Steve is me.  However, you've
> >> yet to provide any kind of evidence.
>
> > The answer's simple, like Toomy.
>
> YOU Steve G Firth are extremely stupid for such a succesful troll - look at
> "his" earlier submissions on this very subject
>
> Remind me of the daywhere on a single subject you were both for and against
> Climate Change :)

That would be the one in your head Toomtard.  Why don't you just post
what the voices tell you, Timmy, so we can all see?  Oh, hang on, you
already do ...

BrianW  wrote:

> > YOU Steve G Firth are extremely stupid for such a succesful troll - look at
> > "his" earlier submissions on this very subject

So once again, when challenged to support his claims, Toomy waves his
hands and claims that the evidence was posted somewhere, sometime.

Now quote the post in question.

> > Remind me of the daywhere on a single subject you were both for and against
> > Climate Change :)

Which post would that have been in, Toomtard?
 
> That would be the one in your head Toomtard.  Why don't you just post
> what the voices tell you, Timmy, so we can all see?  Oh, hang on, you
> already do ...

And strangely he's unable to give a reference to a single post which
confirms the bullshit he spouts. Still it gives him an unbroken
"bullshit" record.

On Sep 19, 10:31�pm, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> BrianW  wrote:
> > > YOU Steve G Firth are extremely stupid for such a succesful troll - look at
> > > "his" earlier submissions on this very subject
>
> So once again, when challenged to support his claims, Toomy waves his
> hands and claims that the evidence was posted somewhere, sometime.
>
> Now quote the post in question.
>
> > > Remind me of the daywhere on a single subject you were both for and against
> > > Climate Change :)
>
> Which post would that have been in, Toomtard?
>
> > That would be the one in your head Toomtard. �Why don't you just post
> > what the voices tell you, Timmy, so we can all see? �Oh, hang on, you
> > already do ...
>
> And strangely he's unable to give a reference to a single post which
> confirms the bullshit he spouts. Still it gives him an unbroken
> "bullshit" record.

I find the best way of dealing with Timmy is simply to call him a
retarded cunt.  It seems to upset him, and he no longer responds to my
posts.  For which I am grateful.

BrianW wrote:
> On 17 Sep, 16:18, "Gizmo."  wrote:
>> "BrianW"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:2a5c65e5-718f-425d-b89c-507d3f271c33@73g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> On 17 Sep, 06:40, Doug  wrote:
>>>> I'm shocked to learn motorists leave their nasty polluting engines
>>>> running.
>>> Did you used to switch your Land Rover off when idling, Gollum?
>> Is that the same Land Rover that was switched off and left in the Sahara
>> Desert ?
> 
> I believe the Land Rover in question was dumped by the side of the
> road in Cornwall when the hypocritical old turd no longer wanted it.
> Speaking of deserts, however, did you leave the 2 stroke engine
> running, Gollum, when you were idling in Morocco?

2-smoke engines are polluting whatever they're doing. That's why they're 
banned in California and other places. There's a good reason why bikers 
call them stink wheels.

-- 
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

On 17 Sep, 08:32, Tony Dragon  wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > I'm shocked to learn motorists leave their nasty polluting engines
> > running.
>
> > "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..."
>
> > More:
>
> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1056633/Drivers-face-20-fine-...
>
> > --
> > World Carfree Network
> >http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> > Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
>
> Perhaps you should read all the article, specifically the bit that says
> turning the engine off could be more polluting.
>
Maybe you should read it, where it says:

"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 what do you do, wait a minute then switch it off or switch it off
and trust you will be stopped for at least a minute?

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

Doug wrote:
> On 17 Sep, 08:32, Tony Dragon  wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> I'm shocked to learn motorists leave their nasty polluting engines
>>> running.
>>
>>> "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..."
>>
>>> More:
>>
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1056633/Drivers-face-20-fine-...
>>
>>> --
>>> World Carfree Network
>>> http://www.worldcarfree.net/
>>> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
>>
>> Perhaps you should read all the article, specifically the bit that
>> says turning the engine off could be more polluting.
>>
> Maybe you should read it, where it says:
>
> "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 what do you do, wait a minute then switch it off or switch it off
> and trust you will be stopped for at least a minute?

You're the expert Doug, what would you do?

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:0b66af54-873e-442e-b45a-44fcf9af7fa2@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
...
> "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.'"..

West Sussex County Council claim the break-even point for modern, computer 
controlled cars is 20 seconds.

Colin Bignell

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 11:42:54 +0100, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname
here>.me.uk> wrote:

>
>"Doug"  wrote in message 
>news:0b66af54-873e-442e-b45a-44fcf9af7fa2@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>...
>> "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.'"..
>
>West Sussex County Council claim the break-even point for modern, computer 
>controlled cars is 20 seconds.
>

I wouldn't trust the opinion of West Sussex County Council on a bucket
full of dead ashes.

Derek

"Derek"  wrote in message 
news:o4p9d4loeocnvga81j3s5chliqf58mj4ov@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 11:42:54 +0100, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname
> here>.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Doug"  wrote in message
>>news:0b66af54-873e-442e-b45a-44fcf9af7fa2@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>...
>>> "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.'"..
>>
>>West Sussex County Council claim the break-even point for modern, computer
>>controlled cars is 20 seconds.
>>
>
> I wouldn't trust the opinion of West Sussex County Council on a bucket
> full of dead ashes.

Nevertheless, that is what they will use as a base period for imposing the 
fines.

Colin Bignell

In message , nightjar wrote:

> 
> "Derek"  wrote in message
> news:o4p9d4loeocnvga81j3s5chliqf58mj4ov@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 11:42:54 +0100, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname
>> here>.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Doug"  wrote in message
>>>news:0b66af54-873e-442e-b45a-44fcf9af7fa2@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>>...
>>>> "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.'"..
>>>
>>>West Sussex County Council claim the break-even point for modern,
>>>computer controlled cars is 20 seconds.
>>>
>>
>> I wouldn't trust the opinion of West Sussex County Council on a bucket
>> full of dead ashes.
> 
> Nevertheless, that is what they will use as a base period for imposing the
> fines.
> 
That'll be a fun court case when it happens then...
-- 
Dave
mail da ve@llondel.org (without the space)
http://www.llondel.org
So many gadgets, so little time

On 20 Sep, 09:19, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 17 Sep, 08:32, Tony Dragon  wrote:
> >> Doug wrote:
> >>> I'm shocked to learn motorists leave their nasty polluting engines
> >>> running.
>
> >>> "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..."
>
> >>> More:
>
> >>>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1056633/Drivers-face-20-fine-.> >>> World Carfree Network
> >>>http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> >>> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
>
> >> Perhaps you should read all the article, specifically the bit that
> >> says turning the engine off could be more polluting.
>
> > Maybe you should read it, where it says:
>
> > "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 what do you do, wait a minute then switch it off or switch it off
> > and trust you will be stopped for at least a minute?
>
> You're the expert Doug, what would you do?

Luckily I don't drive a nasty polluting car. As I mainly use a bicycle
the situation does not arise.

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

Doug wrote:
> On 20 Sep, 09:19, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 17 Sep, 08:32, Tony Dragon  wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> I'm shocked to learn motorists leave their nasty polluting engines
>>>>> running.
>>
>>>>> "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..."
>>
>>>>> More:
>>
>>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1056633/Drivers-face-20-fine-...
>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> World Carfree Network
>>>>> http://www.worldcarfree.net/
>>>>> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
>>
>>>> Perhaps you should read all the article, specifically the bit that
>>>> says turning the engine off could be more polluting.
>>
>>> Maybe you should read it, where it says:
>>
>>> "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 what do you do, wait a minute then switch it off or switch it off
>>> and trust you will be stopped for at least a minute?
>>
>> You're the expert Doug, what would you do?
>
> Luckily I don't drive a nasty polluting car. As I mainly use a bicycle
> the situation does not arise.

Which is why I asked, "what would you do?" You're quite happy to point the 
finger but never have a solution to the problem, why is that?

On 21 Sep, 09:05, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 20 Sep, 09:19, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> >> Doug wrote:
> >>> On 17 Sep, 08:32, Tony Dragon  wrote:
> >>>> Doug wrote:
> >>>>> I'm shocked to learn motorists leave their nasty polluting engines
> >>>>> running.
>
> >>>>> "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..."
>
> >>>>> More:
>
> >>>>>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1056633/Drivers-face-20-fine> >>>>> World Carfree Network
> >>>>>http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> >>>>> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
>
> >>>> Perhaps you should read all the article, specifically the bit that
> >>>> says turning the engine off could be more polluting.
>
> >>> Maybe you should read it, where it says:
>
> >>> "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 what do you do, wait a minute then switch it off or switch it off
> >>> and trust you will be stopped for at least a minute?
>
> >> You're the expert Doug, what would you do?
>
> > Luckily I don't drive a nasty polluting car. As I mainly use a bicycle
> > the situation does not arise.
>
> Which is why I asked, "what would you do?" You're quite happy to point the
> finger but never have a solution to the problem, why is that?

he's an idea's man.

the idea is that we keep ignoring him and don't follow any of his
advice.

Fod

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:a06ab425-aefe-4b4c-9666-299901ed3ef9@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > So what do you do, wait a minute then switch it off or switch it off
> > and trust you will be stopped for at least a minute?
>
> You're the expert Doug, what would you do?

Luckily I don't drive a nasty polluting car. As I mainly use a bicycle
the situation does not arise.

----

Add to the list of things over which Doug is ignorant: the conditional 
clause (clue is in the word "would").