A Vigilante Fighting Engine Exhaust(newyorker.com)
newyorker.com
A Vigilante Fighting Engine Exhaust
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/07/30/the-vigilante-fighting-engine-exhaust
23 comments
No need to wonder, as this sort of thing has been studied[0]. You can check your local air quality online[1].
0: http://berkeleyearth.org/air-pollution-and-cigarette-equival...
1: http://aqicn.org/here/
0: http://berkeleyearth.org/air-pollution-and-cigarette-equival...
1: http://aqicn.org/here/
In major cities in the US, I've found that PurpleAir is a much better resource for checking local air quality. Air quality varies significantly, and the EPA only has very sparse monitors.
PurpleAir San Francisco: https://www.purpleair.com/map?&zoom=12&lat=37.7&lng=-122.4
PurpleAir San Francisco: https://www.purpleair.com/map?&zoom=12&lat=37.7&lng=-122.4
This is a great product, unfortunately it’s quite expensive.
I recall this photo from New York: https://viewing.nyc/nyc-building-exterior-cleaning-before-an...
This is one big advantage the US has over Europe: for the most part, only trucks/buses have diesel engines. Gasoline engines don't produce all the particulate pollution that diesel engines do, and Europe made a big mistake by adopting diesel for passenger cars. As a result, our city air is much cleaner.
> Gasoline engines don't produce all the particulate pollution that diesel engines do
With injection engines this simply isn't true any more.
> made a big mistake by adopting diesel
The small injection turbo diesel engines offered much higher efficiency and thus much lower CO2 emissions (~half) compared to contemporary gasoline engines (they still do). Other parts of the emissions profile (e.g. NOx) have almost exclusively to do with how efficient the engine is run, e.g. gas engines that are close to efficiency to diesel engines will produce similar amounts of NOx.
Broadly speaking, as more aspects of the combustion are externally, forcibly controlled, differences between diesel and gas engines become a lot less.
(The average German car has a 1.6 liter three or four cylinder engine doing something like 4.5l/100km ~ 50 mpg; basically no one is driving big cars with six or eight cylinder engines).
With injection engines this simply isn't true any more.
> made a big mistake by adopting diesel
The small injection turbo diesel engines offered much higher efficiency and thus much lower CO2 emissions (~half) compared to contemporary gasoline engines (they still do). Other parts of the emissions profile (e.g. NOx) have almost exclusively to do with how efficient the engine is run, e.g. gas engines that are close to efficiency to diesel engines will produce similar amounts of NOx.
Broadly speaking, as more aspects of the combustion are externally, forcibly controlled, differences between diesel and gas engines become a lot less.
(The average German car has a 1.6 liter three or four cylinder engine doing something like 4.5l/100km ~ 50 mpg; basically no one is driving big cars with six or eight cylinder engines).
You're correct when you say that the difference isn't in diesel vs gasoline. But for better or for worse, US regulations (read: California Air Resource Board (CARB) regulations, not federal/EPA regulations) are much more stringent in terms of particulates and NOx, while EU laws focus more on CO2 emissions. California is primarily worried about smog in LA, while Europe is generally much more concerned with maintaining the North Atlantic Current.
As you said, the high efficiency gasoline engines generate more NOx and particulates, but these engines cannot pass a CARB smog test. Most cars have separate US vs EU specs, (or simply aren't available in one market) and the EU specs always have better power and gas milage. For instance, the 1.0L engine in my 2014 Ford Fiesta is rated for 123hp, but the same 1.0L engine in the 2014 EU spec Ford Fiesta gets 140. (EPA vs EU gas milage ratings aren't directly comparable) This is a direct result of the fact that the US version runs at a lower temperature, which necessarily results in lower power and efficiency, but also results in less NOx.
Incidentally, this is a large part of why the US response to the VW emissions scandal was so different than the EU response. The affected VW engines broke EU regulations by a little, but broke CARB regulations by a lot. It's like going 70mph in a 55mph zone vs a 35mph zone.
As you said, the high efficiency gasoline engines generate more NOx and particulates, but these engines cannot pass a CARB smog test. Most cars have separate US vs EU specs, (or simply aren't available in one market) and the EU specs always have better power and gas milage. For instance, the 1.0L engine in my 2014 Ford Fiesta is rated for 123hp, but the same 1.0L engine in the 2014 EU spec Ford Fiesta gets 140. (EPA vs EU gas milage ratings aren't directly comparable) This is a direct result of the fact that the US version runs at a lower temperature, which necessarily results in lower power and efficiency, but also results in less NOx.
Incidentally, this is a large part of why the US response to the VW emissions scandal was so different than the EU response. The affected VW engines broke EU regulations by a little, but broke CARB regulations by a lot. It's like going 70mph in a 55mph zone vs a 35mph zone.
>Incidentally, this is a large part of why the US response to the VW emissions scandal was so different than the EU response. The affected VW engines broke EU regulations by a little, but broke CARB regulations by a lot.
We had some Dutch friends visiting when the scandal broke. Their BIG concern was the emissions tax they paid to register the car for the road -- whether they would need to pay back-fees, and an increase in tax for future registration.
We had some Dutch friends visiting when the scandal broke. Their BIG concern was the emissions tax they paid to register the car for the road -- whether they would need to pay back-fees, and an increase in tax for future registration.
The biggest mistake in all of this isn't even diesel vs gasoline, it's that the majority of engine and technology advancements have gone into making cars even more ridiculously powerful and oversize. If a fully loaded van can clear a 10% incline alpine pass with a mere 60 kW engine, there is no justification whatsoever to have any more than half that power in a car driving in the city, or pretty much all over the place.
Gasoline vs diesel feels a bit like fructose syrup vs table sugar, it's pretty clear in both the US and Europe that regulations have not kept up enough of a downward slope on emissions to prevent technological advancement from going into grotesque growths like the SUV instead of cleaning up the exhaust and reducing consumption further.
Gasoline vs diesel feels a bit like fructose syrup vs table sugar, it's pretty clear in both the US and Europe that regulations have not kept up enough of a downward slope on emissions to prevent technological advancement from going into grotesque growths like the SUV instead of cleaning up the exhaust and reducing consumption further.
Actually imho the reason why SUVs became popular is that
a) once a few were on the roads, you couldn't see the traffic ahead, unless you were also in an SUV which then allowed you to see through the front and rear windshield of the SUV ahead, and
b) stupid airbag regulations (you couldn't disable the passenger side airbag) meant that mothers couldn't put an infant in the front seat, because if the airbag went off it could crush the baby. Thus SUVs became more popular for use by mothers with children.
a) once a few were on the roads, you couldn't see the traffic ahead, unless you were also in an SUV which then allowed you to see through the front and rear windshield of the SUV ahead, and
b) stupid airbag regulations (you couldn't disable the passenger side airbag) meant that mothers couldn't put an infant in the front seat, because if the airbag went off it could crush the baby. Thus SUVs became more popular for use by mothers with children.
Parents can put infants in the front seat of an SUV?
In newer cars you can turn off the passenger side airbag. But there were many years when you couldn't. If an airbag deploys and the infant is in a typical rear facing infant car seat, then the child can be crushed by the force of the airbag.
This pattern is perpetuating itself with electric vehicles. Because electric is cheaper we have ended up with behemoths from Tesla and Jaguar, even the Renault/Nissan small car is far from small.
Uh really? No I'd love to replace my gas powered Minivan with a pure electric. There is no alternative other than the Model X.
And when the drunk driver of a 10-seat family van plows into you at high speed, do you want your "compact car" to become a "compacted car" with you inside?
Personally, I don't believe my life is quite worth the money I'd have saved by driving a small sedan instead of the larger vehicle I drive.
(If it were, then I daresay my budget would be severely lopsided. Seriously; what kind of idiot would I have to be to spend more than 70% of my net income to car-related expenses?)
Personally, I don't believe my life is quite worth the money I'd have saved by driving a small sedan instead of the larger vehicle I drive.
(If it were, then I daresay my budget would be severely lopsided. Seriously; what kind of idiot would I have to be to spend more than 70% of my net income to car-related expenses?)
And when the tired driver of a 40-tonner truck careers into your SUV you'll be compacted just as nicely. So where do you draw the line?
The semi-worst-case planning delusion is why we have convoys of 2.5 tonne SUVs doing the school run with two kids each. There doesn't seem to be any way to end the constant vehicle size escalation other than through legislation.
The semi-worst-case planning delusion is why we have convoys of 2.5 tonne SUVs doing the school run with two kids each. There doesn't seem to be any way to end the constant vehicle size escalation other than through legislation.
On the contrary. There are several reasons why vehicle size isn't going any further.
SUVs are at the upper limit of what most people are willing to tolerate in terms of unmaneuverability. Too big a vehicle, and you have trouble passing and weaving through the shitty commute traffic.
And if you try, and the vehicle is too slow for what you're doing, you'll probably crash. So it's a balance between being more survivable and being less likely to crash in the first place.
Also, bigger vehicles tend to be more expensive, non-size-related factors held equal.
SUVs are at the upper limit of what most people are willing to tolerate in terms of unmaneuverability. Too big a vehicle, and you have trouble passing and weaving through the shitty commute traffic.
And if you try, and the vehicle is too slow for what you're doing, you'll probably crash. So it's a balance between being more survivable and being less likely to crash in the first place.
Also, bigger vehicles tend to be more expensive, non-size-related factors held equal.
A pickup or SUV isn’t needed to stay safe - especially not when all other cars are compact.
This reasoning reminds me of the tragedy of the commons.
This reasoning reminds me of the tragedy of the commons.
This is totally tragedy of the commons reasoning. There exist big cars on the road, so I need a bigger one to protect myself against them. I'm half-surprised that no one is selling civilian-use APCs at this point.
Pfft. I couldn't weave, pass and lanechange through the usual shitty traffic if my vehicle was that unmaneuverable.
Isn't the traffic shitty (and dangerous) precisely because of the occasional people "weaving, passing and lanechanging" like crazy?
When I make a right-hand turn onto the far-right lane of a divided highway with four lanes in my direction, and over the next three blocks, three lanes become right-turn-only (gradually narrowing the road down to one lane) but I need to not make any of those right turns?
You bet I need some fancy footwork to avoid being forcibly detoured. And you bet that once I'm in the correct lane, I make a point of emulating the people far in front of me, by almost-tailgating the person directly in front of me.
You bet I need some fancy footwork to avoid being forcibly detoured. And you bet that once I'm in the correct lane, I make a point of emulating the people far in front of me, by almost-tailgating the person directly in front of me.
In such a tragedy, any one person's most logical action is to obtain as much of the price-controlled commodity as possible, before the price returns to normal.
SUVs are top heavy with high rollover rates and generally worse crash test performance then smaller, better engineered vehicles.
We can't stop making cars bigger until everybody drives a Marauder https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDoRmT0iRic
You find a way to make that hunk-o-junk accelerate as fast as my small SUV can accelerate to get a right turn into a gap in traffic ... and I just might believe you.
Regardless of what's technically possible, the fact remains that US standards for particulate emissions and nitrous oxide are quite a bit stricter than European standards. So much so that, as we discovered recently, at least one major European automaker apparently felt the best way to get their diesel cars cleared to sell in the USA was by, in effect, lying.
One of the revelations of the VW scandal is that, when they actually comply with emissions standards, diesel engines are not cost- or efficiency-competitive; one interpretation of the events is the result of a failed overinvestment in a technology that didn't pan out.
https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-looks-to-electric-car...
https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-looks-to-electric-car...
Kind of reminds of how air-breathing nuclear jets have great performance, but possess other drawbacks. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/Aircraft...
> e.g. gas engines that are close to efficiency to diesel engines will produce similar amounts of NOx.
Your core theoretical claims may be true, but this specific example was not the fact revealed by the emissions scandal. VW had to cheat on NOx emissions numbers to get their diesel engines to match gasoline efficiency and performance.
Your core theoretical claims may be true, but this specific example was not the fact revealed by the emissions scandal. VW had to cheat on NOx emissions numbers to get their diesel engines to match gasoline efficiency and performance.
They didn't have to cheat on NOx. They could have installed a selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system with an end-user refillable urea (AdBlue) tank. Just like all heavy diesel vehicles have had for years now. It would have added maybe $100 in cost to each vehicle.
The SCR system is an after-treatment for exhaust gasses and does not significantly affect fuel economy or performance.
The SCR system is an after-treatment for exhaust gasses and does not significantly affect fuel economy or performance.
Using my lungs as the yardstick, diesel exhaust is far far worse than petrol.
[deleted]
Direct injection could be a potential problem for gasoline, but not that much in practice.
As of the Euro 6c emissions rules, gasoline engines are subject to the same particulate count limits as diesel engines. This has resulted in the addition of particulate filters to certain 2018 model petrol vehicles (BMW, VW) in Europe.
This suggests that prior to Euro 6c, some petrol engines were getting away with higher particulate emissions than would have been allowed for diesels.
This suggests that prior to Euro 6c, some petrol engines were getting away with higher particulate emissions than would have been allowed for diesels.
Well, if you look at a modern gasoline engine the exhaust processing is basically the same as for a diesel engine. Particle filter, NOx cat, AGR etc.
In theory.
At least we have stopped burning coal in our major (western) cities. Despite car exhausts, our city air has cleared tremendously in the past 50ish years. I don't expect to see smog clouds settling on London, killing thousands anymore
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London
Diesel cars are the worst polluters, as "Dieselgate" and other scandals have recently shown. They pollute 10x more than buses, and have been enabled by ECUs created by Bosch.
> The actual programmer & designer of the software is the supplier of the engine control units (ECUs), in most cases Bosch. The software that they supply actually already contains these cheating routines. These routines are delivered as a part of the software packages, and can be turned on/off with some flags.
It is up to the auto company how to set these flags.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17286697
> The actual programmer & designer of the software is the supplier of the engine control units (ECUs), in most cases Bosch. The software that they supply actually already contains these cheating routines. These routines are delivered as a part of the software packages, and can be turned on/off with some flags.
It is up to the auto company how to set these flags.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17286697
Pollution is specific as to mode.
Deisel may be 10x worse than petrol for particulates, but not in other emissions modes: CO2, NOx, SOx, CO, partially combusted hydrocarbons, etc.
You've got to specify details if you care to be accurate.
Deisel may be 10x worse than petrol for particulates, but not in other emissions modes: CO2, NOx, SOx, CO, partially combusted hydrocarbons, etc.
You've got to specify details if you care to be accurate.
This is one of the only environmental topics where things are improving. I can clearly recall breathing uneasily in Paris not that long ago. Now when I go back, it's way better. Even the noise is more bearable.
It still sucks, but clearly the car manufacturers and law makers did a decent job. I'm so ready for electric cars taking over the cities though.
It still sucks, but clearly the car manufacturers and law makers did a decent job. I'm so ready for electric cars taking over the cities though.
Cities should be optimised for (clean/electric/cheap) public transport and cars electric or otherwise are a pain in the ass. They're inefficient, space consuming and impossible to manage. We can use all that spare roadspace for proper cycle lanes.
(I'm never going to win)
(I'm never going to win)
I mean, I don't even get why people just idle their cars like that.
I've been told it's to keep the air conditioning on, but I see people idling with their windows rolled down, in the summer and winter alike. I've been told it's to play the radio, but most of the time I can't hear any radio and in any case, come on- you got a phone right?
There's no good reason that applies in most situations and that makes it even harder to understand. Because it means people just ...don't turn their engine off when they're only stopped for a while. Because. I don't know. It costs action points?
I've been told it's to keep the air conditioning on, but I see people idling with their windows rolled down, in the summer and winter alike. I've been told it's to play the radio, but most of the time I can't hear any radio and in any case, come on- you got a phone right?
There's no good reason that applies in most situations and that makes it even harder to understand. Because it means people just ...don't turn their engine off when they're only stopped for a while. Because. I don't know. It costs action points?
> I don't know.
The answer is quite simple: They're bad drivers.
The answer is quite simple: They're bad drivers.
>I've been told it's to play the radio
Is it common for the car to need to be running to listen to the radio?
Is it common for the car to need to be running to listen to the radio?
Not sure if sarcasm, but no.
Laziness and anxiety about starting it again quickly.
>...showing a video he’d taken with his phone of a concrete truck near the corner of William and Fulton Streets.
A truck carrying concrete has to keep the drum rotating to keep the concrete mixed. To do that it has to have its engine running.
A truck carrying concrete has to keep the drum rotating to keep the concrete mixed. To do that it has to have its engine running.
Yes but they shouldn't be doing it near people's houses. Concrete mixers are supposed to go directly to the construction site and deposit their load on time.
This dovetails nicely with a new study from Canada, which found 25% cars produce 90% pollution.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150421105344.h...
"The study made on-the-spot measurements of 100,000 vehicles as they drove past air-sampling probes of the main laboratory on College Street, one of Toronto's many major roadways."
Also interesting was their findings of how pollution from roads permeates the surround areas, and the complex ways pollution from multiple roads produces additive exposure.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150421105344.h...
"The study made on-the-spot measurements of 100,000 vehicles as they drove past air-sampling probes of the main laboratory on College Street, one of Toronto's many major roadways."
Also interesting was their findings of how pollution from roads permeates the surround areas, and the complex ways pollution from multiple roads produces additive exposure.
I suppose he got his wish considering newer cars automatically shut off the engine after idling for a few seconds, and turn it back on when you want to go.
This feature is far from universal at this point. You'll find it on some higher-end cars, but that's about it.
Stop-start cars are amazing when the battery/alternator starts getting a little dicky after a few years. Pull up to the lights, engine shuts down, and doesn't start back up. Genius.
"Pull up to the lights, engine shuts down, and doesn't start back up. Genius."
In every car with stop-start I've ever driven, the stop-start system automatically disables if there is any question about the health of the battery (low state of charge, etc), if the vehicle is stopped on a steep incline, if the air conditioning is on, etc.
Besides, there is also a button to disable stop-start if you really had a problem with it.
In every car with stop-start I've ever driven, the stop-start system automatically disables if there is any question about the health of the battery (low state of charge, etc), if the vehicle is stopped on a steep incline, if the air conditioning is on, etc.
Besides, there is also a button to disable stop-start if you really had a problem with it.
Have you actually experienced this or are you just assuming it might happen in the future?
It's a very reasonable assumption for anyone who's been around cars for more than a decade of their lives. Electrical systems in most consumer-grade vehicles have rarely been able to exhibit the kind of reliability expected of most of the other nontrivial moving parts.
I have experienced this. Many manufacturers work in solutions to prevent the auto-shutoff if the charge isn't within correct margins, but when it doesn't go according to plan it is quite frustrating.
Yeah, if only there were a way to monitor battery voltage, and not engage the start/stop system if the electrical system has issues. That might cut down on the massive amounts of people complaining about the very scenario you mention.
The comment I made below:
> Many manufacturers work in solutions to prevent the auto-shutoff if the charge isn't within correct margins, but when it doesn't go according to plan it is quite frustrating.
I know it's not a massive number, but I have personally replaced about five regulators on cars that have had this exact problem now.
> Many manufacturers work in solutions to prevent the auto-shutoff if the charge isn't within correct margins, but when it doesn't go according to plan it is quite frustrating.
I know it's not a massive number, but I have personally replaced about five regulators on cars that have had this exact problem now.
I had no idea a modestly equipped Fiat Punto was a higher-end car :-)
I really dislike this at stoplights. It would be tolerable if there were a smart traffic grid and the cars could subscribe to get a notice at (45 seconds down to the multiple of shutdown interval duration div 2 and floored to seconds); of course if you did THAT street racing would use it as a starting line signal so it'll never happen.
Alternatively electrics only really turn all the way on when accelerating so something with at least an electric drive system is going to be the medium range solution.
Alternatively electrics only really turn all the way on when accelerating so something with at least an electric drive system is going to be the medium range solution.
Why do you dislike it? The latency introduced by an „unnecessary stop“ is absolutely negligible. A second at most. Most people will regularly take longer to realize the traffic light has turned green.
If you're driving in stop and go traffic in a city in the winter when it's below freezing, especially -20C (-4F).
Plus more than once I've had to watch my rear view mirror for someone about to slide into the back of my car. A second to get out of the way to too long in some situations. Sometimes just being able to quickly move 30cm is enough to prevent major damage and injury.
Plus more than once I've had to watch my rear view mirror for someone about to slide into the back of my car. A second to get out of the way to too long in some situations. Sometimes just being able to quickly move 30cm is enough to prevent major damage and injury.
In such extraordinary situations you can simply switch off the auto-off-on function. But that's a 1% kind of situation.
From my Ford Focus' manual:
Note: The system only operates when the engine is warm and the outside temperature is between 0ºC (32ºF) and 30ºC (86ºF)
Note: The system only operates when the engine is warm and the outside temperature is between 0ºC (32ºF) and 30ºC (86ºF)
That's only a problem for automatic transmission cars.
Most people at the front of the queue of stopped cars, yes.
The person 20 cars behind, who is threatening to waste several more minutes of my time if the two of us don't get through the green light? Unlikely.
The person 20 cars behind, who is threatening to waste several more minutes of my time if the two of us don't get through the green light? Unlikely.
Adding a second per car in line at a light is going to decrease the number of cars that can make it through quite a lot.
There are places with a lot of these cars already.
My car has this automatic shut off. Honestly, the time it takes me to move my foot from brake to gas under normal driving conditions is all it takes to start the engine.
For some reason this starting is WAY faster than the I Italia time the car on start. I’m guessing firmware loading more than engine starting reasons.
For some reason this starting is WAY faster than the I Italia time the car on start. I’m guessing firmware loading more than engine starting reasons.
...and then they unfortunately enable changes to the operation of the vehicle causing them to emit absurd levels of pollutants.
One concern I have is my wife's subaru has an I mode and an S mode. I mode is supposed to be the fuel efficient mode, yet I have never gotten better mileage in I than S. It feels to me this mode must have something to do with smog/emissions rather than fuel economy.
One concern I have is my wife's subaru has an I mode and an S mode. I mode is supposed to be the fuel efficient mode, yet I have never gotten better mileage in I than S. It feels to me this mode must have something to do with smog/emissions rather than fuel economy.
What about refrigerated diesel trucks? When the diesel engine turns off, the cooling turns off. Has this tattletale also considered the horrendous emissions of engines whose catalysts cool down? Idling is sometimes cleaner, sometimes dirtier, this kind of blanket enforcement makes no sense to me.
Where I live in CA, people object to diesel idling more due to noise than anything else.
Where I live in CA, people object to diesel idling more due to noise than anything else.
The refrigerator is usually powered by a separate engine mounted high on the front of the trailer.
It's not a blanket ban; there's an exception if the engine is being used to operate a processing device. A refrigerator probably fits that case.
If anyone wants to learn more about the health effects of diesel exhaust, beyond the oft publicized "lung cancer" risk, this is a very detailed lecture on the topic from a guy at WWU.
https://youtu.be/aXEal4YJsOU
https://youtu.be/aXEal4YJsOU
Sounds like a problem that would easily be resolved by federal regulations that would turn an engine off after three minutes automatically unless some other switch, ideally obscured or hidden behind a ui, is pressed (has to be pressed each time the engine is started). Seems like a simple solution, like lights that turn off with the engine but like that advancement, it'll probably take decades to standardize without proper federal regulation.
Is a bounty for reporting an offense a common thing in the US (or elsewhere)? I've never heard of it.
Engine exhaust is full of carcinogens. Given this, it is entirely fair to fine polluters in proportion to the level of harm they cause. Outsourcing the enforcement to citizens is a bit strange, but it is important work and someone should be paid to enforce the law.
Outsourcing the enforcement to citizens might be the only practical way to do it.
According to the article, in about 18 months, his 25% cut of the fines amounted to roughly $5,000. Assuming you could hire city employees to do it, you'd probably want to cover their salaries with the fines. Let's say city's overhead from prosecuting these cases is 25% (Judges need to get paid, too), so that's $15,000 in 18 months, or $10,000 in 12, if they spend as much time at it as this guy. He's obviously motivated, and keeping an eye out whenever he's on the streets, so let's assume a full timer can only manage about 10x as much vigilant time as him. That's $100,000/yr. Assuming you want to cover both salary and benefits, that might not be enough in NYC.
And, assuming the program were at all successful, then you'd expect revenues from it to drop rapidly as every commercial operator in the city starts warning their employees.
According to the article, in about 18 months, his 25% cut of the fines amounted to roughly $5,000. Assuming you could hire city employees to do it, you'd probably want to cover their salaries with the fines. Let's say city's overhead from prosecuting these cases is 25% (Judges need to get paid, too), so that's $15,000 in 18 months, or $10,000 in 12, if they spend as much time at it as this guy. He's obviously motivated, and keeping an eye out whenever he's on the streets, so let's assume a full timer can only manage about 10x as much vigilant time as him. That's $100,000/yr. Assuming you want to cover both salary and benefits, that might not be enough in NYC.
And, assuming the program were at all successful, then you'd expect revenues from it to drop rapidly as every commercial operator in the city starts warning their employees.
>Outsourcing the enforcement to citizens might be the only practical way to do it.
Outsourcing law enforcement has its own negative externalities. Do you want to live in a society where you have to worry that any minor violation of law will be reported by whoever sees it? Sounds a lot like 1984 to me.
Outsourcing law enforcement has its own negative externalities. Do you want to live in a society where you have to worry that any minor violation of law will be reported by whoever sees it? Sounds a lot like 1984 to me.
100k/year is definitely well above (~2x) the median salary for someone in public service in a job like this in NYC. Police officers in the NYPD start around 42k/year.
Salary is just one of the costs. There's pensions, equipment, training, etc.
Are fines typically calculated to cover the cost of their enforcement? That smells weird to me.
Another thought: Citizen bounties like this might also be less likely to engender corruption.
The polluters would be the owners of the cars. So that idea will go nowhere.
Gitem tiger!
I wish we could go past idling and start mandating some serious emissions controls, especially on diesel truck and heavy equipment engines in urban areas, but also on all the rest of the emitters.
I wish we could go past idling and start mandating some serious emissions controls, especially on diesel truck and heavy equipment engines in urban areas, but also on all the rest of the emitters.
This man is my hero. I've knocked on dozens of car windows at Costco over the last several years, and now I realize I can get paid.
Thanks, George. Now please get noise violations on the NYC cars that pollute our air with pealing horns. Cab drivers especially seem to spend their entire shift impotently honking.
When I was in Shanghai most recently, I found out that they had solved the issue of honking (which used to be even worse than anything we have in the US) by having these microphones at intersections triangulate honking, capture a photo, and mail the driver a ticket and link to the video. It's definitely on the scale of big brother, but it also works.
I bet a detailed post about how that system works would do well on HN...
We need a system like this to deal with excessive/extreme motorbike noise. Modified "loud pipe" exhausts are illegal where I live, but it seems like the cops are unable (or unwilling) to take enforcement action.
Damn, that's amazing. I would imagine that the city could be convinced by forecasting the money they would bring in on fines.
How does that system work for honking between intersections?
How does that system work for honking between intersections?
Good question, I wasn't able to find details, just some basics:
https://radiichina.com/beijing-installs-car-horn-detectors-t...
https://www.shine.cn/archive/district/jing-an/Crackdown-on-h...
https://radiichina.com/beijing-installs-car-horn-detectors-t...
https://www.shine.cn/archive/district/jing-an/Crackdown-on-h...
I'm certain I have friends in neighboring NYC buildings would be willing to cooperate on such a project.
I haven't been to NYC in over a decade, but I was amazed when I was there. In most normal cities, when the light is green and the sign says don't walk, people don't walk. In NYC, people walk constantly, and when a car (or I should say, a cab, as it always is) approaches the intersection they just maintain their speed and lay on the horn. People get out of the way enough for the car to pass, then resume crossing. So there's honking (and near misses) constantly.
> In most normal cities,
In most _US_ cities, perhaps?
In most _US_ cities, perhaps?
Right, most normal cities. ;)
(I actually have more experience with Canada, but point taken.)
(I actually have more experience with Canada, but point taken.)
If you want some related reading, check this out: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/brooklyn_4.pdf
A whole pilot program about pedestrian safety improvements in Downtown Brooklyn, including lots of comments about accommodation for some of the unusual habits pedestrians in the city tend to have.
A whole pilot program about pedestrian safety improvements in Downtown Brooklyn, including lots of comments about accommodation for some of the unusual habits pedestrians in the city tend to have.
I can't read the article (I really should subscribe) but I think people seriously underestimate the positive effects moving to electric cars will have on city livability and city property values. Because we're all born into a world where engine particulates are ubiquitous, I think we're missing how much of an improvement clean air would be.
Black carbon from diesel, train, and ship exhaust is incredibly toxic. I think it's going to be the equivalent of lead, in the future.
Not even close.
Lead does irreversible brain and organ damage to developing children. Carbon, at worst, may increase your chances for respiratory disease or lung cancer.
Lead does irreversible brain and organ damage to developing children. Carbon, at worst, may increase your chances for respiratory disease or lung cancer.
Nanoscale carbon, as present in exhaust, can migrate far beyond the pulmonary system into the heart, liver, brain, and even into developing fetuses and the placenta. There's significant evidence that it causes beta-amyloid accumulation in the brain, as well as macrophage migration and astrocyte inflammation.
There's a lot of evidence that it's not just the current generation, it's the future generations after the soot exposure ends that are harmed if there is in-utero exposure.
There's a lot of evidence that it's not just the current generation, it's the future generations after the soot exposure ends that are harmed if there is in-utero exposure.
No at worst it increases whole-body inflammation.
This lecture is quite a good one for the health effects of diesel nanoparticles https://youtu.be/aXEal4YJsOU
We don't have that law in Hawaii, unfortunately. I used to love to eat at a local Quiznos which had outdoor seating, but was located next to a supermarket. People would park there cars five feet from where I was eating and let them idle for 20-30 minutes while they sort out their grocery list, or while one person runs inside to shop and the other waits. Made me crazy--the noise, the stink. I stopped eating their, and apparently everyone else did too, as they went out of business.
Quiznos have been going out of business everywhere for several years. I think this dead rat commercial was the beginning of the end: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZrks-BPeLQ (I'm sure the exhaust didn't help though!)
This absolutely pisses me off too, especially when it's right outside my home because it's also noise pollution. I don't understand these people... do they go home and just leave taps running while fiddling with their phones? there is no good reason to do this unless you are in an extremely cold environment.
Even in a cold environment it doesn't make sense to idle your car to warm it up.
Ever lived in a cold environment? You idle to let your heating system get up to temp. I grew up in a cold area and no way was I going to jump in my car right away in -20 degree temps.
Yes. Almost the entirety of engine wear occurs when the oil temp is too cold. By turning on the vehicle and immediately driving (conservatively below 2k rpms) you greatly reduce the amount of time it takes to warm up your engine oil versus when left idling at 500rpms. I learned this from reading the manual to my BMW and Subaru.
In -20 degree weather you won't accomplish much idling and should purchase an engine block heater if concerned.
Interesting article confirming what I am saying:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/12/29/the-b...
In -20 degree weather you won't accomplish much idling and should purchase an engine block heater if concerned.
Interesting article confirming what I am saying:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/12/29/the-b...
I don't doubt you, but I know for a fact that by turning on my car and waiting inside I could get in and the car was warm. No waiting. Did this for twenty years.
You two are talking about different things. Frye is talking about warming the engine compartment; Epic is talking about warming the passenger space. You can warm the engine compartment more efficiently without idling by driving at low RPMs for the first few minutes; however, idling is as (or almost as) effective as low-speeding driving at warming the passenger area.
>however, idling is as (or almost as) effective as low-speeding driving at warming the passenger area.
Again, twenty years of turning the car on, going inside for 15 mins, and coming out and sliding into a warm car.
I'm not anywhere near knowledgeable enough to explain the details. I am fairly certain however that I was not hallucinating this throughout my entire childhood and young adult years.
Again, twenty years of turning the car on, going inside for 15 mins, and coming out and sliding into a warm car.
I'm not anywhere near knowledgeable enough to explain the details. I am fairly certain however that I was not hallucinating this throughout my entire childhood and young adult years.
The other advantage of idling is that when the windscreen is misted up, it doesn't matter that you can't see through it!
You can wipe condensation off, but I've always found it has a tendency to reappear quickly. Perhaps I'm wiping wrongly, but the only solution I ever found to work reliably is to leave the aircon and windscreen heater running until the inside of the windscreen has warmed enough to prevent immediate reoccurrence.
That's meant idling the engine in every car I've owned. Cabin heating never seems to run at full blast unless the engine is powering it...
You can wipe condensation off, but I've always found it has a tendency to reappear quickly. Perhaps I'm wiping wrongly, but the only solution I ever found to work reliably is to leave the aircon and windscreen heater running until the inside of the windscreen has warmed enough to prevent immediate reoccurrence.
That's meant idling the engine in every car I've owned. Cabin heating never seems to run at full blast unless the engine is powering it...
> however, idling is as (or almost as) effective as low-speeding driving at warming the passenger area
No. The engine, and thus the water, will heat faster under a driving load.
No. The engine, and thus the water, will heat faster under a driving load.
Terrible pro tip: get in the car, start it, immediately start driving, but floor the accelerator and use the brake to travel at the speed you want. You'll have a warm passenger compartment in 1-2 minutes.
It's absolute hell on the engine though. Don't do this with vehicles that you are responsible for. This is mostly only applicable for leased vehicles.
It's absolute hell on the engine though. Don't do this with vehicles that you are responsible for. This is mostly only applicable for leased vehicles.
[deleted]
I have. Driving the car causes so much more heat production by the engine than idling that it barely makes a difference.
The difference is that the heat is going the moment I get in my car. Not as efficient (and, to be fair, my experience is a bit dated here [~15 years]), but I don't have to freeze my butt off for 10 mins waiting.
This is ridiculous, I have never had a car need ten minutes of driving to make heat, even in a Pittsburgh winter. I have had a driving license for 36 years.
I drove a Renault Zoe around Stockholm in the middle of winter. Great car, except for the heating... takes a long time for it's little heat pump to warm up.
Is that an all electric car? Petrol combustion gives off a lot of heat, but if the thermostat is stuck open this works against the goal - modern vehicles will set a fault in this case because slow warm up causes more fuel to be burned and emissions to be expelled.
Yes the Zoe is all electric.
The difference is that your pistons, rings, bearings, etc have not come up to operating temperature and have not expanded due to heat. It's not going to explode immediately but you are reducing the overall lifespan of the moving parts if you drive on a cold engine.
Most modern cars are a lot more tolerant thanks to advancements in oil technology. But it is to a greater or lesser extent better to warm your car up, even if it's not immediately / apparently necessary to you.
Most modern cars are a lot more tolerant thanks to advancements in oil technology. But it is to a greater or lesser extent better to warm your car up, even if it's not immediately / apparently necessary to you.
You're not supposed to floor it and giver 6.5 when she's cold. Driving with low loads and low RPMs will bring it quickly up to temperature and produce minimal wear; I've been told it actually produces less wear as the engine runs less time/revs cold.
It's a different story if you're pulling a heavy load and can't do anything about it. Then letting her warm up makes some sense. Most people don't do that.
It's a different story if you're pulling a heavy load and can't do anything about it. Then letting her warm up makes some sense. Most people don't do that.
Yeah thats right. I build race engines as a hobby (currently have a cp-carrillo mazda BP in the works) and (I like to think) I have an understanding of mechanical sympathy. Obviously performance engines have different tolerances to mass-produced consumer items, but I like to treat them the same.
The benefits to slow driving is that it also brings the drivetrain up to operating temps as well - it's no good if the engine's at a good oil temperature but the differential and gearbox is still icy. But even letting the car idle for 10-20 seconds so it can push oil around the block, fill the galleries and start filling the lifters/head will help extend the lifespan of an engine, and then combined with a slow initial drive to allow everything to come up to temperature you should be able to give the car a bit more life.
The benefits to slow driving is that it also brings the drivetrain up to operating temps as well - it's no good if the engine's at a good oil temperature but the differential and gearbox is still icy. But even letting the car idle for 10-20 seconds so it can push oil around the block, fill the galleries and start filling the lifters/head will help extend the lifespan of an engine, and then combined with a slow initial drive to allow everything to come up to temperature you should be able to give the car a bit more life.
It's actually illegal in Germany to do this. And yeah they sometimes get extremely low temperatures. In modern cars you are supposed to drive immediately which will warm things up more quickly.
And most of the rest of Europe too, certainly in Norway. And anyway modern engines reach operating temperature so quickly that most people have abandoned the use of engine heaters that used to be popular here 30 years ago (a 230 V electric heater in the engine block).
I only know about Germany because it's stated in the manual of my '05 Civic so I guess other countries have adopted it since.
Ok please.
Modern cars, to a greater or lesser extent, aren't too bad with running on fresh startup due to modern oil technologies.
BUT. This is not a universal case. Large diesels like to idle up before operating. Performance cars (especially turbocharged cars) will live longer if you allow the fluids to warm up correctly. My race car will absolutely shit the bed if you don't warm it up before operating.
And to be fair, as far as mechanical sympathy goes, it always pays to warm up your car. It'll be the difference between the car going 100,000miles or 150,000 miles in a lot of cases.
Modern cars, to a greater or lesser extent, aren't too bad with running on fresh startup due to modern oil technologies.
BUT. This is not a universal case. Large diesels like to idle up before operating. Performance cars (especially turbocharged cars) will live longer if you allow the fluids to warm up correctly. My race car will absolutely shit the bed if you don't warm it up before operating.
And to be fair, as far as mechanical sympathy goes, it always pays to warm up your car. It'll be the difference between the car going 100,000miles or 150,000 miles in a lot of cases.
I disagree. The problem isn't so much that the cab isn't warm as it is that if the engine is way below the steady state running temperature (and thus the oil isn't yet lubricating real well), you're far more like to get boundary lubrication (among other wear and bad things) in the powertrain, especially if you load the engine up at all. It's worth it when it's cold out to let the engine idle for a couple of minutes just to save on wear.
Charging a phone, air conditioning (especially if a dog or kids are in the car), letting people in the car listen to the radio without draining the battery, just wanting to sit in there, lots of good reasons.
letting people in the car listen to the radio without draining the battery
Unless you've got a booming system with several large subwoofers, you aren't going to excessively drain your battery by listening to the radio with the ignition in the accessory position.
For A/C, take the kids inside. For dogs, park in shade and get an accessory window fan. On all but the hottest days (L.A., Phoenix, and similar places excepted) they'll be quite comfortable.
Unless you've got a booming system with several large subwoofers, you aren't going to excessively drain your battery by listening to the radio with the ignition in the accessory position.
For A/C, take the kids inside. For dogs, park in shade and get an accessory window fan. On all but the hottest days (L.A., Phoenix, and similar places excepted) they'll be quite comfortable.
Hmm, that's just not true at all. Don't leave your pups in the car. They won't be comfortable, they'll be dead.
If the windows are open then there's no greenhouse effect going on, so it wouldn't be any worse than if you were walking them. Air conditioning is still a lot better.
Most cars don’t have windshields and rear windows that open.
Why am I getting downvoted for this? The windshield and rear window will continue contributing to the greenhouse effect. If there isn't enough of a breeze, this will be an issue. In still air, parked cars heat up even with the windows all the way down.
In true software engineer fashion, you have assumed that your opponent is a moron.
I leave my dogs in the car all the time. They're in the shade with great ventilation. They're unstressed and content in a space they consider home.
People freak out when a dog is contentedly sitting in a car on a 60F day. Don't be one of those people.
I leave my dogs in the car all the time. They're in the shade with great ventilation. They're unstressed and content in a space they consider home.
People freak out when a dog is contentedly sitting in a car on a 60F day. Don't be one of those people.
I get that, and I'd leave my pups in the car in that situation too. I didn't mean to speak in absolutes. But shade moves during the day, and people underestimate how quickly cars heat up. High temps are not just a problem in LA/Phoenix. Most of the US can reach 80-90+ during the summer, and a lot of places aren't safe enough to leave the windows more than cracked.
Please don't leave animals in cars!
Please don't be alarmist. I leave my dogs in my car regularly. They are happy and not stressed. I love my dogs far more than you ever will.
Of those listed, only the air-conditioner is a significant battery drain.
However, many vehicles are such configured that in order to have any amount of power available, you need to also power up the daylight running lights, fuel pump, internal computer and other consumers that quickly add up and can indeed drain a battery in a few hours. There needs to be more awareness from the car builders about the need for an eco, long lasting ignition option that you can safely use without risking battery discharge.
However, many vehicles are such configured that in order to have any amount of power available, you need to also power up the daylight running lights, fuel pump, internal computer and other consumers that quickly add up and can indeed drain a battery in a few hours. There needs to be more awareness from the car builders about the need for an eco, long lasting ignition option that you can safely use without risking battery discharge.
> Of those listed, only the air-conditioner is a significant battery drain.
On almost all cars the aircon compressor is driven by the engine, not an electric motor, so the motor needs to be running to cool the air.
The fan that blows the air through the vents is electric, but the air coming out will only be ambient temperature if the motor isn't running.
On almost all cars the aircon compressor is driven by the engine, not an electric motor, so the motor needs to be running to cool the air.
The fan that blows the air through the vents is electric, but the air coming out will only be ambient temperature if the motor isn't running.
[deleted]
Which vehicles are those? Every car I've ever driven has had an intermediate ignition system setting which would power up the infotainment system and 12V / USB outlets but not other accessories.
If only they could enforce against those ridiculous smoke-stacks people install on their trucks. Here in Texas - even in Austin - I probably see one or two a week: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201...
Every time I see one, I just want to drop a softball-sized lump of silly-putty down there.
Every time I see one, I just want to drop a softball-sized lump of silly-putty down there.
Are you complaining about the chrome exhaust stacks, or about modifying the engine to purposefully produce lots of black smoke? At least in Denver, you can report the black smoke: https://denver.cbslocal.com/2017/10/18/sheriffs-office-asks-...
Generally I assumed they went hand-in-hand, but maybe that's not always the case.
Update: apparently it is more-or-less illegal. Guess I'll start reporting it when I see it.
What if more laws had monetarily incentivized vigilanteism?
Then more people would correctly point out the parallels with a variety of dystopias, including nonfictional examples.
This is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. 3 minutes? A $350 fine? Are you kidding me? I spend longer than that idling in a fast food parking lot eating my food. How do any judges sleep at night enforcing this? I'm not going to sit in a hot/freezing car in traffic if I can help it by running the climate control inside for a while first (definitely takes more than 3 minutes, or especially that particularly ridiculous 1 minute in school zones). I guess these people would prefer my dog suffer in the heat instead of sitting in air conditioning for 5 minutes while I get something out of a gas station. More and more reason I never want anything to do with NYC.
The goal of protecting the environment is so that it can better serve us in the future. The environment is not an end in itself. Idling regulations are far too great of an inconvenience compared to the tiny benefit. I hope this war on cars is just a fad.
The goal of protecting the environment is so that it can better serve us in the future. The environment is not an end in itself. Idling regulations are far too great of an inconvenience compared to the tiny benefit. I hope this war on cars is just a fad.
I spend longer than that idling in a fast food parking lot eating my food.
That's weird. Why not just go inside to eat?
As for the dogs, I'm sure the judges are happy to make exceptions for exceptional circumstances. It sounds like the law is targeted at the largest groups of offenders: commercial vehicles idling unnecessarily, and parents who (bizarrely, IMO) insist on waiting in a long line of cars to pick up their kid after school.
That's weird. Why not just go inside to eat?
As for the dogs, I'm sure the judges are happy to make exceptions for exceptional circumstances. It sounds like the law is targeted at the largest groups of offenders: commercial vehicles idling unnecessarily, and parents who (bizarrely, IMO) insist on waiting in a long line of cars to pick up their kid after school.
> ... parents who (bizarrely, IMO) insist on waiting in a long line of cars to pick up their kid after school
The alternative is to constantly drive around, which is worse in terns of road safety and emissions.
The alternative is to constantly drive around, which is worse in terns of road safety and emissions.
The alternative is to let the kids ride a bus or walk. Or park and get out instead of sitting in your car idling.
Because it's easier to just eat in a parking space after the drive thru than to take the food inside. Lots of people do it. McDonalds even has designated spots for this. I also just find it a lot nicer than going inside - I'm in my own space, radio's there, climate control is how I like it, dog's with me in the passenger seat, and when I'm done I can just immediately go.
You know the radio will work with the engine off, right? And the fan too! If the car is already warm/cold, the fan will move enough air to keep the car comfortable on all the but hottest/coldest days.
> all the but hottest/coldest days
Have you ever driven in Georgia during, well, basically this exact time of year?
Have you ever driven in Georgia during, well, basically this exact time of year?
Yes, Atlanta. Only slightly (2* or so) warmer, on average, than DC. And, this time of year would typically have the hottest days. So, I'll stand by my point. If you're idling your car for 20 minutes while eating a Big Mac in April, you're needlessly polluting. Hot days in July and August - I get it, but would prefer you just went inside.
>The goal of protecting the environment is so that it can better serve us in the future. The environment is not an end in itself.
Maybe to you. Most Americans disagree: http://www.michaelpnelson.com/Publications_files/Bruskotter%...
81% believe nature has intrinsic value.
Maybe to you. Most Americans disagree: http://www.michaelpnelson.com/Publications_files/Bruskotter%...
81% believe nature has intrinsic value.
I love national parks and the outdoors and all that but from what I recall, car idling is merely 2% of all NYC CO2 emissions
But they're an unnecessary 2%.
The laws are for immediate air quality, not for larger scale environmental pollution. I'm going to guess you aren't idling in your car in central manhattan, probably somewhere out in the suburbs where there aren't many people around.
This is simply antisocial behavior for the sake of being antisocial.
This sounds a bit stupid, drivers will wander instead that creates more emissions than idling.
Well I certainly misread that title. I literally thought someone had weaponised (or whatever Batman like thing) exhaust.
+1 for this guy. as an engine mechanic my third most common question is "can you get my car to pass a smog check??"
And the answer is usually, "maybe." So many cars are just behind on the maintenance that one expensive checkup is all it takes before they pass and become slightly less noxious on the road.
The biggest, most infuriating thing for me however is professional drivers / truckers that insist upon idling because "WELL the sticker says its CALIFORNIA clean idle certified!" That doesnt mean people wont hate you for filling the streets with diesel fumes while you finish your lunch.
And the answer is usually, "maybe." So many cars are just behind on the maintenance that one expensive checkup is all it takes before they pass and become slightly less noxious on the road.
The biggest, most infuriating thing for me however is professional drivers / truckers that insist upon idling because "WELL the sticker says its CALIFORNIA clean idle certified!" That doesnt mean people wont hate you for filling the streets with diesel fumes while you finish your lunch.
Even new cars can be polluting more than expected. All those VWs out there that don't have their computers corrected from the cheating scandal. And I see a fair amount of 1/2 ton pickup trucks with 4 inch exhaust pipes that pump out clouds of black exhaust.
>The biggest, most infuriating thing for me however is professional drivers / truckers that insist upon idling
Why would they do that? Isn't that just a waste of fuel? I know some people do that in extremely cold climates because they won't get the engine to start again otherwise, but I would guess unless you're in Alaska that shouldn't be an issue.
Why would they do that? Isn't that just a waste of fuel? I know some people do that in extremely cold climates because they won't get the engine to start again otherwise, but I would guess unless you're in Alaska that shouldn't be an issue.
Idling for more than sixty seconds is illegal here in Norway. Of course not many people are prosecuted for it. And as for not getting the engine started again, well that might have been a problem fifty years ago but in all my more than three decades in Norway I have not had any trouble starting a car in the cold except when I have left the car unused for weeks so that the battery is low.
Perhaps you are right about Alaska though, much colder there.
Perhaps you are right about Alaska though, much colder there.
In extremely cold climates (Alaska, Alberta, etc) people usually have engine block heaters if they're parking outdoors in the winter.
Cost of fuel needs to go up considerably to make an impact for some people.
What is #1 and #2?
For a programmer, the answer should be "always", because smog check in the US is just self reported car diagnostics.
The other responses to this post may be thinking of CA vehicles year 1999 and older which require tailpipe measurements and dyno loading.
Newer vehicles usually only require the OBDII review and they will double check codes haven't been cleared recently and all sensors are in spec. No dyno or tailpipe measurements are required in CA on year 2000 and newer.
This is why smog shops offer $20-$40 for year 2000 and newer and $70+ for 1999 and older. It's more human time intensive to test year 1999 and older.
Newer vehicles usually only require the OBDII review and they will double check codes haven't been cleared recently and all sensors are in spec. No dyno or tailpipe measurements are required in CA on year 2000 and newer.
This is why smog shops offer $20-$40 for year 2000 and newer and $70+ for 1999 and older. It's more human time intensive to test year 1999 and older.
Pre OBDII now qualifies as antiques, which I think are emission exempt in most states.
Post OBDII, codes not recently cleared is also reported by OBDII. It is just software, and the software can pretend what the programmer wants.
So I maintain my answer: always
Post OBDII, codes not recently cleared is also reported by OBDII. It is just software, and the software can pretend what the programmer wants.
So I maintain my answer: always
...except in California, to which the parent comment is clearly referring; there, emissions testing equipment is attached to your vehicle and particulate output measured.
Varies by state. In California, we put the car up on a dynonometer and run it through various speeds and engine RPMs, while measuring the tailpipe emissions. Gas cap is checked to ensure good seal, and the MIL (Check Engine light) is tested to make sure it both works, and is off.
While I agree with the objective - that cars/trucks should shutdown instead of idling, I have to wonder, do we really want to a society where people are paid to report their neighbors? Sure it seems like this guy is doing everything properly (documenting real cases of random idling), but what happens when people start using things like this for harassment/revenge, fabricating idling cases (similar to the Uber vomit cleanup scam), and generally making a living off getting people fined.
Compare this to a trained law enforcement officer who doesn't personally make money on every fine who will take the whole situation into account, rather than just trying to make a buck.
This make work out fine at this small scale, but we should be cautious when it comes to creating untrained citizen bounty hunters.
Compare this to a trained law enforcement officer who doesn't personally make money on every fine who will take the whole situation into account, rather than just trying to make a buck.
This make work out fine at this small scale, but we should be cautious when it comes to creating untrained citizen bounty hunters.
"I have to wonder, do we really want to a society where people are paid to report their neighbors?"
It's sad, but I think we need do need this. Too many people are uncaring and ignorant, and will behave badly if they don't think there are consequences. We shouldn't just turn a blind eye to anti-social behavior.
It's sad, but I think we need do need this. Too many people are uncaring and ignorant, and will behave badly if they don't think there are consequences. We shouldn't just turn a blind eye to anti-social behavior.
I'd call reporting idling the anti-social behavior. Snitching on someone breaking an unjust law to save a meaningless amount of emissions.
Unjust??
Yes, it's unjust to not allow people to idle their cars. It's a minuscule portion of total emissions that's not worth the tradeoff of convenience.
I'm ambivalent at sharing in the proceeds, but there absolutely needs to be a legal way to report law-breakers in the city, especially in situations where public health could be an issue.
I agree with having a way to report people, but not with giving the reporter a share of the fine.
Then I thought about how much of that junk is making its way into my lungs.
The city of Paris has only recently started to take any action on it. One was to ban trucks of a certain age. But now everyone is requesting waivers because they can't meet deliveries in the city.