NYC allows citizens to report idling vehicles in exchange for a cut of the fines(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
NYC allows citizens to report idling vehicles in exchange for a cut of the fines
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/19/nyregion/clean-air-idle-car.html
525 comments
This is a really good point. You always need to look at incentives. It's OK for both society and politicians to benefit, but you should always dig a little deeper.
Someone else in this thread pointed out "the city does not make getting the payout easy and it requires many hours of follow up to maybe get paid." So now we should be at least a bit cynical, and start asking questions about why it's so difficult to get paid. Maybe legitimate reasons like verification that they aren't just making it up I guess? If a fine is issued though then can't we simply assume the person reporting was being honest? Who benefits from a difficult collection process?
A difficult payout process disincentivizes reporting, but only after you discover the hassle of it. So this could be a quick cash grab w/ dismal long term benefits once the word spreads. They should definitely fix that (assuming they want to).
Someone else in this thread pointed out "the city does not make getting the payout easy and it requires many hours of follow up to maybe get paid." So now we should be at least a bit cynical, and start asking questions about why it's so difficult to get paid. Maybe legitimate reasons like verification that they aren't just making it up I guess? If a fine is issued though then can't we simply assume the person reporting was being honest? Who benefits from a difficult collection process?
A difficult payout process disincentivizes reporting, but only after you discover the hassle of it. So this could be a quick cash grab w/ dismal long term benefits once the word spreads. They should definitely fix that (assuming they want to).
Also Department of Environmental Protection issuing fines to house owners, sometimes big ones, because a random person dumped furniture in front of the house. Meanwhile, you have mounds of garbage at intersections for days, and debris that's permanent around government and NYCHA buildings.
NYC's arbitrary enforcement schemes should make even the most ardent statist cringe.
NYC's arbitrary enforcement schemes should make even the most ardent statist cringe.
I’ve had that happen before, while on vacation someone dumped rolls of carpet on my driveway and I got fined for not removing it, plus had to pay to have someone remove it because the sanitation department wouldn’t take it.
The police said it’s usually a two-for. The people get paid to dispose of bulk items that the sanitation department won’t accept then they dump it in someone’s driveway and pocket the cash. Then they come back a few days later to see if it’s still there, if it is then they know the house is unoccupied and they’ll come gut it for copper. Luckily I came home before anything else happened.
The police said it’s usually a two-for. The people get paid to dispose of bulk items that the sanitation department won’t accept then they dump it in someone’s driveway and pocket the cash. Then they come back a few days later to see if it’s still there, if it is then they know the house is unoccupied and they’ll come gut it for copper. Luckily I came home before anything else happened.
Here's another. There used to be people who'd cut slices into sidewalks using a hand held circular saw, and then reporting it to the city as a trip hazard, and then offering to fix it and get it resolved with the city. Being a house owner is a punishment in NYC.
NYC wouldn't be my first choice of a place to live. This sounds stressful.
It's also just an incredibly filthy place to live.
The streets all smell like piss and walking at night means seeing tons of rats.
The subways are absolutely disgusting and there's always a car that reeks of shit (you can tell because that car will have far fewer people than the surrounding cars).
I don't know if New Yorkers have never visited any other cities, or if they're just so blind from all the NYC-exceptionalism (Ayy if you can make it in New York, you can make it anywhere!!!) but that city is disgusting.
The streets all smell like piss and walking at night means seeing tons of rats.
The subways are absolutely disgusting and there's always a car that reeks of shit (you can tell because that car will have far fewer people than the surrounding cars).
I don't know if New Yorkers have never visited any other cities, or if they're just so blind from all the NYC-exceptionalism (Ayy if you can make it in New York, you can make it anywhere!!!) but that city is disgusting.
Yes it’s definitely less than ideal that New York was built without alleys or some other means to store large amounts of household trash besides the sidewalk, but I disagree (at least with the severity) with the rest of this comment.
A subway car that’s vacated due to smells, while it happens, is extremely rare, and the average station is just as clean as any I saw in Rome or Paris. There are definitely exceptions to that, and the worst case is worse than what you’d see in the rest of the developed world, but it’s still an exceptional experience to see something or smell something terrible in the subway system.
A subway car that’s vacated due to smells, while it happens, is extremely rare, and the average station is just as clean as any I saw in Rome or Paris. There are definitely exceptions to that, and the worst case is worse than what you’d see in the rest of the developed world, but it’s still an exceptional experience to see something or smell something terrible in the subway system.
Yea, GP seems like it really bothers them (which is okay, we all value different things) but I love living in NYC.
I’m always going to new events, parks, restaurants, museums. Transportation’s extensive, cheap, and quick for the most part. There are rivers, beaches, woods, bays. Biking is becoming a real joy with all the new bike infrastructure. Love the new outdoor dining scene, the people, incredible amounts of architecture styles.
And besides, we upgraded from piss smell, to weed smell! Much better.
I have experienced pretty much everything in GP’s post (although the way they go on you’d think it’s a near constant which I don’t think is true even in the rougher neighborhoods like Brownsville that I’ve lived in) at some point or another… they’re just not the parts of NYC that I focus on I guess.
I’m always going to new events, parks, restaurants, museums. Transportation’s extensive, cheap, and quick for the most part. There are rivers, beaches, woods, bays. Biking is becoming a real joy with all the new bike infrastructure. Love the new outdoor dining scene, the people, incredible amounts of architecture styles.
And besides, we upgraded from piss smell, to weed smell! Much better.
I have experienced pretty much everything in GP’s post (although the way they go on you’d think it’s a near constant which I don’t think is true even in the rougher neighborhoods like Brownsville that I’ve lived in) at some point or another… they’re just not the parts of NYC that I focus on I guess.
I can't help but think of the phrase "Stockholm Syndrome"... I'm sure it's a fine city aside from all the excrement, waste and rot! ;)
Except, like I said… I just don’t really notice those things that much, and if your description is so tainted by that stuff that you remember that instead of walks in the parks; nights of omikasa sushi; basketball, football, and baseball games; evenings out with friends; Persian, Thai, Chinese, Italian, Georgian restaurants; world class museum after world class museum; days on the beach; parades that go on for hours with incredible costumes and floats; Broadway plays; movies in the parks and squares; concerts; and the wonderful varied architecture… then yea, you provably should live somewhere you enjoy more!
That’s what I think about when I’m in NYC, and sure I see the piles of trash… I just don’t really care. It’s a necessary part of having a gigantic megalopolis. Are there downsides? Certainly. Calling it Stockholm Syndrome when I and many others in my situation have both lived elsewhere and could leave tomorrow? That just seems like a laughable failure to see things through a different view point than you have.
It’s fine not to like a place, it’s the whole “I don’t like it so you must be deluded by ‘if you can make it here, you can make it anywhere’ and have Stockholm Syndrome” part that seems a bit like a mindset that’s not great at accepting other view points or ideas.
That’s what I think about when I’m in NYC, and sure I see the piles of trash… I just don’t really care. It’s a necessary part of having a gigantic megalopolis. Are there downsides? Certainly. Calling it Stockholm Syndrome when I and many others in my situation have both lived elsewhere and could leave tomorrow? That just seems like a laughable failure to see things through a different view point than you have.
It’s fine not to like a place, it’s the whole “I don’t like it so you must be deluded by ‘if you can make it here, you can make it anywhere’ and have Stockholm Syndrome” part that seems a bit like a mindset that’s not great at accepting other view points or ideas.
>That’s what I think about when I’m in NYC, and sure I see the piles of trash… I just don’t really care. It’s a necessary part of having a gigantic megalopolis.
there are many other giant megalopolises in the world that somehow manage not to have giant piles of trash everywhere. london and tokyo for example. demand better from your government.
there are many other giant megalopolises in the world that somehow manage not to have giant piles of trash everywhere. london and tokyo for example. demand better from your government.
"That’s what I think about when I’m in NYC, and sure I see the piles of trash… I just don’t really care. It’s a necessary part of having a gigantic megalopolis."
this is fine.
this is fine.
Yea, it is. We walk by it and move on with our lives and then it gets picked up by decently paid garbage men. The buildings are 30, 40, 50 stories tall… do you think trash disposal is magic?
You should watch this scene from "My Dinner with Andre":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWZk24MA7TE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWZk24MA7TE
Sorry man, the subway is much much worse than the Paris metro. Can't speak for Rome but it's definitely worse than the metro in terms of cleanliness, not even close. Plus the MTA is pretty terrible service wise compared to the metro as well.
I live in NYC, I’ve lived in a bunch of cities globally and I’d say you’re exaggerating to the extreme here.
“The streets all smell like piss” genuinely sounds like a take from someone that visited midtown while on a three day conference and then left. There are some disgusting streets, no doubt. There’s too much trash on the street on trash days. On rare occasions a subway car has homeless people in it and it smells. None of this is great by any means. But the idea that all New Yorkers are walking around smelling piss 24/7 and saying “huh, guess it must be like this everywhere” doesn’t pass any kind of sanity test.
Reminds me of the Principal Skinner meme: “am I wrong? No, it is the eight million inhabitants of NYC who are all wrong”
“The streets all smell like piss” genuinely sounds like a take from someone that visited midtown while on a three day conference and then left. There are some disgusting streets, no doubt. There’s too much trash on the street on trash days. On rare occasions a subway car has homeless people in it and it smells. None of this is great by any means. But the idea that all New Yorkers are walking around smelling piss 24/7 and saying “huh, guess it must be like this everywhere” doesn’t pass any kind of sanity test.
Reminds me of the Principal Skinner meme: “am I wrong? No, it is the eight million inhabitants of NYC who are all wrong”
Both sides are exaggerating.
Some streets do smell like piss at some times. The building superintendents periodically hose off the front sidewalks to wash away the dog urine, especially during the hottest parts of the summer. Especially on nice streets.
Some streets do smell like piss at some times. The building superintendents periodically hose off the front sidewalks to wash away the dog urine, especially during the hottest parts of the summer. Especially on nice streets.
Oh, I’d never deny that there are streets that smell like piss from time to time, it’s the OP’s assertion that “all” streets do. It’s just silly, as is the extrapolation that New Yorkers must be clueless about the disgusting filth surrounding them.
>I’d never deny that there are streets that smell like piss from time to time
in my city we somehow contrive not to have any streets at all smell like piss, ever. in the civilized world we stopped using streets as outdoor latrines over a century ago.
in my city we somehow contrive not to have any streets at all smell like piss, ever. in the civilized world we stopped using streets as outdoor latrines over a century ago.
I’m not trying to suggest that NYC is a utopia. Far from it, I’m very well aware of its shortcomings. But they can be pointed out without resorting to hyperbole.
[deleted]
I wonder how it compares to other cities: Melbourne, Tokyo, Paris, London, Munich, Boston, San Francisco, etc.
Then, I think we can pin-point exaggerations from objective truth. I admit, when I visited NY, it was very nice but we went around central park and such.
I just dislike this law, this is a great way to make NY city worse - pitting citizens against each other. There are other ways to solve this issue through proper law enforcement channels.
Then, I think we can pin-point exaggerations from objective truth. I admit, when I visited NY, it was very nice but we went around central park and such.
I just dislike this law, this is a great way to make NY city worse - pitting citizens against each other. There are other ways to solve this issue through proper law enforcement channels.
> There are other ways to solve this issue through proper law enforcement channels.
Unfortunately for New York, the closest they have is NYPD, which I don't think I've ever heard anything good about - but have heard plenty of bad.
Unfortunately for New York, the closest they have is NYPD, which I don't think I've ever heard anything good about - but have heard plenty of bad.
the one time i visited NYC i naively tried to use a public toilet at a subway station. entered the stall -- faecal matter coating every surface. filthy is an understatement.
I once saw a subway car where someone had not just defecated, but had defecated on each and every seat individually - and with amazing uniformity. Standing in the next car for the remainder of my commute I worked out that either multiple people had to have participated (entirely possible there is public defectors club around here someplace) or one super-constipated individual had cleared out the entire length of an average human’s large intestine. Could one person be that backed up and not only walk around but have the control to squat over each seat and leave a uniform amount? The smell was horrific so I’m pretty sure it wasn’t an art project. I wonder if someone cleaned that car, or if they just rolled it into the ocean one dark night.
Cleaning the subway cars overall is a joke - they have people with mops at the terminus stations and they get 30secs to 2 minutes to mop the first and last cars before they go out again. All the cars in the middle just accumulate debris and stains until the train is taken out of service for regular maintenance.
One side effect of the pandemic is I have to leave the apartment so infrequently that I can take Lyft everywhere and still come out ahead of what I used to spend on metrocards - I don’t miss riding the subway at all.
Cleaning the subway cars overall is a joke - they have people with mops at the terminus stations and they get 30secs to 2 minutes to mop the first and last cars before they go out again. All the cars in the middle just accumulate debris and stains until the train is taken out of service for regular maintenance.
One side effect of the pandemic is I have to leave the apartment so infrequently that I can take Lyft everywhere and still come out ahead of what I used to spend on metrocards - I don’t miss riding the subway at all.
Try the Rest Rooms in the city Emergency Rooms where there is all that and blood, too everywhere or the police stations even in the time of COVID and AIDS!
I remember someone I knew stating that "The official smell of New York City is urine."
Better than the old pollution from the 1970s.
When I first came to the US, in the late '60s, or early '70s (I think I visited before moving to the US), we came on a ship, which docked in New York.
My mother brought me out onto the deck, one night, to smell New York. We couldn't see the lights yet, but I remember that nasty, metallic stench.
Better than the old pollution from the 1970s.
When I first came to the US, in the late '60s, or early '70s (I think I visited before moving to the US), we came on a ship, which docked in New York.
My mother brought me out onto the deck, one night, to smell New York. We couldn't see the lights yet, but I remember that nasty, metallic stench.
[deleted]
I have never witnessed anything like his comment. If it happens, it hasn't directly impacted my living here. Still my first choice city in the US.
That's because you're, perhaps correctly, choosing not to own anything? If you rent and ride a bike and only ever take the subway and occasional Uber, then this stuff seems foreign. If you want to buy a property then you'll see for yourself the joys of bureaucracy. When you get a Kafkaesque fine that you can't reach a human being to talk about, and discover a byzantine system of 'expeditors' you might reconsider.
Government bureaucracy at its best….
It baffles me that New Yorkers just bend over and take that stuff.
In most places, when an identifiable group of people, (e.g. city government employees) is such a bunch of jerks to everyone they would normally be abused right back until they stop being jerks.
Imagine if the government of Detroit acted that way. The inspector would come out to find their car on blocks three days a week and nobody would admit to having seen anything.
In most places, when an identifiable group of people, (e.g. city government employees) is such a bunch of jerks to everyone they would normally be abused right back until they stop being jerks.
Imagine if the government of Detroit acted that way. The inspector would come out to find their car on blocks three days a week and nobody would admit to having seen anything.
survivorship bias, in New York only the people who are rich enough to avoid all these rules or the ones who will bend over and take it are left. We literally just had a president who bribed the NYPD to get his concealed carry license.
> bribed the NYPD to get his concealed carry license
This is in the supreme court right now, hopefully it gets overturned and average people can start protecting themselves. We have the same BS law in CA…”prove you need a conceal carry, no death threats aren’t enough…”
This is in the supreme court right now, hopefully it gets overturned and average people can start protecting themselves. We have the same BS law in CA…”prove you need a conceal carry, no death threats aren’t enough…”
Nope. Usually people take it and take it until they can't take it anymore and go berserk.
Some context for those not in NYC:
* Illegal parking and idling are out of control throughout the city. This has been the case for years, but it’s reached new heights since the pandemic. Trucks and cars often idle because they’re parked illegally.
* The city DOT, for a variety of reasons, is reluctant to redesign streets to prevent this behavior (e.g. by adding loading zones)
* The police are reluctant to ticket for this behavior, and frequently idle in their police cars throughout the city.
If a bounty system feels desperate/problematic, it is. Our city agencies have failed to deal with this problem and people are pissed about it. My hope is that this program is a bandaid until larger structural issues with the DOT and NYPD are addressed. We’ll see.
* Illegal parking and idling are out of control throughout the city. This has been the case for years, but it’s reached new heights since the pandemic. Trucks and cars often idle because they’re parked illegally.
* The city DOT, for a variety of reasons, is reluctant to redesign streets to prevent this behavior (e.g. by adding loading zones)
* The police are reluctant to ticket for this behavior, and frequently idle in their police cars throughout the city.
If a bounty system feels desperate/problematic, it is. Our city agencies have failed to deal with this problem and people are pissed about it. My hope is that this program is a bandaid until larger structural issues with the DOT and NYPD are addressed. We’ll see.
Loading zones would likely eliminate some free street parking and thus no one will do anything about it. Street parking is literally the third rail of NYC politics.
Walk down any street in Greenwich Village and you'll see a plethora of $100k+ cars. We continue to subsidize parking for literal millionaires because Dave in Crown Heights is afraid if we get rid of street parking in Greenwich Village they're going to come for his parking space next and he can't afford paid parking. Why does Dave need a car at all living in Brooklyn? Good question...
So we have people who park in the same place without moving for 11 years [1].
[1]: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/new-york-street-bookselle_n_9...
Walk down any street in Greenwich Village and you'll see a plethora of $100k+ cars. We continue to subsidize parking for literal millionaires because Dave in Crown Heights is afraid if we get rid of street parking in Greenwich Village they're going to come for his parking space next and he can't afford paid parking. Why does Dave need a car at all living in Brooklyn? Good question...
So we have people who park in the same place without moving for 11 years [1].
[1]: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/new-york-street-bookselle_n_9...
NYCHA residents also get parking, as you'll notice if you glance at their vast parking lots, and they do it with taxpayer subsidy.
I'm not defending the vast street parking problem (although you underestimate how many of those cars parked in Greenwich Village are actually not residents there at all but traveling from outer boroughs or LI or NJ). But it's a little bit more nuanced than, rich people with all the cars.
The amount of cars in Manhattan swells considerably during the week due to commuters, for one thing. You can observe the traffic patterns on Google Maps each direction on the FDR, Holland and Lincoln Tunnels, etc.
Maybe resident parking permits should be considered.
I'm not defending the vast street parking problem (although you underestimate how many of those cars parked in Greenwich Village are actually not residents there at all but traveling from outer boroughs or LI or NJ). But it's a little bit more nuanced than, rich people with all the cars.
The amount of cars in Manhattan swells considerably during the week due to commuters, for one thing. You can observe the traffic patterns on Google Maps each direction on the FDR, Holland and Lincoln Tunnels, etc.
Maybe resident parking permits should be considered.
>”Dave in Crown Heights is afraid if we get rid of street parking in Greenwich Village they're going to come for his parking space next and he can't afford paid parking. Why does Dave need a car at all living in Brooklyn? Good question...”
Sounds like Dave is right to be worried. In the span of one sentence you went from mocking the notion that some people are defending millionaires’ parking because of a slippery slope that would lead to them losing their own parking, to begging the question on why this non-millionaire even needs a car.
Edit: It feels like something along the lines of: “Don’t be crazy, we are not coming after your parking stall. We are coming after your car.”
Sounds like Dave is right to be worried. In the span of one sentence you went from mocking the notion that some people are defending millionaires’ parking because of a slippery slope that would lead to them losing their own parking, to begging the question on why this non-millionaire even needs a car.
Edit: It feels like something along the lines of: “Don’t be crazy, we are not coming after your parking stall. We are coming after your car.”
> Why does Dave need a car at all living in Brooklyn?
This question bugs me quite a bit, mainly because it shouldn't matter why someone needs a parking space; there are many valid reasons that I'm sure you could think of if you spent even a minute thinking about it. If someone does actually need a parking space, there should be some way to have one that takes into consideration scarcity and other market forces so Dave can decide whether it is worth it to live there/continue living there based on his own needs and means. Many cities have systems for this that usually involve permits that need to be paid for and while I'm sure none of them are perfect, it's better than subsidizing spaces or outright banning them. And if the locality decides that there just can't be any parking spaces, so be it, but it should not be because those deciding are completely lacking empathy and are so unimaginative that they can't think of a reason why someone might want something as benign and common as having a car in a city. Driving, parking, private car ownership, etc as a whole and clearly imperfect, but the reality of public transportation, especially outside of cities and in the United States, is abysmal.
This question bugs me quite a bit, mainly because it shouldn't matter why someone needs a parking space; there are many valid reasons that I'm sure you could think of if you spent even a minute thinking about it. If someone does actually need a parking space, there should be some way to have one that takes into consideration scarcity and other market forces so Dave can decide whether it is worth it to live there/continue living there based on his own needs and means. Many cities have systems for this that usually involve permits that need to be paid for and while I'm sure none of them are perfect, it's better than subsidizing spaces or outright banning them. And if the locality decides that there just can't be any parking spaces, so be it, but it should not be because those deciding are completely lacking empathy and are so unimaginative that they can't think of a reason why someone might want something as benign and common as having a car in a city. Driving, parking, private car ownership, etc as a whole and clearly imperfect, but the reality of public transportation, especially outside of cities and in the United States, is abysmal.
[deleted]
Who is the other person who has parked in the same place without moving for 11 years?
No.
Street parking is figuratively the third rail of nyc politics.
Street parking is figuratively the third rail of nyc politics.
Words and usage change (although I just read of literally being used in the late 18th century to mean figuratively). According to Marriam-Webster, one definition of literally is:
": in effect : VIRTUALLY —used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible"
": in effect : VIRTUALLY —used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible"
The missing bullet point here is that city employees and quasi city employees (i.e. members of the trades) are far and away the worst offenders on every traffic and parking rule in existence.
City employees unfortunately have a lot of voter power due to the unions, balanced against an otherwise very low voter turnout for Mayoral elections.
DeBlasio is said to have been very loose on parking enforcement of 'placard abuse' as they call it. It's pretty obvious downtown during the week and also downtown Brooklyn. The City picks winners and losers just like that.
DeBlasio is said to have been very loose on parking enforcement of 'placard abuse' as they call it. It's pretty obvious downtown during the week and also downtown Brooklyn. The City picks winners and losers just like that.
And that the NYPD in particular is the worst. I had the misfortune of living near a NYPD station in Manhattan for a few years. Illegal parking everywhere and there were a few red lights that they would run all the time in their police and personal vehicles.
I’ve seen personal cars just drive up and park on the sidewalk. Totally blocking everything. They just put their card saying “nypd” and nobody bothers it. Good luck having a wheel chair and getting by.
Lots of examples here for people not in NYC https://twitter.com/placardabuse
The city is required to make 500 loading zones per year now [0]. Which is insignificant compared to the 120,000 blocks in the city.
[0]: https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2022/01/14/up-next-for-dot-city-...
[0]: https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2022/01/14/up-next-for-dot-city-...
>Trucks and cars often idle because they’re parked illegally
Couldn't they just park illegally and not idle. I'm a driver who's parked illegally many a time and never even considered leaving the engine idling. Do you get some sort of ticket exemption if the engine is going?
Couldn't they just park illegally and not idle. I'm a driver who's parked illegally many a time and never even considered leaving the engine idling. Do you get some sort of ticket exemption if the engine is going?
> Mr. Slapikas said he pulled in $64,000 in rewards in 2021 for simply paying attention on his daily walks for exercise: “I would expect to get three a day without even looking.”
That’s almost 10% of the total fines paid out last year, according to the article.
I wonder what the distribution of payouts looks like. I assume it’s a small number of people collecting the bulk of the fines.
Regardless, it looks like it’s working. Idling cars may not be producing the bulk of emissions, but it’s one of the easiest places to start cutting as it’s otherwise wasted fuel and emissions.
That’s almost 10% of the total fines paid out last year, according to the article.
I wonder what the distribution of payouts looks like. I assume it’s a small number of people collecting the bulk of the fines.
Regardless, it looks like it’s working. Idling cars may not be producing the bulk of emissions, but it’s one of the easiest places to start cutting as it’s otherwise wasted fuel and emissions.
Further down it mentions that “20 or so” people submit 85% of complaints
I suspect that’s about to jump up.
The article also says the city does not make getting the payout easy and it requires many hours of follow up to maybe get paid.
I look forward to some startup automating the steps and taking a slice.
"It's like Uber but for tattling!"
I kid, I'm down for this sort of citizen engagement when it comes to externalities.
I kid, I'm down for this sort of citizen engagement when it comes to externalities.
It's like the Texas approach to abortion.
The whole thing just doesn't feel right. I don't care if, in this particular case, the cause is not-terrible (preventing pollution). There's just something "off" about the enforcement mechanism.
Serious crimes? Sure: Do your civic duty; call the police. But this? Mind your own business.
It feels vaguely East-German.
The whole thing just doesn't feel right. I don't care if, in this particular case, the cause is not-terrible (preventing pollution). There's just something "off" about the enforcement mechanism.
Serious crimes? Sure: Do your civic duty; call the police. But this? Mind your own business.
It feels vaguely East-German.
The Texas approach is quite different -- it encourages people to sue other people with completely artificial standing. In fact the Texas approach was designed to be entirely different from a government run bounty program in an attempt to undermine the constitution.
This is more similar to whistleblower laws that pay a bounty for taxes recovered by the IRS. In both cases the government is the one taking the action that fines the perp.
In any case, pollution is my business.
This is more similar to whistleblower laws that pay a bounty for taxes recovered by the IRS. In both cases the government is the one taking the action that fines the perp.
In any case, pollution is my business.
I’m Texas’ approach the gov is not involved in taking any action. That’s why the law can stand as there is no gov office enforcing it.
In both cases it pits citizens again citizens, which is what’s starting to feel creepy.
In both cases it pits citizens again citizens, which is what’s starting to feel creepy.
Not to me. East German reporting was about controlling the citizenry to support the regime in power. This is about protecting the health and comfort of one's neighbors and oneself. That is very much my business.
You mean snitch.ai.of course. Get your own personalised snitches to avoid stitches.
[deleted]
We can call it:
https://www.tatler.com/
https://www.tatler.com/
Thanks for this look into a bizarro world. :)
stich.es?
Sounds right up the alley of www.donotpay.com
Or maybe they would be on the other side, helping truck drivers fight the tickets? Heck, they're VC-funded. They'll probably be on both sides! Think of it as the new "two-sided marketplace".
Or maybe they would be on the other side, helping truck drivers fight the tickets? Heck, they're VC-funded. They'll probably be on both sides! Think of it as the new "two-sided marketplace".
[deleted]
Maybe HN could no-code it. Find some NYC public camera feeds, pipe it to an ML algo to detect cars with vapour coming out of the exhaust, record and send off for $$.
This is why labor markets are so tight /s
Abortions in Texas, guns in California, tickets in NYC... guess vigilante profiteering is the new legislative norm? Get citizens to snitch on each other to fill your budget shortfalls.
False analogy. The Texas thing is a (idiotic) workaround for the fact that the state can't do anything about it.
Why does it matter that the Texas thing is a workaround? That's just a technical detail. The point remains that in all those mentioned cases, the government is encouraging people to turn against one another. Sometimes resulting in violence, as indicated in the article. I feel like people are already becoming increasingly antagonistic toward one another, and this citizen enforcer trend is adding incentive in the wrong direction.
As you point out, the people have already turned against one another. This is just harnessing that pre-existing animosity in service of enforcing the law, since it seems the police simply don't enforce the law anymore. People have realized it's a free-for-all, and routinely violate all sorts of traffic laws, knowing that the police are basically doing nothing anymore. I did the math here in a past post I can't find, but concluded: If I could stand by the road with a camera, report all incidents of cell phone use while driving, and get just 10% of each fine, it would be a substantial percent of my income. That's one single law on one single stretch of highway.
Yes, it sucks that people are against each other, but the root problem is lawlessness, and that the people whose job it is to enforce the law are off doing whatever else.
Yes, it sucks that people are against each other, but the root problem is lawlessness, and that the people whose job it is to enforce the law are off doing whatever else.
We railed against the cops publicly during 2020, I think the police are happy to sit back as municipal workers and wait 10 years to collect their pensions.
What people don't realize is reducing police interactions with citizens is exactly regressive, leading to more mistrust between citizens, traffic deaths, and even pollution and climate change as per this article.
This comment on HN would have been downvoted to grey for the better part of 18 months until only recently, as a point of reference. During the Trump years assumptions would have been made about the commenter. Now I think we're all coming to agreeing that we need police to do their jobs and to hold them to it, or we get articles like this one.
What people don't realize is reducing police interactions with citizens is exactly regressive, leading to more mistrust between citizens, traffic deaths, and even pollution and climate change as per this article.
This comment on HN would have been downvoted to grey for the better part of 18 months until only recently, as a point of reference. During the Trump years assumptions would have been made about the commenter. Now I think we're all coming to agreeing that we need police to do their jobs and to hold them to it, or we get articles like this one.
Maybe it doesn't have to be as binary as more vs fewer police? I wish the call wasn't "defund the police" but "create institutional alternatives to militarized policing".
That same heavily-armed force you use to fight druglords doesn't have to be the same force used for routine traffic enforcement, and maybe traffic enforcement shouldn't automatically get people scanned for outstanding warrants and such. A broken brakelight need not escalate into an armed car chase. The same way the fire department is separate from police, maybe there needs to be other institutions for tackling different situations, with academies training for different tactics that don't always involved armed conflict.
Our one-size-fits-all policing might seem relatively harmless for middle-upper-class whites and Asians, but they can be outright deadly if you're black or brown. You never really know if you're just going to get a friendly warning or say the wrong thing and be killed. The way we do policing is relatively unusual in the developed world, and very violent, and encourages both arms races and a severe distrust in certain communities. Just reimplementing that sort of system is going to get us back to the same place... armed enforcers that serve one part of the citizenry at the expense of others.
That same heavily-armed force you use to fight druglords doesn't have to be the same force used for routine traffic enforcement, and maybe traffic enforcement shouldn't automatically get people scanned for outstanding warrants and such. A broken brakelight need not escalate into an armed car chase. The same way the fire department is separate from police, maybe there needs to be other institutions for tackling different situations, with academies training for different tactics that don't always involved armed conflict.
Our one-size-fits-all policing might seem relatively harmless for middle-upper-class whites and Asians, but they can be outright deadly if you're black or brown. You never really know if you're just going to get a friendly warning or say the wrong thing and be killed. The way we do policing is relatively unusual in the developed world, and very violent, and encourages both arms races and a severe distrust in certain communities. Just reimplementing that sort of system is going to get us back to the same place... armed enforcers that serve one part of the citizenry at the expense of others.
She state can't enforce an abortion ban by itself; it depends on citizen enforcement.
The state can enforce the emission law; citizen enforcement is not required.
The state can enforce the emission law; citizen enforcement is not required.
Both these things can be true.
Yes, Texas used citizen lawsuits as a workaround for something they couldn't themselves enforce without risking constitutional ire (for now). It's a legal sleight-of-hand that wins them bonus points with conservatives while buying time for the new Supreme Court to outlaw abortion. It's disgusting.
At the same time, it is creepy for Texas, California, New York or any government to entice citizens to act as informers and tattle on each other. The social costs of that aren't just measured in less budgeting for meter maids, but also increasing social distrust between neighbors.
These aren't mutually exclusive, just two complementary, nasty things happening in government.
In all three cases, it mobilizes private citizens to factionalize against each other to fulfill some elitist agenda, creating legal conflict with a profit motive where there wasn't before. Sure, somebody might've rolled their eyes at an idling truck or silently viewed their aborting/gun-toting neighbor with contempt, but these laws encourage active interpersonal conflict in the name of the state, turning untrained citizens with no experience in de-escalation into deputy law enforcement.
Yes, Texas used citizen lawsuits as a workaround for something they couldn't themselves enforce without risking constitutional ire (for now). It's a legal sleight-of-hand that wins them bonus points with conservatives while buying time for the new Supreme Court to outlaw abortion. It's disgusting.
At the same time, it is creepy for Texas, California, New York or any government to entice citizens to act as informers and tattle on each other. The social costs of that aren't just measured in less budgeting for meter maids, but also increasing social distrust between neighbors.
These aren't mutually exclusive, just two complementary, nasty things happening in government.
In all three cases, it mobilizes private citizens to factionalize against each other to fulfill some elitist agenda, creating legal conflict with a profit motive where there wasn't before. Sure, somebody might've rolled their eyes at an idling truck or silently viewed their aborting/gun-toting neighbor with contempt, but these laws encourage active interpersonal conflict in the name of the state, turning untrained citizens with no experience in de-escalation into deputy law enforcement.
Why is trying to improve the health and safety of the population “elitist”?
Are you talking about the air pollution from idling? It's elitist because it's minor, and not the sort of thing that citizens would naturally try to prosecute each other for.
Should citizens police each other for eating beef? Driving older cars? Not passing smog tests? Not supporting nuclear power? Cooking with natural gas? Flying on planes?
It's not the kind of society I want to live in. It's not the kind of relationship I want to have with my neighbors. They're the kind of situations that call for carrots more than sticks, and certainly not secret police.
Edit: looks like the idling law was primarily sponsored by a city councilmember back in 2015: https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/council-member-wants-to...
It wasn't like a bunch of citizens got together to tackle air pollution, and somehow came up with that as the most sensible solution (vs, say, emissions standards or the autostop/autostart systems in newer cars, or better transit and biking). It was just some bureaucrat trying to score cheap political points by having citizens snitch on delivery drivers and such who are already underpaid and just trying to get by and do their jobs. Did this measurably improve air pollution in NYC? No, it just gave rise to a cottage industry of the equivalent of ambulance chasers.
Should citizens police each other for eating beef? Driving older cars? Not passing smog tests? Not supporting nuclear power? Cooking with natural gas? Flying on planes?
It's not the kind of society I want to live in. It's not the kind of relationship I want to have with my neighbors. They're the kind of situations that call for carrots more than sticks, and certainly not secret police.
Edit: looks like the idling law was primarily sponsored by a city councilmember back in 2015: https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/council-member-wants-to...
It wasn't like a bunch of citizens got together to tackle air pollution, and somehow came up with that as the most sensible solution (vs, say, emissions standards or the autostop/autostart systems in newer cars, or better transit and biking). It was just some bureaucrat trying to score cheap political points by having citizens snitch on delivery drivers and such who are already underpaid and just trying to get by and do their jobs. Did this measurably improve air pollution in NYC? No, it just gave rise to a cottage industry of the equivalent of ambulance chasers.
It sounds to me like you just don’t believe cutting back on air pollution is important. Perhaps if you spent more time in a heavily-polluted place such as many south Asian countries (India, Bangladesh, etc.) or Mexico City, or if you’d grown up in the smoggy hellhole that was L.A. in the 1970s, you’d feel differently. For wide swaths of the population, it’s definitely not “minor.”
We also have an entire planet to think about. Climate change is real, and we want our children’s children to continue to live here and for the complex ecosystem that makes it work to continue to operate healthily. To call the very justified concerns about future survival as “elitist” is unfairly dismissive.
We also have an entire planet to think about. Climate change is real, and we want our children’s children to continue to live here and for the complex ecosystem that makes it work to continue to operate healthily. To call the very justified concerns about future survival as “elitist” is unfairly dismissive.
Sorry, I was editing my post while you replied, so you didn't see the bottom update.
For what it's worth, I grew up in a polluted city, studied climate science in school, and work in renewables. It's not that I don't think air pollution is a big deal, it's that I don't think the idle car secret police are a good way to deal with air pollution.
CAFE standards? Great. Point-source air pollution tracking and fines, from factories and such? Cool. Renewables-backed electric cars? Great. Cleaner, low-carbon grid mixes? Yes. Divestment from fossil fuels? Cool. All of these are actually hugely beneficial actions, but they don't require the state to turn citizens into informers against each other for petty everyday actions.
Air pollution is your typical tragedy of the commons situation, borne of the collective actions of millions of people living in an industrialized society and just trying to live their lives. It's not the sort of thing worth putting a bounty on, IMO, at least not at the individual level. At the corporate level it's a different story, cuz that's a cost of doing business and accounting for externalities and such.
All of those are better solutions than criminalizing trivial behavior and fostering a culture of distrust, all for little to no measurable improvement in air quality, just to satiate the political agenda of a politician. It's the difference between cheap political points for low-hanging fruit, vs doing the actual useful and hard work of setting sustainable climate policies that don't regressively hurt the working class while also turning citizens against each other. It's that sort of blindness to the needs of the average person that makes this sort of thing elitist.
For what it's worth, I grew up in a polluted city, studied climate science in school, and work in renewables. It's not that I don't think air pollution is a big deal, it's that I don't think the idle car secret police are a good way to deal with air pollution.
CAFE standards? Great. Point-source air pollution tracking and fines, from factories and such? Cool. Renewables-backed electric cars? Great. Cleaner, low-carbon grid mixes? Yes. Divestment from fossil fuels? Cool. All of these are actually hugely beneficial actions, but they don't require the state to turn citizens into informers against each other for petty everyday actions.
Air pollution is your typical tragedy of the commons situation, borne of the collective actions of millions of people living in an industrialized society and just trying to live their lives. It's not the sort of thing worth putting a bounty on, IMO, at least not at the individual level. At the corporate level it's a different story, cuz that's a cost of doing business and accounting for externalities and such.
All of those are better solutions than criminalizing trivial behavior and fostering a culture of distrust, all for little to no measurable improvement in air quality, just to satiate the political agenda of a politician. It's the difference between cheap political points for low-hanging fruit, vs doing the actual useful and hard work of setting sustainable climate policies that don't regressively hurt the working class while also turning citizens against each other. It's that sort of blindness to the needs of the average person that makes this sort of thing elitist.
I don’t necessarily quibble with your concerns about the right way to achieve the outcomes we all seek. But please don’t paint real concerns about health as “elitist.”
If anything, people who don’t have to worry about these things — who get the privilege to live in suburbs with wide-open spaces, blue skies, and clean air — are the true elites. Being able to live this way is the dream of billions of our underprivileged fellow human beings who grow up in filth and overcrowding.
If anything, people who don’t have to worry about these things — who get the privilege to live in suburbs with wide-open spaces, blue skies, and clean air — are the true elites. Being able to live this way is the dream of billions of our underprivileged fellow human beings who grow up in filth and overcrowding.
Sorry, but I have to disagree. It IS elitist, the sort of law that a detached lawmaker would make, with no concern about its impacts on regular people. Again, do we outlaw beef consumption, road trips, flying, older cars, leaving the lights on when nobody's home, more than 2 kids...? All these things contribute to air pollution, but we don't want them to be illegal. Yes, even if it means worsening climate change.
If idling is such a big problem, legislating adaptive technology (auto on/off) is a better solution.
If it is really about the billions of underprivileged humans and animals suffering from climate change, we need mass mobilization on the scale of the Manhattan Project or bigger, across multiple coordinated nations... not hunting down people who idle their cars more than 2 minutes. It's just the sort of thing that's neither necessary nor sufficient for addressing climate change, yet with a big social cost (distrust), which makes the working class hate environmentalists even more. It is the exact kind of elitist regulation popular in the 90s and early 2000s that caused a huge cultural backlash and created the climate divide we see now. It's not just regressive but counterproductive.
If idling is such a big problem, legislating adaptive technology (auto on/off) is a better solution.
If it is really about the billions of underprivileged humans and animals suffering from climate change, we need mass mobilization on the scale of the Manhattan Project or bigger, across multiple coordinated nations... not hunting down people who idle their cars more than 2 minutes. It's just the sort of thing that's neither necessary nor sufficient for addressing climate change, yet with a big social cost (distrust), which makes the working class hate environmentalists even more. It is the exact kind of elitist regulation popular in the 90s and early 2000s that caused a huge cultural backlash and created the climate divide we see now. It's not just regressive but counterproductive.
Which part exactly is improving the health and safety of the population?
Under your logic, I should not call 911 if a building is on fire. What business is that of mine?
How did you go from "the government shouldn't use citizens as secret police against each other" to "citizens shouldn't report a fire"?
First of all, a burning building isn't an criminal act (unless it's arson). It's an accident/disaster. Second of all, you don't get paid for calling 911 on a burning building. There's no bounty to collect. Third, you are not turning in a fellow citizen for something that you wouldn't otherwise have if not for the bounty. Fourth, a fire is a life-threatening situation for all involved.
A more reasonable example is "You should not call 911 if you catch your neighbor jaywalking across the street." Or, like if you catch them leaving dog poop behind, you don't need to sic SWAT on them. Just fucking talk to them and ask nicely first, and maybe file a complaint somewhere if they're really assholes. But you don't just jump to trying to fine and imprison someone for every minor offense.
And with the abortion and guns in particular, they really are none of your business. What someone does with their body or their private property, if they're not hurting anyone else, really shouldn't be policed by their fellow citizens.
If you really want to set a bounty on things that have a measurable, tangible threat to public safety -- like actual arsonists, rapists, murderers, and similar felonies -- you know, maybe that's OK by me? But not stupid things like idling your car or regretting who you fucked last night.
First of all, a burning building isn't an criminal act (unless it's arson). It's an accident/disaster. Second of all, you don't get paid for calling 911 on a burning building. There's no bounty to collect. Third, you are not turning in a fellow citizen for something that you wouldn't otherwise have if not for the bounty. Fourth, a fire is a life-threatening situation for all involved.
A more reasonable example is "You should not call 911 if you catch your neighbor jaywalking across the street." Or, like if you catch them leaving dog poop behind, you don't need to sic SWAT on them. Just fucking talk to them and ask nicely first, and maybe file a complaint somewhere if they're really assholes. But you don't just jump to trying to fine and imprison someone for every minor offense.
And with the abortion and guns in particular, they really are none of your business. What someone does with their body or their private property, if they're not hurting anyone else, really shouldn't be policed by their fellow citizens.
If you really want to set a bounty on things that have a measurable, tangible threat to public safety -- like actual arsonists, rapists, murderers, and similar felonies -- you know, maybe that's OK by me? But not stupid things like idling your car or regretting who you fucked last night.
> (idiotic) workaround for the fact that the state can't do anything about it.
It's sort of the same thing in NYC. The city council resorts to citizen reports because they can't get NYPD to enforce the law.
It's sort of the same thing in NYC. The city council resorts to citizen reports because they can't get NYPD to enforce the law.
Explain?
It would not be legal for the state of Texas to do what it is encouraging private citizens to do in its stead
The potentially illegal/unconstitutional part of it is the prevention of abortions.
Encouraging citizens to bounty hunt each other... that's the novelty that the other states are copying.
These creepy "see something, say something" laws turn neighbor against neighbor, criminalizing behavior that would otherwise be considered acceptable, and turn passive observers into active enforcers for the sake of profit.
Encouraging citizens to bounty hunt each other... that's the novelty that the other states are copying.
These creepy "see something, say something" laws turn neighbor against neighbor, criminalizing behavior that would otherwise be considered acceptable, and turn passive observers into active enforcers for the sake of profit.
> criminalizing behavior that would otherwise be considered acceptable
Again, these situations are not comparable. Idling commercial vehicles are already disallowed, this program literally gives a cut of the fine the government is going to impose.
Again, these situations are not comparable. Idling commercial vehicles are already disallowed, this program literally gives a cut of the fine the government is going to impose.
Laws -- whether abortion or idling -- aren't some permanent unchangeable thing. They just cater to the whims of lawmakers and public opinion of the day. Idling wasn't always illegal in NYC either; somebody made it so, and then tacked on the bounty hunting in 2015.
Preventing abortion may be illegal now, but probably won't be for much longer if the rigged Supreme Court gets its way. Still, that isn't a novelty. Control of abortion has been a partisan fight for decades. Idling just doesn't attract the same constitutional scrutiny (and why should it).
The bounty hunting thing is an additional layer on top of that, however, and one that's relatively novel. It's why California copied it for the gun bounty.
Preventing abortion may be illegal now, but probably won't be for much longer if the rigged Supreme Court gets its way. Still, that isn't a novelty. Control of abortion has been a partisan fight for decades. Idling just doesn't attract the same constitutional scrutiny (and why should it).
The bounty hunting thing is an additional layer on top of that, however, and one that's relatively novel. It's why California copied it for the gun bounty.
Officious: Rise of the Busybody State
https://www.amazon.com/Officious-Busybody-State-Josie-Applet...
In Anglo-Saxon countries there is a new and distinctive form of state: the busybody state. This state is defined by an attachment to bureaucratic procedures for their own sake: the rule for the sake of a rule; the form for the sake of a form. Its insignias are the badge, the policy, the code and the procedure. The logic of the regulation is neither to represent an elite class interest, nor to serve the public, nor even to organise social relations with the greatest efficiency as with classic bureaucracy, but rather to represent regulation itself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehTBd_XxMMM
https://www.amazon.com/Officious-Busybody-State-Josie-Applet...
In Anglo-Saxon countries there is a new and distinctive form of state: the busybody state. This state is defined by an attachment to bureaucratic procedures for their own sake: the rule for the sake of a rule; the form for the sake of a form. Its insignias are the badge, the policy, the code and the procedure. The logic of the regulation is neither to represent an elite class interest, nor to serve the public, nor even to organise social relations with the greatest efficiency as with classic bureaucracy, but rather to represent regulation itself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehTBd_XxMMM
Classic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law distribution, isn't it!?
Yep yep.
Pareto Distribution: 20% of the Y cause 80% of the Z
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distribution
Pareto Distribution: 20% of the Y cause 80% of the Z
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distribution
Someone is helping enforcing laws and they don't have a qualified immunity. Seems like a step in the right direction. Of course, based on what happened in GA, there's a limit to what regular citizens can be entrusted with.
[deleted]
I know this is about commercial vehicles, but on a personal note I really wish noncommercial vehicles were far better in accessory mode. Specifically it is common that either the hot, cold, or both HVAC won't function while the engine is off and the vehicle in accessory mode often leaving people idling in high or low weather scenarios (or simply just melting ice on your windshields).
I feel like there's far too much focus spent on chastising the sinners and not nearly enough effect spent creating vehicles where the common sense action is not to need to idle. Even hybrids may run their gas engines purely for the HVAC, we have a Prius and depending on the temperate and fan speed, it can kick on the engine even with full hybrid battery.
Let me ask this: Where is the article or city report that talks to the commercial drivers and seeks insight into WHY they're idling? Unreasonable time constraints? Cabin temp? Company policies? Let's dig into that. This "burn the witch" stuff never works long term, and we have to seek to make non-idling the rational choice not the enforced one.
It minds me a lot of these "cut speeding initiatives." They work, while they're going on, but success has been seen longer term by just re-designing roads to communicate the safe speed (e.g. planting trees, pinchpoints, et al[0]).
[0] https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/desi...
I feel like there's far too much focus spent on chastising the sinners and not nearly enough effect spent creating vehicles where the common sense action is not to need to idle. Even hybrids may run their gas engines purely for the HVAC, we have a Prius and depending on the temperate and fan speed, it can kick on the engine even with full hybrid battery.
Let me ask this: Where is the article or city report that talks to the commercial drivers and seeks insight into WHY they're idling? Unreasonable time constraints? Cabin temp? Company policies? Let's dig into that. This "burn the witch" stuff never works long term, and we have to seek to make non-idling the rational choice not the enforced one.
It minds me a lot of these "cut speeding initiatives." They work, while they're going on, but success has been seen longer term by just re-designing roads to communicate the safe speed (e.g. planting trees, pinchpoints, et al[0]).
[0] https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/desi...
On quite a few cars, parts of the HVAC system (namely the AC compressor and potentially some of the fans) are mechanically linked to the engine with belts, rather than using electricity.
Also, even if they're separate, AC and heating can use a lot of electricity and normal ICE cars usually don't have big batteries. Especially in the winter you'd also need a solid reserve, because the car might be already be discharged due to cold and need more power to get going. Throw in some short range trips and an engine stop automatic and you'll quickly end up with an empty battery, which will reflect very bad on the manufacturer.
You could of course add a second battery, but that would add a lot of weight and complexity for a not very noticeable benefit.
You could of course add a second battery, but that would add a lot of weight and complexity for a not very noticeable benefit.
Indeed. Only electric vehicles and hybrids, some with electric vs belt driven compressors, others with electric driven heat pumps, can run HVAC without the need for an engine running.
I'm sure that wearing warmer clothing, keeping windows doors closed will keep in the heat, or open the windows and let a breeze cool you in the hot weather...for 10-20mins but ofc depends...
Here in Romania unfortunately no such a law, so I ask politely, if refused ask why, if again leave their door open or take their car picture... I feel like a jerk sometimes so have been doing it less... also so many car drivers seem to think they have a right rather than are a blight....¯\_(ツ)_/¯
One thing the bus drivers here said is their electronic system resets if they stop their motor, don't know if it's BS , they seem nice guys just not very educated in ecological stuff , like most Romanians..
Nice to see such an article
Neither of the simple solutions given will work in all situations. Cars still get super cold if the temperature is say 0 to -5 Celsius (32 or ~22.5 Fahrenheit).
Be in a car with that temperature for an hour+. It’ll be awful for most people.
Be in a car with that temperature for an hour+. It’ll be awful for most people.
Maybe a car isn't a house? I mean I understand that it's not practical all the time but your polluting the air by sitting inside your car instead of being in a building with an electric and optimized HVAC.
I wasn’t thinking of a car as a house substitute. However, not everyone has a safe, warm physical residential home, of any kind, to go to.
While many people could reasonably make the effort to enter a building instead. At least as many, cannot due to their economic circumstances.
Heated clothing is a thing
I kinda get where this discussion is coming from but to me it sounds extremely weird to not use the amenities you've bought. Kinda like walking around with a jacket and a hat at home when you can easily pay your heating bill.
I'd say thats the approach I've been taking (ie using a jacket and hat) one winter I used an electric blanket, went to work a bit early during the winter, my room managed to stay above 3C, boy was I glad and enjoyed the warm up of spring so much more...this winter I went to Egypt... my point not having makes you appreciate things differently and if you do it by choice there's less stress...in Egypt I chose to live as cheaply as possible, hitching, learning the language, eating street food, sleeping in doorms...I find you appreciate people , time more... as for the above question it's about CO2 poisoning your surroundings, it's why we finally got rid of lead from petrol, asbestos, smoking on airplanes and hopefully one day CocaCola plastic bottles...
That's nice. For me essentially not spending money on quality of life/fun makes my motivation to work disappear since I stop seeing a relation between quality of life and work put in.
I have a 2nd gen Prius. You can generally use the EV button to prevent the motor from turning on.
Perhaps unrelated, but when turning on the engine for the first time in a while the Prius will burn gas to heat up the engine. You can prevent that too by pressing the EV button right after pressing the power button. (Or maybe you can hold it down while pressing the power button?) Not sure if it works all the time.
Perhaps unrelated, but when turning on the engine for the first time in a while the Prius will burn gas to heat up the engine. You can prevent that too by pressing the EV button right after pressing the power button. (Or maybe you can hold it down while pressing the power button?) Not sure if it works all the time.
Buy an electric car and you’ll fix all of your problems. Your 12v won’t last long with a compressor running.
Hi, Pete! I loved the work you did in South Bend. Do you have a lead on a used electric car that will seat four people and our dog? Budget is 12k. Thanks!
https://www.carfax.com/Used-Nissan-Leaf_w536
there’s a series of options that all fit. there needs to be a better argument against change other than repeating the fears we’ve heard others express. take some time to see if what people tell you is true
there’s a series of options that all fit. there needs to be a better argument against change other than repeating the fears we’ve heard others express. take some time to see if what people tell you is true
I live in an apartment that uses parking lot style parking and has no electricity running to the spots. Management has been asked before if chargers can be installed and they said “sure, if you pay for it and it stays here when you move”. Not sure why they wanted to keep the chargers, but that’s their rules. So what do I do? Buy an EV and charge it where?
There are a bunch of Nissan Leafs in my area and that’s it. Doesn’t really qualify as “options,” especially during the winter months.
i don’t think that changing from « there aren’t any cars » to « the cars are ugly » deserves any more of a response than this
Older leafs (don't know about the new ones) don't have thermal management and are literally useless in cold weather.
IMO Leafs do a disservice to the adoption of electric cars because many of peoples' gut reactions to buying an EV (what if I run out of battery! Does it work in cold weather? Will the battery last? What about resale value) are actually showstoppers for these glorified golf carts. There are more and more options for 200+ mile range EVs that will work for more than a niche subset of Americans, but "you can buy a leaf for cheap" isn't helpful and helps spread FUD about EVs.
IMO Leafs do a disservice to the adoption of electric cars because many of peoples' gut reactions to buying an EV (what if I run out of battery! Does it work in cold weather? Will the battery last? What about resale value) are actually showstoppers for these glorified golf carts. There are more and more options for 200+ mile range EVs that will work for more than a niche subset of Americans, but "you can buy a leaf for cheap" isn't helpful and helps spread FUD about EVs.
A new Nissan leaf gets less than 70 miles of range in the winter, and they have notoriously bad battery life. A used leaf in cold climates is actually useless.
Assuming that the OP is talking exclusively about asthetics when they specifically mention winter performance is bad faith.
Assuming that the OP is talking exclusively about asthetics when they specifically mention winter performance is bad faith.
I bought a used 2012 Nissan Leaf in 2015 for $12.5k. It was a post-lease vehicle. Around 25k miles at the time. I used it as a daily driver until COVID hit and it’s still my go-to vehicle in the house.
Average ev car price is $54k. Can you wire over some funds please to help me pay for it?
Ah yes, the statistically average electric car. The Used-New ForNissEslaNdai BolKonaLeaf XY. You never see them on the road for some reason.
Lol I know it's against etiquette to complain about downvotes, but I didn't think I needed to actually explain that the average cost of an industry of cars is utterly meaningless. There are cheap EVs, there are expensive EVs. Unless you're buying a fleet of EVs of different makes, looking at average price is a fallacy.
Non-diesel vehicles don't pollute much if at all while idling.
If we could get rid of diesel from commercial vehicles air quality would dramatically improve.
If we could get rid of diesel from commercial vehicles air quality would dramatically improve.
Only when warm. Many modern gasoline burning vehicles are extremely stinky when cold. As I understand it, they deliberately run rich when first started to help heat up the catalytic converter, and I wonder if this is a case of optimizing for the wrong thing.
EVs are, of course, emission-free when idle. (Although, oddly, at least some Teslas still can’t open or close their windows when in the off-ish state.)
EVs are, of course, emission-free when idle. (Although, oddly, at least some Teslas still can’t open or close their windows when in the off-ish state.)
My understanding of the cold-rich start was not anything to do with the catalytic converter.
Cold air is more dense and contains more oxygen. At the same time, when the engine is cold gasoline is harder to vaporize and doesn't vaporize properly, and also can condense on cold engine parts. Running rich while the engine is cold allows additional gas to offset both of those issues.
When the extra un-combusted gasoline passes through, a secondary air injection system allows the fuel to be burned up before reaching the catalytic converter and does heat it up faster, but this is a secondary benefit rather than the primary benefit.
Cold air is more dense and contains more oxygen. At the same time, when the engine is cold gasoline is harder to vaporize and doesn't vaporize properly, and also can condense on cold engine parts. Running rich while the engine is cold allows additional gas to offset both of those issues.
When the extra un-combusted gasoline passes through, a secondary air injection system allows the fuel to be burned up before reaching the catalytic converter and does heat it up faster, but this is a secondary benefit rather than the primary benefit.
My 23-year-old V12 7 series has electrically heated catalytic converters for this very reason. Thanks to those, according to German regs it qualifies as a ULEV! I think it still stinks at first start. Also, the cats cost two grand each to replace and the car requires a second battery to power them without draining the main starting battery so much that the car won't turn over. That's probably why we don't see more of this...
> Only when warm.
In that case you should prefer idling, rather than stopping the motor and letting it cool down.
In that case you should prefer idling, rather than stopping the motor and letting it cool down.
The reason for diesels on commercial vehicles is the massive amount of torque they produce low down the rev range. Useful for pulling heavy loads.
I think the newer ones with the AdBlue tech prevents the soot from getting out.
I think the newer ones with the AdBlue tech prevents the soot from getting out.
A really good way to generate lots of torque from a stop is an electric motor. You could use a combination of gasoline motors at speed with electric to start to get this same combination.
As demonstrated by the Koenigsegg Gemera and its use of electric motors and an ICE. [0]
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W39yEt4R-SU
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W39yEt4R-SU
Sure I agree electric engines produce even more torque.
Just give it a few years for the whole thing to be economically viable and for them to convert their diesel trucks to EV trucks.
Just give it a few years for the whole thing to be economically viable and for them to convert their diesel trucks to EV trucks.
Hence diesel-electric locomotives. Those things produce serious torque. I wonder if that technology could be usefully adapted to commercial trucks.
Diesel electric locomotives have a much worse idling problem than diesel ICE vehicles, you can’t just shut the turbine down without consequences, especially in winter, so they just idle for hours. See for example https://www.saferail.ca/blog/2019/7/3/idling-of-diesel-engin...
Yes. I know for a fact that diesel locomotives of trains are kept running even if its next trip is hours later.
I don't know the underlying reason for that though. I always assumed it was some combination of using too much fuel for starting (more than what it would consume if it was just idling) and the starting itself being a complicated process. But I could be wrong.
But then, for trains there exists fully electric locomotives, so this looks like a solved problem in that industry. All that's left to be done is phase out the diesels (apart from electrifying the tracks itself).
I don't know the underlying reason for that though. I always assumed it was some combination of using too much fuel for starting (more than what it would consume if it was just idling) and the starting itself being a complicated process. But I could be wrong.
But then, for trains there exists fully electric locomotives, so this looks like a solved problem in that industry. All that's left to be done is phase out the diesels (apart from electrifying the tracks itself).
Ya, if we would just electrify our rails like they do in Europe, the problem would be solved. Battery is also an option, though it seems only viable for auxiliary locomotives (the ones that push carriages together in yards) for now.
Diesel electric is only used in locomotives (and some big mining equipment) because the realities of the "get the power from the engine to the wheels" problem makes it work well in those use cases. Directly transmitting the energy without converting into electricity and back is more efficient until you start talking about absurd levels of gearbox and input/output speed discrepancies and whatnot. If the double conversion was more efficient we'd see electric drivetrains in far more places.
Having observed, what, maybe two or three hundred drivers of commercial diesel vehicles, and verbally surveying, what, maybe 15% of those, I've come to the firm conclusion the overwhelming majority of them leave their engines idle due to a historic quirk, whereby it was widely considered to improve longevity of the engine to reduce the number stop-start cycles. This has been pretty much obsoleted by improvements in metallurgy, machining tolerances, and lubricant improvements - thermal cycling is still important, but that's a negligible concern over a 20 to 40 minute period in temperate climates. Modern turbo diesel engine cold-starts should be considered ready to drive in a gentle manner immediately, avoid full boost till operating temperature - but full boost should rarely be needed in most driving conditions anyways.
>This has been pretty much obsoleted by improvements in metallurgy, machining tolerances, and lubricant improvements
Is there a source for this claim? Also, what year is the modern engine cutoff? 2000 or 2010?
Is there a source for this claim? Also, what year is the modern engine cutoff? 2000 or 2010?
"I feel like there's far too much focus spent on chastising the sinners and not nearly enough effect spent creating vehicles where the common sense action is not to need to idle."
Actually it seems like many sinners are perfectly happy to blame only the delivery drivers, instead of applying this to other vehicles (their own) as well.
Actually it seems like many sinners are perfectly happy to blame only the delivery drivers, instead of applying this to other vehicles (their own) as well.
Most people don't:
a) spend a large amount of time idling.
b) drive diesel a truck.
c) run a business that requires idling a truck (i.e. commercial trucking literally gets paid to idle).
a) spend a large amount of time idling.
b) drive diesel a truck.
c) run a business that requires idling a truck (i.e. commercial trucking literally gets paid to idle).
But many people do have cars, arguably a larger number than trucks. Many of them letting it idle for fairly long periods of time in the winter to remove ice, in the summer for air-conditioning if waiting for someone, etc. So on the aggregate, they are still producing a high number of fumes.
Also, if the business requires the truck to idle to run loading, unloading, and processing equipment, then the law exempts them from the requirements while using that equipment.
Also, if the business requires the truck to idle to run loading, unloading, and processing equipment, then the law exempts them from the requirements while using that equipment.
[deleted]
Not sure that's the city's responsibility but more between industry and manufacturers. Industry could use the press (as you said) to apply pressure, but the city would have enough on its plate.
Volvo takes it to a new level. They don’t crank up the heat to whatever you set it to unless you’re actually driving. Idling doesn’t help.
What type of engine? Idling an ICE should produce more excess heat than anyone desires. Unless the engine goes into start/stop which I’m not sure counts as idling and I doubt it does so if started in the cold, at least mine doesn’t. This can also be overridden with power drive mode or disabling start stop.
When my thermostat was stuck open it would take me 30 mins of driving to get actual heat. After I fixed it still takes ages for most (small) cars to warm up at idle. It's only when you start driving excess heat is produced.
Same with a boat oil changes - you either sit there for half an hour and maybe oil loosens up or you go for 15 minute spin around and it's ready for sucky sucky time.
Same with a boat oil changes - you either sit there for half an hour and maybe oil loosens up or you go for 15 minute spin around and it's ready for sucky sucky time.
According to the article, the truck drivers act all indignant that they are not allowed to idle their trucks and that citizens can report that behavior and cause fines to be issued.
Did these people forget that operating a motor vehicle is a responsibility and privilege, not an unlimited right, that their behavior has consequences for the general public (externalities like air pollution, collisions), and that they are required to follow the law when operating their vehicle?
Did these people forget that operating a motor vehicle is a responsibility and privilege, not an unlimited right, that their behavior has consequences for the general public (externalities like air pollution, collisions), and that they are required to follow the law when operating their vehicle?
I’m against excessive engine idling as much as anyone but when I read about Amazon drivers being guilty of this it did make me stop. We already know they have insane targets each day and drivers are pushed to the limit enough that they piss in bottles. I imagine leaving the engine idling is a rational choice they’re making to be able to drive away quicker once that delivery is done. Yes it’s awful but they’re just responding to the incentives given.
If you are an Amazon driver and everyone else keeps engine running, then your results will always be below your peers unless you break the rules.
If the city cracks down in idling then either Amazon will relax the targets or nobody will fulfill them.
If the city cracks down in idling then either Amazon will relax the targets or nobody will fulfill them.
> I imagine leaving the engine idling is a rational choice they’re making to be able to drive away quicker once that delivery is done. Yes it’s awful but they’re just responding to the incentives given.
There might also be mechanical reasons. First, according to what I've read stopping and then starting puts more overall wear on the vehicle than idling unless we are talking about a long time between the stop and start.
Second, if they are going to spend all day alternating between short delivery stops and short drives to the next delivery they might have to worry about whether or not the battery would be able to handle all those starts. The short drives might not be enough to replenish the energy from the battery that was used for the start.
There might also be mechanical reasons. First, according to what I've read stopping and then starting puts more overall wear on the vehicle than idling unless we are talking about a long time between the stop and start.
Second, if they are going to spend all day alternating between short delivery stops and short drives to the next delivery they might have to worry about whether or not the battery would be able to handle all those starts. The short drives might not be enough to replenish the energy from the battery that was used for the start.
As others have said, this provides a counter-incentive, but more importantly: why can't we fix both? We wouldn't make stealing legal because some people do it out of desperation - we can keep stealing illegal and at the same time take measures to ensure people don't need to steal to survive. Same with this.
There’s definitely an element of hypocrisy in all this. I don’t think all the people that foisted paper straws on us have forgone Amazon deliveries. On the contrary I bet the demographic are disproportionate users.
What I don't understand is that the truck drivers are here delivering packages to help the citizens! Like I want my amazon driver to not be harassed when delivering stuff to my house, and I want restaurants and business around me to be resupplied easily so I can go to them.
The consequences you mention, feel more like a consequence of us demanding X amount of goods in our cities each day, and having no other infrastructure to get them there besides trucks, than the drivers individual malfeasance.
The consequences you mention, feel more like a consequence of us demanding X amount of goods in our cities each day, and having no other infrastructure to get them there besides trucks, than the drivers individual malfeasance.
The protest makes sense if the law is not worthy of common sense. The law is not a great signal for morality or ethics -- see as an extreme example: segregation
> operating a motor vehicle is a responsability and privilege
Responsability yes, but a privilege?
If public transport were abundant and pervasive everywhere in the world that would be true. Freedom of movement is a basic right and in a lot of places, you can not enjoy that right unless you have a car.
Responsability yes, but a privilege?
If public transport were abundant and pervasive everywhere in the world that would be true. Freedom of movement is a basic right and in a lot of places, you can not enjoy that right unless you have a car.
> you can not enjoy that right unless you have a car
Most of the people were born with a pair of legs, which they can use to enjoy their natural freedom. A car is still a privilege for those, even if economics “require” them to own one.
Most of the people were born with a pair of legs, which they can use to enjoy their natural freedom. A car is still a privilege for those, even if economics “require” them to own one.
Driving is a privilege in the sense that is isn't a right and can be suspended [1]. Also, NYC public system will take you almost everywhere.
[1] https://dmv.ny.gov/tickets/suspensions-and-revocations
[1] https://dmv.ny.gov/tickets/suspensions-and-revocations
> Did these people forget that operating a motor vehicle is a responsibility and privilege, not an unlimited right, that their behavior has consequences for the general public (externalities like air pollution, collisions), and that they are required to follow the law when operating their vehicle?
So ... they're just like 90% of the posters in any HN thread where driving in excess of the speed limit on the highway is discussed then?
So ... they're just like 90% of the posters in any HN thread where driving in excess of the speed limit on the highway is discussed then?
The modern interpretation is that reducing speed limits by writing a number on a sign is much less effective than designing the road to feel more dangerous - narrower lanes, more turns, more obstacles nearby, etc.
I wish there was a similar system in London for cars parked in cycle lanes.
Ths city's boroughs spent millions of pounds marking and building cycle lanes which are useless if there's no penalty for using them as a disruptive free parking spot. Having similar detection and penalties to cars parked in the middle of a road would improve traffic flow.
Ths city's boroughs spent millions of pounds marking and building cycle lanes which are useless if there's no penalty for using them as a disruptive free parking spot. Having similar detection and penalties to cars parked in the middle of a road would improve traffic flow.
One frosty, completely still morning in Brooklyn, a white panel truck had been idling on our corner for 20 minutes. I walked out to find diesel fumes hanging, head-high, like some kind of haunted house fog, for a block in every direction. I fully support this law, citizen reporting and all—diesel soot kills. Turn your engine off.
Me too, 100%. I wish they’d introduce something like it here in Tokyo. The walk to my kid’s school every morning drives me crazy.
This isn’t going to change unless we set the right incentives. For the people in this thread worried about violence against the reporter, I think it much more likely that drivers will simply get the message and turn off their damn engines.
This isn’t going to change unless we set the right incentives. For the people in this thread worried about violence against the reporter, I think it much more likely that drivers will simply get the message and turn off their damn engines.
>For the people in this thread worried about violence against the reporter, I think it much more likely that drivers will simply get the message and turn off their damn engines.
You obviously haven't tried to ask a delivery driver in NYC why their truck is running... I have done it several times in the east village, and got nasty looks and angry responses every time. I wasn't even recording or anything, just walked out of my door and said "hey man, any reason you have to run your truck right now?" And I'm also a 6 foot, not-skinny, guy.
You obviously haven't tried to ask a delivery driver in NYC why their truck is running... I have done it several times in the east village, and got nasty looks and angry responses every time. I wasn't even recording or anything, just walked out of my door and said "hey man, any reason you have to run your truck right now?" And I'm also a 6 foot, not-skinny, guy.
Sure, it’s not an ideal solution. If we had any sense, we would ban diesel and gasoline vehicles from our cities and subsidise their replacement with zero emissions vehicles. Combusting hydrocarbons have no place alongside our kids. People will look back on us in 50 years and laugh at how stupid we were.
Until then, we need people to do what they can. We’re talking about commercial vehicles - either the owner will bear the cost, and make it clear to employees not to do it, or they won’t, and people will learn quick smart to turn off their engine anyway.
In 95% of cases, people aren’t doing it with the intention of being anti-social - they’re just not aware of it. This sort of enforcement scheme is the kind of thing that changes cultures, starting with polluting corporates.
Until then, we need people to do what they can. We’re talking about commercial vehicles - either the owner will bear the cost, and make it clear to employees not to do it, or they won’t, and people will learn quick smart to turn off their engine anyway.
In 95% of cases, people aren’t doing it with the intention of being anti-social - they’re just not aware of it. This sort of enforcement scheme is the kind of thing that changes cultures, starting with polluting corporates.
In 50 years? I've been looking back at humans since I was born and thinking there is not much to be proud of. We made the planet a worse place for every other species expect maybe cats and dogs.
This is utter nonsense. Quality of life has improved in so many ways you must have simply not even bothered to check.
I need to stop commenting late at night.
I need to stop commenting late at night.
"For every other species"
Try a small game: how much car's there are in your city? How many kWh/day they need? Now try to interpolate at national level and just try finding an answer to: how can we recharge? IMVHO single family homes, in a certain (albeit large) part of the world, well placed, that can at least two car per adult head, might run on p.v. and so energy is not a problem, on scale such hypothetical society can meet their energy need most days and can use wind/hydro/nuclear for the others.
However:
- most cities, witch means most densely populated areas of the planet and where most peoples live, can't do that, simply there is no physical space.
- we probably can't produce enough batteries, in natural resources terms, to substitute all ICE cars, and keep producing them when after just 5-8 years initial batteries are dead (we still do not have viable way to recycle).
If you follow the press you've might have read things like:
- https://www.motorious.com/articles/features-3/uk-eliminating...
- https://www.vice.com/en/article/y3vny5/glorified-electric-go...
etc witch clearly depict a future of a divided society: a small minority living in modern homes, with p.v. et al. to meet their energy needs, e.v., perhaps flying ones (witch might be cheaper than keep up a big road network in the actual climate change state) and the rest confined in modern smart cities, closely similar to factories or prisons, oh something like:
- https://www.forbes.com/sites/worldeconomicforum/2016/11/10/s...
- https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/operations/how-w...
- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/19/why-greeces-ex...
- https://global.toyota/en/newsroom/corporate/34827717.html
etc. I honestly do not know what can be our (humans) options so far, BUT certainly I do not like decisions made by those who are actually responsible of our tragic evolution. Personally I quit a large modern city toward a served-enough mountains area, building a new modern home, with insulation, anything electrical, p.v. with lithium storage to power and backup, with various backups (nearby water source, water recuperation at home, emergency/for pleasure airtight wood stove enough for heating the house etc) and the above depicted future society might be even good for me: as long as I can get services (food, tools, meds etc) my own personal life is already, still remain if nothing of that happen and can remain if such evolution happen, better than before, but such new society can't last longer. No society where too large part of population are pushed toward India's caste-alike isolation between cohort of people can really last much, especially in modern times where we need enough smart people to keep out tech up.
However:
- most cities, witch means most densely populated areas of the planet and where most peoples live, can't do that, simply there is no physical space.
- we probably can't produce enough batteries, in natural resources terms, to substitute all ICE cars, and keep producing them when after just 5-8 years initial batteries are dead (we still do not have viable way to recycle).
If you follow the press you've might have read things like:
- https://www.motorious.com/articles/features-3/uk-eliminating...
- https://www.vice.com/en/article/y3vny5/glorified-electric-go...
etc witch clearly depict a future of a divided society: a small minority living in modern homes, with p.v. et al. to meet their energy needs, e.v., perhaps flying ones (witch might be cheaper than keep up a big road network in the actual climate change state) and the rest confined in modern smart cities, closely similar to factories or prisons, oh something like:
- https://www.forbes.com/sites/worldeconomicforum/2016/11/10/s...
- https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/operations/how-w...
- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/19/why-greeces-ex...
- https://global.toyota/en/newsroom/corporate/34827717.html
etc. I honestly do not know what can be our (humans) options so far, BUT certainly I do not like decisions made by those who are actually responsible of our tragic evolution. Personally I quit a large modern city toward a served-enough mountains area, building a new modern home, with insulation, anything electrical, p.v. with lithium storage to power and backup, with various backups (nearby water source, water recuperation at home, emergency/for pleasure airtight wood stove enough for heating the house etc) and the above depicted future society might be even good for me: as long as I can get services (food, tools, meds etc) my own personal life is already, still remain if nothing of that happen and can remain if such evolution happen, better than before, but such new society can't last longer. No society where too large part of population are pushed toward India's caste-alike isolation between cohort of people can really last much, especially in modern times where we need enough smart people to keep out tech up.
People living in areas without public transport should have driveways and/or garages. Driving an average 14,000 miles a year or 40 miles a day, or 13kWh, is easily charged from the power you get out of a standard socket overnight, 1kWh per car, less than a space-heater.
If you live in a city and thus don't have a private parking space, then you should be using mass transport. Cars don't work in high density areas.
I live in the country in the UK, I do have a bus, it runs 6 times a day and doesn't go in the right direction or right times for most purposes, but the total mileage we do is easily charged from an extension lead, and solar on the roof would provide more 15,000 miles of power over a year - far more than we use.
However the cost of both an electric car and the solar installation isn't worth it, because we don't pay externalities for the carbon production.
If you live in a city and thus don't have a private parking space, then you should be using mass transport. Cars don't work in high density areas.
I live in the country in the UK, I do have a bus, it runs 6 times a day and doesn't go in the right direction or right times for most purposes, but the total mileage we do is easily charged from an extension lead, and solar on the roof would provide more 15,000 miles of power over a year - far more than we use.
However the cost of both an electric car and the solar installation isn't worth it, because we don't pay externalities for the carbon production.
> People living in areas without public transport should have driveways and/or garages.
And do have also the ability to produce electricity with a usage pattern that permit self-charging the car? Electricity grid are a bit complex to be kept up, to be more precise generators need time to step up produced power and time to step down, that's why we make large enough grid to average the load on generators counting on a big enough user base to have a nearly constant load on the grid, small variations of loads can be sustained. Slowly charging a car, test on few friends cars, means around 15-20A witch yes is not exceptional BUT if many people charge their car during the night that means a spike load, a significant one, on the grid, something no actual grid can sustain. Remember: we do not have "big hyper-condenser batteries" to absorb a spike while generator step up and we do not have "energy sponge" to dump excess of energy once a load drop and the generator need a bit to lower it's produced power. That's the very same problem of domestic p.v.: if they are connected to the grid it's the grid that sustain initial spike while the solar inverter step up, and it's the grid sustain final spike receiving the excess of energy while the inverter step down. If your load surpass injection limits your inverter will disconnect loosing power completely to do it's best to keep a constant frequency on the grid.
We have invented the CONCEPT, since so far exist only on paper and small scale experiments, of smart-grids, to mitigate that big problem: in a smart grid nodes talks each others to say "hey, get ready to produce more energy, I'm about to soft-start from x to y", generators can potentially answer back "don't, we are overloaded" or "ok, we get ready for you". E.v. in the game can provide batteries + inverters to quickly intervene backing up the grid segment per segment. Similarly in case of disruption they can keep a house powered connected to it's micro-grid + anti-islandic system to avoid injecting to the grid. So far we haven't such networks, we have only ideas and experiments. It will take decades (one it's not enough, for all not so small countries) to implement them at a certain scale.
> If you live in a city [...] then you should be using mass transport.
Witch is an enormous issue alone: mass transport are very costly and very inefficient, they are efficient only when fully loaded, exactly when people do not like them for the crowd. But we need to move 24/7/365 not just in peak time, so public transports are complicated and bad in terms of energy saving and outcome service. They are pushed just because there is a hyper-push against personal ownership and autonomy at any cost. But the truth is that public transports are needed in dense cities, but are absolutely unsustainable and dense cities are. Some want them, just because dense cities means mass surveillance where very few can rule many easily, also making them dependent for anything. Even accepting that big liability in cities you still need cars: you have sometimes to go outside, you have to transport heavy/bulky stuff, witch can't be done on public transport. People who work in the city need vehicles just because a plumber, an electrician etc always need a not so small set of tools with him/her etc.
> However the cost of both an electric car and the solar installation isn't worth it
True, and that's why to push the Green New Deal they artificially hyper push up energy prices, both to finance massive private investments in energy production and transmission and to force people who can to buy the Green New Deal stuff and the others to starve sliding toward State subsides at State (of course, not Democratic state but one run by private neoliberal interests) rules. That's already happen. When I've made my new home I know it was not economically interesting BUT I've smell rodent and decide to accept the capex, now in just few years it start to be economically interested. E.v. are still too expensive for their MTBF but I'm pretty sure in few years with energy prices that keep skyrocketing they'll became interesting. As a result I'll spend far more than without the neoliberal economy but still far less then embracing it. Most who live in classic homes and cities will simply have no choices: they'll sell their own homes to some private giant that will rebuild them in new homes for who can afford to buy or rent, or to the State in exchange of provided social housing at provided condition reaching the (in)famous "In 2030 you'll own nothing" from the World Economic Forum agenda. If you are in the UK I suggest Mark Carney (ex head of UK national bank) book "Value(s): Building a Better World for All" it's essentially written black on white, of course, with different tones, but equal picture for the future.
And do have also the ability to produce electricity with a usage pattern that permit self-charging the car? Electricity grid are a bit complex to be kept up, to be more precise generators need time to step up produced power and time to step down, that's why we make large enough grid to average the load on generators counting on a big enough user base to have a nearly constant load on the grid, small variations of loads can be sustained. Slowly charging a car, test on few friends cars, means around 15-20A witch yes is not exceptional BUT if many people charge their car during the night that means a spike load, a significant one, on the grid, something no actual grid can sustain. Remember: we do not have "big hyper-condenser batteries" to absorb a spike while generator step up and we do not have "energy sponge" to dump excess of energy once a load drop and the generator need a bit to lower it's produced power. That's the very same problem of domestic p.v.: if they are connected to the grid it's the grid that sustain initial spike while the solar inverter step up, and it's the grid sustain final spike receiving the excess of energy while the inverter step down. If your load surpass injection limits your inverter will disconnect loosing power completely to do it's best to keep a constant frequency on the grid.
We have invented the CONCEPT, since so far exist only on paper and small scale experiments, of smart-grids, to mitigate that big problem: in a smart grid nodes talks each others to say "hey, get ready to produce more energy, I'm about to soft-start from x to y", generators can potentially answer back "don't, we are overloaded" or "ok, we get ready for you". E.v. in the game can provide batteries + inverters to quickly intervene backing up the grid segment per segment. Similarly in case of disruption they can keep a house powered connected to it's micro-grid + anti-islandic system to avoid injecting to the grid. So far we haven't such networks, we have only ideas and experiments. It will take decades (one it's not enough, for all not so small countries) to implement them at a certain scale.
> If you live in a city [...] then you should be using mass transport.
Witch is an enormous issue alone: mass transport are very costly and very inefficient, they are efficient only when fully loaded, exactly when people do not like them for the crowd. But we need to move 24/7/365 not just in peak time, so public transports are complicated and bad in terms of energy saving and outcome service. They are pushed just because there is a hyper-push against personal ownership and autonomy at any cost. But the truth is that public transports are needed in dense cities, but are absolutely unsustainable and dense cities are. Some want them, just because dense cities means mass surveillance where very few can rule many easily, also making them dependent for anything. Even accepting that big liability in cities you still need cars: you have sometimes to go outside, you have to transport heavy/bulky stuff, witch can't be done on public transport. People who work in the city need vehicles just because a plumber, an electrician etc always need a not so small set of tools with him/her etc.
> However the cost of both an electric car and the solar installation isn't worth it
True, and that's why to push the Green New Deal they artificially hyper push up energy prices, both to finance massive private investments in energy production and transmission and to force people who can to buy the Green New Deal stuff and the others to starve sliding toward State subsides at State (of course, not Democratic state but one run by private neoliberal interests) rules. That's already happen. When I've made my new home I know it was not economically interesting BUT I've smell rodent and decide to accept the capex, now in just few years it start to be economically interested. E.v. are still too expensive for their MTBF but I'm pretty sure in few years with energy prices that keep skyrocketing they'll became interesting. As a result I'll spend far more than without the neoliberal economy but still far less then embracing it. Most who live in classic homes and cities will simply have no choices: they'll sell their own homes to some private giant that will rebuild them in new homes for who can afford to buy or rent, or to the State in exchange of provided social housing at provided condition reaching the (in)famous "In 2030 you'll own nothing" from the World Economic Forum agenda. If you are in the UK I suggest Mark Carney (ex head of UK national bank) book "Value(s): Building a Better World for All" it's essentially written black on white, of course, with different tones, but equal picture for the future.
I drive a 30 y/o diesel van and if I don’t warm it up for a while in the morning it runs like shit/dies. I had to explain this to a lady while I was loading it up for volunteer food delivery once.
Probably doesn’t apply to most vehicles though.
Probably doesn’t apply to most vehicles though.
How is that the lady’s problem that you’ve chosen to run something so disgustingly polluting with a disregard for her health?
Its not my fault she parked behind me.
Maybe her health isn’t actually impacted and she’s just ignorant?
It's pretty well established that diesel motors produce PM2.5 particles that are damaging to humans, if it's a 30 year old unit it's probably pumping it out in good quantities with little restriction. PM2.5 particulate from a diesel motor starts to irritate the lungs and eyes pretty quickly.
We've always given a pass to cars for the unpleasantness they bring into a city because we figure there's no alternative, that's just how the city runs. But there are alternatives now, and people are getting fed up with the noise, smells and pollution.
Even without the very well document health affects, cars are just shitty to be around when you're not inside one yourself, I think it's fair that we'd rather not deal with them when on foot or in your own home when possible.
We've always given a pass to cars for the unpleasantness they bring into a city because we figure there's no alternative, that's just how the city runs. But there are alternatives now, and people are getting fed up with the noise, smells and pollution.
Even without the very well document health affects, cars are just shitty to be around when you're not inside one yourself, I think it's fair that we'd rather not deal with them when on foot or in your own home when possible.
If it's sufficiently old it probably doesn't produce as much PM2.5. Very old engines tend to produce larger particles. There was an unfortunate period in the development of diesel engines where the engine burnt the fuel well enough to produce very small particles and high amounts of NOx but before filters were mandatory. Of course the old engines will in put out a lot more hydrocarbon pollution which is not particularly healthy either.
That's true, and if I'm not mistaken the increase in PM2.5 particles produced is due to the emissions requirement to reduce NOx output. Balancing two negatives in a way.
That is my understanding also. There is a tradeoff between very complete combustion in a lean mixture under high pressure that produces few particulates but lots of NOx and running a rich mixture at lower temperature that produces less NOx and more particulates. Fortunately modern engines have filters both for NOx and particulates, so that neither is really a problem. At least once the car has warmed up, which in cold climates and city driving can be roughly never...
Let's all try to be a little less ignorant, starting with how diesel exhaust can affect everyone's health, dose-dependent:
https://oehha.ca.gov/air/health-effects-diesel-exhaust
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/diesel-exhaust-a...
Why do you drive a 30 year old van?
As far as I know, it is more environmentally friendly to drive an old car until it falls apart than producing a new one that has a better eco balance while driving.
I remember from the "Cash for Clunkers" debacle, it was pointed out that scrapping an older car for a newer fuel efficient one took 20,000 miles driven on the new one to break even in emissions.
(Manufacturing a new car releases lots of CO2.)
(Manufacturing a new car releases lots of CO2.)
Your wording makes it a bit unclear, just for clarity: this means that GP is wrong, it's definitely better for the climate to have your old car crushed and buy a new car. The amount of CO2 expended during manufacturing of your car is not significant on the lifetime of the car.
If it's really just 20,000 miles then frankly it might even be one of the most effective ways to turn your dollars into reduced CO2 expenditure.
If it's really just 20,000 miles then frankly it might even be one of the most effective ways to turn your dollars into reduced CO2 expenditure.
> Your wording makes it a bit unclear, just for clarity: this means that GP is wrong, it's definitely better for the climate to have your old car crushed and buy a new car. The amount of CO2 expended during manufacturing of your car is not significant on the lifetime of the car.
I did not claim climate-friendliness, but environmental friendliness though.
I did not claim climate-friendliness, but environmental friendliness though.
Well if you want to be good for the environment you also have to consider nitrate emissions and fine particles.
Also, it was my understanding that most of a (ICE) car can be melted and reused, so maybe the mining impact is lower but I don't know what the real world consequences are.
Also, it was my understanding that most of a (ICE) car can be melted and reused, so maybe the mining impact is lower but I don't know what the real world consequences are.
That still would ignore major sources of pollutants, such as tires (that get distributed into the air and on the road while driving). Electric cars do not improve that at all. If we just focus on emissions from the motors, why can't we just replace the motors instead of producing new seats, steering wheels and doors, while attaching a bunch of computers to it that also undermine the driver's privacy, and selling the package for double the price?
A yeah 100%. You couldn't replace an ICE with an electric motor, at least not with current technology, but you could definitely replace it with a more efficient one. Maybe even with a hybrid if you're willing to give up some room.
None of your business.
On the contrary what people do to the atmosphere is everyone’s business. I can empathise or understand if they need it for good work and can’t afford a new one. Unfortunately a lot of society has been misdirected into being over reliant on cars.
Not to mention all the other inequalities in society. They mentioned volunteering, If it’s good they should probably be compensated more than some worthless crypto tech bro for example, and should have a good van. But we have to work in the current system.
Not to mention all the other inequalities in society. They mentioned volunteering, If it’s good they should probably be compensated more than some worthless crypto tech bro for example, and should have a good van. But we have to work in the current system.
No; why I drive a 30 y/o van is none of your business. You’re just going to have to get over it. Sorry, dude!
Want to buy them a new one? I'm sure they'd be happy to accept it.
Driving a vehicle with a cold engine (without a warm up idling period) will eventually destroy the engine.
I don't think that is true except, perhaps in the case of much older vehicles—particularly carbureted, rather than injected—vehicles. Most of the advice I have read in, say, the last 20 years for gasoline-powered vehicles, is to allow no more than about 30 seconds to a minute of standing warm up before gently driving off. The engine will be fully lubricated within 10-15 seconds and ready to go.
>allow no more than about 30 seconds to a minute of standing
This heavily depends on the temp range you are discussing.
Lubrication is the least of your worries at certain temperatures. The engine block and pistons being too cold cause problematic expansion and contraction which can lead to block cracks or permanent engine knock issues from what I've seen. This will eventually lead to needing an engine replacement.
This heavily depends on the temp range you are discussing.
Lubrication is the least of your worries at certain temperatures. The engine block and pistons being too cold cause problematic expansion and contraction which can lead to block cracks or permanent engine knock issues from what I've seen. This will eventually lead to needing an engine replacement.
But if driven hard while cold, it will warm up faster, reducing the damage that can be done.
It's a trade-off, and nobody seems to have done the science properly - it's just mechanics and engineers guessing which effect is worse.
It's a trade-off, and nobody seems to have done the science properly - it's just mechanics and engineers guessing which effect is worse.
>But if driven hard while cold, it will warm up faster, reducing the damage that can be done.
Is this sarcasm? I can't tell because it is literally the opposite of the truth.
Is this sarcasm? I can't tell because it is literally the opposite of the truth.
You can actually hear my '96 motor quiet down as the oil makes it's way through the head. Takes about 15 seconds. I wait for the engine coolant temp to reach 75c before I give it a good wick. It fluctuates between 75c and 85c under good load.
Interesting to me, is that when idling down a hill it does not drop, but if left in gear going down a hill it does drop in temp. It can actually get itself below operating temperature in gear going down a hill. I presume because the heat being pulled out via pumping air through the combustion chamber is greater than the thermostat would allow to be pulled out via the radiator.
Interesting to me, is that when idling down a hill it does not drop, but if left in gear going down a hill it does drop in temp. It can actually get itself below operating temperature in gear going down a hill. I presume because the heat being pulled out via pumping air through the combustion chamber is greater than the thermostat would allow to be pulled out via the radiator.
> You can actually hear my '96 motor quiet down as the oil makes it's way through the head. Takes about 15 seconds. I wait for the engine coolant temp to reach 75c before I give it a good wick. It fluctuates between 75c and 85c under good load.
Pretty typical of engines of that vintage with hydraulic lifters.
> Interesting to me, is that when idling down a hill it does not drop, but if left in gear going down a hill it does drop in temp. It can actually get itself below operating temperature in gear going down a hill. I presume because the heat being pulled out via pumping air through the combustion chamber is greater than the thermostat would allow to be pulled out via the radiator.
I didn't think that would significant but I could be wrong. Is it a diesel or gasoline engine? My guess would be the thermostat is leaking or wrong temperature.
Pretty typical of engines of that vintage with hydraulic lifters.
> Interesting to me, is that when idling down a hill it does not drop, but if left in gear going down a hill it does drop in temp. It can actually get itself below operating temperature in gear going down a hill. I presume because the heat being pulled out via pumping air through the combustion chamber is greater than the thermostat would allow to be pulled out via the radiator.
I didn't think that would significant but I could be wrong. Is it a diesel or gasoline engine? My guess would be the thermostat is leaking or wrong temperature.
Two factors, deceleration fuel cutoff in gear not producing combustion heat, and water pump spinning faster.
I would have thought the thermostat would account for faster water flow, at least stopping the temperature drop at operating temp. But as another user pointed it, it could be a bad thermostat also.
That's why when I get in the car I start the engine first, then fiddle about with the seatbelt, parking brake, getting settled, check the mirrors, etc. By the time I finish all that the car is ready to ease into gear.
Yep, that's my routine as well.
That's not really true for modern vehicles. They handle it a lot better. Many are also designed to turn on and off constantly at stop lights, so they're designed to properly handle temperature and lubrication during the start/stop cycles.
If you're in a particularly cold winter you might benefit from it but really that's a judgement call. If you live somewhere mostly above freezing and drive a modern car, you're probably good to drive from the moment you start the car. Unless you're about to go full throttle on a racetrack, should be fine.
I warm up my 96 Nissan before driving, but I just go easy for the first 5 minutes in the 2010 Nissan.
If you're in a particularly cold winter you might benefit from it but really that's a judgement call. If you live somewhere mostly above freezing and drive a modern car, you're probably good to drive from the moment you start the car. Unless you're about to go full throttle on a racetrack, should be fine.
I warm up my 96 Nissan before driving, but I just go easy for the first 5 minutes in the 2010 Nissan.
> Many are also designed to turn on and off constantly at stop lights, so they're designed to properly handle temperature and lubrication during the start/stop cycles.
Many late 00's engines were also designed to turn off cylinders to improve engine efficiency, but that turned out not to be implemented very well and engines died from carbon fouling. Big problem with Honda in particular iirc, and people would routinely bypass it to save their engines.
Automakers have to comply with CAFE standards and other mandates, but at the end of the day there's no mandate that an engine made with gen-1 technologies will make it to 300k miles either. Automakers don't really care if your engine dies in 10 years or not, they've put out lemons before and they will do it again.
Early CVTs failed at extremely high rates/short lifetimes, for example, and early OAT coolants like Dexcool were notorious for eating up every seal inside an engine. Early high-compression diesels had about a decade of their fuel injectors being eaten away by the abrasive sulfur before the ultra-low-sulfur highway diesel changeover. These technologies are of course completely normalized and trustworthy today, but that's not much consolation if you're the one paying the repair bills on a gen-1 lemon.
For some reason "don't upgrade to a v0.0 release of a new major version of iOS" is common knowledge here but nobody wants to apply that same logic to cars. The general public gets it though.
Now that cars have got 10 years of stop-n-start under their belt it's probably more reliable but still, it's a challenging design criteria for an engine.
Not saying diesel fumes aren't a problem either, mind... we probably need to go electric in the long run. But at the same time, on the level of personal self-interest... it's probably better for your engine to not start and stop constantly. It's just bad when everyone is idling because they don't want to start and stop. Tragedy of the commons.
Many late 00's engines were also designed to turn off cylinders to improve engine efficiency, but that turned out not to be implemented very well and engines died from carbon fouling. Big problem with Honda in particular iirc, and people would routinely bypass it to save their engines.
Automakers have to comply with CAFE standards and other mandates, but at the end of the day there's no mandate that an engine made with gen-1 technologies will make it to 300k miles either. Automakers don't really care if your engine dies in 10 years or not, they've put out lemons before and they will do it again.
Early CVTs failed at extremely high rates/short lifetimes, for example, and early OAT coolants like Dexcool were notorious for eating up every seal inside an engine. Early high-compression diesels had about a decade of their fuel injectors being eaten away by the abrasive sulfur before the ultra-low-sulfur highway diesel changeover. These technologies are of course completely normalized and trustworthy today, but that's not much consolation if you're the one paying the repair bills on a gen-1 lemon.
For some reason "don't upgrade to a v0.0 release of a new major version of iOS" is common knowledge here but nobody wants to apply that same logic to cars. The general public gets it though.
Now that cars have got 10 years of stop-n-start under their belt it's probably more reliable but still, it's a challenging design criteria for an engine.
Not saying diesel fumes aren't a problem either, mind... we probably need to go electric in the long run. But at the same time, on the level of personal self-interest... it's probably better for your engine to not start and stop constantly. It's just bad when everyone is idling because they don't want to start and stop. Tragedy of the commons.
[deleted]
Witch is why you have an electric engine heater in cold(er) places, no need to idle :shrug:
Electric vehicles would completely get rid of this problem. I doubt we will be talking about this in 10 or 15 years, though I wish the transition would occur more quickly.
> I doubt we will be talking about this in 10 or 15 years
Currently only ~2% percent of vehicles sold are electric. Going to take 10 years just to get to 50% of sales. That's not even including commercial vehicles.
TLDR - it's going to take somewhat longer than that.
Currently only ~2% percent of vehicles sold are electric. Going to take 10 years just to get to 50% of sales. That's not even including commercial vehicles.
TLDR - it's going to take somewhat longer than that.
Many states and countries have vowed to prohibit ICE sales by either 2030 or 2035. So eventually the choice is gone, but the tech is catching on rapidly anyways, and who wants to be the last person to by an ICE?
It might happen faster in NYC with the nudge from these fines.
> Electric vehicles would completely get rid of this problem.
If the truck is 'idling' with the electricity flowing from its batteries, the pollution and climate impact is just dislocated in space and time to the power plant when the truck is charging.
If the truck is off, then there is no problem, but now ICE motors also can automatically turn off and on.
If the truck is 'idling' with the electricity flowing from its batteries, the pollution and climate impact is just dislocated in space and time to the power plant when the truck is charging.
If the truck is off, then there is no problem, but now ICE motors also can automatically turn off and on.
'Just' dislocating the pollution away from a dense city block at street level, where people live and work, to a power plant where emissions have less human impact and can be addressed more effectively, sounds great.
Trash collection just dislocates rotting food scraps and garbage from city streets to a landfill. I think it's an acceptable arrangement!
Trash collection just dislocates rotting food scraps and garbage from city streets to a landfill. I think it's an acceptable arrangement!
Trash is not a meaningful analogy, for obvious reasons. I agree there are some benefits to dislocation to the power plant, but nearly enough nor as many as just turning off the engine.
Keeping a battery or even a cab warm doesn’t require so much electricity. Also, it depends on how the electricity is generated (hydro, nuclear, coal with much better scrubbers than a small ICE). Even let’s say the electricity is generated by coal without decent scrubbers (something not allowed in the USA at least, but let’s pretend we are in Mongolia): the coal plant is still way outside of the city (in this case, Ulan Bator).
I assume the vehicles are idling to keep the heater on, or the engine warm. Also, it seems like diesel is different from unleaded gasoline in terms of what engines can do or not.
I assume the vehicles are idling to keep the heater on, or the engine warm. Also, it seems like diesel is different from unleaded gasoline in terms of what engines can do or not.
People are focusing only on air quality, but climate change is obviously a critical issue.
> the pollution and climate impact is just dislocated in space and time to the power plant when the truck is charging.
Isn't that the major point (aside from get the heck out of the way) of these anti-idling laws? Reduce the localized noise and air pollution.
Also NYS gets a ton of electricity from carbon-free sources.
Isn't that the major point (aside from get the heck out of the way) of these anti-idling laws? Reduce the localized noise and air pollution.
Also NYS gets a ton of electricity from carbon-free sources.
The laws also reduce climate change impact, which is critical.
Eh? If an EV is idling then there's no "electricity flowing from its batteries".
What does "idling" mean for the EV? Also, people often idle in order to use power, such as for heat, AC, the refrigerator in the back, etc.
When idling an internal combustion engine burns fuel just for not stopping. This needlessly wastes fuel, causes CO2 emissions, stinks and spreads unhealthy soot blackening lungs and walls of nearby people and houses.
An EV engine just stands still. If people use power, they draw that from the battieres, however this energy is not wasted but employed for something useful.
An EV engine just stands still. If people use power, they draw that from the battieres, however this energy is not wasted but employed for something useful.
> an internal combustion engine burns fuel just for not stopping
True, if it's idling, but many (most? all new?) ICEs now automatically stop when the car stops.
True, if it's idling, but many (most? all new?) ICEs now automatically stop when the car stops.
I don't think NYC's method of reporting reveals the reporter's identity to the driver, and assuming the reporter observes discreetly, NYC is dense enough that the reporter could be any of far too many different people for the driver to reliably target any attempt at retaliation.
I work in steel fabrication / construction, the idea of 'engines off inside' hasn't caught on in Tasmania in the industry.
When I was in Adelaide circa ten to fifteen years ago I recall the local food and beverage manufacturers all had signs to the effect 'strictly engines off inside'.
Nothing worse than a workshop full of diesel soot, though the exhaust urea fluid (AdBlue) in the newer trucks does give it a distinctively more breathable aroma, so there's that.
Very annoying.
When I was in Adelaide circa ten to fifteen years ago I recall the local food and beverage manufacturers all had signs to the effect 'strictly engines off inside'.
Nothing worse than a workshop full of diesel soot, though the exhaust urea fluid (AdBlue) in the newer trucks does give it a distinctively more breathable aroma, so there's that.
Very annoying.
People do this for so long too. Sometimes nearly an hour will pass and someone’s car/truck/van will just be sitting double-parked or in some other non-parking spot with the engine running and blinkers flashing.
It’s like dude… this isn’t some secret loophole to getting to park somewhere that’s not allowed because another place is inconvenient.
It’s like dude… this isn’t some secret loophole to getting to park somewhere that’s not allowed because another place is inconvenient.
Will you at least acknowledge this trend of citizens reporting citizens is a dangerous trend?
I suspect the overwhelming majority of crime reporting is citizens reporting other citizens, i.e. calling 911.
The problem here is offering monetary incentives. Purposefully or not, I'm sure judges would hand out a lot more fines if they got a cut out of it.
I can't wait until all the idling police officers, political figures, and the very people collecting the fines get drained dry by people calling. They want people to rat out people idling, lets start with government officials. Every single one of them should be ratted out at every possible opportunity before we out the general populace.
As mentioned below, its the monetary incentive that bothers me. I wasn't very clear, my bad.
[deleted]
>One frosty, completely still morning in Brooklyn
You realize some people have to warm up vehicles on extremely cold days by letting them idle for 5-15 minutes. How are they supposed to accomplish this now?
Article has a js paywall so I'm unable to read if there is an exception.
You realize some people have to warm up vehicles on extremely cold days by letting them idle for 5-15 minutes. How are they supposed to accomplish this now?
Article has a js paywall so I'm unable to read if there is an exception.
This really isn't needed on modern fuel injected vehicles, especially on petrol (gas) vehicles. The only thing you are really heating up is the cabin. Idling for 1-2 minutes when it's below freezing may be beneficial, but leaving a modern car idling for 15 minutes is a waste and doing nothing other than making it more comfortable for you. Once it's idling at a stable RPM, just start driving and take it easy for a few minutes.
The main part of the engine that needs to be heated up when cold is the oil, so that the viscosity is low enough to allow it to flow to all the parts of the engine it needs to reach. Modern oils do not have any issues being viscous even when cold, just make sure you use the right oil for your vehicle & climate, and change it on schedule.
Diesel engines are usually physically bigger and the combustion temperature is lower than petrol, so it takes longer to heat up. The biggest issue with a diesel is actually starting it though, that's why in colder climates diesel vehicles usually have a Webasto or similar device to preheat the coolant for you which will make it easier to crank.
Of course there are exceptions to this advice if you live in extreme climates, but NYC is usually not that extreme.
The main part of the engine that needs to be heated up when cold is the oil, so that the viscosity is low enough to allow it to flow to all the parts of the engine it needs to reach. Modern oils do not have any issues being viscous even when cold, just make sure you use the right oil for your vehicle & climate, and change it on schedule.
Diesel engines are usually physically bigger and the combustion temperature is lower than petrol, so it takes longer to heat up. The biggest issue with a diesel is actually starting it though, that's why in colder climates diesel vehicles usually have a Webasto or similar device to preheat the coolant for you which will make it easier to crank.
Of course there are exceptions to this advice if you live in extreme climates, but NYC is usually not that extreme.
Why do you feel entitled to idle your vehicle where it's bothering dozens of people?
It sounds a lot like you have a problem with your vehicle and should deal with it.
It sounds a lot like you have a problem with your vehicle and should deal with it.
By this logic what is wrong with all those people getting up early and driving to work, don’t they know some of us don’t have a job! Where do they get off?
On the bus or train. There's no reason that anyone should need to use a personal car for commuting inside urban areas.
>There's no reason that anyone should need to use a personal car for commuting inside urban areas.
This ignores every laborer that requires heavy tools to complete their daily task. The people that keep your buildings and homes comfortable, for example, can easily have hundreds of pounds of tools.
This ignores every laborer that requires heavy tools to complete their daily task. The people that keep your buildings and homes comfortable, for example, can easily have hundreds of pounds of tools.
That's not a "commuting with a personal car", that's
"working with a company car". Completely different use case.
Steve the Office Manager doesn't need a 2.5 ton pickup truck with a 6-foot-tall frontend that needs a forward-facing camera because the visibility is so shit that there's no way to avoid splattering all of the children on the 2 mile trip through populated neighborhoods between his house and office.
And yes, Steve is a representative buyer of big trucks these days. Actual working professionals want to be able to actually see where they're going, so they buy vehicles with short frontends and high capacity, like the Ford Transit.
A Edwards poll of Pickup owners in 2018 showed that 75% have never hauled anything, and 70% use the bed less than once a year (ie, never). The sales numbers bear this out as well, pickups with actual usable bed space are very unpopular, almost all the units that are sold have crew cabs, with about as much room in the back for hauling as a minivan with the bench down.
Steve the Office Manager doesn't need a 2.5 ton pickup truck with a 6-foot-tall frontend that needs a forward-facing camera because the visibility is so shit that there's no way to avoid splattering all of the children on the 2 mile trip through populated neighborhoods between his house and office.
And yes, Steve is a representative buyer of big trucks these days. Actual working professionals want to be able to actually see where they're going, so they buy vehicles with short frontends and high capacity, like the Ford Transit.
A Edwards poll of Pickup owners in 2018 showed that 75% have never hauled anything, and 70% use the bed less than once a year (ie, never). The sales numbers bear this out as well, pickups with actual usable bed space are very unpopular, almost all the units that are sold have crew cabs, with about as much room in the back for hauling as a minivan with the bench down.
>That's not a "commuting with a personal car", that's "working with a company car". Completely different use case.
Another case of complete disconnect from reality. Many tradesmen use their own personal vehicles. If you want to call it a 'company car' because the commute involves transport of professional tools, then go ahead and play that semantic game.
>And yes, Steve is a representative buyer of big trucks these days. Actual working professionals want to be able to actually see where they're going, so they buy vehicles with short frontends and high capacity, like the Ford Transit.
Something you're so intimately familiar with, that you totally overlooked that there actually are reasons 'anyone should need to use a personal car for commuting inside urban areas.'
>Steve the Office Manager doesn't need a 2.5 ton pickup truck with a 6-foot-tall frontend that needs a forward-facing camera because the visibility is so shit that there's no way to avoid splattering all of the children on the 2 mile trip through populated neighborhoods between his house and office.
And you probably don't need to have your heat set past 50 degrees in winter or 90 degrees in summer, but I bet you use more energy than you need, helping destroy the environment and kill off animals. You don't need to buy lots of things, but won't someone THINK of the splattered CHILDREN!!!
>A Edwards poll of Pickup owners in 2018 showed that 75% have never hauled anything, and 70% use the bed less than once a year (ie, never). The sales numbers bear this out as well, pickups with actual usable bed space are very unpopular, almost all the units that are sold have crew cabs, with about as much room in the back for hauling as a minivan with the bench down.
The change in pick-up trucks to be massive oversized behemoths including those with large cabs is the result of mental illness of those passing CAFE standards which made it effectively illegal to produce a small efficient truck.
Another case of complete disconnect from reality. Many tradesmen use their own personal vehicles. If you want to call it a 'company car' because the commute involves transport of professional tools, then go ahead and play that semantic game.
>And yes, Steve is a representative buyer of big trucks these days. Actual working professionals want to be able to actually see where they're going, so they buy vehicles with short frontends and high capacity, like the Ford Transit.
Something you're so intimately familiar with, that you totally overlooked that there actually are reasons 'anyone should need to use a personal car for commuting inside urban areas.'
>Steve the Office Manager doesn't need a 2.5 ton pickup truck with a 6-foot-tall frontend that needs a forward-facing camera because the visibility is so shit that there's no way to avoid splattering all of the children on the 2 mile trip through populated neighborhoods between his house and office.
And you probably don't need to have your heat set past 50 degrees in winter or 90 degrees in summer, but I bet you use more energy than you need, helping destroy the environment and kill off animals. You don't need to buy lots of things, but won't someone THINK of the splattered CHILDREN!!!
>A Edwards poll of Pickup owners in 2018 showed that 75% have never hauled anything, and 70% use the bed less than once a year (ie, never). The sales numbers bear this out as well, pickups with actual usable bed space are very unpopular, almost all the units that are sold have crew cabs, with about as much room in the back for hauling as a minivan with the bench down.
The change in pick-up trucks to be massive oversized behemoths including those with large cabs is the result of mental illness of those passing CAFE standards which made it effectively illegal to produce a small efficient truck.
Are you genuinely incapable of understanding the difference between "commuting with a car" and "working with a professional vehicle" or just pretending because you don't want to admit that you grossly misread the comment that started this thread?
You've simply changed the definition of 'commuting with car' to mean any situation where you don't actually need to commute with a car.
A personally owned vehicle used to commute your tools to work could semantically call a 'professional vehicle' if you want to play games, but it's still commuting with your personal vehicle.
A personally owned vehicle used to commute your tools to work could semantically call a 'professional vehicle' if you want to play games, but it's still commuting with your personal vehicle.
Lol you think this was written by someone who depends on moving heavy tools for their daily job? The fact this was completely overlooked, by someone so removed from the commoner as to not even realize the common man often needs a truck full of tools as part of their commute, tells you all you need to know about the perspective of this viewpoint.
The set of jobs that require moving around a truck full of tools is tiny relative to the number of workers -- blue collar or not -- that don't need this.
So who, really, is the common man?
https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2014/ted_20140409.htm
So who, really, is the common man?
https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2014/ted_20140409.htm
No one is going to buy into your hypothesis hinting that a plumber or electrician who carries their tools in their truck as part of their commute isn't part of the common man. It's simply a semantic game, trying to frame a definition to meet your extremist viewpoints.
It takes a serious disconnect from reality to make the statement 'There's no reason that anyone should need to use a personal car for commuting inside urban areas.' Either someone remarkably rich or naive.
It takes a serious disconnect from reality to make the statement 'There's no reason that anyone should need to use a personal car for commuting inside urban areas.' Either someone remarkably rich or naive.
Laborers, small biz folks, anyone who visits multiple sites a day with no set cadence, or people who just want to feel in control over their commutes - blanket statements like this miss large swathes of the people who actually power the city.
And at the end of the day, are you really willing to strip people of the freedom to drive through an urban area?
And at the end of the day, are you really willing to strip people of the freedom to drive through an urban area?
I'm sure this wasn't your intention, but you've identified that there are two groups (or more) with very different levels of utility associated with their choices.
People who "just want to feel in control" are, essentially, externalising the cost of their choices while having better options available to them. There's not an upside for anyone.
Whereas people who need to drive, where work couldn't be done at all if they didn't, would actually be more efficient if they had clearer roads to get around on. It would save them fuel costs and time.
Really though, I sense that your argument isn't in good faith. A nuanced look at this can easily see that some activities in a city require a vehicle to add value, and others don't. Lumping the two together and citing freedom (to externalise the cost of your choices on to others) is a little like using tradespeople as human shields.
People who "just want to feel in control" are, essentially, externalising the cost of their choices while having better options available to them. There's not an upside for anyone.
Whereas people who need to drive, where work couldn't be done at all if they didn't, would actually be more efficient if they had clearer roads to get around on. It would save them fuel costs and time.
Really though, I sense that your argument isn't in good faith. A nuanced look at this can easily see that some activities in a city require a vehicle to add value, and others don't. Lumping the two together and citing freedom (to externalise the cost of your choices on to others) is a little like using tradespeople as human shields.
> And at the end of the day, are you really willing to strip people of the freedom to drive through an urban area?
Yes, for exactly the same reason as I'm willing to strip people of the freedom to practice shooting at elementary schools.
Yes, for exactly the same reason as I'm willing to strip people of the freedom to practice shooting at elementary schools.
A white collar worker in good shape going from, say, Rego Park to Wall St is a great candidate for the subway. But that’s the happy path. If you need to go from there to the far parts of Brooklyn, or any part of the Bronx or Staten Island? Virtually impossible (if you want to get to work before lunch time) without a car. And certainly many with disabilities would have a hard time (as much as the MTA is improving on this front).
>It sounds a lot like you have a problem with your vehicle
The winter temperature extreme in NYC is around -16F, not idling until the engine block warms would be a problem for most vehicles.
The winter temperature extreme in NYC is around -16F, not idling until the engine block warms would be a problem for most vehicles.
The all time record low for NYC is -15F. The last time NYC had a low below 0F was 2016 at -1F. Before that, it hit -2F in 1994.
So, GTFO with your need to warm up your engine for half an hour.
https://www.currentresults.com/Yearly-Weather/USA/NY/New-Yor...
So, GTFO with your need to warm up your engine for half an hour.
https://www.currentresults.com/Yearly-Weather/USA/NY/New-Yor...
>The winter temperature extreme in NYC is around -16F
That is generally implied by the word 'extreme'.
>GTFO with your need to warm up your engine for half an hour.
Nobody said 30 minutes anywhere in this thread.
That is generally implied by the word 'extreme'.
>GTFO with your need to warm up your engine for half an hour.
Nobody said 30 minutes anywhere in this thread.
Get an electric engine warmer, defa or calix are popular here. Don’t know about NY but here in cold Sweden you can find such outlets on most private apartment block parking spaces. This is not an EV charger, just a normal power outlet you plug into your car for the purpose of heating the engine and some times also the cabin.
Today they aren’t as popular as they used to be, modern cars usually have no problem starting anyway. And most people are lazy to plug a cable so instead use the cars built in pre-conditioner, which sadly also burns diesel and smells even worse than when combusted through the engine.
More modern cars can also utilize the EV charger for this purpose. Another reason why hybrid or EVs are superior to diesel in the city.
Today they aren’t as popular as they used to be, modern cars usually have no problem starting anyway. And most people are lazy to plug a cable so instead use the cars built in pre-conditioner, which sadly also burns diesel and smells even worse than when combusted through the engine.
More modern cars can also utilize the EV charger for this purpose. Another reason why hybrid or EVs are superior to diesel in the city.
For the last min. 20 years a minute of idling was more than sufficient even with temps below -25 Celsius (-13 Fahrenheit). Engine was lubricated after 15 to 25 seconds.
The rest was nice stories we told ourselves to not feel our butts freeze.
I learned a long time ago not to put the burden of this specific comfort (warm car in freezing winter) onto my neighborhood. But maybe that is just me being raised with values towards being a good citizen and a potential good ancestor for the next generations to come.
The rest was nice stories we told ourselves to not feel our butts freeze.
I learned a long time ago not to put the burden of this specific comfort (warm car in freezing winter) onto my neighborhood. But maybe that is just me being raised with values towards being a good citizen and a potential good ancestor for the next generations to come.
It is hardly ever -16F in NYC, or anything close to that.
Why do you feel entitled to post on HN? Your comment is bothering dozens of people.
As someone else stated on a sibling comment of yours. You can decide not to read. But you cannot decide not to breath.
You argue (if one could call you polemic that) to be free of the (negative) consequences of your actions. Free to dump your externalities onto society and burden others with the fallout of you (unnecessary) actions.
That is not freedom my dear fellow.
You argue (if one could call you polemic that) to be free of the (negative) consequences of your actions. Free to dump your externalities onto society and burden others with the fallout of you (unnecessary) actions.
That is not freedom my dear fellow.
Huh? How can I decide not to read a comment before reading it? The only way for me to tell if a comment offends me, is if I read it, but by then I'm already offended.
"Externalities" is a useful economic concept but it's been hijacked by people who use it as "stop doing things I don't like".
"Externalities" is a useful economic concept but it's been hijacked by people who use it as "stop doing things I don't like".
by this logic, do you feel entitled to bother dozens of people with your commentary?
we're all entitled to freedom under the law, and some people depend on cars to make a living.
I say this is a car-less NYC resident, bounty hunting culture is dumb.
we're all entitled to freedom under the law, and some people depend on cars to make a living.
I say this is a car-less NYC resident, bounty hunting culture is dumb.
You can easily choose not to read his post, people can't easily choose not to breathe the air where they live. Well, some people can, they can get a car and move.
People are entitled to freedom under the law, but society is free to enact laws that make idling illegal, even if it means some people's vehicles won't start in winter, or restrict vehicle traffic on certain urban streets, whether this pertains to 18-wheelers or a regular handymans truck. Though I'm sure some people will claim there is a constitutional right to getting everywhere by car, and so society is actually not free to do that.
Either way, I doubt there will be significant change. Car culture has a vice-like grip on society, there is no path whatsoever out of this particular local maximum. There may be gestures towards coexistence with other modes of transportation, but never at a significant cost to cars. And that just isn't enough.
People are entitled to freedom under the law, but society is free to enact laws that make idling illegal, even if it means some people's vehicles won't start in winter, or restrict vehicle traffic on certain urban streets, whether this pertains to 18-wheelers or a regular handymans truck. Though I'm sure some people will claim there is a constitutional right to getting everywhere by car, and so society is actually not free to do that.
Either way, I doubt there will be significant change. Car culture has a vice-like grip on society, there is no path whatsoever out of this particular local maximum. There may be gestures towards coexistence with other modes of transportation, but never at a significant cost to cars. And that just isn't enough.
idling is already illegal and calling the police is free
state sponsored snitching is dumb
state sponsored snitching is dumb
Wow. So you feel it comparable to pollute a neighborhood with health adverse fumes to receiving commentary about such behavior?
What you are talking about is not freedom. It is the opposite. It is egoism. You want to do as you please without (negativ) consequences for your actions.
Your freedom ends when it impairs the freedom of others. In this case the freedom not to be poisoned by your car's unnecessary (that is the important distinction here) exhaust fumes.
But yeah. Go on denigrating others by calling them entitled.
What you are talking about is not freedom. It is the opposite. It is egoism. You want to do as you please without (negativ) consequences for your actions.
Your freedom ends when it impairs the freedom of others. In this case the freedom not to be poisoned by your car's unnecessary (that is the important distinction here) exhaust fumes.
But yeah. Go on denigrating others by calling them entitled.
woosh
Modern diesels don’t have to heat up for that long.
Particularly good film on citizen reporting and where it can take you: Utopia.
15 min, full film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJYaXy5mmA8
15 min, full film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJYaXy5mmA8
Does this mean you’re also in favor of abolishing long-established programs like the SEC Whistleblower Program [0]?
[0]: https://www.sec.gov/whistleblower
[0]: https://www.sec.gov/whistleblower
I don't know that law, but do whistle-blowers get a cut of the fine? Otherwise this is a rather far fetched comparison, no?
Yes, they do! Check the link!!!! More than $1 Billion (with a B) has been awarded.
That's all you got out of this film?
What's that video supposed to be?
I mean, it's just constant non-sense. For example:
1. The guy is apparently completely unaware of the laws of his home-country, comically confused about everything.
2. Apparently he entered the country without exchanging his money for the local-system, then is constantly confused that his money doesn't work.
3. Apparently it's highly illegal to pay other peoples' fines (why?), but instead of just declining such illegal payments, it accepts them (why?), then sets off all sorts of dramatic alarms.
4. Unpaid fines stop peoples' cars instantly, even while driving down the road.
5. The last scene shows prisoners relaxing, sipping wine from wine-glasses. Even though they're prisoners, in a country where alcohol's illegal.
I mean, it's just constant non-sense. For example:
1. The guy is apparently completely unaware of the laws of his home-country, comically confused about everything.
2. Apparently he entered the country without exchanging his money for the local-system, then is constantly confused that his money doesn't work.
3. Apparently it's highly illegal to pay other peoples' fines (why?), but instead of just declining such illegal payments, it accepts them (why?), then sets off all sorts of dramatic alarms.
4. Unpaid fines stop peoples' cars instantly, even while driving down the road.
5. The last scene shows prisoners relaxing, sipping wine from wine-glasses. Even though they're prisoners, in a country where alcohol's illegal.
how is it nonsense? everything adds up.
1. he's a visitor, who left the country years, seems like decades ago.
2. he's been away for decades? and now the country is no longer what it used to be?
3. artistic license to demonstrate a point? do you expect films to be some pedantic, step by step, black and white, logic device? It's art, and like life itself, it's not always logical. Fraudulent payments go through as well in real life, but clearly they shouldn't, because they are illegal? Perhaps some citizens are exempt from this rule, and so they allow payments, but punish those not allowed to pay? Perhaps there are many other reasons for it, say, why decline it, instead of taking that money, and fining the other person, that way the "criminal" has less money to begin with, and perhaps that was found to be the more effective punishment?
4. tesla can park itself, why can't it park itself automatically once you are found no longer fit to drive in transit?
5. they are "free". in a "prison". are they free in their "home? is there a difference? It really is the point of the entire short.
what it supposed to be? it's an award winning short.
a little more from director himself, on what this is: https://greekcitytimes.com/2021/03/13/utopia-youtube/
1. he's a visitor, who left the country years, seems like decades ago.
2. he's been away for decades? and now the country is no longer what it used to be?
3. artistic license to demonstrate a point? do you expect films to be some pedantic, step by step, black and white, logic device? It's art, and like life itself, it's not always logical. Fraudulent payments go through as well in real life, but clearly they shouldn't, because they are illegal? Perhaps some citizens are exempt from this rule, and so they allow payments, but punish those not allowed to pay? Perhaps there are many other reasons for it, say, why decline it, instead of taking that money, and fining the other person, that way the "criminal" has less money to begin with, and perhaps that was found to be the more effective punishment?
4. tesla can park itself, why can't it park itself automatically once you are found no longer fit to drive in transit?
5. they are "free". in a "prison". are they free in their "home? is there a difference? It really is the point of the entire short.
what it supposed to be? it's an award winning short.
a little more from director himself, on what this is: https://greekcitytimes.com/2021/03/13/utopia-youtube/
A good argument against X might try to show probable -- or, failing that, plausible -- consequences of X.
But that video's too much like, "If they pass this law I don't like, aliens will invade, earthquakes will shake, and volcanos will erupt!".
If you want to make a real point that people care about, it has to make sense. You can't just make up non-sense, cite "artistic license", and expect people to believe it.
But that video's too much like, "If they pass this law I don't like, aliens will invade, earthquakes will shake, and volcanos will erupt!".
If you want to make a real point that people care about, it has to make sense. You can't just make up non-sense, cite "artistic license", and expect people to believe it.
I would think the social discontent is more harmful to society than the excess diesel soot itself. I imagine if I were in the position of a broke truck driver trying to get by I would see the guy trying to take money out of my pocket as more of an existential threat than soot.
If you talk to a random sampling of New Yorkers, I suspect that you'd find much more social discontent in the lax enforcement of our idling and parking laws (and related things, like placard abuse) than in this.
(Besides: it's a strange thing to appeal to when one side is physically assaulting the other.)
(Besides: it's a strange thing to appeal to when one side is physically assaulting the other.)
I imagine that would be true. There are very few people getting beat up by truck drivers relative to the number of people who don't like lax enforcement of idling and parking laws, placard abuse, etc.
>(Besides: it's a strange thing to appeal to when one side is physically assaulting the other.)
To many people there is not much difference between physical and economic damage. Add in the perceived personal disrespect and that's why you get fights.
>(Besides: it's a strange thing to appeal to when one side is physically assaulting the other.)
To many people there is not much difference between physical and economic damage. Add in the perceived personal disrespect and that's why you get fights.
But it’s not soot, it’s poison. Is there a legitimate reason for the driver to leave the truck idling?
If it's running equipment (refrigerator, loading deck, food truck, overnight accommodation, cold weather, etc).
If they really want to make a difference, they should enforce this against individuals too, not just companies. Lots of people leave cars idling when waiting in the heat/cold/rain. That adds up too.
If they really want to make a difference, they should enforce this against individuals too, not just companies. Lots of people leave cars idling when waiting in the heat/cold/rain. That adds up too.
I don't think the distinction between soot and poison really changes the willingness of someone to physically attack a snitch.
As for legitimate reasons to leave it idle, I have no idea.
As for legitimate reasons to leave it idle, I have no idea.
> As for legitimate reasons to leave it idle, I have no idea.
Air conditioning/heating
Air conditioning/heating
If you get in and out of the cab all day, wear more clothes. That's what I did, worked great. In the summer it's just not that big a deal, you're sweating in every other part of the job anyway. Roll the windows down maybe.
If you're talking about the cargo, the insulation will easily keep up over an hour or two plus of being stopped.
If you're talking about the cargo, the insulation will easily keep up over an hour or two plus of being stopped.
Driving with frosted up windows is not safe
I'm not sure what this comment means, sorry.
You run the heater to defrost the glass in your car. It often takes a few minutes for it to be effective. Otherwise, you can’t see and you’re a danger to yourself and others.
In the winter, it’s more common than putting gas in your car. It’s kinda odd explaining this though
In the winter, it’s more common than putting gas in your car. It’s kinda odd explaining this though
I live in the subarctic region, a stone’s throw away from the arctic circle. We have snow and frost in winter.
We use ice scrapers. :) As a matter of self-reliance and/or common courtesy.
Defrosting the windows with the engine is really not nice, especially not when it’s a diesel with the fumes hanging in the winter air and going inside people’s windows and into baby carriages and kindergarteners’ noses.
We use ice scrapers. :) As a matter of self-reliance and/or common courtesy.
Defrosting the windows with the engine is really not nice, especially not when it’s a diesel with the fumes hanging in the winter air and going inside people’s windows and into baby carriages and kindergarteners’ noses.
It's not only not nice, it's a genuinely bad idea. If you have large sheets of glass (truck windows) and large heat differentials, you are asking for catastrophic failure due to uneven expansion. I know multiple people this has happened to personally, and there are also some truck manufacturers who recommend against this kind of defrosting for exactly this reason.
The pollution from the idling vehicle is an externality that the truck driver isn't paying for. Why should they be allowed to do that?
You're buying food transported by trucks that burn diesel, producing externalities that you haven't paid for. Why should you be allowed to do that?
I shouldn't. The externalities should be charged where they occur and any increase in price should be passed on to me.
>I shouldn't [ be allowed to buy food ]
Thanks, that should be all we really need to see here.
> The externalities should be charged where they occur
You can walk to the farm and negotiate with the farmer to buy from him rather than allowing it to be transported back by diesel, are you doing this or is this just more hypocrisy?
Thanks, that should be all we really need to see here.
> The externalities should be charged where they occur
You can walk to the farm and negotiate with the farmer to buy from him rather than allowing it to be transported back by diesel, are you doing this or is this just more hypocrisy?
> >I shouldn't [ be allowed to buy food ]
> Thanks, that should be all we really need to see here.
I've never said that I shouldn't be allowed to buy food. I simply believe that when I do, I should pay the true cost of it.
> You can walk to the farm and negotiate with the farmer to buy from him rather than allowing it to be transported back by diesel, are you doing this or is this just more hypocrisy?
You have an oddly black and white view of the world. There are plenty of things that I think we should change that currently benefit me. I can participate in the system while still recognizing its flaws and arguing that they should be fixed. I can't reasonably opt out of everything where I disagree with some aspect of it. Do you believe that politicians should vote against all bills that they disagree with any part of?
I think the wealthy in my country should pay more taxes than they currently do. I make more than the median income so this would probably result in me paying more taxes too. I can hold this view without donating part of my salary to the government. I'm against capital punishment. If I see someone committing a crime they could receive the death penalty for I'll still call the police. Do you believe that these views also make me a hypocrite?
I've never said that I shouldn't be allowed to buy food. I simply believe that when I do, I should pay the true cost of it.
> You can walk to the farm and negotiate with the farmer to buy from him rather than allowing it to be transported back by diesel, are you doing this or is this just more hypocrisy?
You have an oddly black and white view of the world. There are plenty of things that I think we should change that currently benefit me. I can participate in the system while still recognizing its flaws and arguing that they should be fixed. I can't reasonably opt out of everything where I disagree with some aspect of it. Do you believe that politicians should vote against all bills that they disagree with any part of?
I think the wealthy in my country should pay more taxes than they currently do. I make more than the median income so this would probably result in me paying more taxes too. I can hold this view without donating part of my salary to the government. I'm against capital punishment. If I see someone committing a crime they could receive the death penalty for I'll still call the police. Do you believe that these views also make me a hypocrite?
>I've never said that I shouldn't be allowed to buy food. I simply believe that when I do, I should pay the true cost of it.
A distinction without a practical difference. It's effectively impossible to buy food at the true cost. Therefore you don't think you should be allowed to buy food.
>If I see someone committing a crime they could receive the death penalty for I'll still call the police. Do you believe that these views also make me a hypocrite?
Yes. If you narc someone out to a system that metes out the death penalty and you disagree with it, then you're no better than the executors.
>I think the wealthy in my country should pay more taxes than they currently do. I make more than the median income so this would probably result in me paying more taxes too. I can hold this view without donating part of my salary to the government
Yes this is highly hypocritical. You want to demand others do something at gun-point that you won't even do voluntarily.
A distinction without a practical difference. It's effectively impossible to buy food at the true cost. Therefore you don't think you should be allowed to buy food.
>If I see someone committing a crime they could receive the death penalty for I'll still call the police. Do you believe that these views also make me a hypocrite?
Yes. If you narc someone out to a system that metes out the death penalty and you disagree with it, then you're no better than the executors.
>I think the wealthy in my country should pay more taxes than they currently do. I make more than the median income so this would probably result in me paying more taxes too. I can hold this view without donating part of my salary to the government
Yes this is highly hypocritical. You want to demand others do something at gun-point that you won't even do voluntarily.
Wow, this is fantastic. I like to work on my balcony, but there are constantly trucks parking below, with poorly maintained engines left to idle for hours a day, spewing fumes that leave a layer of grime coating everything (and send me back inside).
As a car-less NYC resident .. I'm pissed that Texas started this bounty hunting trend. The government should not be socializing law enforcement, nor paying to pit citizens against each other.
This is a dangerous and slippery slope.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/china-encourages-citize...?
This is a dangerous and slippery slope.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/china-encourages-citize...?
They're not enforcing it, they're simply incentivizing tip offs. Not much different than any other crime tip system the government has run. It's still up to the government to actually enforce it once the evidence has been submitted. If the agency wanted to, they could simply discard/ignore all footage.
That's a distinction without a difference. Pitting citizen against citizen is not a healthy state of affairs.
Hate to break it to you, but the people are already against one another. This is just harnessing that energy in service of something that's at least productive. This is turning into the Decade Of Karen. Might as well motivate these nosy, belligerent people towards spotting actual lawbreaking rather than harassing barbecuers or minorities jogging in the park.
>Hate to break it to you, but the people are already against one another.
I'm aware. We need less of that, not more of it.
I'm aware. We need less of that, not more of it.
[deleted]
> The reporters are also responsible for requesting their rewards months later, once they have learned that a fine was paid. The city does not pay the reporters automatically.
This is super lousy.
This is super lousy.
It's surprising the government pays them at all. I would bot be shocked if they decide to lower the reward after seeing the amounts some people made.
I wonder what the conversion rate on this is. How many people forget and move on with their lives? How many are that focused on the bag?
I don't like diesel fumes either, but I'm surprised to see so many Americans signing up for an informant society. There are other ways to solve this problem.
I suppose there's not many other ways to incentivise people in America other than offering them money. Seems like simply informing for the overall benefit of society wouldn't be incentive enough ...
>I suppose there's not many other ways to incentivise people in America other than offering them money
that about sums up the problem for Americans and the world have in general.
that about sums up the problem for Americans and the world have in general.
The problem is about how it is enforced. Vigilante-type crowd sourcing to enforce laws isn't the right way to go about this.
> Vigilante-type crowd sourcing
...is a contradiction in terms. People who report things to the responsible authorities rather than taking violent enforcement action themselves are engaging in exactly the behavior vigilanteism is defined in opposition to.
...is a contradiction in terms. People who report things to the responsible authorities rather than taking violent enforcement action themselves are engaging in exactly the behavior vigilanteism is defined in opposition to.
Do you really think citizens policing each other is a good way to enforce laws?
This is going to get ugly real fast. It creates division and disharmony in a community. No wonder people are getting angry about this.
Read history.
This is going to get ugly real fast. It creates division and disharmony in a community. No wonder people are getting angry about this.
Read history.
> Do you really think citizens policing each other is a good way to enforce laws?
Irrelevant, because this isn't citizens policing each other. (Though, I will note in regard to your question that the alternative of having a distinct subculture separate from normal citizens that inevitably views themselves aligned against the citizenry policing the citizenry is far worse than citizens policing each other, but yet that's what we mostly do.)
> This is going to get ugly real fast. It creates division and disharmony in a community
Lawbreaking creates division and disharmony in a community.
> Read history.
I’ve read quite a bit of it; but I disagree with your implicit analysis, which attributes to a method of enforcement that most modern societies have chosen for some laws problems that stem not from that source but from the particular laws which certain repressive societies enforced using that and other methods.
Irrelevant, because this isn't citizens policing each other. (Though, I will note in regard to your question that the alternative of having a distinct subculture separate from normal citizens that inevitably views themselves aligned against the citizenry policing the citizenry is far worse than citizens policing each other, but yet that's what we mostly do.)
> This is going to get ugly real fast. It creates division and disharmony in a community
Lawbreaking creates division and disharmony in a community.
> Read history.
I’ve read quite a bit of it; but I disagree with your implicit analysis, which attributes to a method of enforcement that most modern societies have chosen for some laws problems that stem not from that source but from the particular laws which certain repressive societies enforced using that and other methods.
[deleted]
What are your other ways?
Yeah because the Stasi were real stickers for the environment.
It is kind of scary to see majority of HN diaspora wanting this kind of future. Sad and sort of terrifying.
hotz(1)
I'm sure I'd live to regret this idea but I really wish I could send video of other vehicles breaking the law to some government agency and have them fine the drivers of those cars. And, I don't really care they don't know who the driver is. Fine the owner of the car and then the owner can decide if they trust the other people to drive the car.
I know that I'd probably get some tickets myself but my belief is that we'd be safer overall if more people obeyed the traffic laws and that they would obey them if they were likely to get caught.
Also, I don't need a cut of the fines.
I know that I'd probably get some tickets myself but my belief is that we'd be safer overall if more people obeyed the traffic laws and that they would obey them if they were likely to get caught.
Also, I don't need a cut of the fines.
This is becoming relatively common in the UK. Lots of cyclists film their commutes due to aggressive drivers, and report dangerous driving by uploading a video to an online portal.
You could start a Twitter account like this one: https://mobile.twitter.com/placardabuse
Thr meter maids in NYC were brought under the NYPD because they used to be routinely beaten up when they were a civilian agency issuing people tickets. Now I don't condone violence, but this just sounds really risky. A lot of these drivers may be forced to eat some or all of the fine, and when they see some average joe shmo playing tattletale on them, I'd expect an uncomfortably large number of them to get physical. I do not think it's wise of NYC gov. to promote this sort of thing.
> Thr meter maids in NYC were brought under the NYPD because they used to be routinely beaten up when they were a civilian agency issuing people tickets. Now I don't condone violence, but this just sounds really risky. A lot of these drivers may be forced to eat some or all of the fine, and when they see some average joe shmo playing tattletale on them, I'd expect an uncomfortably large number of them to get physical. I do not think it's wise of NYC gov. to promote this sort of thing.
We already have a terrible mayor. Even the last mayor said something to the effect of they don't care about people stopping on the bus lane if they are actively loading or unloading. I am sure the new mayor will continue this policy.
Across the river in Jersey City, I've seen even police patrol cars do not care about engine idling laws. These laws probably don't matter if you are in the middle of nowhere in Kansas City but they are absolutely essential in New York City area. We need more enforcement, not less.
If I had to go to court and pay a fine for a guest who put out the trash incorrectly -- no warning, straight a ticket -- I have exactly ZERO sympathy for these engine idlers. They must pay. I'd say while we are at it, make the fines increasingly larger and force these law breakers to go to court and make them waste progressively longer amount of time with the court system every time it happens as well.
We already have a terrible mayor. Even the last mayor said something to the effect of they don't care about people stopping on the bus lane if they are actively loading or unloading. I am sure the new mayor will continue this policy.
Across the river in Jersey City, I've seen even police patrol cars do not care about engine idling laws. These laws probably don't matter if you are in the middle of nowhere in Kansas City but they are absolutely essential in New York City area. We need more enforcement, not less.
If I had to go to court and pay a fine for a guest who put out the trash incorrectly -- no warning, straight a ticket -- I have exactly ZERO sympathy for these engine idlers. They must pay. I'd say while we are at it, make the fines increasingly larger and force these law breakers to go to court and make them waste progressively longer amount of time with the court system every time it happens as well.
> they don't care about people stopping on the bus lane if they are actively loading or unloading.
I once had to deal with an asshole double parked on a two way street forcing all of the traffic behind him to drive on my side and block the other direction. Did not GAF despite truck parking being available at the end of the block.
I once had to deal with an asshole double parked on a two way street forcing all of the traffic behind him to drive on my side and block the other direction. Did not GAF despite truck parking being available at the end of the block.
> I once had to deal with an asshole double parked on a two way street forcing all of the traffic behind him to drive on my side and block the other direction. Did not GAF despite truck parking being available at the end of the block.
My complaint about unlawful parking is with people who put reflective vests on their dashboards. This is blatant corruption and we should not tolerate it.
I think we need a similar photograph law about unlawful parking and if there is a reflective vest or NYPD paraphernalia visible in the car, the fine goes up 100x regardless of whether they are NYPD / NYC employee.
My complaint about unlawful parking is with people who put reflective vests on their dashboards. This is blatant corruption and we should not tolerate it.
I think we need a similar photograph law about unlawful parking and if there is a reflective vest or NYPD paraphernalia visible in the car, the fine goes up 100x regardless of whether they are NYPD / NYC employee.
I'm confused here, what does a reflective vest have to do with anything?
In New York, the traffic cops ignore illegally parked cars that somehow indicate they're part of the brotherhood. A reflective vest will do, so will a hand written note saying you're a cop, court officer, employee at DA's office, surgeon, accountant in NYPD, anything really that indicates you're "one of them". A thin blue line sticker will also work.
It's wonderful.
It's wonderful.
This sounds awful lot like a conspiracy theory. I assume a reflective vest is easy enough to obtain
And yet: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/01/ge...
"In the movies I’ve seen people who try to get out of a traffic ticket by telling the police officer they made a donation to the policeman’s ball, but those were comedies. I had no idea that not only does this exist there are official cards. In fact, the police in New York are livid that the number of cards is being limited."
"In the movies I’ve seen people who try to get out of a traffic ticket by telling the police officer they made a donation to the policeman’s ball, but those were comedies. I had no idea that not only does this exist there are official cards. In fact, the police in New York are livid that the number of cards is being limited."
FWIW I've seen a car displaying a PBA badge get ticketed for not having a front license plate. The tricks don't always work.
>If I had to go to court and pay a fine for a guest who put out the trash incorrectly -- no warning, straight a ticket -- I have exactly ZERO sympathy for these ...
Will fining other people make you feel better about the way you were treated?
Will fining other people make you feel better about the way you were treated?
Equal enforcement of the law? Yes, absolutely.
Indeed the subtitle of the article: “Some drivers respond with fists.”
For example,
> “I go out thinking I’m going to get assaulted,” said Ernest Welde, 47, an environmental attorney. “I’ve had my bags stolen by truck drivers. I’ve been physically assaulted. I’ve had to call the police a couple of times.”
>Another man, Eric Eisenberg, had a similar experience across town last year. An Amazon driver and two colleagues noticed Mr. Eisenberg pointing his phone’s camera at their idling truck, knocked him to the ground and held him down, according to a lawsuit Mr. Eisenberg filed in January.
For example,
> “I go out thinking I’m going to get assaulted,” said Ernest Welde, 47, an environmental attorney. “I’ve had my bags stolen by truck drivers. I’ve been physically assaulted. I’ve had to call the police a couple of times.”
>Another man, Eric Eisenberg, had a similar experience across town last year. An Amazon driver and two colleagues noticed Mr. Eisenberg pointing his phone’s camera at their idling truck, knocked him to the ground and held him down, according to a lawsuit Mr. Eisenberg filed in January.
> >Another man, Eric Eisenberg, had a similar experience across town last year. An Amazon driver and two colleagues noticed Mr. Eisenberg pointing his phone’s camera at their idling truck, knocked him to the ground and held him down, according to a lawsuit Mr. Eisenberg filed in January.
There has to be some way to make Amazon.com pay for the actions of people who are working for them even if they are technically a separate LLC. The situation won't improve unless the CXO and the board at Amazon.com not some mid level or low level manager, not some contractor goes to prison for these things.
There has to be some way to make Amazon.com pay for the actions of people who are working for them even if they are technically a separate LLC. The situation won't improve unless the CXO and the board at Amazon.com not some mid level or low level manager, not some contractor goes to prison for these things.
Probably a few problems worth addressing (the assault being one, the idling another) but in the mix would be the timeframes and budgets expected of couriers. The city sets rules, Amazon sets expectations of time and cost, and the brutal area in the middle is left to drivers maintaining vehicles, dealing with rising fuel costs, trying to find a place to park near the delivery target, etc. I have parking when it's something I need to do once that week; can't imagine having to deal with it constantly every day while on the clock. I'd say that pressure carries over when they cop attention for a separate issue such as idling.
[deleted]
Or maybe, the perps could get arrested for assault?
[deleted]
You don't tell them you're tattling. The average truck is passed by hundreds or thousands of pedestrians per day. How is the driver going to know which one phoned him or her in?
According to the article, you have to record a three minute long video which clearly shows the vehicle owner and captures the sound of the engine.
[deleted]
Because you have to stand there for multiple minutes recording. Truckers will learn how to spot them.
> According to the article, you have to record a three minute long video which clearly shows the vehicle owner and captures the sound of the engine.
> Because you have to stand there for multiple minutes recording. Truckers will learn how to spot them.
I wonder... can you record a three minute video of a New York Police Department patrol car? If so, who pays for it?
> Because you have to stand there for multiple minutes recording. Truckers will learn how to spot them.
I wonder... can you record a three minute video of a New York Police Department patrol car? If so, who pays for it?
Congratulations, you've just unlocked infinite money. But also infinite debt. So it's a double-edged sword I guess?
> If so, who pays for it?
Taxpayers.
Taxpayers.
If you report these offenses it's common for your home address to show up in court documents. Unless you live in a building with doormen you're putting yourself at quite a decent amount of risk.
> If you report these offenses it's common for your home address to show up in court documents. Unless you live in a building with doormen you're putting yourself at quite a decent amount of risk.
All the more reason for EVERYONE to do it.
I propose while we are at it, we don't try to guess what is a "Legally authorized emergency motor vehicles" and complain about NYPD cars that are idling anyway. They can't kill us all!
https://www1.nyc.gov/nycbusiness/description/idling-regulati...
All the more reason for EVERYONE to do it.
I propose while we are at it, we don't try to guess what is a "Legally authorized emergency motor vehicles" and complain about NYPD cars that are idling anyway. They can't kill us all!
https://www1.nyc.gov/nycbusiness/description/idling-regulati...
>"This is a scene from the city’s benign-sounding but often raucous Citizens Air Complaint Program, a public health campaign that invites — and pays — people to report trucks that are parked and idling for more than three minutes, or one minute if outside a school. Those who report collect 25 percent of any fine against a truck by submitting a video just over 3 minutes in length that shows the engine is running and the name of the company on the door"
The idea of people ratting on each other like this somehow does not inspire me. Doing it for free in egregious cases is ok in my book but the former in my view just plainly sucks.
The idea of people ratting on each other like this somehow does not inspire me. Doing it for free in egregious cases is ok in my book but the former in my view just plainly sucks.
There is no "ratting on each other." The people driving these trucks aren't personally liable; it's the companies they work for that are fined.
All things considered, this is about the best possible application of law enforcement: it's nonviolent, nonconfrontational, directly improves quality of life within the city, and pays everyone involved (including the city itself.)
All things considered, this is about the best possible application of law enforcement: it's nonviolent, nonconfrontational, directly improves quality of life within the city, and pays everyone involved (including the city itself.)
Yeah, because the owners of those business totally do not pass on the fines to the employees. That never happens, ever.
Am I to understand that the city should subvert its own laws because some owners have no scruples?
If this proves to be an issue and not just a speculative problem, then let's empower drivers to report owners for malfeasance. Until then, I'm content to treat it as the hypothetical it is.
If this proves to be an issue and not just a speculative problem, then let's empower drivers to report owners for malfeasance. Until then, I'm content to treat it as the hypothetical it is.
The reply did not say or even imply anything you wrote like your first question. They only corrected the simplified/omitted info regarding avg employees and not suffering from fines
How do you feel about whistleblower compensation from the SEC?
Not sure. I mean I am all for whistleblowing. Have no strong opinion about compensation in this manner.
Ratting on people is different. Sure if I see an actual crime (or at least what constitute one in my eyes) I'll report. But report for example my neighbor for building "illegal" shed - I think it'll hurt my inner integrity too much.
Ratting on people is different. Sure if I see an actual crime (or at least what constitute one in my eyes) I'll report. But report for example my neighbor for building "illegal" shed - I think it'll hurt my inner integrity too much.
In NY illegal idling is an actual crime (at least in a lot of people’s eyes). It’s a violation of the commons by outsiders who are transient, so aren’t affected by the pollution they’re causing.
I am greatly in favor of allowing people to be rewarded for preserving the commons, whether that’s by helping police figure out who committed a felony, or by gathering evidence of ongoing traffic violations.
I am greatly in favor of allowing people to be rewarded for preserving the commons, whether that’s by helping police figure out who committed a felony, or by gathering evidence of ongoing traffic violations.
What do you think about reporting people who don't shovel/clear the part of sidewalks?
To be clear: SEC "whistleblowers" are rats in the colloquial sense: they come from inside the companies themselves, and report malfeasance to the SEC in exchange for a cut of the penalties.
Similar, what we're talking about is an actual crime in NYC. It's illegal, full stop, to idle a commercial vehicle for more than 3 minutes. You might not want that to be the law, but that's a very difference stance vs. "it's not an actual crime."
Similar, what we're talking about is an actual crime in NYC. It's illegal, full stop, to idle a commercial vehicle for more than 3 minutes. You might not want that to be the law, but that's a very difference stance vs. "it's not an actual crime."
>"To be clear: SEC "whistleblowers" are rats in the colloquial sense: they come from inside the companies themselves, and report malfeasance to the SEC in exchange for a cut of the penalties."
Put it this way. I'll deal with it when I see it. For now this is too abstract for me. In any ways if they only do it because they get rat money I am not very fond of it.
>"Similar, what we're talking about is an actual crime in NYC"
And it is a crime to be gay in Barbados. So fucking what? If I was in jury I would go for nullification right away and fuck this law. I have my own moral compass and am trying to follow it in how I perceive other humans.
Put it this way. I'll deal with it when I see it. For now this is too abstract for me. In any ways if they only do it because they get rat money I am not very fond of it.
>"Similar, what we're talking about is an actual crime in NYC"
And it is a crime to be gay in Barbados. So fucking what? If I was in jury I would go for nullification right away and fuck this law. I have my own moral compass and am trying to follow it in how I perceive other humans.
I love NYC but every time someone in a show or movie proclaims it "the greatest city in the world" I have to chuckle a bit.
But more seriously, why don't they just roll out dedicated loading zones like every other city in the world? Especially in Manhattan?
But more seriously, why don't they just roll out dedicated loading zones like every other city in the world? Especially in Manhattan?
The article mentions that reporters are required to do their own research to determine if a business is a repeat offender. I wonder if there's an opportunity for a service to act as a clearinghouse for these reports? :)
that was my first thought too, but NYC already makes it pretty easy to look up traffic violations by licence plate number. if idling violations are included here, there's not much one could add to that.
https://nycserv.nyc.gov/NYCServWeb/PVO_Search.jsp
https://nycserv.nyc.gov/NYCServWeb/PVO_Search.jsp
Are a lot of these trucks refrigerated? Are they idling simply because the engine is the primary power source that keeps the refrigeration unit running? My most recent Subaru has automatic idle stop/start intended to reduce idling waiting at traffic lights but makes sure cabin AC, battery levels etc aren't compromised.
Trucks that need the engine running for refrigeration are exempt from this. I’d wager the vast majority of trucks doing deliveries / idling in NYC are not carrying material that needs to be refrigerated, and they’re usually clearly labeled on the outside.
How are these complaints verified and how does the city know multiple complaints are not being made with the same video? Is the fine per occurrence? How are videos checked for evidence of editing?
The article says that there is a staff of 14 verifying the videos.
The fines are levied through a judicial system similar to traffic tickets, so the check on these potential abuses is for the accused to offer evidence to the contrary. For example, if they were already fined for a violation occurring at a specific time that would be an excellent defense against a subsequent ticket.
The fines are levied through a judicial system similar to traffic tickets, so the check on these potential abuses is for the accused to offer evidence to the contrary. For example, if they were already fined for a violation occurring at a specific time that would be an excellent defense against a subsequent ticket.
Fourteen people . . . incredible. I reckon the program is paying for itself but it seems surprising that the flow of complaints is high enough to keep a team that large busy.
This is New York City, not Kansas City. I'm sure there are more than enough complaints.
How much time does it take to check the video/produce the related paperwork?
14 people normal hours/normal weekdays are roughly 14*1800=25,200 hours/year.
The complaints, according to the article, are 12,000 per year.
That makes it roughly 2 hours/complaint.
At first sight it doesn't sound like the clerks are overworked.
14 people normal hours/normal weekdays are roughly 14*1800=25,200 hours/year.
The complaints, according to the article, are 12,000 per year.
That makes it roughly 2 hours/complaint.
At first sight it doesn't sound like the clerks are overworked.
Even better, raise the tax on diesel. Fuels should taxed be based on their carbon content, anyway. It's the most efficient way to minimize CO2 pollution, as it is market based rather than bang-bang based.
Diesel emits other pollutants, these should be taxed appropriately as well.
P.S. Bang-bang refers to a valve that is always fully open or fully closed. I.e. it "bangs" into the stops. The math jargon would be a step function. Step functions make for very inefficient market incentives.
Diesel emits other pollutants, these should be taxed appropriately as well.
P.S. Bang-bang refers to a valve that is always fully open or fully closed. I.e. it "bangs" into the stops. The math jargon would be a step function. Step functions make for very inefficient market incentives.
Without mercy - Double parking should be next on the list. Especially in Queens.
I wish Philly would let us do this for cars parked in bike lanes/on sidewalks/in crosswalks. It’s a real problem here, and makes it more dangerous to ride a bike or just walk around.
Why do these trucks idle? Seems like an unnecessary expense for their business
One reason I haven't seen mentioned yet in this thread is that even for modern turbo diesels you are instructed in the owner's manual to let it cool for about 4-5minutes before shutoff. IIRC this allows the turbo to cool enough to not get damaged when there's no airflow. Funny enough they also tell you not to let it run too long, presumably because the engine is too cool to burn it completely and you get residue buildup; I believe this is due to the biodiesel they cut most fuel (diesel #2) with.
Source: I own a modern turbo diesel and read the manual.
Source: I own a modern turbo diesel and read the manual.
For diesel, there is the thinking that if you keep the engine idling rather than turning it off and back on (letting it cool down) it will last much longer. I don't know how much truth there is in that but I do know it is a popular opinion.
Once, before 1990 or.so diesel engines were hard to start cold. You either left them running or plugged them into the wall so the heater instead could keep them warm. It wasn't unusual to leave a truck running all day because otherwise it wouldn't start in winter. In Russia they often built bon fires under their trucks in the morning. I know of tractors that have a gas engine just to start them, which also worked, the gas engine would run at full speed for a few minutes until the engine would finally run.
Not that the above is historical. Modern batteries are much better. Direct injection engines start almost as fast as gas engines these days.
Not that the above is historical. Modern batteries are much better. Direct injection engines start almost as fast as gas engines these days.
For older diesels, it is more efficient to leave them running than turning them off and restarting them. And I am talking OLD diesel trucks that have indirect injection systems. They'll smoke a hell of a lot more than just letting them idle.
Still turn them off if you don't need it running. Most modern diesels 2004+ are way more efficient in this regard in consumer vehicles and modern diesel trucks are better than they used to be.
Still turn them off if you don't need it running. Most modern diesels 2004+ are way more efficient in this regard in consumer vehicles and modern diesel trucks are better than they used to be.
Yeah. I have a diesel made in the 70s and it amazingly still runs, and starts in the winter without glowplugs. They are amazing things.
Do you turn your car off when you are waiting outside a house to pick someone up? Most people don't. They just aren't thinking about it.
Yes, of course. You don't? Why not?
Maybe you want the radio going? Maybe you want your music to stay on? Lots of reasons people would unthinkingly not do this. My goal was to point out that for many this is an unconscious decision.
You don't need the engine running to have the radio going. In my experience, most people turn off the engine and leave the radio on while they're stopped briefly. It's why the ignition keyhole has an ACC position.
I would think the bigger reason is for heat/air conditioning when it is too hot or cold outside.
Neither are needed 95%+ of the time when the time period is waiting for someone outside their house.
Probably depends on how expensive the fuel in the area is. Most people I know would certainly turn it off since leaving it idle while waiting means literal dollars worth of fuel being burned.
Turning into a nation of snitches with this and the Texas bullshit law and California’s ironic equivalent.
ha, more like people just noticed, standing in this society has always been a game of reading comprehension or affording a lawyer that has done so already.
there are several sectors where non-state actors are deputized to enforce compliance of private citizens, for decades at least.
its more interesting to me that someone just noticed and cared enough to apply it to other areas of life, and that everyone else just noticed this method will have durable consensus in our constitutional framework.
so I guess... surprise?
there are several sectors where non-state actors are deputized to enforce compliance of private citizens, for decades at least.
its more interesting to me that someone just noticed and cared enough to apply it to other areas of life, and that everyone else just noticed this method will have durable consensus in our constitutional framework.
so I guess... surprise?
Oooh, I wish they did this in MA. I could make tons of money just in the pickup line at my kid's school alone. We've got an anti-idling law here in MA, but I don't think I've ever heard of anybody getting a ticket, and most folks aren't even aware of the law.
I don't see why Manhattan (or any place with good transit) has free street parking.
How about automatic idle mitigation systems? Just automate it on truck level. Cost is low and at scale would be very minimal. Also if you are worried about ambient cab temp, you should not be too worried.
I mean these trucks are pretty much universally in absolutely terribly shape and not really maintained.
To clarify this tech already exists.
Now lets see NYC Idle Coin mining reward for successful report.
The city figured out how to turn citizens into gig workers.
> more than 12,000 last year
That… doesn’t seem like a large number? It’s 1,000 per month. This could happen once a day and be four blocks away each time. I see multiple trucks parked and idling daily in the same few blocks of a residential area of Seattle. If this is some kind of money making scheme, sure seems like they’re being really lazy about it and leaving money on the table.
That… doesn’t seem like a large number? It’s 1,000 per month. This could happen once a day and be four blocks away each time. I see multiple trucks parked and idling daily in the same few blocks of a residential area of Seattle. If this is some kind of money making scheme, sure seems like they’re being really lazy about it and leaving money on the table.
It's a very small number, unfortunately -- infractions like these are among the cities lowest priorities, despite their outsized impact on quality of life.
This isn't the only virtuous revenue stream that the city throws away: it's an open secret that parking violations are basically unenforced for companies, and that the city will happily agree to cents on the dollar once you've racked up a few thousand violations.
This isn't the only virtuous revenue stream that the city throws away: it's an open secret that parking violations are basically unenforced for companies, and that the city will happily agree to cents on the dollar once you've racked up a few thousand violations.
The job of the police is to prevent crime. Not to punish it.
With this system, the offender will still keep the engine on even after someone has filmed them. Whereas a police officer asking them to turn it off would stop the offense on the spot.
Only way this will actually help with emissions is if it becomes wide spread and well known enough, to act as an efficient deterrent.
With this system, the offender will still keep the engine on even after someone has filmed them. Whereas a police officer asking them to turn it off would stop the offense on the spot.
Only way this will actually help with emissions is if it becomes wide spread and well known enough, to act as an efficient deterrent.
Now if only they give you a cut of the fine for reporting a car in the bike lane!
It's offensive to me that we're outsourcing police work to regular people and offering monetary rewards.
Here's an idea. How about the cops who do nothing other than ticket illegal parking, do this work as well.
Here's an idea. How about the cops who do nothing other than ticket illegal parking, do this work as well.
Been living as an exchange student in USA when Price per gallon was roughly $1.
It was really weird for me seeing people leaving their car engine running with air conditioning on whilst going shopping for 30 minutes
It was really weird for me seeing people leaving their car engine running with air conditioning on whilst going shopping for 30 minutes
Love it.
Should also enforce parking. Great app idea to sell to cities.
IDK maybe have to have two photos _ x _ minutes apart to show it's not just an uber eats for a few mins. photo ticket.
Should also enforce parking. Great app idea to sell to cities.
IDK maybe have to have two photos _ x _ minutes apart to show it's not just an uber eats for a few mins. photo ticket.
Do one for when people double-park in main arteries during rush hour. I don't even need a cut, I'll be a willing narc.
i've been waiting for such thing in our end of the world for what, decades? Still Dreaming..
Funny and sad. Buses that take passengers to and from airplane inside (most) airports, buzz idle for hours. They can be off, they can be electrical, naah. Another case, Buses that idle on their end station.
Burn the damn fuel.
Funny and sad. Buses that take passengers to and from airplane inside (most) airports, buzz idle for hours. They can be off, they can be electrical, naah. Another case, Buses that idle on their end station.
Burn the damn fuel.
As someone who will soon be moving into a below ground-level apartment in Manhattan, this makes me happy!
[deleted]
> NYC wants all citizens to join NSB
License plates with the NYP designation are reserved for members of the press, I believe.
I assume that designation enables law enforcement to identify news media personnel and may also entitle them certain rights while reporting.
But does it also entitle them to the exclusive use of public parking spaces on city streets?
I travel past the CBS Studios on West 57th each morning and signs are posted all around the building indicating parking is for NYP Plates Only.
You have to wonder just who arranged that special break. And why. I mean, c'mon, can't Andy Rooney and his colleagues afford to park their cars in a garage? Just what have these people done to deserve a special public subsidy all their own? Sounds pretty generous to me.
But why stop there? Why not go ahead and name the whole street after Andy and the gang? 57th Street could become Sixty Minutes Street. Although that could get confusing. So maybe we should keep the 57th Street signs and just add a little name underneath like Sixty Minutes Way.
Someone said recently (when the city announced that 2 lanes of Broadway would be closed to traffic and turned into what? A MALL?) that under Mayor Bloomberg's administration New York City—all of it—is for sale. So with a huge revenue shortfall looming, why isn't NYC charging these people for all this privilege? Is it for lack of imagination? Or lack of parking spaces? Reply Quote VA Beltway Re: NYP Plates & Privileges August 07, 2008 08:12PM In my travels, only NY and NJ seems to have plates for the press.
And I wonder about physician and dentist plates. Reply Quote LG Re: NYP Plates & Privileges December 09, 2015 09:34AM This is a super weird article. NYC parking and traffic is incredibly difficult to navigate, so people who think it is important to society that reporters have access to newsworthy events without having to worry about being ticketed or towed decided to give them special license plates.
Depending on the administration in office, the rights those plates give them vary - under Bloomberg, they could only park in those NYP spots without getting ticketed; under other administrations, they've been able to double park or park on the sidewalk. The point of the NYP spaces near places where press vans often park is to give them a place to legally park without tying up traffic. Most of them are near places like the courthouses, the UN, Madison Square Garden where double-parking TV vans could cause a lot of traffic problems. It's maybe not an ideal solution, but I also can't think of a better one.
I mean, c'mon, can't Andy Rooney > and his colleagues afford to park their cars in a > garage? Just what have these people done to > deserve a special public subsidy all their own?
[dmv.ny.gov] The plates are for news gathering vehicles, like those big vans with the satellite dishes on the top, or the cars journalists drive to report from an off-site location. Andy Rooney might have talked himself into one so he can park near his office, but if he has, that's an abuse of the system, not a problem with the system itself.
> Someone said recently (when the city announced > that 2 lanes of Broadway would be closed to > traffic and turned into what? A MALL?)
...a public plaza with cafe tables and seating. There are two definitions for the word "mall." In this case, it's the one that means "a usually public area often set with shade trees and designed as a promenade or as a pedestrian walk." [www.merriam-webster.com]
> with a huge > revenue shortfall looming, why isn't NYC charging > these people for all this privilege?
They are. There is a charge both to obtain and renew a press plate: [dmv.ny.gov]
> under Mayor Bloomberg's administration New York > City—all of it—is for sale.
Under Mayor Bloomberg's administration, there was a huge crackdown on illegal parking, and since then, members of the press have only been allowed to park in the special designated spots. It's certainly not the case that Big Media somehow bribed the Bloomberg administration for special privileges. They are currently lobbying the DiBlasio administration to once again allow them immunity from ticketing when parked in ways that would otherwise be illegal, but that doesn't seem to be your concern.
All this took me about two minutes of googling to figure out. Try it yourself next time.
Sincerely, A New Yorker Reply Quote Agnes C Re: NYP Plates & Privileges January 30, 2017 08:31AM NYP plates are abused everywhere in the city. An inquirer was correct: What should these people have free parking at work? And even if they are out, "gathering a story," they are more often than not in a news mobile with cameras, etc.
NYP 5838 has been abusing parking in my area all the time - always overnight. Really? So why should they get a garage. Who wouldn't like to have overnight parking and not get a ticket or towed in the morning? This is a real abuse. Another one if the DDS plates - dentist on housecalls? Are you serious. Reply Quote Newer Topic Older Topic Print View RSS A word you have used in your post has been banned from use. Please use a different word or contact the forum administrators.
I assume that designation enables law enforcement to identify news media personnel and may also entitle them certain rights while reporting.
But does it also entitle them to the exclusive use of public parking spaces on city streets?
I travel past the CBS Studios on West 57th each morning and signs are posted all around the building indicating parking is for NYP Plates Only.
You have to wonder just who arranged that special break. And why. I mean, c'mon, can't Andy Rooney and his colleagues afford to park their cars in a garage? Just what have these people done to deserve a special public subsidy all their own? Sounds pretty generous to me.
But why stop there? Why not go ahead and name the whole street after Andy and the gang? 57th Street could become Sixty Minutes Street. Although that could get confusing. So maybe we should keep the 57th Street signs and just add a little name underneath like Sixty Minutes Way.
Someone said recently (when the city announced that 2 lanes of Broadway would be closed to traffic and turned into what? A MALL?) that under Mayor Bloomberg's administration New York City—all of it—is for sale. So with a huge revenue shortfall looming, why isn't NYC charging these people for all this privilege? Is it for lack of imagination? Or lack of parking spaces? Reply Quote VA Beltway Re: NYP Plates & Privileges August 07, 2008 08:12PM In my travels, only NY and NJ seems to have plates for the press.
And I wonder about physician and dentist plates. Reply Quote LG Re: NYP Plates & Privileges December 09, 2015 09:34AM This is a super weird article. NYC parking and traffic is incredibly difficult to navigate, so people who think it is important to society that reporters have access to newsworthy events without having to worry about being ticketed or towed decided to give them special license plates.
Depending on the administration in office, the rights those plates give them vary - under Bloomberg, they could only park in those NYP spots without getting ticketed; under other administrations, they've been able to double park or park on the sidewalk. The point of the NYP spaces near places where press vans often park is to give them a place to legally park without tying up traffic. Most of them are near places like the courthouses, the UN, Madison Square Garden where double-parking TV vans could cause a lot of traffic problems. It's maybe not an ideal solution, but I also can't think of a better one.
I mean, c'mon, can't Andy Rooney > and his colleagues afford to park their cars in a > garage? Just what have these people done to > deserve a special public subsidy all their own?
[dmv.ny.gov] The plates are for news gathering vehicles, like those big vans with the satellite dishes on the top, or the cars journalists drive to report from an off-site location. Andy Rooney might have talked himself into one so he can park near his office, but if he has, that's an abuse of the system, not a problem with the system itself.
> Someone said recently (when the city announced > that 2 lanes of Broadway would be closed to > traffic and turned into what? A MALL?)
...a public plaza with cafe tables and seating. There are two definitions for the word "mall." In this case, it's the one that means "a usually public area often set with shade trees and designed as a promenade or as a pedestrian walk." [www.merriam-webster.com]
> with a huge > revenue shortfall looming, why isn't NYC charging > these people for all this privilege?
They are. There is a charge both to obtain and renew a press plate: [dmv.ny.gov]
> under Mayor Bloomberg's administration New York > City—all of it—is for sale.
Under Mayor Bloomberg's administration, there was a huge crackdown on illegal parking, and since then, members of the press have only been allowed to park in the special designated spots. It's certainly not the case that Big Media somehow bribed the Bloomberg administration for special privileges. They are currently lobbying the DiBlasio administration to once again allow them immunity from ticketing when parked in ways that would otherwise be illegal, but that doesn't seem to be your concern.
All this took me about two minutes of googling to figure out. Try it yourself next time.
Sincerely, A New Yorker Reply Quote Agnes C Re: NYP Plates & Privileges January 30, 2017 08:31AM NYP plates are abused everywhere in the city. An inquirer was correct: What should these people have free parking at work? And even if they are out, "gathering a story," they are more often than not in a news mobile with cameras, etc.
NYP 5838 has been abusing parking in my area all the time - always overnight. Really? So why should they get a garage. Who wouldn't like to have overnight parking and not get a ticket or towed in the morning? This is a real abuse. Another one if the DDS plates - dentist on housecalls? Are you serious. Reply Quote Newer Topic Older Topic Print View RSS A word you have used in your post has been banned from use. Please use a different word or contact the forum administrators.
Ice cream trucks are easy targets.
Those jerks will park next to a playground while their diesel fumes blanket the area.
Those jerks will park next to a playground while their diesel fumes blanket the area.
Outside where I once worked, I got fed up with the ice cream van idling the diesel engine outside my window, so I complained to the local council by email. Why wasn't the driver using the power socket in the lamp post that was there for the purpose?
Ten minutes later, police appeared and arrested the driver.
The council wrote back and said the driver was trading illegally, and had been warned before.
(My colleagues made jokes about this for months.)
Ten minutes later, police appeared and arrested the driver.
The council wrote back and said the driver was trading illegally, and had been warned before.
(My colleagues made jokes about this for months.)
You got a 10 minute response by in person police to an email to local council?!
If the person had been a repeat offender this is totally plausible. I once mentioned a builder to someone on a local council and she went on a small rant and gave me her number in case a certain behavior was repeated.
> The council wrote back and said the driver was trading illegally, and had been warned before.
This is the reason ice cream trucks in my area only take cash. I haven’t seen a legitimately licensed ice cream truck in many years.
This is the reason ice cream trucks in my area only take cash. I haven’t seen a legitimately licensed ice cream truck in many years.
Instead of talking to the driver you emailed your local council?
You know, I remember many times on my neighborhood’s Facebook post age people saying things like “thanks whomever reported my barking dog. I had no idea it was a problem now I owe $500. Why didn’t you just tell me?!” or whatever. So I was like, oh yeah I’ll just be a cool neighbor.
I texted several of my neighbors once. Completely polite and to the point “hey, there are dogs barking all day lately. Can you double check yours isn’t one? It’s really disruptive. Thanks!”
One of them passive aggressively never spoke to me again until they moved. The other texted me back berating me. How dare I even suggest their perfect dog…
I will call the cops anonymously from now on.
I texted several of my neighbors once. Completely polite and to the point “hey, there are dogs barking all day lately. Can you double check yours isn’t one? It’s really disruptive. Thanks!”
One of them passive aggressively never spoke to me again until they moved. The other texted me back berating me. How dare I even suggest their perfect dog…
I will call the cops anonymously from now on.
I think that might be a special situation as people are super sensitive about their dogs.
It’s much better this way. The cost borne to the driver was very high and now he will probably not do this ever again, instead of needing to be told.
Nope, the ordinance that I found says they can run it for loading, unloading, and processing. I'm pretty sure refrigeration and food trucks fall into that.
Is there a way for them to keep the ice cream frozen with the engine off? Is it a separate system?
Store it in a cooler with ice packs
I've vended ice cream from a bike
https://serprex.github.io/w/Ice%20Cream%20Biker
I've vended ice cream from a bike
https://serprex.github.io/w/Ice%20Cream%20Biker
Putting dry ice in the coolers should do it. Stuff's so cold that if you don't separate food container from dry ice with newspapers or cardboard, the food container gets frozen.
A gasoline- or propane-powered auxiliary power unit (i.e. generator) would be a much better power source for that than the truck's diesel engine.
Would a typical cheap gasoline generator (small and likely unoptimized engine) be better than a modern diesel car engine?
Probably not. Cheap gas generators use a ton of fuel.
Electric perhaps, but I'm not sure about a gas generator -- two-stroke engines tend to be very polluting.
I dunno if that is really accurate. A diesel engine is really just a generator.
Get a big battery, charge it at night.
This is satire, right?
Do you not believe they don't turn off their engine, or think they should be entitled to keep it running?
They should be entitled to keep it running. It's completely blown out of proportion.
It's not blown out of proportion. Diesel and just all combustion in general is shaping up to be the next asbestos/lead. It's extremely clear how dangerous these fumes are but we have been desensitized in to accepting it.
Source on diesel being equally dangerous as chronic lead or asbestos exposure?
No shortage of sources.
https://phys.org/news/2019-02-pollution-deaths-linked-diesel...
https://www.catf.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/CATF_Pub_Dies...
https://www.hazards.org/chemicals/fuming.htm
That last article itself cites 15 sources. The data shows significantly more deaths from diesel than asbestos and roughly or par with lead. Remember that those exposures last a lifetime, so the data lags significantly.
https://phys.org/news/2019-02-pollution-deaths-linked-diesel...
https://www.catf.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/CATF_Pub_Dies...
https://www.hazards.org/chemicals/fuming.htm
That last article itself cites 15 sources. The data shows significantly more deaths from diesel than asbestos and roughly or par with lead. Remember that those exposures last a lifetime, so the data lags significantly.
"That last article itself cites 15 sources. The data shows significantly more deaths from diesel than asbestos and roughly or par with lead. Remember that those exposures last a lifetime, so the data lags significantly."
Not saying it's not bad, but this equivocation is just not accurate in my view. More deaths sure - because more people were exposed. Can you honestly tell me you would rather be exposed to asbestos or lead (no ppe)? Also, emissions controls have increased as has air quality since the 80s. I doubt this idea that the data still has lag left in it. We would expect to see the most impact at the higher exposure levels.
Not saying it's not bad, but this equivocation is just not accurate in my view. More deaths sure - because more people were exposed. Can you honestly tell me you would rather be exposed to asbestos or lead (no ppe)? Also, emissions controls have increased as has air quality since the 80s. I doubt this idea that the data still has lag left in it. We would expect to see the most impact at the higher exposure levels.
The question was whether diesel could plausibly be “the next asbestos/lead” and the answer is yes, absolutely.
The question was not which dosages of which chemicals would be more harmful for a short term exposure. That’s not relevant to answering the above question. In fact it likely has a different answer.
(For lag I’m referring to the lead/asbestos data. Exposure to these has been on the decline for decades but we’re still seeing deaths due to exposures 40 years ago), so they presumably cause an outsize number of deaths per year currently).
The question was not which dosages of which chemicals would be more harmful for a short term exposure. That’s not relevant to answering the above question. In fact it likely has a different answer.
(For lag I’m referring to the lead/asbestos data. Exposure to these has been on the decline for decades but we’re still seeing deaths due to exposures 40 years ago), so they presumably cause an outsize number of deaths per year currently).
"The question was whether diesel could plausibly be “the next asbestos/lead” and the answer is yes, absolutely."
If you mean by perception only, then sure. These three things have existed together for a long time. If you eliminate the two more dangerous ones, then the remaining less dangerous/acute one will be next in priority and get the attention.
If you mean by perception only, then sure. These three things have existed together for a long time. If you eliminate the two more dangerous ones, then the remaining less dangerous/acute one will be next in priority and get the attention.
No, as noted and cited, the absolute numbers for diesel are worse than those for lead. That’s not perception, it’s fact. And we’ve absolutely not eliminated the other two because they still exist in the environment and everyone ever poisoned by them who is currently still alive is yet to appear in the death statistics, hence the lag.
That's gross numbers. How about rate?
Again, tell me you'd rather be exposed to lead or asbestos.
Again, tell me you'd rather be exposed to lead or asbestos.
You’re missing the individual vs societal view.
Obviously you personally would rather not be exposed to asbestos or lead but at the societal level 1000 people that are really really dead and 1000 people who are just normally dead aren’t that different. And honestly it’s worse for diesel having wide exposure because there are in between states between totally fine and dead and those affect more people.
Obviously you personally would rather not be exposed to asbestos or lead but at the societal level 1000 people that are really really dead and 1000 people who are just normally dead aren’t that different. And honestly it’s worse for diesel having wide exposure because there are in between states between totally fine and dead and those affect more people.
But that wasn't the grandparent thread question where someone asked for sources on exhaust gasses being as dangerous as asbestos/lead?
We all know that car accidents are one of the top killers in the world, yet we don't ban cars outright. But that's because absolute numbers are big simply because billions of people drive cars: on a per-trip basis, they are actually not that bad.
We all know that car accidents are one of the top killers in the world, yet we don't ban cars outright. But that's because absolute numbers are big simply because billions of people drive cars: on a per-trip basis, they are actually not that bad.
What does being exposed mean? Being around asbestos and lead in its normal use is completely safe. People live in asbestos buildings without issues. There is no standard dosage of asbestos but if you count grinding it up and huffing the dust then it would only be fair to compare to standing in a garage of exhaust fumes which will kill you within minutes.
That's not true either. We're talking about normal use. You can stand near an engine thats not running, just like you can live in a building with asbestos or lead. How about lead pipes, that's normal use and exposure at one point in time. Asbestos used to be much more common than it is today, with no idea that it was dangerous. People would commonly come into contact with it when remodeling.
In any case, under normal conditions, nobody is going to choose realilistic exposure levels of lead or asbestos over ambient diesel fumes.
In any case, under normal conditions, nobody is going to choose realilistic exposure levels of lead or asbestos over ambient diesel fumes.
Flipping it slightly, what intuition leads to anyone thinking that fumes from burning _anything_ is safe to breath in large quantities? We know that standing in a room filled with fumes from burning one thing — be it gasoline or wood — kills quickly. So why wouldn’t it make sense for a million cars running every day to also have a negative health impact?
There are plenty of events in history where stale air in a city along with significant pollution killed tens of thousands of people over a short period, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London.
But taking it to a philosophical level, what framework gives one the right to pollute? In my view, the opposite is true. Clearly, if a factory dumps toxic waste on your property, they are violating your property rights. I don’t believe anyone should have the right to pollute, based on the simple fact that any polluter violates another’s property. Our society of course isn’t quite there, but I believe we are sacrificing a rights by allowing pollution (even from ourselves), rather than the other way around (polluters having a right to pollute.)
There are plenty of events in history where stale air in a city along with significant pollution killed tens of thousands of people over a short period, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London.
But taking it to a philosophical level, what framework gives one the right to pollute? In my view, the opposite is true. Clearly, if a factory dumps toxic waste on your property, they are violating your property rights. I don’t believe anyone should have the right to pollute, based on the simple fact that any polluter violates another’s property. Our society of course isn’t quite there, but I believe we are sacrificing a rights by allowing pollution (even from ourselves), rather than the other way around (polluters having a right to pollute.)
What a strange way to pose a question. So, we know that there are risks with electromagnetic waves in X-rays, so we try to limit our exposure to them.
But do you, for instance, run a Wifi access point at home? Do you use a cell phone? And you surely know how radios work: electromagnetic waves. To use your phrasing, "what intuition leads to anyone thinking that electromagnetic radiation is safe in large quantities?"
While we know something of electromagnetic radiation effects on health, we know almost nothing regarding long term effects of the type that have become our daily environment, because this level of exposure (wifi APs, cell phones) is a very recent phenomenon.
But, we could find out in the long run that they have a non-negligible effect on a part of the population that it may end up being classified as "pollution" in the future too.
The point is that people disagree on what are "large quantities" with exhaust gasses (even different governments do, which is why there are different standards), or where do we draw the line. Going with the extreme example can actually be counterproductive because it can easily be proven irrelevant.
The other problem with air pollution from cars is that it's conflated with global warming today (not saying it's not an issue, just that everyone wants to solve both problems at once). One can easily solve for one problem without solving for another (eg. allow only use of clean vehicles during peak hours as a pretty light restriction, to banning non-clean vehicles only in dense urban areas as a pretty strong one).
But do you, for instance, run a Wifi access point at home? Do you use a cell phone? And you surely know how radios work: electromagnetic waves. To use your phrasing, "what intuition leads to anyone thinking that electromagnetic radiation is safe in large quantities?"
While we know something of electromagnetic radiation effects on health, we know almost nothing regarding long term effects of the type that have become our daily environment, because this level of exposure (wifi APs, cell phones) is a very recent phenomenon.
But, we could find out in the long run that they have a non-negligible effect on a part of the population that it may end up being classified as "pollution" in the future too.
The point is that people disagree on what are "large quantities" with exhaust gasses (even different governments do, which is why there are different standards), or where do we draw the line. Going with the extreme example can actually be counterproductive because it can easily be proven irrelevant.
The other problem with air pollution from cars is that it's conflated with global warming today (not saying it's not an issue, just that everyone wants to solve both problems at once). One can easily solve for one problem without solving for another (eg. allow only use of clean vehicles during peak hours as a pretty light restriction, to banning non-clean vehicles only in dense urban areas as a pretty strong one).
Cars are definitely poisoning our cities. There is a plethora of evidence. Here's a few top hits.
[0] https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/323426#causes
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4390771/
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/04/car-fu...
[0] https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/323426#causes
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4390771/
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/04/car-fu...
Aren't my kids entitled to breathe air instead of diesel?
They'll live from the tiny amount of diesel. The ice cream is worth it.
You don't need to run an 8 liter V8 diesel to keep a small fridge with icecream cold.
It can run off of a battery bank or the built in accumulator. Well insulated fridges are pretty efficient
It can run off of a battery bank or the built in accumulator. Well insulated fridges are pretty efficient
As a kid, our scout troop had a fundraising deal with the local Schwan's distributor, they would bring in a delivery truck full of ice-cream and we'd sell it at a local festival, and then pay wholesale for what we'd used.
Anyway basically there was no power at the festivals, it was usually just a parking lot at a local highschool, so they'd plug it in overnight. Not sure whether they had batteries/etc, but they were perfectly fine being out in a hot parking lot for 16 hours, no problem. And we were constantly in and out of the trucks selling ice cream which is not what a delivery truck was designed for.
Anyway basically there was no power at the festivals, it was usually just a parking lot at a local highschool, so they'd plug it in overnight. Not sure whether they had batteries/etc, but they were perfectly fine being out in a hot parking lot for 16 hours, no problem. And we were constantly in and out of the trucks selling ice cream which is not what a delivery truck was designed for.
Nope, nothing is worth having less clean air
Why would they be above the law? Are they considered an emergency vehicle?
No it is not. They are major pollutors, as mostly are older trucks run by local semi-mafioso organizations (I am not kidding. There even have been turf wars over it).
It sounds absurd, but it's true, here's the Wikipedia on the Glasgow Ice Cream Wars of the 1980s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Ice_Cream_Wars
These days it's the local taxi companies they have their teeth into, so I'm told.
These days it's the local taxi companies they have their teeth into, so I'm told.
Absurd indeed, I wouldnt believe this without the link. I would love to see a Scorsese movie about it.
This is exactly my reaction to this whole comment section too honestly. "Reporting your neighbors and being a professional snitch is good" is the type of take you only see in HN. Yes, laws need to be enforced but it does not mean we need to all turn into paid petty neighborhood cops/informants .
Not only because it makes you miserable but also because there's always a risk when you start calling law enforcement on people.
Not only because it makes you miserable but also because there's always a risk when you start calling law enforcement on people.
I wonder if these people would also support a "Social Credit" style of government too.
Teever(1)
charlieyu1(3)
Lol. This is 100% a money laundering scheme.
So all citizens are for-hire police officers... ok.
how long before an AI deepfake tool comes out for making fake videos? (And costing innocent truck owners big $?) this is a disaster waiting to happen.
Given the domain (a highly surveilled city, drivers making documented stops, a high standard of evidence) there is very little room for fraud here.
I don't know, if you're worried about that sort of thing I'd think there's a very long list of exploits that should concern you more than this quirky bounty program.
Just make the penalty for fraud very significant and award the truck drivers half if they can prove fraud happened (Dashcam video or something similar). Combined with city CCTV it should be pretty possible to work out who was lying in the case of a dispute.
I'm sure making a false report for money is _already_ very illegal.
Never, for like a dozen reasons
I think this provides an opportunity for an app to remind drivers to turn their vehicle off and then on every 2 1/2 minutes to avoid the fine.
I feel like this is yet another example of the insane entitlement of New Yorkers. Keep in mind this a city that has a rampant violent crime problem, incredible garbage, wealth inequality, and theft problems and NYT uses some of the worlds most valuable advertising space to push a story about idling vehicles?
This is why there is such a disconnect between people who live in the rest of the USA and those who live in a few select cities on the coasts. For those who live in the bubble and wonder “Why don’t people identify with my political views” this is a great example.
This is why there is such a disconnect between people who live in the rest of the USA and those who live in a few select cities on the coasts. For those who live in the bubble and wonder “Why don’t people identify with my political views” this is a great example.
>Keep in mind this a city that has a rampant violent crime problem,
No it doesn't. NYC has some of the lowest crime rates in the nation. Here is deaths per capita from interpersonal violence (aka homicide) circa 2014. You can view as far back as 1980. NYC crime rates dipped below the national average in 1995 and have only gotten lower since.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/mortality-rates-united-...
Bronx: 9.2 per 100k Queens: 3.5 per 100k Kings county (Brooklyn): 6.5 per 100k New York county (Manhattan): 3.3 per 100k Richmond county (Staten Island): 4.1 per 100k
The 7 major felonies have gone done year after year for every year since the mid 90s.
https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Giuliani...
Your right about the disconnect between those on the coast and those outside, because you're obviously disconnected from the real on-the-ground situation in New York. "Why don't people identify with my political views", because some people identify with the version of reality editorialized on TV, and thus smugly berate us over the problems we don't actually have.
No it doesn't. NYC has some of the lowest crime rates in the nation. Here is deaths per capita from interpersonal violence (aka homicide) circa 2014. You can view as far back as 1980. NYC crime rates dipped below the national average in 1995 and have only gotten lower since.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/mortality-rates-united-...
Bronx: 9.2 per 100k Queens: 3.5 per 100k Kings county (Brooklyn): 6.5 per 100k New York county (Manhattan): 3.3 per 100k Richmond county (Staten Island): 4.1 per 100k
The 7 major felonies have gone done year after year for every year since the mid 90s.
https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Giuliani...
Your right about the disconnect between those on the coast and those outside, because you're obviously disconnected from the real on-the-ground situation in New York. "Why don't people identify with my political views", because some people identify with the version of reality editorialized on TV, and thus smugly berate us over the problems we don't actually have.
As someone who very recently moved to NYC (and therefore isn't an expert), I have had zero issues with crime, garbage, or theft, but have been annoyed by car exhaust and other pollution more so than living in California.
Wrt to wealth inequality, yes that's definitely a more important issue but also one that is completely orthogonal to car idling and cities can work on more than one thing at a time.
Wrt to wealth inequality, yes that's definitely a more important issue but also one that is completely orthogonal to car idling and cities can work on more than one thing at a time.
> NYT uses some of the worlds most valuable advertising space to push a story about idling vehicles?
It's in the New York section of the paper. That's the part of the paper that New Yorkers read to keep abreast of the city's happenings, including smaller human stories like this one. Thinking about it as "advertising space" is completely flipped: ads are worthless if nobody reads your paper, and stories like this do an excellent job of bringing readers in.
Put another way: you wouldn't bat an eye at a home-style cooking story in the Cooking section. Why are you surprised by a similar level of provincial interest in the local section?
It's in the New York section of the paper. That's the part of the paper that New Yorkers read to keep abreast of the city's happenings, including smaller human stories like this one. Thinking about it as "advertising space" is completely flipped: ads are worthless if nobody reads your paper, and stories like this do an excellent job of bringing readers in.
Put another way: you wouldn't bat an eye at a home-style cooking story in the Cooking section. Why are you surprised by a similar level of provincial interest in the local section?
It’s not like every article in the New York Times has to be about violent crime, garbage, inequality and theft. They publish very many articles all the time! And society has very many problems, big and small!
I guess you and the rest of the upset heartland commoners can subscribe to “New York Crime, Garbage, Inequality, and Theft Weekly” if other content bugs you so badly.
I guess you and the rest of the upset heartland commoners can subscribe to “New York Crime, Garbage, Inequality, and Theft Weekly” if other content bugs you so badly.
And Texas uses similar tactics to get people to report on their neighbor's abotions: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/09/us/abortion-law-regulatio...
Maybe people should realize that everybody spying and reporting their neighbor is a dark road, more in line with the Gestapo and Eastern Bloc countries than the freedom we claim to love in America.
Maybe people should realize that everybody spying and reporting their neighbor is a dark road, more in line with the Gestapo and Eastern Bloc countries than the freedom we claim to love in America.
I think the abortion one is a civil law (which has not be seen before). I believe the idling law is criminal (citation). Most states have a process already for submitting a private criminal complaint, just without the fine sharing.
We complain about police states and lack of training/oversight, yet we want to turn everyone into this police function and with no training?
We complain about police states and lack of training/oversight, yet we want to turn everyone into this police function and with no training?
The people who rule also live in this city. Why is there nothing being done about the crime, garbage and injustice?
If they really cared they could extend the 25% reward to all crime tips.
Are there fines attached to most crimes? Also, I don't think we want private citizens risking their lives or exaggerating details to get the rewards on a crime.
"Also, I don't think we want private citizens risking their lives or exaggerating details to get the rewards on a crime."
That's exactly what they're doing with this fumes law.
Many summary offense crimes have fines and/or a few days in jail as the punishment. The courts usually give the fine without jail in most cases. These are things like driving infractions, noise complaints, minor graffiti, leaving your car idle (separate from the commercial law), jaywalking, etc.
But if they are making all this money, why not expand the courts and hire more meter maids to do this work? As you bring up, they would likely be better suited to collet the evidence and it sounds like the courts can't handle the citation volume at the current levels.
That's exactly what they're doing with this fumes law.
Many summary offense crimes have fines and/or a few days in jail as the punishment. The courts usually give the fine without jail in most cases. These are things like driving infractions, noise complaints, minor graffiti, leaving your car idle (separate from the commercial law), jaywalking, etc.
But if they are making all this money, why not expand the courts and hire more meter maids to do this work? As you bring up, they would likely be better suited to collet the evidence and it sounds like the courts can't handle the citation volume at the current levels.
Most restaurants have a way to signal the kitchen that an inspector has arrived and they'll quickly toss everything they are cooking into the garbage because it's cheaper than getting a fine. Former mayor Bloomberg's planned crack down on soda drinks was more about issuing fines for not serving precisely 8oz of liquid - though the next mayor dropped it and all the special order measuring cups for the health inspectors went to a warehouse.
I've witnessed a fleets of NYPD tow trucks clearing out streets of UPS and Fedex trucks. They know what time the delivery companies hit various parts of town and they are ready for them.
Recently the New York fire inspectors have started fining landlords for debris in the hallways (debris = amazon deliveries left at the door). So now if the delivery comes to the door you have to get it before the building super throws it away to save the landlord from being fined, if it gets left by the mailbox then the food delivery people steal it on their way out. No winning.
About ten years ago there was a good samaritan going around feeding parking meters to keep people from being fined. He was arrested and taken to jail. They let him go without charges but not before he spent the weekend - because the person who processes releases doesn't work on weekends they said. I think he sued and ended up settling out of court.