Wirral Borough Council has unveiled a new 'environmental initiative' to prevent Wirral residents from idling. The "No idling" plan will be introduced from January 2018 near schools, hospitals, care homes and in high-pollution zones.

Residents who are seen to be idling for longer than 10 seconds will be given an on the spot fine of £80, reduced to £40 if paid within 30 seconds. If the fine is paid straight away, but the person is found to be idling while paying, the fine is increased to £160, but reduced to £80.

"This is clear demonstration of our commitment to reducing our carbon footprint and our forward thinking vision as a progressive environmentally aware council, or something." said scheming council leader Phil Davies, while rubbing his hands together and vigorously licking his lips, like some crazed, exaggerated cartoon character.



(* A Civil Enforcement Officer fines an idling man)

Quite right too! That idler looks like he is preparing to emit serious pollution. And the warden is right to leap into action the way he is poised to do too!

effort would be better spent in better management of some of the traffic lights at key junctions. A good example is Clatterbridge roundabout - the light scheduling is ridiculous, and why cant we do what our European neighbours do - after say 10 pm then switch lights of and use as regular roundabout

A great idea but another that will seldom be enforced. I see people parked outside schools for 10/20/30 minutes with the engine running. An Insane waste of fuel,damaging to people walking nearby and to the planet.

They will enforce it like they enforce the litter penalties, hide like ninjas and then pounce on the unsuspecting motorist.

A few councils introduced this in the last few years, however if you have a reason for your engine running then I can't see a court supporting the fine.

Reasons that come to mind:-

Demisting the windows.
Ventilating the car.
Heating the car.
Charging the battery.
Car pollutes more when starting than idling.
Car pollutes more when cold than hot.

The concept is totally disproportionate, you probably pollute more in 1 minute of driving than 20 minutes of idling. They are designed to be highly efficient and clean at idle.

is this a joke post? "people seen to be idling for longer than 10 seconds will be given an on the spot fine of £80, reduced to £40 if paid within 30 seconds"

10 seconds you spend more time at the lights God you can be at a give way sign for longer than 10 seconds then you only have 30 seconds to pay it'll take longer to get your details

what about a taxi or bus they stop longer than 10 seconds

sorry mr police man I didn't stop at the red light and I'm sorry for knock over them people but I can't stop omg I've wet myself

is this more fake news?

That bit about the cost of fines and times of 10 and 30 seconds is poetic licence. No times have been set in stone. It will be £20 if idling is considered unnecessary and can only be issued if the driver refuses to turn the engine off when requested.


https://democracy.wirral.gov.uk/doc...itch%20off%20engines%20when%20parked.pdf

If it is genuine than I cant see how any authority can introduce laws and fines for things that are not illegal. Oh I see they have introduced a law of sorts but will it really be effective.?


People will just carry on waiting for the request to switch off.

I suppose its more a feather in the councils green cap..Not a revenue earner like the litter police

Just a point, but quite a lot of modern cars shut down the engine when stopped anyway. Can you make them sit with the engine running? Mine doesn't do that so I don't know how they behave.

You can generally turn it off/disable it but once you turn the engine on again it resets the stop start so you must override it again. I can't think of a scenario when you would want to do thatbut I am pretty sure some folk will do it if only because they can.

The new electric buses were supposed to stop the engine, then roll-start with electric motors but it seems to have reverted to the engines running continuously.

Know some folk in areas where traffic to work is a crawling queue and they turn off their stop start partly because they dont trust it, partly because they dont like changing their driving habit, and partly because they know people who have had to have new starter motor under cars guarantee.

In winter there is always a risk of your battery dying as well, I almost had that happen in a long motorway jam once.

On modern cars (that doesn't include any of mine) the catalytic converter takes a hammering on starts as well. If a car hasn't got stop-start then it is not designed to be operated that way.

Engine stop/start systems do not save fuel, but it does reduce poluution, especially in urban areas where there can be a lot of vehicle activity. The vehicles have different starting systems to older vehicles to cope with the extra demand which include a higher capacity battery and it is also essential that the higher quality synthetc oils specified are used when the vehicle is serviced. There are a multitude of conditions that need to be met before the engine stop/start sequence even kicks in, including:
1) Engine must be at a minimum temperature.
2) Heating/Aircon in vehicle is at desired temperature.
3) Battery is at a minimum charge level.
4) The front wheels are pointing straight ahead
5) You have not stopped on a hill
6) If diesel vehicle and DPF fitted it is not on a regen cycle.

Only then will the engine stop when the vehicle stops on a journey.
In winter on a short runs the stop/start sytem may not activate at all.
Not heard of anyone with a stop/start vehicle having the starter system changed due to wear & tear, but have heard of many drivers having their older conventional starter changed as it had worn out.

Have had 2 vehicles with start/stop systems over 150,000 miles/7 years and never had a battery, starter or engine related problem due to start/stop.

Even Honest John agrees.

https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/askhj/answer/52165/will-a-stop-start-system-wear-out-the-starter-motor-

Don't know why they don't synchronise the traffic lights on long roads if they're so worried about pollution. In Berlin the Heerstrasse has synchronised lights along it's full length. If you get through a green light and keep to the speed limit then you get green all the way for your journey. No stopping and starting all the time, which cuts down on polllution. Simples.

I don't think traffic management on the 8+ lane Heerstasse can be compared to the A41.

Any grid system without out long distances between junctions can't use synchronised lights without giving undue priority to one particular route unless it has split level junctions.

Most of our urban roads are also part of the domestic road system. Admittedly the Germans planned way ahead of us but they had much more international traffic on their roads unlike our little island.

Lived in W Berlin for 7+ years so think I know the area quite well, having done daily travelling up the Strasse. My comments are pretty valid, I think for long roads with myriad traffic lights. Don't believe everything you read on Google.

Then you will know that Heerstrasse consist of the Bundesstrasse PLUS two roads either side of the Bundesstrasse.

The two side roads take local traffic and means that the junctions across the Bunderstrasse can be much further apart because there are fewer roads join the Bundesstrasse.

Yes we could do the same but it would take a tremendous amount of demolition to create a 60 yard wide path that the Heerstrasse is for most of its length through Berlin. The A41 is about 20 yards wide, the M53 is only 30 yards wide even at the 6 lane sections.