Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Is there anything that can be done about vehicles which sit for ages churning out fumes?


I was sitting in my front bedroom and became aware of fumes filling the room, even though my windows were closed. I looked out of the window and there was a guy sitting right outside my house in a large van, on the phone with his engine running.


I went and asked him to turn it off and he wouldn't. I said the fumes were making me feel ill inside my house, and he told me that was my problem.


It was a Vauxhall Vivaro CDTI and I have the registration number. I presume he is working somewhere in this road or nearby.


Is there anything I can do about this? Is there any way of reporting it somewhere?


The pollution in this area is a real problem, and I have asthma. I hate to think what it is doing to all the small children round here whose lungs are still developing.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/168684-polluting-vehicles/
Share on other sites

It's a legal requirement to turn off the engine. Highway code rule 123

"You MUST NOT ... leave a vehicle engine running unnecessarily while that vehicle is stationary on a public road. Generally, if the vehicle is stationary and is likely to remain so for more than a couple of minutes, you should apply the parking brake and switch off the engine to reduce emissions and noise pollution."


Not sure how you can enforce it though.

Nigello Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The only thing you can do is tackle it head-on,

> with a smile and an overabundance of politeness

> (and caution). If it is a firm, ring the head

> office if the driver doesn't do as you ask.



The van was unmarked, and the driver wouldn't tell me who he worked for.


And I'm afraid I was neither smiling nor cautious.


In fact when he wouldn't turn the engine off (and no, it wasn't a refrigerated van) and told me it was my problem if I was feeling ill from the fumes, I shouted at him :(


ETA: I'm not proud of this.


ETA: Thanks for that info Mark, I shall look it up, print it out, and keep copies about my person to hand to these polluting drivers in future. They shall all know The Wrath of Sue :))

EPB Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Is it true that refrigerated vehicles have to keep

> their engines running in order to maintain the

> cooling system?


Not now. Quite a few run with just the ignition key turned on. Lots of trailers are self-contained units (not that an artic is likely to be in the side streets of ED!!).

I was in the playground of our local park (mayow park) recently with my 4 year old son.

An ice-cream van was parked there in the center of the park and less than 30 meters away from the gates of the playground.


The exhaust fumes of that antiquated diesel engine were VERY noticeable and unpleasant. (The noise too actually, but at least that is not detrimental to the health of my child)


I assume it stayed there, engine running for most of the day.


I will find a channel to complain about that to the council or whoever is in charge of authorizing it.


There is enough you can't do when it comes to reducing children's exposure to air pollution.





On a side note, I also have problems with the notion of tempting children with sugar and calories in places where they should exercise and be active.

Mark Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's a legal requirement to turn off the engine.

> Highway code rule 123

> "You MUST NOT ... leave a vehicle engine running

> unnecessarily while that vehicle is stationary on

> a public road. Generally, if the vehicle is

> stationary and is likely to remain so for more

> than a couple of minutes, you should apply the

> parking brake and switch off the engine to reduce

> emissions and noise pollution."


This is another example of where the Highway Code is not an accurate exposition of the law.


The relevant law can be found at Regulations 98 and 107 of The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986.

edhistory Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Mark Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > It's a legal requirement to turn off the

> engine.

> > Highway code rule 123

> > "You MUST NOT ... leave a vehicle engine

> running

> > unnecessarily while that vehicle is stationary

> on

> > a public road. Generally, if the vehicle is

> > stationary and is likely to remain so for more

> > than a couple of minutes, you should apply the

> > parking brake and switch off the engine to

> reduce

> > emissions and noise pollution."

>

> This is another example of where the Highway Code

> is not an accurate exposition of the law.

>

> The relevant law can be found at Regulations 98

> and 107 of The Road Vehicles (Construction and

> Use) Regulations 1986.


I'm reminded of this every time I walk past the two Southwark camera spy cars parked on Lordship Lane every day, with their engines running, to make profit for APCOA.

Looking at Southwark's website they are interested in people reporting engine idling 'hotspots' to them, nothing about one-offs. Would help address engine idling around schools at least, if people report it.


http://www.southwark.gov.uk/air-quality/reporting-air-quality-complaints

This might also be of interest, for anyone wanting to actively try to tackle it - they run action events in 15 boroughs including Southwark in partnership with local council - provide training and then pair people up to approach car drivers idling to try and encourage them to change their behaviour.


https://idlingaction.london/

New vehicles automatically cut out the engine when stationary and restart it when the brake comes off. In the future, all vehicles will do this. The law does not seem to be clear from Edhistory's post but it is always a good idea to count to ten when frustrated, and then be calm when asking for something. It tends to bring the helpful side out of a person more often than not. At least we are no longer burning coal fires and having to battle with smog every other day. The technology to get rid of vehicle pollution is already there. It will just take time for it to work through new vehicle sales.

nunhead_man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "At least we are no longer burning coal fires and

> having to battle with smog every other day"

>

> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/2

> 9/wood-burning-stove-ban-will-not-be-enforced-agai

> nst-householders


Khan could easily make an impact here, by banning garages and stores from selling poor quality soft wood logs. Along with illegal bituminous house coal.

If you have the right wood burning appliance and kiln dried wood at sub 20% then the emmissions are within the confines of the law. I understand DEFFRA are to issue a 'ready to burn' standard for wood.


I'm often gobsmacked at the sight of that coal stuff for sale in winter. It's illegal to burn, why they don't clamp down on it I don't know.

It's not exactly hidden from view.

Seabag Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> I'm often gobsmacked at the sight of that coal

> stuff for sale in winter. It's illegal to burn,

> why they don't clamp down on it I don't know.

> It's not exactly hidden from view.



It isn't coal, is it?


It's smokeless fuel.

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Seabag Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> >

> > I'm often gobsmacked at the sight of that coal

> > stuff for sale in winter. It's illegal to burn,

> > why they don't clamp down on it I don't know.

> > It's not exactly hidden from view.

>

>

> It isn't coal, is it?

>

> It's smokeless fuel.


Yes REAL coal often. So often I'm gobsmacked to say.


Along with smokeless fuel.

If you want to moan about polluting vehicles and Khans mission to clean the air then why not also ask TFL to get bus drivers to switch off their engines (or switch to electric mode for the hybrids) when buses "wait for a short time to regulate the service"


Madness that they sit there for up to five minutes pumping out fumes when this happens

Seabag Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sue Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Seabag Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > >

> > > I'm often gobsmacked at the sight of that

> coal

> > > stuff for sale in winter. It's illegal to

> burn,

> > > why they don't clamp down on it I don't know.

>

> > > It's not exactly hidden from view.

> >

> >

> > It isn't coal, is it?

> >

> > It's smokeless fuel.

>

> Yes REAL coal often. So often I'm gobsmacked to

> say.

>

> Along with smokeless fuel.



Who is selling coal round here?

bels123 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This might also be of interest, for anyone wanting

> to actively try to tackle it - they run action

> events in 15 boroughs including Southwark in

> partnership with local council - provide training

> and then pair people up to approach car drivers

> idling to try and encourage them to change their

> behaviour.

>

> https://idlingaction.london/


Good idea to pair people up..

I had a cab outside mine with the engine running while he ate his lunch and read the paper. There should be a reporting system for cabs

This is not new

http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/news/crime-court/drivers-who-leave-motor-running-in-islington-will-be-fined-in-first-idling-campaign-in-the-country-1-3707742

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Sorry. Link wasn't working on my phone, but it is now, and I couldn't delete the post.
    • I think there's a fair number of "participating" sub offices that do passports or, at least, play the "check and send" game (£16 for glancing at your form), so some degree of cherry-picking seems to be permitted. Though it does look as if Post Offices "Indentity Services" are where it things the future lies, and "Right to Rent" (though it's more an eligibility check) looks a bit of an earner, along with DBS checks and the Age Verification services that, if the government gets its way, we'll all need to subscribe to before we're allowed on mumsnet. Those services, incidentally, seem mostly outsourced to an outfit called "Yoti", a privately-owned, loss-making "identity platform" with debts of £150m, a tardy approach to filings, and a finger in a bunch of questionable pies ("Passive Facial Liveness Recognition" sounds gloriously sinister) so what the Post Office gets out of the arrangement isn't clear, but I'm sure they think it worthwhile. That said, they once thought the same of funeral plans which, for some peculiar reason, failed to set fire to the shuffling queues, even metaphorically. For most, it seems, Post Office work is mostly a dead loss, and even the parcel-juggling is more nuisance than blessing. As a nonchalant retailer of other people's services the organisation can only survive now on the back of subsidies, and we're not even sure what they are. The taxpayer-funded subsidies from government (a £136m hand-out to keep Horizon going, £1bn for its compensation scheme, around £50m for the network, and perhaps a loan or two) are clearish, but the cross-subsidies provided by other retail activities in branches are murkier. As are the "phantom shortfalls" created by the Horizon system, which secretly lined Post Office's coffers as postmasters balanced the books with contributions from their own pockets. Those never showed up in the accounts though - because Horizon *was* the accounting system - so we can't tell how much of a subsidy that was. We might get an idea of the scale, however, from Post Office's belated Horizon Shortfall Scheme, which is handing £75k to every branch that's complained, though it's anyone's guess if that's fair or not. Still, that's all supposed to be behind us now, and Post Office's CEO-of-the-week recently promised an "extra" £250m a year for the branches (roughly enough to cover a minimum wage worker in each), which might make it worth the candle for some. Though he didn't expect that would happen before 2030 (we can only wonder when his pension will mature) and then it'd be "subject to government funding", so it might have to be a very short candle as it doesn't look like a promise that he can make. Still, I wouldn't want to discourage anyone from applying for a franchise, and it's possible that, this time, Post Office will be telling the truth. And, you never know, we might all be back in the Post Office soon, and eagerly buying stamps, if only for existence permits, rather than for our letters.
    • The situation outside Oru is far worse with their large tables immediately adjacent to badly parked bikes using the bike racks there. And the lamppost also blocking the pavement.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...