>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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

This is where a hyper focus on solely CO2 emissions is likely harmful. One also needs to consider the environmental impacts of mining for all the raw materials, for example, for that new car.

And the cost of new cars these days with the inflation over the past 1.5 years

> 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

>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.

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.

> 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.

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

'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 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.

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.

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 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.

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.