But I have also noticed a news station with a building on 67th st (I think) which has idling, driver-less vans on it constantly. I bet they are never ticketed. I am going to call 311 the next time I walk by and see an idler.

My hunch is, they don’t personally pay for the gas, and they don’t personally pay for the ticket in the rare instance that one is issued, so why not leave the car idling and the heat/air conditioning running?

What would change behavior is ensuring that the legislation specifically says that leaving a vehicle idling is negligent behavior, and that if negative consequences are attributable to that negligence, you will be found liable.

If your idling truck squashes a group of schoolchildren, it was YOU that killed the children. It doesn’t matter that you didn’t mean to; the reality is that you chose not to prevent it. Start putting that in the headlines and people will change their behavior.

The ticket? That’s for the asthma you gave the schoolchildren.

The other day I saw a crew from these two vans from some private company doing some work on 16th St.

Of course they were idling, and unattened. But here’s the terrific part: above the rear wheel well, there was a big sticker with a warning for the operator: “Chocks first!” And sure enough, there were chocks around the rear wheel. WHILE THE VAN WAS STILL IDLING UNATTENED.

So you can go to the trouble of grabbing chocks and placing them, but not turning the engine off? Seriously, WHAT IS IT WITH PEOPLE WHOSE JOB INVOLVES TRUCKS AND VANS?! Why do they REFUSE to turn off their engines?

I don’t often, but I had the nerve to go approach them and ask them about it. They guy said one predictable thing: “it uses less gas than stopping and starting.”
I said “no, unless the vehicle is over, like, 25 years old.”
He said, “yeah, but these are diesel vehicles.”

Now, does anyone here know if he’s got a point there? These were very new looking vans, diesel or not.

I pointed out that fuel aside, it’s still illegal to leave them unattended. He said, “they’re not unattended, we’re working nearby.” Of course that’s absurd, and I politely said so. He said “I know the law.”

Like the Zipcar guy I had a similar little arguement with weeks before, as the conversation ended, he said something overtly polite but that clearly indicated he had no intention of taking my thoughts seriously at all. Now that’s just human nature, but again, generally, what is it with people idling work vehicles, and leaving idling work vehicles unattended? It’s like it’s some sacred rite for them. Well, if they won’t change, it’s just another reason that the city needs to stomp the sh— out of idling (as I said in my previous comment, which is “awaiting moderation”)….

In a comment on Streetsblog, Rebecca Kalin (of Asthma Free School Zone) was one of the first people I saw draw the connection between leaving an idling vehicle unattended and the danger that poses for pedestrians. I am glad CM Crowley is picking up on the connection.

Re: “At issue, as always, is enforcement”:
Garodnick’s bill, Int 881-2008 significantly addresses that because it enables traffic agents to ticket for idling. That would make it a linchpin in anti-idling enforcement, because traffic agents DO ticket what cops don’t.

I both bills pass, I don’t know if that would mean that traffic agents (per Garodnick’s bill) could ticket unattended idling vehicles (per Crowley’s bill). That would be great, but even if not, both bills need to pass. Please call on your Council Members to support them both.

(as usual, I hope my crude HTML has worked)

PS. I’m still waiting for the city to crack down on the MTA buses which idle for hours on end over the grates that let “fresh” air into the Rector Street station on the R.

Hire thousands of new traffic enforcement agents. Then raise the fines for unattended idling and other traffic crimes (there is no shortage) high enough to pay the agents and fund the MTA.

If the state won’t let the City control its own traffic problem, there are other methods.