Comments on: Council Raises Unattended Idling Fines. Will NYPD Enforce?

By: Emily Litella

Emily Litella — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 02:53:30 +0000

Idling infuriates me like nothing else. You know, the plumbers eating lunch in the van with engine going and the adjacent sidewalk filled with pedestrians. Good weather or not, this mindless activity is pervasive. But here’s the thing, people (such as mechanics and bean counters waiting for wife to get off the subway) know they are wasting gas, polluting yet they continue to do it. I’m all for upping the penalty and enforcement, but the root problem of people’s ignorance (willful or innocent) of the most basic common sense things is troubling. I think it will be impossible for americans to make the lifestyle changes needed to meet the challenges of the near future in an orderly and voluntary manner.

By: Kaja

Kaja — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:59:39 +0000

Could just be me, but I think it’s time for us to revisit factionally representative democratic government, not the stip fine program.

All this occurs because groups of people can lobby legislators to bribe said factions with slices of the public trust and treasure. I’m sure if you dig down you’ll find that a load of corporations which use trucks requested the program, cited examples where other cities had done it, and kicked in for re-election bids for the folks who helped pass it.

This isn’t our system malfunctioning. This is our system working /exactly as it was designed/.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10

By: Brad Aaron

Brad Aaron — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:34:48 +0000

dd: Right -- the bill won't be necessary if the PD acts. I got the impression that if nothing happens Garodnick may revive it.

Kaja: Good question. It may be time for us to revisit the stip fine program.

By: ddartley

ddartley — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:16:29 +0000

Wow, Kaja. Thanks for sharing that link. That’s totally @#$%ed up. That program has to go. Or at least be seriously changed. Did everyone else already know about it? I sure didn’t. Is it a huge find for people who care about idling?

I’ve often babbled here about how so often it’s commercial drivers who do the unattended idling thing. Well, I’d bet that program explains it.

So perhaps this article doesn’t foretell of reduced idling after all, depending on how big an impediment to effective anti-idling enforcement this program is.

So how do we change the program? Are the pre-set fines determined enrollee-by-enrollee, or are they program-wide? Perhaps it’s time to make them uniform, public, and to raise them significantly. Or get rid of the thing entirely.

By: Mark Walker

Mark Walker — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 19:21:14 +0000

Nate: “if the police don’t enforce the law … then the law doesn’t really matter.”

Right. But why don’t the police enforce the law? Perhaps because many of them perceive our neighborhoods as places they drive through on their way to work — as opposed to places where they and their children live.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: residency requirement.

By: Kaja

Kaja — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 19:09:55 +0000

> At $250 a pop, it probably wouldn’t take many tickets before companies start telling drivers to take two seconds to shut down their trucks.

Don’t these companies already pay reduced-or-no fines, via the fleet Commercial Collections Programs?

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dof/html/parking/park_commercial_fleet.shtml

By: Nate Briggs

Nate Briggs — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 19:06:58 +0000

I actually think that traffic enforcement is the cutting edge of alternative transportation.

A career officer can rise through the ranks of law enforcement much faster by finding miniscule amounts of marijuana than he (or she) can by writing tickets.

The perception is that motorized vehicles are just not a significant threat to public safety.

And motorists are well aware of this bias. They know that – no matter what laws are out there – if the police don’t enforce the law … then the law doesn’t really matter.

Nate (SLC)

By: ddartley

ddartley — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 19:05:42 +0000

Thank goodness. Enforcement of Crowley’s bill by implementing the tech/administrative change sought by Garodnick’s bill is precisely what I was hoping would happen, but I didn’t know if “unattended” was covered by Garodnick’s idling bill.

But I don’t understand something–is Garodnick’s office saying that his bill is not needed because the change it seeks can be implemented wihtout legislation, or are they going to keep working on his bill?

If eventually both “attended” and “unattended” idling can be ticketed by TEAs, but “attended” has a weaker penalty than unattended, then I hope TEAs know which to cite a given offending vehicle for.

But again, thank goodness, I’m so happy there’s actual hope of finally curbing one of the overall worst motorist behaviors out there.

By: jass

jass — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:31:37 +0000

Once drivers know that they COULD be cited for $250, many will not risk idling, even if there’s no enforcement. For the few that Do idle, NYPD has an incentive to ticket. Cops dont like to write tickets for $5, as they feel it’s a waste of time. They do write big tickets though.

Personally, I dont understand why anybody would want to idle. It’s a waste of gas and your car could be stolen. Last I checked, the modern car is built with engines that dont need to be warmed up to start.