digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

What is Government’s Role?

21st-century-citizen.com — The City of Vancouver, BC recently passed a law against motorists letting their cars idle in order to help curb greenhouse gases and save fuel -- it's now punishable by a fine of $50 to $100 to idle your car. What do you think? Should we change our laws to force behaviors that are good for the environment? Or should government stay off our backs?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • weirdralph, on 10/13/2007, -35/+81Oh, I think this is a great idea. Let's take it a step further. Let's ban anything that might even remotely be construed as offensive. Sneezing in the library? $250. Walking on the wrong side of the sidewalk? $25 for the first offense and $50 for each offense thereafter. Scratching your butt? $80 for public scratching, $40 for scratching in the privacy of your own home. Let us all welcome our nanny-state overlords!
    • capiCrimm, on 10/11/2007, -4/+44I find it offensive that you forgot spitting. It's already implemented in Hong Kong, but I suppose you don't pay attention to "them". I find that fact offensive and racist as well.

      $1350 please.
      • jaxcs, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4spitting is illegal in the subway system in New York City. It is also illegal to make excessive use of the horn in certain areas such as around hospitals.
    • Tenetri, on 10/11/2007, -12/+18but but but... I need the government to regulate my personal librities!
      by the way... if you scratch your butt, you're letting the terrorists win :(
    • Drogoganor, on 10/11/2007, -17/+12"nanny-state"

      Americans let themselves be led around by this term.
      New legislation is proposed: "nanny-state! Nanny-state!". And then Americans go "The government can't tell me what to do!"

      Score one for reverse psychology.
      • Tenetri, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11maybe if your a dumb f*ck...
        • Drogoganor, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7Coming from the reactionary ***** around here, I take that as a badge of honor!
    • u8eR, on 10/11/2007, -10/+18There's a big difference between something that might be socially offensive and something that has material costs and can be detrimental. Take smoking, for example, which is heavily regulated (in terms of where one can smoke). Each of us knows that pollution is a real problem. We know GHGs emissions are a problem (although this law will do nothing to curb it). Part of the law also mandates you not let your car run idle while unoccupied and unlocked. Here in Minnesota, where people often do it to warm their cars in the winter, the law makes sense because car theft often occurs in these situations.

      You just have to think about it a little bit.
      • soupus, on 10/11/2007, -6/+6No, no, no. The government nor should supporters of fines ever claim that the fine for something like this exists because it's in my best interest. That's exactly what a nanny-state is and it's a very obvious sign that there is a larger problem. If statistically relevant, the pollution excuse is acceptable given that it affects everyone and not just myself. Anything that only immediately affects me (such as having my car stolen because I left the keys in it) should never ever ever ever incur a fine from a government body.
        • brianary, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7That's as may be, but smoking and pollution cost the entire society. What should I pay for your 'liberty' to pollute?
        • OneLess, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3He's saying that fining smoking and pollution is fine, but fining something like leaving your car on while unlocked just because it prevents car theft is going too far.
        • Segphault1, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1I like your thinking, but having your car stolen does affect someone. In fact, it affects many people. Think about it: when someone steals your car, they get in trouble. They can go to jail, which destroys their lives. No questions that jail breaks people, the purpose of it is to keep the poor very poor. Any family dependent on them is now impacted, as they have lost a small but possibly important income.This causes these people to become poor, and most likely steal too. Since you own a car worth stealing, you are probably well off enough to not be impacted by the fine other than not letting it idle in the future. Our law's are great, they prevent both the rich AND the poor from stealing to feed their families!
          • MtheoryX, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4That's got to be the most illogical line of reasoning I've heard all day.
        • Aciesethon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Your car being stolen does not only affect you. It will tie up police resources trying to recover it and of course the possibility that it's stolen by someone like Eric Edgar Cooke. The later doesn't justify the law though, but it is a consideration.
      • madroneDorf, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Theres a difference between legislating morality and using the power of government to correct negative externalities,

        Some things, have costs that is not incurred by the individual who commits it, but rather other individuals or society at large, I have no problem with government fining such things so they more truely reflect the cost of the said behavior
      • GRTWHT, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7You and people like you are the reason that these laws exist in the first place and are getting worse by the day.

        You justify the laws that you support because they force compliance with a belief you have. That makes you no different than the people that support any law based on 'family values' or 'think of the children' or any other catch-phrase used by the religious zealouts.
    • christor, on 10/11/2007, -9/+21Yeah - next thing you know, they'll try to fine me for pissing in the city's water supply... oh wait. The problem here is that idling is not only offensive, but it's socially wasteful. People do it, because they don't bear all of its concomitant social costs. The best free-market solution would be to tax idling (or even just gas), letting people themselves choose the most efficient level of idling. But perhaps we can make a judgment that idling is almost always wasteful and whatever social benefits come from letting people choose some slight level of idling is overwhelmed by the costs of administering a tax or or other property system. Upshot - this is a case where the market doesn't guide us to the efficient solution.
    • AnitraWeb, on 10/11/2007, -7/+19Oh get over yourselves! Damaging the environment causes physical harm to other people; scratching your butt may be horrifying to behold, but does not cause physical harm to anyone else. Nobody (including you) has the right to be protected from others offending us; we all do have the right to be protected from others physical harming us. If you want to breathe your car exhaust yourself, I will argue your right to do so. You do not have the right to make other people breathe it.
      • brad3378, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5Do I need your permission to drive my own car?
        • Logicexe, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3Strawman Alert! No one is trying to stop you from driving your car or forcing you to ask permission to drive your car. What's wrong with limiting the time you sit there in a parking spot with your engine needlessly spewing toxic gases and particles into our air? Are you one of those douchebags who sit in their car waiting to pick up someone (or something like that) for 15 - 20 minutes all the while running your engine? We all have to breathe the same air and there's only a finite amount of oil in the ground so conservation is important, no, necessary any way you look at it.

          All things considered, this is very minuscule, it'll hardly really affect anyone and won't even make much of a dent in pollution or fuel consumption, but maybe I'm just underestimating how much fuel is wasted through excessive idling. Maybe we should just privatize air, that way we'll all have to buy our own personal supply of air and we won't have to worry about it getting contaminated by douchebags idling their engines.
    • Drogoganor, on 10/11/2007, -8/+17I personally find it hilarious how much Americans huff and puff about rights and personal responsibility, and then promptly prove to everyone just how irresponsible they really are.
    • tmbrwolf19, on 10/11/2007, -6/+10You obviously have never lived in a city or anything more then a small hamlet out in the country or something. Letting you car idle is a huge contributor to smog, and living in the Toronto Area, it costs somewhere in the tens of millions of dollars every year in health related illnesses and deaths. Cases of breathing related illness spike during the summer when everyone is 'just' idling their cars so they can have their precious A/C. In winter all that pollution can contribute to acidic run off in the summer that causes fish kills (in an area where the fishery is important like coastal BC, this is bad), Get off your 5 mpg SUV for 5 minutes and take a look around and use your head for once in your life.
      • TheGuruStud, on 10/11/2007, -11/+3I guess you'll get mad then when I tell you that I drive to do my laundry that takes less time to walk (apt. complex), and I leave the car running with the A/C on while I'm inside. Boohoo. I just got *****-taxed 5 times on my car and anal raped 6 ways from Sun. on the gas. I think I can use them however I please in a normal fashion. If you don't like the city (I really don't) and my car, then leave. You can drive a goddamn tank to school and I don't give a *****. A few cars (yes, literally a few cars b/c that's the comparable impact to the environment overall, remember the other millions of tons of pollution we cause) idling is not going to make any difference. Get over it.
        BTW, I took the Cats off and my car and it runs pig rich (for now, I need AFC). You can smell the raw gas coming out of the exhaust. Now go cry to mommy.
        • tmbrwolf19, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5I love people like you. Your the ones that will suffer the most as gas gets rarer and rarer. You talk big ***** now and make a big of a mess as possible. Get back to me in 20 years when you can barely afford that do that laundry let alone pay for that gas.
          • TheGuruStud, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1actually, no. My family owns a literal *****-ton of real estate. Figure the price of that in 20 yrs. I'm going to guess 10s of millions at least (provided bush and co don't ***** our dollar much lower and the world economy into peso value lol). :)
          • ProgressBar, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4So you're a spoiled little beotch, eh Guru? You'll be the first to cry when times get tough.
        • Modulo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3 * In the peak of winter, Canadians voluntarily idle their cars for a total of more than 75 million minutes a day or the equivalent of idling one vehicle for 144 years.
          * If every driver of a light-duty vehicle in Canada avoided idling for just five minutes a day, it would save 1.6 million litres of fuel and prevent more than 1.4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere and contributing to climate change.
          * Ten seconds of idling can use more fuel than turning off your engine and re-starting it. If you're going to be stopped for more than 10 seconds except in traffic turn off your car. This includes things like drive-thru's, car washes and waiting to pick someone up especially children after school.
          * Restarting your car, rather than letting it idle, will cost about $10 a year in component wear, money that you can easily save several times over in reduced fuel consumption.
          * Driving your car actually cuts warm-up time in half. This reduces fuel consumption (which saves money) and greenhouse gas emissions.
          * On really cold mornings, using a block heater is much more efficient than idling your car.
      • Segphault1, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2You sir, are an idiot.
        • tmbrwolf19, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3If you could give some form of substantiation to that statement, i would be happy to provide you with any information you require. The Ontario government has done tons of studies on the effects of air pollution and its cost in tax payer dollars to fix the mess (most to provide a stronger backing for its increased nuclear power generation initiative).
    • nixfu, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8
      Lenina Huxley: [A]nything not good for you is bad, hence, illegal. Alcohol, caffeine, contact sports, meat . . .

      John Spartan: Are you sh**ing me?

      A computer: John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute.

      John Spartan: What the Hell is that?

      A computer: John Spartan, you are fined one credit . . .

      Lenina Huxley: Bad language, child play, gasoline, uneducational toys, and anything spicy. Abortion is also illegal. But, then again so is pregnancy, if you don't have a license.


      • ORBAT, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The fact that you censored the word "*****" amuses me to no end in this context.
    • brad3378, on 10/11/2007, -6/+6idling a car doesn't burn nearly as much fuel as driving it. Sounds like another ***** money grab if you ask me.
      • tmbrwolf19, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2When your engine is running at such a low rpm its not hot enough to have proper combustion and most of the fuel goes unburnt. 5 minutes of idling creates something like twice the amount of air pollution that running at normal highway speed does and the ***** it puts out is much worse to be breathing in, let alone the environment.

        Idling your car to warm it up is a waste of gas, since you heater uses heat from the engine. Your engine won't be running hot enough to really warm up your car, and the best way it to go drive it. If your idling to warm up the engine, anything built in the last 20 years won't take more the 30 seconds to move the oil through the block, and if its cold enough that its still an issue, get a block heater.

        And if you don't like the ***** money grab, don't ***** idle. I don't see how this is a hard thing for anyone to do.
        • brad3378, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5I'm not endorsing idling a car - believe me - it's a waste of fuel. But why do I need a law to tell me that? Should I have laws that tell me to shut off the lights if I'm not using them? Should I be fined if I leave my computer monitor turned on while I'm away? Let's be reasonable here!

          By the way. You may want to research something called an "EGR Valve" before spewing your ***** environmental propoganda.
          • tmbrwolf19, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3It's no different then littering laws. Yes every knows they shouldn't do it, but until fines were introduced littering was a big problem. People started getting tickets and stopped chucking their garbage on the side of the road. While it didn't solve the problem completely, it made a sizable impact. Thats how these laws function. They are deterrents and are quite effective. While some people actually shut off, most don't bother, but the minute you have to fork over that $100, you think twice next time. 10 years down the road, these laws generally aren't even enforced cause for the most part, people have changed their behavior.

            EGR valves only recycle a portion of the engine exhausts and i suggest that YOU do some research: "EGR is typically not employed at high loads because it would reduce peak power output, and it is not employed at idle (low-speed, zero load) because it would cause unstable combustion, resulting in rough idle." [Wiki] Not to mention by recycling the exhaust you increase the amount of NOx compounds created by your engine, and these are one of the primary components of smog which is a ever increasing issue.

            While it may be propaganda, its well founded and i got the science to back me. ;)
    • SteveDeGroof, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2It's perfectly reasonable for a government to pass laws which protect the people as a whole from the actions of individuals. It's also reasonable for a government to pass laws which protect the rights of the individual. Sometimes the two are in conflict. You have to maintain a balance. Seems like the exact location of that balance point is what most of the bickering's about.
  • kbedell, on 10/11/2007, -26/+39weirdralph -
    You've been fined $250 for having original and creative thoughts.
    - Your Friendly Nanny Overlord.
    • jmkiii, on 10/10/2007, -1/+26You have been fined one digg.
      Do you see that area that says "reply to this comment?" Use it!
      • capiCrimm, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9so is this a class-action bury on behalf of diggers or are you only burying for yourself?
  • Anglemona, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4The website Trans-Talk has details on how it’s been going, along with some good reference information.
    • SuperWinner, on 10/10/2007, -6/+5This is stupid, build a "gass guzzler" tax into larger vehicles and let the police catch pedophiles.
      • Kier, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7***** that! How about rewarding me with less tax for having a smaller car? It's been seen for the last 10+ years that enviro-taxes don't make people cut back, it only pisses them off. Makes you wonder what these global warming hippies' real motives are, asking so much more out of your wallet....
    • sporg, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3It takes more gas to start a vehicle than to idle it for short period. This is law is *****.
  • soniyashrma, on 10/10/2007, -20/+11Local city governments should be able to regulate as much as they like. It is the role of local government to regulate their local areas. So, I think if the people of that area want this law then it seems like a good law to me. There’s a lot of valid reasons for it.
    • cnot3, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5"Local city governments should be able to regulate as much as they like." Let any government regulate however they like and see what it gets you. Personal liberty should not be allowed to be infringed upon. Its not just happening in Canada either, here in the US we have all sorts of rediculous nanny laws, most of which are enforced by state and local governments. Sometimes its hard to figure out which is worse, the federal government, or the states. After all, the government which governs best governs least. Actually, since I live in Illinois, its definately the state.
      • DrVoltron, on 10/10/2007, -10/+5I dont recall ever seeing in the constitution "The right to idle your car" or "The right to pollute the environment"

        Im a huge supporter of personal liberties. But i think everyone here agrees that some liberties should be limited for public safety..ie...you can discharge a firearm in downtown NYC. Its not really any worst to justify limiting some liberites in the interest of protecting the environment.

        now, that being said, there needs to be an effort to ensure that laws designed to protect the environment doesnt restrict any significant personal liberties. For instance...a law banning the ownership of cars in general....would be wrong.
        • smacksaw, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4The fact you have -3 Diggs is proof that most people who champion "personal liberties" know *****-all about them. It's only personal liberties for selfish pricks, if anyone else's get infringed upon it doesn't matter because they don't think about their personal liberties equally.
  • Brookeco, on 10/10/2007, -25/+21If the government can regulate seat belts, and talking on the phone while in you are in the car I see no problem regulating when a car sits idle. It is four our own good, and for the benefit of our world and generations to come.
    • jmkiii, on 10/10/2007, -8/+14Seatbelt laws are stupid. If you want to put yourself in danger, be my guest.
      Talking on the phone is, in my opinion, something that should make penalties more severe if something does go wrong.
      It is called criminal negligence. It is already a law. I hate redundant laws!
      AAAAAA!
      • christor, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4If seatbelt laws are proven to save lives, would that make a difference for you? I know there's some debate about their effectiveness, but I'm curious whether effectiveness makes a difference for you. Would you still not support such laws no matter how many lives were saved? Letting people do stupid things that result in their own deaths or injuries sometimes does harm us all - lost productivity, medical expenses, etc. The economics of this complex world we live in just don't easily reduce to: Permit any act so long as only the actor might be harmed.
        • NJHiker, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Live and let live.
          • flygirl62, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Or, in the case of not wearing seat belts, it might be (as the song says) "Live and let die."
            However, if you are only endangering your OWN life, I support the right to take whatever risks you want.
        • jmkiii, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3I always wear my seatbelt. I feel naked without it. I just get pissed off that the law requires me to protect myself.
        • JigoroKano, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1If only the stupid kill themselves, why not let natural selection run it's course?
      • AnitraWeb, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Most people agree that potentially harmful actions should be stopped before they actually do harm. The only real disagreement is over where the balance-point is between the harm done to the individual by interfering with his actions, and the harm that might be done to others by not interfering. A libertarian once told me that if she ran down the street firing a gun off randomly no one should have the right to stop her unless and until she actually hit someone. Most people would take issue with that.
        • jmkiii, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I'm curious about this "most people" statistic.
    • cnot3, on 10/10/2007, -9/+3But it four are own gude.
    • Fragowell, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5"It's for our own good..." that doesn't scare you in the least?
      • AnitraWeb, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9"I have the right to do whatever I want no matter how it affects anyone else.." that doesn't scare you in the least?
      • Modulo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It doesn't scare me. But then I'm Canadian. I have generally good reason to trust my government.
    • 03FightOn, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4It's for the children.

      [/sarc off]
    • kevinisms, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Baaaaa.....own good......baaaaaa
  • sladek, on 10/10/2007, -5/+30idling your car? if you want to save the environment how about you don't all drive around in oversized SUVs and Pickups!
    • cnot3, on 10/10/2007, -7/+6Don't forget to hold your farts in too!
      • xerigen, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Maybe it's because I just got done going to class for 12 hours straight and working 4 hours immediately after that.. but I found your comment hilarious. Thanks for the laugh.
    • christor, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11If A and B are both harmful, it's invalid to argue that banning A is ineffective because there is still B. After all, such an argument would apply to A and B. It might be that banning both is not practical but that banning one helps.
    • jhshukla, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4fine them even more?
    • brad3378, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1if you want to save the environment how about you don't have 8 children.
    • bobjrn2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0An idle vehicle is more harmful to the environment because the engine isn't burning off as many of the harmful gases unlike when the engine is running above idle.
  • TGMD, on 10/10/2007, -23/+20Via the social contract the only purpose of the government should be to ensure our safety from threats foreign and domestic. That's it, not to push a far left environmental agenda on us.
    • FDDIcent, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Yet I doubt most government officials have ever read the book that helped build modern democracy, and that is why it is falling apart.
    • u8eR, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6If you're from America, you've probably already forgotten the 10th Amendment.

      If you want to talk about being a constitutionalist, make sure you know your constitution!
    • KingMoses, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4Unfortunately, in Canada it is government policy to push a far left environmental agenda on us.
      • Azio, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9Fortunately, the majority of Canadians support this "far left environmental agenda" so the government is, in fact, carrying out the will of the people who elected it.
      • akhomerun, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Fortunately, the far left environmental agenda has not shut off any ice rinks.
      • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Since when is protecting the commons "Far Left"? Are you Conservatives all sociopaths?

        Pollution has a social cost -- what part of that dont you understand?
        • shauncorleone, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1And it should be up to the commons, not the government, to take the steps necessary to address the social costs caused by pollution.
      • tmbrwolf19, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3wtf? Far left? compared to most countries we have a pretty centerest view on the environment, and considering this country only exists because of its environment based primary industries, i think we should give a ***** about how our primary bread winner is doing. Last time we didn't push the 'far left environmental agenda' the cod stocks were destroyed and put hundreds of thousands out of work. If anything this government isn't pushing hard enough, and without a good hard shove we are going to see the collapse of western forestry, northern mining projects, and huge issues with agriculture and fisheries. Next time you say we are pushing a far left agenda, remember we only have an economy because of the millions of jobs dependent on that environment.
    • christor, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9I'm confused. I thought that's what this law was - and effort to avert harm from a domestic source. Is your argument just that stopping idling won't single-handedly solve the climate change problem? Why can't we legislate to prohibit conduct that makes us all worse off?
    • sensoukami, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16dugg down for being stupid enough to assume that environmentalism is by defintion a "far left" agenda. Last I checked, Conservatives like to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and go hunting/fishing in the great outdoors. Maybe you should go and visit the Industrial areas of China, and see what would become of your home if it were not for that "far left" agenda. Just because quite a few greens are idiots with no concept of economics does not mean we shouldn't worry about the environment.
    • tazx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Via the social contract, we all agree to abide rules we create in common for everyone's benefit. Protecting the environment is in our long term interest; harming it harms others and damages our longterm health and economic wellbeing.

      Your theory of limited government is extremist in itself, and simply blind to reality: if we want to accomplish large, important goals like protecting the environment, it takes government acting with the permission of the people to enact them. Laws like this are made with the support of a majority of the people in Vancouver or Canada.

  • Error601, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20Is this really a big issue there? Do people just sit around with their cars running? It's already illegal here to have to running while you're not in it so it doesn't take off on its own.
    • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3No. Im sure it's not. Im quite confident that the citizens of Vancouver agree that pollution should be discouraged.

      We have a Idling bylaw in Windsor, Ontario.
  • SeethisPass, on 10/10/2007, -14/+11Every law is an infringement on your liberty. You seem to want to be completely hogtied. I don't understand this logic.
    • u8eR, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5"Every law is an infringement on your liberty." By definition, maybe. But if you want to talk about the liberties granted by the U.S. Constitution (or even the Canadian one), then no, not at all correct.
      • flygirl62, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2True, but more so than most people think.
        Since, as stated in the constitution, the enumeration of some rights does not imply that there are not MANY others not listed.
    • jhshukla, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5go live in a jungle.
    • tazx, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Your needlessly polluting the atmosphere is an infringement on my ability to breathe, and the health of the planet I live on.

  • carpespasm, on 10/10/2007, -5/+14does that mean they'll make idle traps at long stop lights where cops hide behind a mail box or something and jump out with a ticket book if you don't cut off the engine?
    • seanc6610, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4I'm pretty sure it says at the curb.
  • tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -11/+10Idling uses less gas than driving does. This is silly. It's a pain in the ass when you walk past a smelly, idling car, but it's hardly the real issue for the environment. Just leave the people alone.
    • christor, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4True, but idling is pure and obvious waste. I don't know how much of a problem it is and whether it's worth doing something about - that is, whether we could realize substantial gains in terms of emission reductions or whether we'd simply be aiming at the "pain in the ass" problem. But it's not obvious to me that the issue should be reflexively ignored.
      • Rikushix, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Of course it uses less gas. Isn't that obvious? And it uses more gas than turning it off. Wouldn't you agree that having your car turned off is better for the environment than having it running?

        And don't pull the "oh it takes lots of gas to turn on your car"...if you're idling longer than 10 seconds, your wasting gas. And its really people who idle for long periods of time that they're worried about.
  • mclumber1, on 10/10/2007, -13/+8A terrible idea. Not from an environmental point of view, but from a liberty point of view. What's next? The government regulating how much I can eat? What websites I can visit?
    • maglos, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7Ya next thing you know they will be telling me I can't throw my garbage onto my neighbors lawn, or to stop shooting cats that step on my property! I mean cats on my property? wtf!
      • AnitraWeb, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Thank you for your contribution to amending the nation's irony deficiency. Regrettably, your aid was too late for half the posters on Digg.
    • u8eR, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Worst slippery slope fallacy I've seen in a while.
    • kevinisms, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1They can take my porn from my cold, dead hands.
    • Lionhart, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Since when does the government not regulate what websites you can visit?
  • chunkylimey, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10Unless you're disabled I don't see the need to park your car close to a store Idling. I little more walking, hauling stuff around and burning a few calories might make the "North American land whale" (commonly found in states like Ohio, Texas and Michigan and usually driving a pick-up) a welcome addition to the endangered species list. Unless we can allow the Japanese to start harpooning the fat parasites and serving them up as snacks I don't see how the Land Whale benefits the ecosystem. A cull would be good for the whole environment.
  • PS3FTW, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11Move to Somalia its the only country on earth there is no govt..
    • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Freedom from Government is Great! Mogadishu 2008!
      • zaphar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1There's still government, it's clan based, which is much better in my opinion. It's actually kind of funny because all the foreigners are trying to form a formal government there, which always introduces conflict; the government then blames it on the state of "anarchy".
        • PS3FTW, on 10/13/2007, -0/+0Yep Im Somali and its laughable, people will always vote for their clan no matter what.. its like you have 100 percent alligence to your clan, you do what ever they tell you, and its been like that for centuries.. And they generally distrust anything from the west since their Christian's and Somalis are 99 percent Muslim.
    • ambrosious, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Lebanon is definitely pretty close.
  • ZenMojo, on 10/10/2007, -7/+25Your personal liberty extends as far as mine does, and where the two meet the government is responsible for mediation and legislation. My answer is simple: do the tests, get the data, get some proof, and if idling the engine does pass maintenance costs onto the government then make the ***** pay at the source instead of taking the eventual cost of maintenance out of the pool of OUR tax revenue.

    If you want anarchy, move to ***** Antarctica, bitches.
    • FDDIcent, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3we don't want anarchy, we want a democratic government.
      • AnitraWeb, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Democracy means that you don't always get to do just what you want. Equal rights for everyone means that none of us always gets our own way.
      • tazx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5And laws like this are being enacted by a democratically elected government.
    • AnitraWeb, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Write On, ZenMojo!
    • EuphopiaB, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4So then, as all CO2 production is passed on to the taxpayers, the government can fine walking, running, moving, burning anything, running any engine or motor, using electricity, or having a child.
      • Logicexe, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1A tax on CO2 exhaled is silly since that CO2 originally came from the atmosphere itself (sequestered by plants) making it neutral. I don't see a problem with taxing pollution, like it or not pollution effects everybody so if you're going to do things that cause pollution, pay the price (that applies to both private companies and citizens). We're already effectively taxed for having children since we pay sales tax on diapers, cribs and all the other stuff you need to buy when having a kid.
    • FattyCorpuscle, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Government gnomes work a different way...
      1. Make the ***** pay at the source AND take the eventual cost of maintenance out of the pool of OUR tax revenue
      2. ???
      3. Profit!
      • arjie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You guys are supposed to have a democratic government. You make such a big issue out of it, saying that you have democracy, yet none of you can identify with your government, a government that you claim represents yours.
    • XZanatos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Hear hear! Enough whining, lets analyze the problem carefully and then follow the best solution. I am a "technologist" whenever I can be. That means I look to technology to solve any problems it can instead of trying to convince people to do things the 'way they should for their own good'.
  • cimordnilap, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10this seems alright to me, a neighbor of my grandma drives a huge diesel truck, and its a work vehicle, so he (presumably) doesnt pay for it. Anways in the winter he lets the thing idle ALL night long, from the time he gets home from work, to the time he leaves in the morning. Thats unbelievable, and should be unacceptable. Although i do hope that with laws like these someone is allowed to warmup their car when it is cold outside.
    • inf0, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Nothing a nice firebomb won't take care of.
    • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Gas taxes should be raise substantially. The age of the personal automobile is dead. When history looks back at the Age of Oil, they'll wonder why we built highways instead of plazas. They'll wonder why we all had $30,000, 200hp cars instead of time away from work. They'll wonder how we could build such a broken city.

      The Automobile is literally the root of modern unsustainability. The externalized, whole cost of the automobile is staggering, and not remotely captured by the owner. Im tired of paying for this stupidity, I want my taxes to goto educating my grand kids, not mending idiots who were running at 120 km/h on the highway for 2 hours a day.
      • AsinineDervish, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Why exactly is the automobile so horrible? Some of us require them you know.
    • punkaybbolt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Seriously? All night? I would definitely find some potatoes to shove in that diesel's tailpipe.
  • HerrEisenheim, on 10/10/2007, -12/+5Crime: Breathing.
    Punishment: Death.

    Environment saved! Horray!
    • matthobbs05, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3But with no humans, who will play our part in the circle of life? Simba?
  • Kevin108, on 10/10/2007, -8/+17We need less government, fewer laws, more rights.
    • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5We need less consumption, fewer laws, more liberty.

      Your automobile owns *you* son.
    • ZenMojo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3We need smarter voters, better air, less greed.
  • pidgas, on 10/10/2007, -9/+0Don't fart near a police officer in Vancouver.
  • cnot3, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4Pretty soon (already?) the list of things we can do will be shorter than the list of things we can't.
  • amoo3, on 10/10/2007, -10/+4Its whatever Ron Paul says it is, fools!
  • u8eR, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10They have the right to regulate this type of behavior. That is, behavior that is detrimental to a person or people (a society). For example, smoking bans. Weirdralph's example is therefore moot.

    (Here in America, the EPA was even mandate to regulate emissions.)

    However, this will have absolutely no effect on global warming whatsoever. This is guaranteed.
    • aybdude42, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6It might not affect global warming, but maybe it will help cut down on pollution a little bit?
    • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5"However, this will have absolutely no effect on global warming whatsoever. This is guaranteed."

      You are clearly wrong. Any amount of reduction has a positive affect. Everything you has an affect on things around you, its the butterfly affect. You dont exist in a vacuum.
  • yoda17, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5In the U.S. it's the 10th amendment., stupid (stealing from Bill Clinton's campaign motto). Read the constitution, it's all written rather clearly. I don't know why we argue over this stuff.
  • SupaDawg, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10I don't mind. BC is a beautiful province. they need to do what they can to protect it from becoming another SoCal.
    • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Get out of the Conservative Party. You're clearly too sensible for that collection of idiots.
    • BakedGoods, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I'm with wageslaven on that one.
  • gradient01, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4For people who are supposed to love freedom so much, why do we elect and pay legislators with the single purpose of making new laws that the electors now must follow? Every law passed chips away at the things that we were once free to do, whether it was good for us or not, or good for those around us or not, making the electors progressively less free (among other things). It's asinine. We have shelves of law books now, and not a *single* person in the country knows what is in all of them ... I'm probably breaking some law simply by writing this. It's impossible for a citizen of the country to even keep track of all the things that they aren't allowed to do any longer, and we have so many laws that everyone in the country is breaking the law all the time. It's hopeless ... I live in a country (USA) where the legal/political/tax system is now just a means to transparently enslave the people while the enslaved cheer from the sidelines.
  • TrevorBradley, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15I don't really see how this is different from, say, fining for littering.

    Drop the dichotomy folks. Laws are there for a reason, so that we don't have anarchy and can maintain some semblance of order as defined by everyone. Some laws are too restrictive and we discuss and debate them before and after they're passed or rejected. What's considered acceptable changes over time as new ideas come along and old ideas die. Without laws of any kind I don't think I'd want to leave my (heavily fortressed) home.

    This isn't the iron thumb of repression. If you live in Vancouver and don't like it, either complain to the city or don't live in the city, or vote the bastards out. But there are much more important things to fret about day to day.
  • seanc6610, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6I kinda like this idea. In NYC, city bus drivers get pretty big fines if they let their buses idle, but that one certainly makes more sense than penalizing the driver of a much smaller vehicle.
  • walkingdogs, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3Don't put the regulations on the people. Put the regulations on the manufacturers of environmental harming technologies and reward the companies that take the initiative to take steps towards cleaning up their waste output.
    Make it a law that every car that gets sold in the united states has to have a minimum of 60 mpg or run strictly on hydrogen, or fuel cells, or electricity at the cost of the same combustion engine you find today and offer retrofit conversions for those who want to take that route. If not, the plants get shut down until you do. I guarantee the car companies would "magically" find a way to do it, and then idling cars is not an issue. And we the people can have our freedoms kept intact, have cleaner air to breathe, spend less money at the pump and get out of the middle east seeing they would then have nothing to offer us.
    Several problems solved with one action. Now what's next?
    • Drogoganor, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2Yeah but that would require putting pressure on big business, which they don't like. And since big business funds political campaigns, it is almost guaranteed that anyone in office is not going to introduce new regulations.
  • gingerboyiv, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4The only thing the government should do is to protect our basic rights, and that’s about it. If you think about it, the government is nothing but smiling idiots [there are exceptions, but too little too count] Government also keeps us in this trouble. We rely on them to help us out in a jiffy nowadays. If we were used to taking care of our own problems maybe we’d actually be smarter, and not ignorant as we are now, and then when a scientist says that global warming is effecting us, the general population will get the general idea, and do something about it, because they know the government isn’t going to do anything about it, they have to. But right now, we depend on the government to take care of us.
    • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5You self fashioned American Libertarians crack me up. I wish you lot would spend a little more time in elementary civics class, and a little less time advocating anarchy on the internet.

      Grow up. If you want lawlessness, move to Somalia.
  • 03FightOn, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4A few hundred years ago some whackos got the idea, that while government could make laws for social good, they inevitably ended up going too far and eventually the "greater good" became a euphamism for "the leaders good". To fix this they decided they should make a system where individuals were responsible for their own lives to limit the influence these leaders had. Inherent in freedom, is the freedom to fail; the freedom to be wrong. For government to protect people against failure, they have to have the power to regulate a persons life, and eventually laws to protect people from themselves start prodding their way into our existence.
    • addicted68098, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6But it has became increasingly apparent that people don't have the capacity to accept social responsibilities. And in all honesty we have given up all our freedom to capitalism and for the most part we have been degraded to the point were we live only to obtain earthly pleasures.
      • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I suggest the books "Naked Ape" and "The Human Zoo" by Desmond Morris.

        Our modern Western Cities provide a kind of anonymity that allows us to act is sociopath. Technology and wealth (in terms of energy and chattel) permit us to imagine Independence where non exists.

        We allow our selfishness and ego to get the better of us, we're imagine illusions of Independence where none exist, as a result, we allow our ego's to run wild.

        US of Americans are the worst case of this kind of ego-driven pseudo Independence. Its sad to watch people embarrass themselves they way they do.
    • addicted68098, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Double Post
  • Drogoganor, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0To give it to you up the arse.
  • inf0, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1I think fines for public smoking should come next.
    • SupaDawg, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3many places in Canada already have this.

      ie) if you light up in any bar in Calgary (sans those with gambling) you can get a pretty hefty fine.
      • inf0, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Public places, in particular, like Bus Stops and patios, should be enforced.

        If you want to smoke in your car or home, that is one thing... but smoking in public shows not only a disregard for your own health, but everyone else's.

  • kodomosuki, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1Only in Canada.
  • yoda17, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
    • ZenMojo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Why is the US Constitution being brought up over a Canadian law?
  • ijustam, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3This is actually pretty common in the US, but it's generally only restricted to truckers (who need the heat/AC during the winter and summer respectively while over the road).
  • 5555, on 10/10/2007, -7/+12It is not your "right" to leave your vehicle idle and unnecessarily burning fossil fuel and contaminating the air I breathe. If you think it is, please enjoy the second hand smoke I blow in your direction.
  • insllvn, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2I believe government is a contract between individuals and society. It's job, it's function, is to balance the protection of the one against the sustaining needs of the many. This is a very difficult balance to strike. Where does the right of the individual to operate their car as they see fit cede to the right of all peoples to breath fresh air? I submit that a social conscience cannot be forced onto the public. It should be taught, accurately and free from the sensationalism that often accompanies it, in schools and preached on television, but to force it on people seems to me to be overstepping the governments bounds. Tell people why they must be environmentally conscious; don't just cram it down their throats. Some will listen and some will not and that is freedom.
    • tazx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Idling your car is *forcing* your exhaust emissions onto everyone around you, without their permission.

      Vancouver has a developing smog problem. We're putting in stricter emission standards. This anti-idling law is just one part of the overall strategy from the city, in combination with promoting the use of transit, and creating live-work communities (instead of supporting suburbs & commuting).

      Giving someone a ticket for idling is NO different in principle than ticketing for parking illegally or driving badly. Your behavior is creating a negative effect for others. In order to create a direct disincentive for the problem activity, a law is passed and fines can be laid.


      • insllvn, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Environmentalism is not an issue to be taken lightly. We must strive to protect and preserve the resources we have left. However, I object in principle to the laying of fines to modify behavior. The problem is that somewhere the line must be drawn between acceptable risks and risks which are taboo. Do you disagree? Should the government be able to regulate every aspect of our public lives to insure we never hurt another person? Come on now, Cars are pretty dangerous things, can we really allow people to drive them? When people drink they can often become belligerent and start fights; should consumption of alcohol be permitted? I am too tired to continue coming up with this nonsense, but that is ok as I suspect I have made my point so far as I am able to. tThere must be a limit were personal freedom trumps social welfare, because social welfare cannot be objectively defined. I may (and I do) think it is grossly irresponsible to idle your car, to actively pollute in general, but I know people who think it is irresponsible not to have prayer in schools (as a brief aside, guess where I live ;-), I know people who think it is irresponsible to allow society to drink or smoke, that it presents a moral dilemma far more important than a little smog. I think it is irresponsible to allow government to dictate to you how long you can sit in a car with the engine running without going anywhere. The line must be somewhere.
        • tazx, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I believe the line is where a behavior can be shown to negatively impact others who aren't consenting to the activity.

          Polluting kills people, animals, and causes long term problems.

          Lack of prayer in schools doesn't harm people, in fact having it is forceful religious indoctrination, in violation of the rights of others.

          If people's smoking or drinking doesn't affect others, it should be no one's business. But if done in a public place or while driving, that does cause harm, and so should be regulated.

    • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1"It should be taught, accurately and free from the sensationalism that often accompanies it, in schools and preached on television, but to force it on people seems to me to be overstepping the governments bounds. "

      how fantastically wrong can you be. How about we freely, openly and clearly discuss this without dogma, coershion and sensationalism.

      "preached on television"? The television is a pro-consumption idiot box, it is totally owned and funded by anti-social messages.

      You want to leave our Democracy up to the Television? That is freedom? Have you read "Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Neil Postman?
      • insllvn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1To your first point, I thought that was what I was suggesting. I just think the ***** comes from both sides.

        As to your second point, no, I don't want to leave democracy up to television and I am not sure where you are getting that from what I wrote. I was merely suggesting that television PSA's would be one method of disseminating information.

        I have not read "Amusing Ourselves to Death." I will look it up. What I meant by "that is freedom," is that everyone will be able to make their own decision as to whether idling there car is a necessary evil, or an unforgivable crime against nature. I am not saying everyone should idle their cars only that it is wrong to force people into that just because it fits your world view. Before you ask me again whether I could be more misinformed, “2.7 A person must not cause or permit a motor vehicle to idle: (a) for more than three consecutive minutes in a 60 minute period; or (b) while unattended and unlocked. Three minutes of idling? That is going to ruin the precious ecosystem of Vancouver? I mean holy *****, if that is the case why not ban cars all together. I bet they put out a lot more emissions when they are moving than when they are sitting still. Of course that would be ridiculous. Still, I hope it serves to illustrate that discretion must be taken in crafting the controls government places on their citizens. I was speaking more broadly to the question that the article raised in its title using the subject of the linked article simply as an example.

        I hope you realize the danger in dictating to people how to live their lives down to the minutiae. It may seem like a good idea when those making the rules agree with you, but as in any democratic society, someday the other side will be more popular and they will sure as hell try the same ***** from a different angle. Government is a necessary evil. It is necessary, but it is also evil. It is not the solution to every problem, and it is not a hammer you can use to fine or beat down those who disagree with you. At least it should not be.

        I hope you will come back and leave your thoughts.
        • gbro, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"It may seem like a good idea when those making the rules agree with you".

          How can cleaner air through reducing idling possibly disagree with anyone?
        • insllvn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1to gbro: If it disagreed with no one the law would not be needed. That being said I now believe my original calculations were flawed. I was wrong and this seems to me to be a good law. Please read my response to AnitraWeb for more on my reflections. I am truly enjoying this back and forth and I am still hoping to hear from wageslaven again.
    • AnitraWeb, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5"a social conscience cannot be forced onto the public." So we should eliminate laws against theft, rape, and murder, and educate people, in schools and on television, on how to play well with others. And government doing all that education on "how to behave" would not be playing "nanny state," would it?

      How you *act* affects other people -- how you think and feel does not. Other people have the right to restrict how you act -- not how you think and feel.
      • insllvn, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You make a very strong point. I need to think about that before I respond in full, but let me at least say I think you might be right.
      • insllvn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I am willing to cede the point that such a law may be a necessary evil. I take issue with some of your reasoning. "How you *act* affects other people -- how you think and feel does not. Other people have the right to restrict how you act -- not how you think and feel." I think this is a bit to broad. Could we say instead that when your actions have a negative impact on others, it is in the publics best interest to reign in your destructive behaviors? However, I fear that this is still to broad an application of governmental power. My original point, and having given it greater thought I am willing to say I misapplied it to the specifics of the case, was simply that I am weary of government telling us what is best for society. It is all well and good when government is right, but government is so very often wrong. That being said, I have thought it over more deeply, and also I have done a bit of research. It seems I was misguided in my belief that the amount of smog produced by cars was negligible. I was woefully misinformed in that regard. I hereby retract my supposition that this particular measure crosses the line. I was wrong about the law.
  • unorginalityftw, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2My primary beef with this is the fact that idling would also classify under having your car running to heat up during the winter, methinks. And you also kind of need it running to help with the frost. But then I remembered this is in BC, so it isn't too bad for them. However, this happens anywhere else in Canada I may have to kill some people.
  • sensoukami, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4I'm a huge believe/proponent of free-market capitalism, and a huge hater of the nanny state, but the environment does pose some particular difficulties, to the point where we can safely advocate a larger government role (though not the role most environmentalists assume). The issue comes down to "negative externalities". Basically, the environment is NOT captured by our system of property rights and contracts upon which capitalism is based. If you want to use my body/skills, you pay me wages. Use my land, pay rent. Use my capital, pay interest. Use my air/water...problem. We all own the air we breathe, which unfortunately means nobody owns it, and that means nobody is responsible for it. Environmental taxes are therefore a crude proxy for fair compensation for our property rights. The best way to protect the environment is to capture it in our system of property rights and costs. However, the Left would want environmental taxes/levies to be in addition to existing taxes (lefties love big government spending), so the smart thing to do is use environmental taxes to replace taxes on income/capital.
  • bryanedds, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Let's take for granted that the government must step in to save the environment. What aspect of our lives would be exempt from government control? Perhaps the color of our shoes should be changed because a certain color dye causes more pollution than others. Perhaps we should only eat certain foods, for certain types of livestock cause more pollution than others. Perhaps we should be forced to drive only X miles a month in only a particular type of car. Perhaps we should all have one syllable names so that less CO2 expelled when address each other. Ridiculous? Yes. But when has government ever been known to consistently clear-headed?

    What part, if any, of our lives, remains ours when we take the government solution of the environmental problem to its logical conclusion. All industry and all modes of production would be candidates for government takeover. A total nationalization of our economy would be only consistent and conducive to the goals of this solution.

    Government involvement would be limited as a matter of practicality, you say. But what if this initial, limited involvement didn't work? The first thing the government does when its actions fail is to throw of the limits placed on it actions. On and on it goes until it has total control of whatever it regulates. Failure on the government's part is just a reason for giving it even more control and losing even more of our rights.

    But of course, government force will not have the intended effect, and it cannot save the environment. Due to the laws of economics (http://www.mises.org/books/onelesson.pdf), government can never have the necessary information needed to plan economic decisions for individuals in general. Government can never have a fraction of the knowledge about our individual lives as we individual do. Without this information, it cannot weigh the costs and benefits of the decisions it makes for us. As governemnt cannot plan an economy for production, it cannot plan an economy for environmental friendliness. As government cannot plan our lives for our happiness, it cannot plan our lives for the carbon count.

    The only people who can save the environment are the people who care about the environment enough to get up off their asses and do something more than pull a lever to extort their neighbors. It is up to each individual to make the right choice. To try to use government to force individuals to make certain choices is a violation of the human right to self-ownership and property rights. And because government necessarily lacks the necessary information to see the tradeoffs in the choices they make, government will most probably end up hurting the environment more than they help it.

    The answer is not to weaken property rights for the sake of government control of individual property and individuals themselves which mights cause pollution. The answer is to do the opposite. The best way to help the environment is to strnegthen private property rights so that a person who suffers pollution on their property have the legal recourse to sue the polluter. Under the currently weakened private property laws, government protects polluters from being sued by the individuals who are affected by it.
    • ZenMojo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Except the air is public space, even though light and water and land can be purchased. Therefore, it is the role of the government to sue on behalf of its citizens. And that would be a fine.
    • GRTWHT, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Well said and well written post, bryanedds, my compliments.
      Therefore it's even more painful than normal that probably 90% of the diggers today will skip your post simply because it will take more than that 5-10 seconds to read and if, by some odd chance they actually do read it, it is devoid of any of their stupid catch phrases or other brainless attempts at humor.
      I'm sure this will be buried, but hopefully at some point you may stop back by here and see that at least one person actually read, understood and appreciated what you wrote.
    • hansk, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1meh meh meh monster post
  • giveer, on 10/10/2007, -7/+14How
    The
    ***** is there so many people freaking out over this. Sure they'll bark, bark, bark about the right-wing assholes who dispute global warming's very existence and get all pissed off the government does nothing about Darfur or other humanitarian disgraces, but oh man - if I have to actually WORK on abiding by anything, then "***** that". Do you expect the world to become a better place while you sit on your ass and piss about ***** you don't like? That's not the way it works.

    Ever have a smog day? Ever hear of those folks who die because of asthma during the summer because they can't... y'know... BREATHE? Sure the problem isn't all due to idling cars, But Shutting Them Off Is At Least A ***** Start! You're not losing your civil liberties - you can still do whatever your pretty little self wants to ***** do - You won't go to prison, or Guantanamo Bay, you'll get a little ticket. Boo hoo - And Why? Because if your self-centered lifestyle has your car running at the side of the road for no reason, Then You're Part Of The ***** Problem!

    Boy, JFK would be pretty upset to know that his "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" philosophy has been left in the ***** dust.

    Never mind. Do whatever you want. Idiots.
    • ScientistBlah, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4You're right, the whole ***** idealogy of americans is *****. ***** your liberties, believe it or not, there's more important ***** than you having to turn the car key to the off position while you sit and wait. Stop bitching about how the government is too controlling, you idiots are electing all these ***** into office, how about your stop electing idiots, start electing someone you actually trust, and maybe, just maybe, you'll have a government that wants to do things for the greater good. I can't even believe people are argueing this *****, all you have to do is turn off your car, and in turn, it will help out the environment just a little bit.

      Someone mentioned that they understand why you would do this for a bus, but not for a car because it's smaller. Guess what *****, believe it or not, there's a ***** more cars than buses, and I'd approximate, that about every 5 or 6 cars produces the same amount of greenhouse gases as a bus, and I bet the ratio of cars to buses is a alot more than 6 to 1. *****!
    • Rikushix, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Finally two people I agree with. Great post.
    • Kevin108, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2JFK was an idiot. The "what you can do for your country" bit is one of the most fascist things I've ever heard. This country has nothing without individual liberties.
      • giveer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3If there's no country, there's nowhere to be a self-centered prick. Not surprised this hasn't occurred to you.

        The quote is "what you can do for your country." not: "what you can be FORCED to do for your country." - Your country's improvement and superiority is dependent on people willing to improve the whole country. People who want to sit on their ass, improve nothing and ***** on everything: help, do and change nothing. They degrade the country while thinking they are standing up for 'my individual liberty'. They also leave ineffective and fruitless comments.
    • dkeck14, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2important to remember, every law grants the state the right to coerce. This 'right' shouldn't be taken lightly. Perhaps in your mind idling a car is worth a $250 fine, however for others they might understand why this is the case. Without a law people will still have the opportunity to willfully shut off their engine, and you might be able to reasonably explain why they should and they might agree, entirely skipping the whole coercion part. Or you can just vote for a law and shove your thoughts down other peoples throats.
  • GorfTron, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5Then I want a $300 starter motor voucher.
    • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I was waiting for this. It is a urban legend that idling is better for your engine than stopping it and restarting.
      -or-
      I'll give you a voucher for your starter when you pay for the disposal of your old one, pay for the pollution in its creation, pay for the roads for your auto, pay for your extra-health costs, pay to remove the snow, pay to police the speed limits, pay for the heat loads generated by your parking lot and on and on.

      You are not an island.
  • shortarabguy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Congratulations, you've just identified the question that literally makes political debate.
    Both sides of the extremes have their advantages and both have their disadvantages. Nanny-states look out for you and keep you safe, but you have to follow all kinds of crazy laws and pay all sorts of ungodly taxes and fines. The people who are naturally well off are penalized here.
    Contrast this with libertarian government. No taxes, no crazy BS to deal with in building your home, but the government won't send you an unemployment check if you lose your job and you pay, out of pocket, up to 20,000 dollars for tuition for your kid( Harker preparatory school is about 17K, last time I checked). The poor man is left in the dust here, but the rich man who makes several hundred thousand per year gets out at the end of the year paying less.

    This would have been an awesome article if it had been completely focused on the intellectual discussion and not spun...
    • SpykerSpeed, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3But if you didn't pay taxes, education would be far more affordable. Plus there's the whole college prestige we still have to deal with, which is 80% of the reason for high tuitions.
      • shortarabguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1For the rich man sending his kid to a public school already, yeah.
        For the poor man who can't afford to send his kid to private school, not a chance in hell.

        There's nobody who's so on the border of costs that they can't send their kids to private school because of the money, but could if there were no taxes. The cost of tuition is so high that you have to be making a huge amount of money to begin with, which means that you have enough to pay for tuition.
    • shedmyskin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1your whole argument with the libertarian side is wrong.....the #'s are wrong.
      • shortarabguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Let's go though the three instances of numbers that I used:
        Harker school is $29,894 according to their website for students grade 9-12( http://www.harker.org/page.cfm?p=112 ). You're right, my numbers were too low by about 12 thousand dollars, but in all fairness Kindergarten is only about 3 thousand dollars higher, so maybe I was thinking of Kindergarten tuition. That puts the 20,000 and the 17K out of the question, now let's look at the several hundred thousand per year business.

        A head of a household making 350,000 per year will pay to the government 122,500 in taxes, about 35% of his income. School for 2 kids would be about 40,000 dollars, about 82,500 less than what he would normally pay. I don't know how much roads or any of the other niceties that come with government order would cost if we were paying out of pocket, so I'll leave it at that. I beseech anyone with knowledge on the subject to add costs of living which the government currently pays for us.

        Contrast that with someone who makes about 50,000 per year, NOWHERE near the poverty line of $20,650( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United ... ). Well, he's *****, isn't he? Forget food, forget getting a car, forget getting life insurance, forget your home. You're paying nearly 60,000 per year just to send your kids to high school.
  • searob1, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5To oppress libertarians! :D
  • akhomerun, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7what about people with diesel cars? Diesel engines aren't meant for turning on and off constantly.
    • smacksaw, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I can't believe someone Dugg you down. ***** morons. You are of course, dead-on. You can't start and stop a diesel all the time. It's bad for the engine, and depending on what kind of engine it is, it can use more fuel than running it.

      Why would someone Digg down the truth? A Nazi of some sort, I'd wager.
      • shedmyskin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1agreed.....digg is full of nazi's.
    • GRTWHT, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I'll be buried for this, but the same is true for gasoline engines (any internal combustion engine for that matter), although not as severely as with diesels. The 'save the environment crowd' loves laws such as these simply based on a gut feeling, while the 'hands off my liberties' crowd hates them for the same unsupported feelings....

      I wish everyone would at least try to learn the ins and outs of an issue (without political/emotional spin) before they start attacking each other. Of course, that's probably less likely than winning the lottery and we all know how likely that is.
    • Logicexe, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2It's not like they're asking you to turn off your engines every time you stop at a red light or something. Ever seen people waiting in parking lots to pick someone up with their engine idling? Or delivery trucks idling for half an hour while the delivery is completed? Or those people who start their car 10-15 minutes before leaving their house in the winter (I'm sympathetic since I live in Montreal, but after 3-4 minutes it starts getting a little excessive). In reality it would be fairly rare that you'd even get the chance to break this law. How often are you in circumstances where you're sitting in your car doing nothing for more than a few minutes?
  • nastronomical, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2The same people who are for this type of *****, are the same ones against the govt telling them not to smoke drugs..LOL. Talk about Hypocrisy. On one hand you want the govt to enforce YOUR agenda yet when the same thinking crosses the line into your world you go nutz.
    • shedmyskin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1could you please add one more double negative for clarity?
  • Kahnza, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3What about in the winter time when you have to let your car warm up? Its hard on your car to just start it and go when its cold.
    • Rikushix, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Your supposed to have a block heater for that. That is something that I can understand that is encroaching on free liberty. It's arguable whether or not you should have to own a block heater.

      And anyway, it doesn't matter in Vancouver, because it's pretty temperate here.
      • smacksaw, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah well when the City of Vancouver puts free electrical outlets next to every car parking area, that will be possible. I live in Vancouver and I can tell you that we had more free outlets at my complex in Montreal than I've seen in the entire Lower Mainland.
    • WaterDragon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Obviously, in winter time, the allowed time to idle must be longer.
      But getting motorists to be aware of how they are poisoning the air for the rest of us wold be a good thing.
      The key concept here is AWARENESS...and respect for the rights of others, who are merely trying to BREATHE!

      If you constantly put the excessive comfort of your fat ass ahead of the RIGHTS of people who are trying to breathe clean air, you should go to jail or be fined!
    • Logicexe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Go back and read the article again. You have 3 minutes, which is plenty of time for an engine to warm up in winter, and if it's so cold that you need more time than your battery is probably dead anyway. :P
  • Syric, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5Honestly, this is no big deal. It's a small step for the public good that doesn't really affect anyone whatsoever.
    • masterm1nd, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1They should just make you give all your money to something of their choice.
  • masterm1nd, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Uhh, doesn't idling your vehicle for a short period of time burn less gas than shutting it off and on?
    • Rikushix, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Obviously, to a degree, but it depends on how long you idle your vehicle for. Any longer than 10 seconds idling is wasting gas.
  • Krasnichuk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Toronto already has a law of this sort.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 72 of 72 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.