posted
Today was just one in a long line. I've been noticing for several years that people no longer shut their engine off when they are filling their cars at a gas station, or they leave their cars running in the parking lot while they go in the store. Especially big SUVs, and especially on hot days in the summer. I know what's going through their minds: they want to leave the air conditioning on so their car doesn't get superheated. Idiots.
And I love the arguments: "We can afford it!" No you can't. No one can. You can afford the money, but you can't afford the gas.
Anyway, today we were at a regatta where my daughter didn't get to row, and I noticed a truck with its lights on. I knew what it meant, the truck had daytime running lights, and as long as the engine was running, they couldn't turn them off. Why was the engine running? The only thing I can guess is that the kid inside didn't want to roll down the windows, and preferred running the air conditioning. The weather? Clear and 72 degrees. Couldn't have been more beautiful. The truck had run for about 2 hours and it was still running when we left. The kid was sitting in there reading. At some point his father came over, and got in the truck. I was not surprised when his father got out of the truck and it was still running.
Should I have said something?
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't it dangerous to fill up with the engine running? Or is that just one of those risks that's gotten blown out of proportion, like using a cell phone near the pump?
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Leaving your car running while you run into the store doesn't really waste much gas. I mean, the rule I learned was it takes 5 minutes of idling to equal the amount of gas your engine burns on start up. Now, the truck that was running for hours, that's a different story.
It's not a genius move to fill up with your engine running, but I doubt there's a single recorded incident someone blowing up from it.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why worry about an idling car, when you're not worried about all the other countless wastes of petroleum? It's obvious, but as you mentioned, it's rare enough that it sticks out in your memory the times you see it.
Edit: This brought to mind a commercial the other day which suggested that men stop shaving in order to save that water they waste when they wash the lather off.
Really, what's next? Stop showering, and just spray on more cologne until you develop skin problems? I'm all for being environmentally mindful, but some of the proposals are getting a little out of hand.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I mean, the rule I learned was it takes 5 minutes of idling to equal the amount of gas your engine burns on start up.
This is completely untrue. Any mechanic that has ever done a pressure leakdown test on a fuel injection system can tell you that starting a car uses exactly the same amount of gas per second as a car does that is merely idling. It takes a half second to start your car, therefore, it uses 600 times more gas to run your car 5 minutes than it does to start it. Also, hybrid cars shut off the engine when it is not in use (like at a red light) because it wastes gas. They restart the engine when you put your foot back on the accelerator pedal. And it saves a lot of gas.
Actually, idling an engine is particularly inefficient, because the engine is fighting with a restricted intake system (the butterfly valve is closed) The resulting pumping losses mean that the engine is literally fighting with it's own horsepower just to keep turning. An idling engine uses about the same amount of gas as a car driving down the road for the same amount of time.
quote:Isn't it dangerous to fill up with the engine running?
Not as dangerous as it was in the past, simply because cars are less likely to backfire than they were in the past. It is still illegal, however. I believe the fine can be up to $10,000.
quote:Why worry about an idling car, when you're not worried about all the other countless wastes of petroleum?
Who says I'm not worried about the countless other wastes of petroleum? You're talking to someone that rides a motorcycle because his prius doesn't get good enough gas mileage, and who heats his house (partially) with waste vegetable oil.
The solution is conservation, and that means not using petroleum if you can avoid it.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Leaving your car running while you run into the store doesn't really waste much gas. I mean, the rule I learned was it takes 5 minutes of idling to equal the amount of gas your engine burns on start up. Now, the truck that was running for hours, that's a different story.
This isn't true, but according to hybrid fanatics, who try and measure these things for the sake of "hypermiling", It isn't true that startup is the same as idle. On most of the current-gen hybrids, startup is equivalent to ~5 seconds of idle, and there is a lot of discussion among enthusiasts about how to deal with traffic patterns (like gridlock) that can cause frequent engine shutdown/restarts.
The 5 second rule is not hybrid specific. It's for most modern engines, I believe.
posted
Glenn hit a point with hybrids. I saw a statistic that said the average city driver uses 10% of a tank during idle. Kind of off topic but when the prices went up at Starbucks there were people who sat in 95dg heat with the air on and the window down to argue over the 5cent hike.
Posts: 11 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I live in Michigan and I work at a gas station, and I see people fill up their cars with the engine on all the time. Seriously, all the time.
I tried a few times to tell them that it was dangerous, I pointed at the very prominent sign on the pump, the one that says "Turn Engine Off While Fueling." Doesn't matter that every gas pump I have ever seen has a sign like that. People don't care, they'll do it anyway, and if you tell them not to, they assume they know more than you and get angry.
So, I stopped caring. Honestly, the only fatal fuel pump fires I could find over the past twenty years were started by either someone deliberately ramming the gas pump with their car, or someone deliberately discharging a firearm at the pump. If people want to risk their vehicles and health (but probably not their lives) I don't care. I figure the station is insured anyway.
I might have said something, but that would have depended on my mood. Growing up, I was semi-frequently left in the truck to read while my father did whatever, and I viewed it as revenge that I got to waste his money as he wasted my time. Of course, we should probably take a more global perspective on these things, but whatever.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I mean, the rule I learned was it takes 5 minutes of idling to equal the amount of gas your engine burns on start up.
This is completely untrue. Any mechanic that has ever done a pressure leakdown test on a fuel injection system can tell you that starting a car uses exactly the same amount of gas per second as a car does that is merely idling.
It's not completely untrue. Older cars without fuel injection do use significantly more gas on start up. There is more too it than just burning gas. Starting a car causes more wear on most engines than just idling.
Posts: 212 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I'm afraid of this new-fangled fuel-injection contraption too. It's a good thing so many cars on the road these days use carbeurators, like god intended.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm reminded of this job I had working at the gas station back in January of 2003. Some folks would not only keep their engines on, but they'd keep me out in the cold for several extra minutes to complain about the gas prices as if I were OPEC.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: You're talking to someone that rides a motorcycle because his prius doesn't get good enough gas mileage
You should try a bicycle; you'll be able to feel even more self-righteous.
I've often wondered if my body is as efficient at processing bio fuels as an engine could be. The big advantage to a bike (over a hybrid or even a motorcycle) is obviously the decreased mass. But would a motorized bicycle with equivalent mass have a smaller or larger carbon footprint than my pedal power?
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because my bike is made of neutronium it makes more sense, from a carbon footprint perspective, to just move the planet beneath it.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: That would be an awfully heavy bicycle to be the same mass as a motorized one.
Hypothetically, let's say you took the bio-mechanical "engine" weight that is in my (somewhat disappointingly puny) musculatory system and transferred it to an external engine, thus maintaining the same weight.
The question is whether a man-made engine has greater or lesser energy efficiency than my evolutionarily (or God-created) one.
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Because my bike is made of neutronium it makes more sense, from a carbon footprint perspective, to just move the planet beneath it.
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Because my bike is made of neutronium it makes more sense, from a carbon footprint perspective, to just move the planet beneath it.
Like Chuck Norris?
Only heavier.
Actually, though, it occurs to me that all I'd really have to do is work out some kind of deal with Atlas re: the earth turning, and since he's a moron, it shouldn't be too hard for me to get the better end of the deal.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:You should try a bicycle; you'll be able to feel even more self-righteous.
I rode a bicycle to work for 6 years, but then I got a job 47 miles away. I've been trying to find a job close to home, for just that reason. Right now my commute is 38 miles.
quote:I've often wondered if my body is as efficient at processing bio fuels as an engine could be.
I read a comparison in bicycling magazine many years ago. The human body is much more efficient than an internal combustion engine. Bear in mind that most internal combustion engines waste between 85% and 94% of the energy from the gas that runs them in the form of heat. Just imagine what your body would feel like if that much energy came out of your sweat glands.
Also, you fuel your body with biofuel, not petrofuel, so you are part of the carbon cycle, therefore, your carbon footprint is very small.
quote:It's not completely untrue. Older cars without fuel injection do use significantly more gas on start up. There is more too it than just burning gas. Starting a car causes more wear on most engines than just idling.
There's a big difference between starting a car from cold and restarting a car that was running 3 minutes ago. Well tuned carbureted cars can restart with a short twist of the key with no choke and no pumping. It may use slightly more than idle on a per rpm basis, for half a second or so, but not much. Likewise if the engine is warm and fully lubricated, there isn't a significant increase in wear. The only thing that suffers significant wear is the starter motor.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Because my bike is made of neutronium it makes more sense, from a carbon footprint perspective, to just move the planet beneath it.
quote:Originally posted by Starsnuffer: I've never seen anyone fill their car while it was on, and I live in Michigan...
Did you ever notice though, that some people just notice things happening around them that you never, ever witness yourself... and yet they claim it to be absolutely matter of course? I am not being facetious, it's a fascinating thing.
I had a roommate for a couple of years early in college- we split when the rent got too high. Anyway, I mentioned one time that I would always, always, see rabbits on the bike trail from the apartment to the campus. I mean, this trail was chock full of rabbits, and you could see maybe 12 or so in one trip- they were just everywhere. And he says: I never see any. I mean, he used the same bike path, and he never saw a rabbit. And the he didn't believe me, he thought I was exaggerating.
I could never figure that out- there are these things that some people seem to see and others don't. Like red light running. I have never to my knowledge seen anyone run a red light in my life. And yet, others would claim they see it all the time. How does it happen, and even, like in my case, to two people who should have exactly the same experience?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I've often wondered if my body is as efficient at processing bio fuels as an engine could be. The big advantage to a bike (over a hybrid or even a motorcycle) is obviously the decreased mass. But would a motorized bicycle with equivalent mass have a smaller or larger carbon footprint than my pedal power?
Your pedal power *can* be fueled by locally grown, hand delivered foodstuffs that have effectively neutral carbon footprints- but then, how do the people who grow that food get the energy they need to grow it? And we are in an infinitely repeating loop.
Suffice to say that if everyone were considering the advantages of foot power over an electric-assist bicycle, we'd be doing ok.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: It was a rhetorical question. But thanks.
Fascinating thread, but I have to admit I'm baffled by this. Why should any of us have read "Should I have said something?" set off separately at the end of an original post on a public forum as not soliciting a response?
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Starsnuffer: I've never seen anyone fill their car while it was on, and I live in Michigan...
Did you ever notice though, that some people just notice things happening around them that you never, ever witness yourself... and yet they claim it to be absolutely matter of course? I am not being facetious, it's a fascinating thing.
I had a roommate for a couple of years early in college- we split when the rent got too high. Anyway, I mentioned one time that I would always, always, see rabbits on the bike trail from the apartment to the campus. I mean, this trail was chock full of rabbits, and you could see maybe 12 or so in one trip- they were just everywhere. And he says: I never see any. I mean, he used the same bike path, and he never saw a rabbit. And the he didn't believe me, he thought I was exaggerating.
I could never figure that out- there are these things that some people seem to see and others don't. Like red light running. I have never to my knowledge seen anyone run a red light in my life. And yet, others would claim they see it all the time. How does it happen, and even, like in my case, to two people who should have exactly the same experience?
That is fascinating. I'd hypothesize the red light difference might have something to do with the subjective definition of "running a red light." I bet some people count those who are in the intersection when the light turns red. (I don't.)
Or, sometimes, red light behavior can be very intersection-specific. If an intersection doesn't offer a protected left turn, and straight-through traffic is very heavy, I commonly see a couple of left turners run the red after the light has changed - out of desperation. There is more left turn traffic at some intersections than the intersection is configured to handle. If someone's commute includes this kind of intersection they probably see it more frequently than others would.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe your friend was thinking, "I wonder where Orincoro saw those rabbits, by the nudist colony, or the Ferrari test track."
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Scifibum: In California I believe it's also legal to run a left turn on red if you're already out in the intersection. This is why there are no cameras at intersections without left turn arrows. Not merely desperation, some places at some times, this is the only way to cross a street.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to the 2008 California Driver's Handbook: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/dl600.pdf in regards to left turn on a solid green light: "Do not enter the intersection if you cannot get completely across before the light turns red. If you block the intersection, you can be cited."
So it's unclear if the act of turning while the light is red is actually a violation, but if you end up stuck in the intersection because nobody lets you across once it does turn red, you'll get a ticket for blocking traffic.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Do not enter the intersection if you cannot get completely across before the light turns red. If you block the intersection, you can be cited."
You can be cited for running a red light if you enter the intersection with no clear exit before the light turns red. How is this unclear?
I definitely count entering an intersection on a yellow light but exiting on a red light as running a red light. This is a cultural behavior that has changed during my lifetime. When I was a kid, a yellow light meant make an attempt to stop, and if you fail to stop and travel through a red light, you are speeding.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: This is why there are no cameras at intersections without left turn arrows.
False. Completely and totally -- I pass several each morning.
Sadly, plenty of people in L.A. run red lights -- even in the didn't-enter-the-intersection-until-the-light-was-red sense.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
