Minneapolis changes idling laws
 

http://kstp.com/article/stories/S469008.shtml?cat=1

There goes all of those remote starters so people can get into their warm cars in winter.

I wonder what it's like to actually be free. No one in this country knows.

Seriously, who thinks this shiit up?

^Exactly. In communist china you can burn whatever you want yet in America you cant warm your car up.

If you want to reduce pollution and all that wasted fuel idling, then outlaw drive-thru windows unless the person has a handicap parking permit from the state or for a drugstore. Not only will it save money and reduce global warming :rolleyes:, it will also make some folks get off their fat ___ and walk to get their super-sized cardiac arrest meal.
And since I'm on a rant, how about the idiots who will idle in the parking lot at W-Mart for 3 minutes to get a spot close to the door when its 70 degrees, and sunny? End of rant.

Take that Manbearpig!

So I'm guessing the city must come to a dead stop in the middle of winter?

You don't want to shut down a diesel, without an external heat source, for any significant length of time when temperatures drop into the sub-zero range.

we have this law in the city I live in, however it was passed years ago to prevent a string of autothefts.

This is actually not a bad idea. Prolonged idling is hard on gasoline engines and gets you zero mpg. On the other hand it will never fly in Phoenix. People here won't get out of their cars for anything. It astounds me to see parents waiting in line to pick up their kids after school. They will sit in the car (dozens of big SUVs) for up to 30 minutes with the engine running and the AC cranked.
I just get out and stand under a shady tree.

This is what over-reliance on technology gets you.

I bet NONE of these people stop to think for five seconds in a given day that they are living in the MIDDLE OF A F*CKING DESERT with no natural water, breezes, agriculture or resources for 300 miles in any direction.

It is only through technological innovations like irrigation, dam-building, artificial air conditioning, etc. that human habitation of such areas is possible, yet alone desirable.

The same can be said of Minneapolis on the other extreme. WTF is wrong with people choosing to live in a place where if the heat fails, you can literally DIE within minutes?

There's a reason early peoples settled in the temperate climates. Because they make sense.

We really put our cities and population centers in some truly strange places. New Orleans is another strange one.

It's really designed for comercial vehicles that would idle on streets near homes and fumigate the neighborhood. The council included everyone because it's not a good idea to have a car idling for no reason, other than possibly to warm it up when it's 20 below for three weeks, or months, straight. But it will not be enforced against private cars unless there are repeated warnings.

I ride my bike everywhere and can usually weave my way around so that I don't have to wait too long for anything.

What I really can't understand are the idiots who drive far enough (roundtrip) to burn a gallon of gas just to save far less on a fill-up than that gallon of gas cost that they just burned through.

WTF? Why does the state have any right to interfere "on your behalf?" If I want to leave my keys in my car, that's MY business. :mad:

Hey Jeff, not that I disagree with you, but it's not like SoCal isn't a natural friggin desert and we import of our from all kinds of places.

BTW, a car starting out cold puts out more pollution while it's getting warmed up than any other time it's operating. Cars are insanely cleaner than they were two decades ago. In fact, I believe a new car won't put out enough carbon monoxide to kill you, even in a closed garage.

I completely agree with you - most folks here don't understand that most of the L.A. basin is actually a desert biome. And yes, virtually all the water is brought in thanks to the aquaduct system envisioned by William Mulholland, although there is a certain amount of natural water here also. Certainly not enough to sustain a city of the size we've created, but some.

By all rights, there shouldn't be much settlement here in the L.A. basin, but (like some of the other places) it seemed like a good idea at the time and once again, it's an example of how dependence on technological innovation encourages building in areas that would otherwise have no hope of supporting human habitation.

That's a sales pitch, not a news story.