Idling Engines

Should marketing vans be banned from parking on streets?

Updated on Jun 11, 2008 – SCMP

Your report (“Outrage at telecom ‘roving shops'”, June 9) neglected to mention the most serious complaint against promotion vehicles, that they operate with their engines running to provide a cool interior for staff while residents and pedestrians have to suffer the stifling air pollution and soaring temperatures they generate.

It is ridiculous that government officials say they cannot take any action against this menace. These vehicles are invariably illegally parked on drop-off areas, yellow boxes or at metered facilities where commercial activities are prohibited.

The fact is that when one makes a complaint to the police the driver is given a verbal warning only, drives around the block and then returns to the same spot. Few residents have the time and energy to hang around and repeat the exercise to ensure that eventually a ticket is issued.

Not only do these vehicles hinder legitimate loading activities on busy streets, they also represent a significant risk to public safety as the drivers are often absent and the windscreen and sides of the vehicles are covered in displays. That possible obstruction to the swift response of our emergency services is tolerated reflects very badly on our administration.

When our chief executive was elected, he promised he would “get the job done”. Pollution on our streets and obstruction of traffic flow are matters of major concern to pedestrians and drivers. These promotion vans would disappear in days if he ordered zero tolerance for parking violations. If there are not enough traffic wardens to handle this task, the government should contract out to the private sector.

At the same time, outdated hawking regulations should be urgently revised to reflect the reality that selling services is a commercial transaction no different than selling a T-shirt. The Transport Department should prohibit the modification of vehicles for this purpose.

It is high time that companies like Hutchison and PCCW displayed some corporate social responsibility. They can well afford to open shops and take temporary space in the MTR and shopping malls to provide “convenience for their customers”.

Mary Melville, Tsim Sha Tsui

Celine Sun – Updated on Jun 07, 2008 – SCMP

Drivers of more than 50 taxis, minibuses, tour buses and trucks hit the streets in Central and Wan Chai yesterday to protest against the proposed ban on stationary vehicles keeping their engines running.

The drivers said the government bill, meant to cut roadside pollution, would produce more exhaust and affect their businesses by forcing them to turn off their vehicles’ air conditioning.

The protesting drivers, organised by the Motor Transport Workers General Union, gathered around Pier 3 in Central, switching their engines on and off in unison to highlight the fumes discharged from the vehicles.

Union spokesman To Sun-tong said the emissions generated within seconds of a vehicle being started were often several times more than those produced by a running engine.

“The government asks drivers to switch off their engines for all waits longer than a minute,” he said. “It’s not saving the environment but creating more pollutants.”

Mr To, a taxi driver, said the ban would also see taxis and tour buses lose customers.

“On summer days, the temperature inside a vehicle will get to 40 degrees Celsius within three or four minutes with the engine turned off,” he said.

“It would be easy for the passengers to catch a cold in adapting to a big difference in temperature.

“Anyway, do you think people would like to get into such a hot cab?” he asked.

In a paper submitted by the Environmental Protection Department to the Legislative Council last month, the government said 76.8 per cent of the 1,349 people polled in a survey agreed to a law requiring idling engines to be turned off.

However, the union said the opinions of 5,000 drivers, handed to the authorities in March, were not reflected at all in the government’s report to Legco.

Late in the afternoon, some of the vehicles were driven from Central to Revenue Tower in Wan Chai and a protest letter submitted to the Environmental Protection Department, urging the government to hold more talks with the transport sector.

On other matters…

Updated on May 17, 2008 – SCMP

Would it be at all possible for wardens to be posted at the Central ferry piers to ensure that drivers of trucks and other vehicles that regularly park there turn their engines off?

Those of us who arrive in and depart from Central have to run the gamut of parked vehicles spewing fumes because drivers sit in them napping, having their lunch or chatting into cellphones while enjoying their vehicles’ air conditioning.

Is this too much to ask from the authorities who claim to be tackling the ever-present pollution we have to put up with?

Government to go ahead with controversial bid to force drivers to switch off vehicles

Liz Heron and Zoe Mak – SCMP – Updated on Apr 27, 2008

The government has confirmed it will push ahead with a ban on idling engines and says most of the 1,500 submissions received from the public in a five-month consultation supported the idea.

But opponents of the legislation are gearing up for a fight over the scope of the ban. Groups representing taxi and minibus drivers are demanding they be exempt. Green groups are calling on the government not to give in to their demands.

A spokesman for the Environmental Protection Department said the bill would be introduced to the Legislative Council late this year or early next year. It would provide for fines for drivers who leave their engines running and so contribute to air pollution.

The decision follows 40 meetings with interested parties, including transport trade associations, vehicle suppliers, the Heung Yee Kuk – which represents the traditional New Territories interests – and legislators. Most supported a ban.

“We will formulate a widely supported regulatory framework,” he said. “Our plan is to introduce our legislative proposal to the Legislative Council in 2008 to 2009.”

The ban would cover all parts of Hong Kong and all vehicles except those used for emergency response and other special duties, and those with passengers alighting or boarding. The first two taxis or light buses in a queue would also be spared the ban, which would be enforced by about 200 traffic wardens, with offenders facing a HK$320 fine.

Transport trade associations having already lodged scores of objections and demanded exemptions for various types of vehicle.

At special meetings of Legco’s environmental affairs panel, at least seven associations called for taxis to be exempted, while other trade groups demanded exemptions for public light buses, trucks and buses.

“No taxi drivers agree with this,” said Leung Siu-cheong, of the Taxi Operators Association.

“We are now using liquid petroleum gas for our vehicles and switching the air-conditioning on and off would do no good to the driver. We need to provide our passengers with a comfortable journey.”

Lai Ming-hung, of the Taxi and Public Light Bus Concern Group, said the exemption for queuing vehicles would be unworkable for red minibuses because they do not have assigned stops and buses for different destinations queue together.

Mr Lai said taxis would respond to the queuing rules by driving around the block instead of waiting at a stand, which would only create more congestion and air pollution.

Civic Party legislator Audrey Eu Yuet-mee, the Legco panel’s chairwoman, said: “I don’t think you can exempt a specific category of vehicles. But when it comes to implementation, you will need some kind of allowances, considerations and common sense.”

Amy Ng Yuk-man, of campaign group Clear the Air, said: “If you exempt taxis, you are going to have to exempt buses and minibuses and tour buses. The list goes on.”

Edwin Lau Che-feng, director of Friends of the Earth Hong Kong, said: “The government should not expand the exemptions to further categories of vehicle. If there are more exemptions, the legislation will become ineffective. It needs to be across the board, otherwise motorists will question why one person has to comply with the ban while another does not.”

1st April, 2008 – SCMP

The government has received nearly 1,200 submissions on a proposed ban on idling engines as a public consultation ended. An Environment Bureau spokeswoman said the proposals showed most residents supported the idea and the government planned to send a bill to the Legislative Council in the 2008-09 legislature year.

Updated on Mar 14, 2008 – SCMP

Saturday was warm and I saw a familiar scene that will be repeated many times over the next few months. A scout master who was drilling Scouts in an open space next to a school, got involved in an argument with the driver of a car, which had its engine idling. The scout master objected to his Scouts having to suffer, just so the driver could feel comfortable.

This cuts to the heart of the issue. Especially in a small place like Hong Kong, with an excellent public transport system, the problem should be seen for what it is – an infringement issue.

Do private car owners, a minority, have the right to pollute the air that we all need to breathe? For anyone near a road the threat is vehicle emissions, not cross-border pollution.

The simple reason you will not see any legislation banning idling engines, is because most legislators have at least one luxury car. The lesson our elite learned exceedingly well from colonial society was the primacy of preserving their own interests.

As dynamic cities like London, Paris and New York experiment with ways to reduce the number of private cars and debate personal carbon allowances, static societies cook up outmoded projects like the Hong Kong-Macau-Zhuhai bridge.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for a ban on idling engines.

Kara Young, Kowloon Tong