Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Noisy neighbour problem?
244 views
Skip to first unread message
sue
Nov 15, 2013, 6:45:04 PM11/15/13
to
We had a problem with our neighbour who insisted in allowing his dog to
roll a heavy bowling ball around whilst it barked endlessly. A polite
word failed, environmental health wrote to him and it ceased after he
denied it was him.
However his Subaru still continues to be an irritation. He is unable to
drive off or arrive back without leaving it running 10 minutes.
Environmental health provided a noise sheet which we filled in as asked,
they have contacted him and immediately we received abuse and threats
via text since which the police have dealt with.
We are told the council cannot act any further to stop the noise as they
have not witnessed it but have made no attempt to do so. I asked for
this in writing and they sent a brief letter and a further noise sheet.
So where can we go from here? He does not rev the car but allows it to
run excessively causing distress.
Any thoughts besides moving?
roll a heavy bowling ball around whilst it barked endlessly. A polite
word failed, environmental health wrote to him and it ceased after he
denied it was him.
However his Subaru still continues to be an irritation. He is unable to
drive off or arrive back without leaving it running 10 minutes.
Environmental health provided a noise sheet which we filled in as asked,
they have contacted him and immediately we received abuse and threats
via text since which the police have dealt with.
We are told the council cannot act any further to stop the noise as they
have not witnessed it but have made no attempt to do so. I asked for
this in writing and they sent a brief letter and a further noise sheet.
So where can we go from here? He does not rev the car but allows it to
run excessively causing distress.
Any thoughts besides moving?
The Todal
Nov 16, 2013, 4:45:12 AM11/16/13
to
What I mean is, are you saying that by leaving a vehicle with its engine
running for 10 minutes he is causing some sort of nuisance, perhaps from
noise, and is this worse in some way because the vehicle is a Subaru
rather than, say, a Ford?
If you can describe here why it is a nuisance to you and why it
particularly upsets you, maybe there is a chance that you could also
persuade a court.
Roland Perry
Nov 16, 2013, 4:55:03 AM11/16/13
to
In message <l66bat$b6n$1...@dont-email.me>, at 23:45:04 on Fri, 15 Nov
2013, sue <s...@invalid.com> remarked:
If you are determined to pursue it, then perhaps consider that leaving
an unoccupied car running with the engine going is something I've always
thought of as a traffic offence.
Is the car on a highway (not sure if that matters) at the time?
--
Roland Perry
2013, sue <s...@invalid.com> remarked:
>However his Subaru still continues to be an irritation. He is unable to
>drive off or arrive back without leaving it running 10 minutes.
Such disputes can easily escalate, and the conclusion is rarely happy.
>drive off or arrive back without leaving it running 10 minutes.
If you are determined to pursue it, then perhaps consider that leaving
an unoccupied car running with the engine going is something I've always
thought of as a traffic offence.
Is the car on a highway (not sure if that matters) at the time?
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Nov 16, 2013, 5:00:15 AM11/16/13
to
In message <beosv1...@mid.individual.net>, at 09:45:12 on Sat, 16
Nov 2013, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> remarked:
>What's a Subaru?
...
I had a neighbour with a noisy diesel once, and every morning he'd leave
it running to "warm up" before he left the house. I expect the extra
wear this is likely to cause, might contributes to the engine getting
progressively louder as the months go by.
--
Roland Perry
Nov 2013, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> remarked:
>What's a Subaru?
...
>If you can describe here why it is a nuisance to you and why it
>particularly upsets you, maybe there is a chance that you could also
>persuade a court.
My first thought was that perhaps it was an especially clattery diesel.
>particularly upsets you, maybe there is a chance that you could also
>persuade a court.
I had a neighbour with a noisy diesel once, and every morning he'd leave
it running to "warm up" before he left the house. I expect the extra
wear this is likely to cause, might contributes to the engine getting
progressively louder as the months go by.
--
Roland Perry
Tosspot
Nov 16, 2013, 4:55:03 AM11/16/13
to
On 16/11/13 10:45, The Todal wrote:
<snip>
> What I mean is, are you saying that by leaving a vehicle with its engine
> running for 10 minutes he is causing some sort of nuisance, perhaps from
> noise, and is this worse in some way because the vehicle is a Subaru
> rather than, say, a Ford?
>
> If you can describe here why it is a nuisance to you and why it
> particularly upsets you, maybe there is a chance that you could also
> persuade a court.
Wasn't there a 'stationary idling offence' at some point?
<snip>
> What I mean is, are you saying that by leaving a vehicle with its engine
> running for 10 minutes he is causing some sort of nuisance, perhaps from
> noise, and is this worse in some way because the vehicle is a Subaru
> rather than, say, a Ford?
>
> If you can describe here why it is a nuisance to you and why it
> particularly upsets you, maybe there is a chance that you could also
> persuade a court.
Tosspot
Nov 16, 2013, 5:00:06 AM11/16/13
to
On 16/11/13 10:45, The Todal wrote:
<snip>
<snip>
> What I mean is, are you saying that by leaving a vehicle with its engine
> running for 10 minutes he is causing some sort of nuisance, perhaps from
> noise, and is this worse in some way because the vehicle is a Subaru
> rather than, say, a Ford?
>
> If you can describe here why it is a nuisance to you and why it
> particularly upsets you, maybe there is a chance that you could also
> persuade a court.
Sorry for the double post, but the 'stationary idling offence' is
> running for 10 minutes he is causing some sort of nuisance, perhaps from
> noise, and is this worse in some way because the vehicle is a Subaru
> rather than, say, a Ford?
>
> If you can describe here why it is a nuisance to you and why it
> particularly upsets you, maybe there is a chance that you could also
> persuade a court.
mentioned here
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/1808/made?view=plain
Does that mean it's the councils problem or the police? If indeed it
means anything.
Ian Jackson
Nov 16, 2013, 7:45:03 AM11/16/13
to
In article <75WdnRTTvp7b3BrP...@giganews.com>,
(Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 reg.98:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/part/IV/chapter/E/made
98. (1) Save as provided in paragraph (2), the driver of a vehicle
shall, when the vehicle is stationary, stop the action of
any machinery attached to or forming part of the vehicle so
far as may be necessary for the prevention of noise.
I think none of the exceptions in (2) apply to the OP's neighbour.
These regulations are made under s40 of the Road Traffic act 1972
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/20/section/40/enacted
and contravening them is made an offence by 40(5).
There are various requirements for the prosecution of such offences in
s177 of the RTA 1972. But (without having gone through them in
detail) I think these requirements are just the general kind of ones
that apply to Construction and Use offences.
So the OP could perhaps consider asking the police to enforce the
reg.98 offence.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
Tosspot <Frank...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Sorry for the double post, but the 'stationary idling offence' is
>mentioned here
> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/1808/made?view=plain
>Does that mean it's the councils problem or the police? If indeed it
>means anything.
The requirement to stop one's engine is in the Road Vehicles
>Sorry for the double post, but the 'stationary idling offence' is
>mentioned here
> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/1808/made?view=plain
>Does that mean it's the councils problem or the police? If indeed it
>means anything.
(Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 reg.98:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/part/IV/chapter/E/made
98. (1) Save as provided in paragraph (2), the driver of a vehicle
shall, when the vehicle is stationary, stop the action of
any machinery attached to or forming part of the vehicle so
far as may be necessary for the prevention of noise.
I think none of the exceptions in (2) apply to the OP's neighbour.
These regulations are made under s40 of the Road Traffic act 1972
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/20/section/40/enacted
and contravening them is made an offence by 40(5).
There are various requirements for the prosecution of such offences in
s177 of the RTA 1972. But (without having gone through them in
detail) I think these requirements are just the general kind of ones
that apply to Construction and Use offences.
So the OP could perhaps consider asking the police to enforce the
reg.98 offence.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
Lordgnome
Nov 16, 2013, 8:05:04 AM11/16/13
to
only made with defective starters, given that the owners seem reluctant
to stop their engines, even for a period of 10 minutes, or is it some
macho thing?
Truly puzzled.
RJH
Nov 16, 2013, 8:10:03 AM11/16/13
to
On 16/11/2013 09:45, The Todal wrote:
> On 15/11/2013 23:45, sue wrote:
>> We had a problem with our neighbour who insisted in allowing his dog to
>> roll a heavy bowling ball around whilst it barked endlessly. A polite
>> word failed, environmental health wrote to him and it ceased after he
>> denied it was him.
>>
>> However his Subaru still continues to be an irritation. He is unable to
>> drive off or arrive back without leaving it running 10 minutes.
>> Environmental health provided a noise sheet which we filled in as asked,
>> they have contacted him and immediately we received abuse and threats
>> via text since which the police have dealt with.
>>
>> We are told the council cannot act any further to stop the noise as they
>> have not witnessed it but have made no attempt to do so. I asked for
>> this in writing and they sent a brief letter and a further noise sheet.
>>
>> So where can we go from here? He does not rev the car but allows it to
>> run excessively causing distress.
>>
>> Any thoughts besides moving?
>
> What's a Subaru?
>
I'd guess it's one of those 4WD rally type saloons:
> On 15/11/2013 23:45, sue wrote:
>> We had a problem with our neighbour who insisted in allowing his dog to
>> roll a heavy bowling ball around whilst it barked endlessly. A polite
>> word failed, environmental health wrote to him and it ceased after he
>> denied it was him.
>>
>> However his Subaru still continues to be an irritation. He is unable to
>> drive off or arrive back without leaving it running 10 minutes.
>> Environmental health provided a noise sheet which we filled in as asked,
>> they have contacted him and immediately we received abuse and threats
>> via text since which the police have dealt with.
>>
>> We are told the council cannot act any further to stop the noise as they
>> have not witnessed it but have made no attempt to do so. I asked for
>> this in writing and they sent a brief letter and a further noise sheet.
>>
>> So where can we go from here? He does not rev the car but allows it to
>> run excessively causing distress.
>>
>> Any thoughts besides moving?
>
> What's a Subaru?
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subaru_Impreza
Someone on our street has one, and with the 'right' exhaust they're
capable of quite a racket.
--
Cheers, Rob
David L. Martel
Nov 16, 2013, 8:55:02 AM11/16/13
to
Sue,
How noisy is it? Does it bother others in the neighborhood? Does it
bother others in your household?
There are free downloads of noise meters. Get one and see if the noise in
your house is excessive. Keep a log. If the noise does exceed permitted
limits take your log to the police and see what they'll do.
I'm wondering if the problem is your sensitivity to noise. When my car
idles in the driveway I can not hear it in the house.
Good luck,
Dave M.
How noisy is it? Does it bother others in the neighborhood? Does it
bother others in your household?
There are free downloads of noise meters. Get one and see if the noise in
your house is excessive. Keep a log. If the noise does exceed permitted
limits take your log to the police and see what they'll do.
I'm wondering if the problem is your sensitivity to noise. When my car
idles in the driveway I can not hear it in the house.
Good luck,
Dave M.
TTman
Nov 16, 2013, 9:05:11 AM11/16/13
to
SNIP
that it is 'best practice' to run the engine for several minutes before
setting off on a journey and equally important to leave it running at
the end of a journey.Same for the Supra MKIV I owned. It's all to do
with minimising potential damage to the turbocharger.
Further, there must be many many motorists that run their can on these
frosty morning to help de-ice the car.
I see where the OP is coming from as a Subura has a deep popping sound
from its exhaust on tickover,but unless it was at an unsiciable time in
the morning ( or night) I can't see what can be done...
>
> What's a Subaru?
>
> What I mean is, are you saying that by leaving a vehicle with its engine
> running for 10 minutes he is causing some sort of nuisance, perhaps from
> noise, and is this worse in some way because the vehicle is a Subaru
> rather than, say, a Ford?
>
> If you can describe here why it is a nuisance to you and why it
> particularly upsets you, maybe there is a chance that you could also
> persuade a court.
Thing is, a Subaru is a turbocharged sports car. It is widely recognised
> What's a Subaru?
>
> What I mean is, are you saying that by leaving a vehicle with its engine
> running for 10 minutes he is causing some sort of nuisance, perhaps from
> noise, and is this worse in some way because the vehicle is a Subaru
> rather than, say, a Ford?
>
> If you can describe here why it is a nuisance to you and why it
> particularly upsets you, maybe there is a chance that you could also
> persuade a court.
that it is 'best practice' to run the engine for several minutes before
setting off on a journey and equally important to leave it running at
the end of a journey.Same for the Supra MKIV I owned. It's all to do
with minimising potential damage to the turbocharger.
Further, there must be many many motorists that run their can on these
frosty morning to help de-ice the car.
I see where the OP is coming from as a Subura has a deep popping sound
from its exhaust on tickover,but unless it was at an unsiciable time in
the morning ( or night) I can't see what can be done...
sue
Nov 16, 2013, 11:30:07 AM11/16/13
to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiTae3vajwo
The car is usually on a private drive but occasionally on the public
road. The problem is not him coming and going but his inability to
switch it off.
Fredxx
Nov 16, 2013, 2:00:14 PM11/16/13
to
that it takes longer to demist windscreens etc!
Fredxx
Nov 16, 2013, 2:00:14 PM11/16/13
to
Roland Perry
Nov 16, 2013, 3:50:05 PM11/16/13
to
In message <l68f9p$dtf$2...@dont-email.me>, at 19:00:14 on Sat, 16 Nov
2013, Fredxx <fre...@nospam.com> remarked:
>Do theses "free downloads of noise meters" have a means of calibration?
Not as far as I'm aware (I'm actually discussing this same issue today
in another group). They are just set up for a "typical microphone"
inside the phone. Note that such microphones usually have a very narrow
frequency range, and can be quite directional.
Of course, you could always borrow a classic free-standing meter and
calibrate it that way.
--
Roland Perry
2013, Fredxx <fre...@nospam.com> remarked:
>Do theses "free downloads of noise meters" have a means of calibration?
in another group). They are just set up for a "typical microphone"
inside the phone. Note that such microphones usually have a very narrow
frequency range, and can be quite directional.
Of course, you could always borrow a classic free-standing meter and
calibrate it that way.
--
Roland Perry
David L. Martel
Nov 16, 2013, 10:20:05 PM11/16/13
to
Fredxx,
I've no idea whether they have calibration procedures. If the downloaded
meter does register a lot of noise the OP should look into buying or renting
a "real" meter. I'm mostly trying to decide whether Sue is sensitive to
noise. An uncalibrated meter may do that.
Good luck,
Dave M.
I've no idea whether they have calibration procedures. If the downloaded
meter does register a lot of noise the OP should look into buying or renting
a "real" meter. I'm mostly trying to decide whether Sue is sensitive to
noise. An uncalibrated meter may do that.
Good luck,
Dave M.
steve robinson
Nov 17, 2013, 5:40:06 AM11/17/13
to
do, if the cars turbocharged then the engione should be allowed to idle
prior to shut down anyway otherwise damage can occur to the turbo .
--
R. Mark Clayton
Nov 17, 2013, 7:00:22 AM11/17/13
to
Tosspot
Nov 17, 2013, 6:50:05 AM11/17/13
to
cars? Details here;
http://www.astonvauxhall.co.uk/service/vauxhall-stop-start-explained
I reckon unless you've done a lap of the Nurburgring you can just switch
it of. Warming an engine is different, you might want to do that for
several reasons, e.g. comfort, deicing, wear.
Clive George
Nov 17, 2013, 8:35:02 AM11/17/13
to
On 17/11/2013 10:40, steve robinson wrote:
> If the cars not modified or has a fault then thier is little you can
> do, if the cars turbocharged then the engione should be allowed to idle
> prior to shut down anyway otherwise damage can occur to the turbo .
More than half the cars sold in this country these days are
> If the cars not modified or has a fault then thier is little you can
> do, if the cars turbocharged then the engione should be allowed to idle
> prior to shut down anyway otherwise damage can occur to the turbo .
turbocharged, and people don't idle their cars for ages when they go to
the shops, etc.
If the car has been driven hard, then yes, shutting the engine down
immediately would be a poor move, but most people don't live somewhere
where there hasn't been an enforced period of more gentle driving to get
home.
steve robinson
Nov 17, 2013, 10:00:05 AM11/17/13
to
reserve. Turbos run at very high revs (anything up to 140,000 rpm for
some garrets) when you switch off the engine you lose oil pressure, a
turbo spinning takes time to slow, running the engine at idle allows
the turbo to slow/ stop so avioding running the bearings dry running
steve robinson
Nov 17, 2013, 10:00:14 AM11/17/13
to
get driven hard whats the point of owning one if you drive like miss
daisy
--
eastender
Nov 17, 2013, 8:30:07 AM11/17/13
to
On 2013-11-16 16:30:07 +0000, sue said:
> The car is usually on a private drive but occasionally on the public
> road. The problem is not him coming and going but his inability to
> switch it off.
The idling law applies only to vehicles on public roads I think and I
> The car is usually on a private drive but occasionally on the public
> road. The problem is not him coming and going but his inability to
> switch it off.
think also designed to counter pollution. You are within your rights to
ask anyone to switch off an engine when parked on a public road - I
have done this several times with cars outisde our house as fumes have
drifted in under the front door. No one has refused. I had to call the
police for one guy as he was unconscious and i thought he might gas
himself.
If you are getting fumes as well as noise from his car on his drive I
would have thought you have a good case to complain.
E.
Wm
Nov 17, 2013, 9:30:04 AM11/17/13
to
dB alone though this seems to be how councils, etc. prefer to measure
it, presumably for their own convenience.
I have a standing offer from my landlord for use of a "real" meter for a
week which I am sure would be useful if my neighbour was pumping out
loud music at 2 in the morning. That isn't the problem, though. The
problem is the neighbours child running around, volume is relatively
low, but it is a bit like having someone tapping you on the head at
unexpected times. The child knows she shouldn't run indoors and
responds when I say, "don't run, please" (there is little sound
insulation between the flats) by stopping ... for a while.
For me the disturbance is equivalent to someone knocking on my door at
unexpected times, waiting a bit and then doing it again and again and again.
A noise meter is no use in situations like this. My neighbour denies
her child runs inside so we have an impasse where, effectively, my
neighbour has abrogated part of her child's behaviour to a neighbour
(me) she won't even talk to.
In conclusion I ask that people don't see all neighbourly or similar
noise as a simplistic volume issue.
--
Wm
Mark Goodge
Nov 17, 2013, 10:20:03 AM11/17/13
to
On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 15:00:14 +0000, steve robinson put finger to keyboard
and typed:
Yes, but they generally only get driven hard in places where it's
appropriate to do so.
I drive a Subaru. But by the time I've got off the by-pass, through the
traffic lights and into my residential street the engine has had plenty of
time to run on low revs before I park it. The idea that you need to leave a
tubo idling for up to ten minutes after a drive through town is just
petrolhead fantasy, I'm afraid. And even the people who tell you it needs
idling time don't actually believe it themselves. Watch them pull off the
motorway to buy petrol - they don't leave it idling for ten minutes before
pulling up to the pump, they just drive straight to the pump and switch
off. But that's the one time - coming to a stop immediately after a
sustained period of motorway driving - when the average turbo genuinely
will benefit from a bit of idling before being switched off. If someone
isn't concerned enough about the engine do it then, then - whatever they
may tell you - they aren't really doing it for the sake of the engine when
they leave it idling on their drive.
Mark
--
Please take a short survey on salary perceptions: http://meyu.eu/am
My blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
and typed:
appropriate to do so.
I drive a Subaru. But by the time I've got off the by-pass, through the
traffic lights and into my residential street the engine has had plenty of
time to run on low revs before I park it. The idea that you need to leave a
tubo idling for up to ten minutes after a drive through town is just
petrolhead fantasy, I'm afraid. And even the people who tell you it needs
idling time don't actually believe it themselves. Watch them pull off the
motorway to buy petrol - they don't leave it idling for ten minutes before
pulling up to the pump, they just drive straight to the pump and switch
off. But that's the one time - coming to a stop immediately after a
sustained period of motorway driving - when the average turbo genuinely
will benefit from a bit of idling before being switched off. If someone
isn't concerned enough about the engine do it then, then - whatever they
may tell you - they aren't really doing it for the sake of the engine when
they leave it idling on their drive.
Mark
--
Please take a short survey on salary perceptions: http://meyu.eu/am
My blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Percy Picacity
Nov 17, 2013, 11:10:04 AM11/17/13
to
In article <l6ajo4$moa$1...@dont-email.me>,
I think that if one cannot stand the noise of children joyfully running
about the only solution is to live in one of those Florida-style
retirement complexes. Some may believe we need children around, not
only to perpetuate the race, but for our sanity.
--
Percy Picacity
about the only solution is to live in one of those Florida-style
retirement complexes. Some may believe we need children around, not
only to perpetuate the race, but for our sanity.
--
Percy Picacity
Martin Bonner
Nov 17, 2013, 1:10:02 PM11/17/13
to
Wm makes about the nuisance associated with noise not being purely
a function of the volume still stands.
Lordgnome
Nov 17, 2013, 11:55:05 AM11/17/13
to
On 17/11/2013 16:10, Percy Picacity wrote:
>
> I think that if one cannot stand the noise of children joyfully running
> about the only solution is to live in one of those Florida-style
> retirement complexes. Some may believe we need children around, not
> only to perpetuate the race, but for our sanity.
>
It all depends upon the children, their activities and the location.
>
> I think that if one cannot stand the noise of children joyfully running
> about the only solution is to live in one of those Florida-style
> retirement complexes. Some may believe we need children around, not
> only to perpetuate the race, but for our sanity.
>
Whilst for example, kids larking in a playground might be fine, spoilt
brats screaming and throwing food in a restaurant is an entirely
different matter.
Sadly these days it is assumed that everyone has a duty to put up with
unnecessarily bad behaviour from someone else's children.
Les
Tosspot
Nov 17, 2013, 1:50:07 PM11/17/13
to
about this.
steve robinson
Nov 17, 2013, 4:05:06 PM11/17/13
to
recomend no warm up period before moving off however they do recomend
that you allow the engine to idle before switching off otherwise you
risk premature turbo failure.
Its not about vehicle speed its about engine speed and how heavy your
right foot is
--
Clive George
Nov 17, 2013, 5:20:19 PM11/17/13
to
talking a couple of seconds here or less.
It's not the turbo spinning which is the problem, it's having the turbo
very hot, as one would do after eg a race or a very high speed motorway
run. If one stops the engine then, even if the blades have stopped, the
oil will still get cooked. However you have to try really quite hard to
get in that state.
And I'll answer this one here too :
> Most cars are not highly tuned scubbies or evo's, which do generally
> get driven hard whats the point of owning one if you drive like miss
> daisy
especially an urban one. The engine is capable of doing a significant
more than is safe, and consequently will actually be spending most of
its time fairly relaxed.
Even if you've come back from a high speed run on a B road, most people
will still have several minutes of easy driving to get home.
(* for it, though it may feel hard to the driver)
Clive George
Nov 17, 2013, 5:30:04 PM11/17/13
to
On 17/11/2013 21:05, steve robinson wrote:
>
> Cleaning the van out today desiel citroen t/c found the handbook, they
> recomend no warm up period before moving off however they do recomend
> that you allow the engine to idle before switching off otherwise you
> risk premature turbo failure.
Do they state for how long? Normally a couple of seconds will be
>
> Cleaning the van out today desiel citroen t/c found the handbook, they
> recomend no warm up period before moving off however they do recomend
> that you allow the engine to idle before switching off otherwise you
> risk premature turbo failure.
sufficient - the exception being the case Mark mentioned.
spuorg...@gowanhill.com
Nov 17, 2013, 5:55:02 PM11/17/13
to
On Sunday, November 17, 2013 4:10:04 PM UTC, Percy Picacity wrote:
> I think that if one cannot stand the noise of children joyfully running
> about the only solution is to live in one of those Florida-style
> retirement complexes.
The sort where you get a notice of violation if you speed above 2 mph in a golf buggy?
> about the only solution is to live in one of those Florida-style
> retirement complexes.
I don't mind children running around on Saturday afternoons. I do mind them causing havoc at midnight.
Owain
RobertL
Nov 18, 2013, 7:40:04 AM11/18/13
to
On Friday, November 15, 2013 11:45:04 PM UTC, sue wrote:
> We had a problem with our neighbour who insisted in allowing his dog to
> roll a heavy bowling ball around whilst it barked endlessly. A polite
> word failed, environmental health wrote to him and it ceased after he
> denied it was him.
>
> However his Subaru still continues to be an irritation. He is unable to
> drive off or arrive back without leaving it running 10 minutes.
> Environmental health provided a noise sheet which we filled in as asked,
> they have contacted him and immediately we received abuse and threats
> via text since which the police have dealt with.
>
> We are told the council cannot act any further to stop the noise as they
> have not witnessed it but have made no attempt to do so. I asked for
> this in writing and they sent a brief letter and a further noise sheet.
> So where can we go from here? He does not rev the car but allows it to
> run excessively causing distress.
> Any thoughts besides moving?
So, he leaves an expensive car parked with the engine running and the keys in the ignition? Perhaps someone will steal it one day...
> We had a problem with our neighbour who insisted in allowing his dog to
> roll a heavy bowling ball around whilst it barked endlessly. A polite
> word failed, environmental health wrote to him and it ceased after he
> denied it was him.
>
> However his Subaru still continues to be an irritation. He is unable to
> drive off or arrive back without leaving it running 10 minutes.
> Environmental health provided a noise sheet which we filled in as asked,
> they have contacted him and immediately we received abuse and threats
> via text since which the police have dealt with.
>
> We are told the council cannot act any further to stop the noise as they
> have not witnessed it but have made no attempt to do so. I asked for
> this in writing and they sent a brief letter and a further noise sheet.
> So where can we go from here? He does not rev the car but allows it to
> run excessively causing distress.
> Any thoughts besides moving?
Robert
Ian Jackson
Nov 18, 2013, 7:10:05 AM11/18/13
to
In article <l67tq0$aj7$1...@dont-email.me>, TTman <pcw1...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Thing is, a Subaru is a turbocharged sports car. It is widely recognised
>that it is 'best practice' to run the engine for several minutes before
>setting off on a journey and equally important to leave it running at
>the end of a journey.Same for the Supra MKIV I owned. It's all to do
>with minimising potential damage to the turbocharger.
If this is true, it appears that this vehicle is not designed to be
>Thing is, a Subaru is a turbocharged sports car. It is widely recognised
>that it is 'best practice' to run the engine for several minutes before
>setting off on a journey and equally important to leave it running at
>the end of a journey.Same for the Supra MKIV I owned. It's all to do
>with minimising potential damage to the turbocharger.
operated lawfully in the UK, where stationary idling is not permitted.
Surely that can't be right.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
Paul Cummins
Nov 18, 2013, 10:40:05 AM11/18/13
to
In article <Jwq*sd...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
Clearly if it is necessary, for safety or legal reasons...
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----
ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Ian Jackson) wrote:
> If this is true, it appears that this vehicle is not designed to be
> operated lawfully in the UK, where stationary idling is not
> permitted. Surely that can't be right.
The law covers *unnecessary* stationary idling.
> If this is true, it appears that this vehicle is not designed to be
> operated lawfully in the UK, where stationary idling is not
> permitted. Surely that can't be right.
Clearly if it is necessary, for safety or legal reasons...
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----
Stephen Wolstenholme
Nov 18, 2013, 9:30:08 AM11/18/13
to
On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 12:10:05 +0000, ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
(Ian Jackson) wrote:
>In article <l67tq0$aj7$1...@dont-email.me>, TTman <pcw1...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>Thing is, a Subaru is a turbocharged sports car. It is widely recognised
>>that it is 'best practice' to run the engine for several minutes before
>>setting off on a journey and equally important to leave it running at
>>the end of a journey.Same for the Supra MKIV I owned. It's all to do
>>with minimising potential damage to the turbocharger.
>
>If this is true, it appears that this vehicle is not designed to be
>operated lawfully in the UK, where stationary idling is not permitted.
>Surely that can't be right.
One of my helpers has a brand new VW golf. It idles when it is parked
(Ian Jackson) wrote:
>In article <l67tq0$aj7$1...@dont-email.me>, TTman <pcw1...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>Thing is, a Subaru is a turbocharged sports car. It is widely recognised
>>that it is 'best practice' to run the engine for several minutes before
>>setting off on a journey and equally important to leave it running at
>>the end of a journey.Same for the Supra MKIV I owned. It's all to do
>>with minimising potential damage to the turbocharger.
>
>If this is true, it appears that this vehicle is not designed to be
>operated lawfully in the UK, where stationary idling is not permitted.
>Surely that can't be right.
after a long run. It idles for a few minutes and then stops. The keys
are not in the ignition and the car is locked up! The first time she
took it back to the dealers. He told her that lots of people think
it's a fault but it isn't.
Steve
--
EasyNN-plus. Neural Networks plus. http://www.easynn.com
SwingNN. Forecast with Neural Networks. http://www.swingnn.com
JustNN. Just Neural Networks. http://www.justnn.com
Ian Jackson
Nov 18, 2013, 11:00:07 AM11/18/13
to
In article <memo.2013111...@postmaster.cix.co.uk>,
>Clearly if it is necessary, for safety or legal reasons...
Perhaps you overlooked the reference I gave earlier, which included a
reference the the permitted set of exceptions. To save you the
trouble of looking up here is RV(C&U)R 1986 reg.98(2) which lists the
exceptions:
(2) The provisions of paragraph (1) do not apply-
(a) when the vehicle is stationary owing to the necessities of
traffic;
(b) so as to prevent the examination or working of the machinery
where the examination is necessitated by any failure or
derangement of the machinery or where the machinery is
required to be worked for a purpose other than driving the
vehicle; or
(c) in respect of a vehicle propelled by gas produced in plant
carried on the vehicle, to such plant.
I don't think that machinery which is designed to need to be worked
for a significant time, before and after being used for driving the
vehicle, falls under the exception in 98(2)(b). I.e. I don't think
"it will wear more quickly or be less efficient if I don't idle it" is
a "purpose other than driving the vehicle".
Paul Cummins <paulc...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <Jwq*sd...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
>ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Ian Jackson) wrote:
>>If this is true, it appears that this vehicle is not designed to be
>>operated lawfully in the UK, where stationary idling is not
>>permitted. Surely that can't be right.
>
>The law covers *unnecessary* stationary idling.
No, that's not what it says.
>In article <Jwq*sd...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
>ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Ian Jackson) wrote:
>>If this is true, it appears that this vehicle is not designed to be
>>operated lawfully in the UK, where stationary idling is not
>>permitted. Surely that can't be right.
>
>The law covers *unnecessary* stationary idling.
>Clearly if it is necessary, for safety or legal reasons...
reference the the permitted set of exceptions. To save you the
trouble of looking up here is RV(C&U)R 1986 reg.98(2) which lists the
exceptions:
(2) The provisions of paragraph (1) do not apply-
(a) when the vehicle is stationary owing to the necessities of
traffic;
(b) so as to prevent the examination or working of the machinery
where the examination is necessitated by any failure or
derangement of the machinery or where the machinery is
required to be worked for a purpose other than driving the
vehicle; or
(c) in respect of a vehicle propelled by gas produced in plant
carried on the vehicle, to such plant.
I don't think that machinery which is designed to need to be worked
for a significant time, before and after being used for driving the
vehicle, falls under the exception in 98(2)(b). I.e. I don't think
"it will wear more quickly or be less efficient if I don't idle it" is
a "purpose other than driving the vehicle".
Paul Cummins
Nov 18, 2013, 3:15:06 PM11/18/13
to
In article <XWw*m3...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
hours.
This was entirely legal, and necessary. I leave you to consider why.
Are you really saying that 31 seconds of idling to protect the
turbo-charger is unacceptable?
ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Ian Jackson) wrote:
> I.e. I don't think
> "it will wear more quickly or be less efficient if I don't idle it"
> is
> a "purpose other than driving the vehicle".
In July 2005, my diesel engined car was left idling in London for over 36
> I.e. I don't think
> "it will wear more quickly or be less efficient if I don't idle it"
> is
> a "purpose other than driving the vehicle".
hours.
This was entirely legal, and necessary. I leave you to consider why.
Are you really saying that 31 seconds of idling to protect the
turbo-charger is unacceptable?
Clive George
Nov 18, 2013, 4:15:05 PM11/18/13
to
On 18/11/2013 20:15, Paul Cummins wrote:
> In article <XWw*m3...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
> ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Ian Jackson) wrote:
>
>> I.e. I don't think
>> "it will wear more quickly or be less efficient if I don't idle it"
>> is
>> a "purpose other than driving the vehicle".
>
> In July 2005, my diesel engined car was left idling in London for over 36
> hours.
>
> This was entirely legal, and necessary. I leave you to consider why.
Running something electrical?
> In article <XWw*m3...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
> ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Ian Jackson) wrote:
>
>> I.e. I don't think
>> "it will wear more quickly or be less efficient if I don't idle it"
>> is
>> a "purpose other than driving the vehicle".
>
> In July 2005, my diesel engined car was left idling in London for over 36
> hours.
>
> This was entirely legal, and necessary. I leave you to consider why.
> Are you really saying that 31 seconds of idling to protect the
> turbo-charger is unacceptable?
will be fine. 10 minutes for a impreza with loud exhaust probably isn't.
steve robinson
Nov 18, 2013, 4:25:02 PM11/18/13
to
steve robinson
Nov 18, 2013, 4:30:03 PM11/18/13
to
--
steve robinson
Nov 18, 2013, 4:31:03 PM11/18/13
to
Ian Jackson wrote:
> In article <l67tq0$aj7$1...@dont-email.me>, TTman
> <pcw1...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > Thing is, a Subaru is a turbocharged sports car. It is widely
> > recognised that it is 'best practice' to run the engine for several
> > minutes before setting off on a journey and equally important to
> > leave it running at the end of a journey.Same for the Supra MKIV I
> > owned. It's all to do with minimising potential damage to the
> > turbocharger.
>
> If this is true, it appears that this vehicle is not designed to be
> operated lawfully in the UK, where stationary idling is not permitted.
> Surely that can't be right.
Stationary idling is permitted
> In article <l67tq0$aj7$1...@dont-email.me>, TTman
> <pcw1...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > Thing is, a Subaru is a turbocharged sports car. It is widely
> > recognised that it is 'best practice' to run the engine for several
> > minutes before setting off on a journey and equally important to
> > leave it running at the end of a journey.Same for the Supra MKIV I
> > owned. It's all to do with minimising potential damage to the
> > turbocharger.
>
> If this is true, it appears that this vehicle is not designed to be
> operated lawfully in the UK, where stationary idling is not permitted.
> Surely that can't be right.
--
Clive George
Nov 18, 2013, 4:40:03 PM11/18/13
to
as hard as possible, yes, the engine will be loaded for that time. But
on a public road for a highly tuned car, that time won't be very long,
especially in an urban setting.
Tosspot
Nov 18, 2013, 3:00:12 PM11/18/13
to
to road users, and if it's sitting on my private drive, it isn't a road
user.
I'm going to bed now, if I'm wrong I shall prostrate my hungover self
before you tomorrow.
steve robinson
Nov 18, 2013, 5:00:10 PM11/18/13
to
--
Clive George
Nov 18, 2013, 6:10:02 PM11/18/13
to
shovelling that much fuel through - nowhere near as much as when you're
accelerating to get there if you're trying. The heat which causes the
problems comes from burning that fuel - less fuel = less heat.
Mark Goodge
Nov 19, 2013, 2:55:18 AM11/19/13
to
On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 21:25:02 +0000, steve robinson put finger to keyboard
and typed:
Googling the matter suggests that, typically, 30 seconds is enough, maybe a
minute or so if stopping immediately after a very fast run. For starting an
engine from cold, no idling is necessary (even for a turbo) if the ambient
temperature is more than around 10degC but a short idle of 30 seconds is
helpful when colder, and up to a minute if below freezing.
The ten minutes at both startup and shutdown mentioned by the OP is
certainly excessive, and not required at all by the engine. It seems that
the OP's problem is that his neighbour is badly informed and unwilling to
educate himself.
and typed:
minute or so if stopping immediately after a very fast run. For starting an
engine from cold, no idling is necessary (even for a turbo) if the ambient
temperature is more than around 10degC but a short idle of 30 seconds is
helpful when colder, and up to a minute if below freezing.
The ten minutes at both startup and shutdown mentioned by the OP is
certainly excessive, and not required at all by the engine. It seems that
the OP's problem is that his neighbour is badly informed and unwilling to
educate himself.
Wm
Nov 19, 2013, 6:55:06 AM11/19/13
to
On 17/11/2013 16:10, Percy Picacity wrote:
> I think that if one cannot stand the noise of children joyfully running
> about the only solution is to live in one of those Florida-style
> retirement complexes. Some may believe we need children around, not
> only to perpetuate the race, but for our sanity.
Were you being ironic?
> about the only solution is to live in one of those Florida-style
> retirement complexes. Some may believe we need children around, not
> only to perpetuate the race, but for our sanity.
I certainly don't have a problem with children as a group of people, it
is the parents that really bug me.
In any event the child I mentioned is not running around joyfully, she
is running around because she is frustrated. She can see a garden
behind her, a park in front of her and has a mother that won't let her
out to play.
--
Wm
steve robinson
Nov 20, 2013, 8:15:05 AM11/20/13
to
mores exhaust gases generated, turbos are usally run from the exhaust
system --- so its spinning faster.
The faster it spins the longer it takes to come to a halt or slow
enough .
Once a car engine stops the oil pressure drops to zero, the bearings no
longer being fed with oil will eventually seize or burn out
Ian Jackson
Nov 20, 2013, 7:55:12 AM11/20/13
to
In article <X4idnfNtK6ob8xfP...@giganews.com>,
doesn't help the OP. But this doesn't help the designers of cars
which "need" to idle at the beginnings or ends of journeys[1]. A car
which you could only leave on the drive, and not park in a public car
park, would be very inconvenient.
[1] I have no idea whether such cars actually exist.
Tosspot <Frank...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I am very drunk, but I thought that permitted set of exceptions applied
>to road users, and if it's sitting on my private drive, it isn't a road
>user.
Yes, the whole RV(C&U)R apply only to vehicles on roads. So this
>I am very drunk, but I thought that permitted set of exceptions applied
>to road users, and if it's sitting on my private drive, it isn't a road
>user.
doesn't help the OP. But this doesn't help the designers of cars
which "need" to idle at the beginnings or ends of journeys[1]. A car
which you could only leave on the drive, and not park in a public car
park, would be very inconvenient.
[1] I have no idea whether such cars actually exist.
Ian Jackson
Nov 20, 2013, 7:55:12 AM11/20/13
to
In article <xn0ippv9...@reader80.eternal-september.org>,
steve robinson <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
steve robinson <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
>Ian Jackson wrote:
>>If this is true, it appears that this vehicle is not designed to be
>>operated lawfully in the UK, where stationary idling is not permitted.
>>Surely that can't be right.
>
>Stationary idling is permitted
I am in awe of your well-reasoned and fully-referenced rebuttal.
>>If this is true, it appears that this vehicle is not designed to be
>>operated lawfully in the UK, where stationary idling is not permitted.
>>Surely that can't be right.
>
>Stationary idling is permitted
Paul Cummins
Nov 20, 2013, 8:45:12 AM11/20/13
to
In article <5fb*0W...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Ian Jackson) wrote:
> I am in awe of your well-reasoned and fully-referenced rebuttal.
Considering you haven't provided a reference to prove it is prohibited...
> I am in awe of your well-reasoned and fully-referenced rebuttal.
Message has been deleted
Clive George
Nov 20, 2013, 10:05:01 AM11/20/13
to
Higher revs doesn't necessarily mean more exhaust gases generated. On a
petrol car, the function of a throttle is to restrict the amount of air
which enters the cylinder, and the amount of fuel injected changes
according to that amount of air. If you're running at X mph, the amount
of power required to push the car along is the same whatever gear you're
in. Engine inefficiencies aside, the amount of power is proportional to
the amount of fuel, so if you're running at twice the RPM you need half
the amount of fuel per rev, hence half the amount of air, and the net
amount of gases generated comes out as the same.
But that's not the issue - it's the amount of fuel being burned and heat
being generated which is important.
> The faster it spins the longer it takes to come to a halt or slow
> enough .
know, it takes hardly any time for the turbo to slow down. It'll do that
while you're parking up.
> Once a car engine stops the oil pressure drops to zero, the bearings no
> longer being fed with oil will eventually seize or burn out
The thing to worry about is heat, and you only get enough to worry about
if you're driving hard, and as per previous post, that's pretty unlikely
to be the case. See eg pictures of glowing turbochargers on racing cars.
Paul Cummins
Nov 20, 2013, 10:15:06 AM11/20/13
to
In article <87bo1f2...@news2.kororaa.com>, aug...@kororaa.com (August
West) wrote:
> Road Traffic (Vehicle Emissions) (Fixed
> Penalty) (England) Regulations 2002.
That doesn't prohibit it.
The "stationary idling" regulations relate to Regulation 98 of the Road
Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986.
This only requires idling to be prevented to prevent noise on the
highway.
There are clear exemptions.
Stationary idling has therefore not been prohibited except in specific
circumstances, which do not apply to the OP.
West) wrote:
> Road Traffic (Vehicle Emissions) (Fixed
> Penalty) (England) Regulations 2002.
That doesn't prohibit it.
The "stationary idling" regulations relate to Regulation 98 of the Road
Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986.
This only requires idling to be prevented to prevent noise on the
highway.
There are clear exemptions.
Stationary idling has therefore not been prohibited except in specific
circumstances, which do not apply to the OP.
Ian Jackson
Nov 20, 2013, 11:30:07 AM11/20/13
to
In article <memo.2013112...@postmaster.cix.co.uk>,
It seems to be missing my article. Here's another copy (with
signature, and headers not relevant to the sense or to post-approval
news propagation, removed):
Path: nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!n1no451400qai.0!news-out.google.com!9ni31935qaf.0!nntp.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.readnews.com!s09-01.readnews.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: uk.legal.moderated
Message-ID: <DvB*1N...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>
References: <l66bat$b6n$1...@dont-email.me> <beosv1...@mid.individual.net> <75WdnRTTvp7b3BrP...@giganews.com>
Approved: uk-legal-moderated moderators <uk-legal-...@moderation.org.uk>
From: ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Ian Jackson)
Subject: Re: Noisy neighbour problem?
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 12:45:03 +0000
In article <75WdnRTTvp7b3BrP...@giganews.com>,
Tosspot <Frank...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Sorry for the double post, but the 'stationary idling offence' is
>mentioned here
> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/1808/made?view=plain
>Does that mean it's the councils problem or the police? If indeed it
>means anything.
The requirement to stop one's engine is in the Road Vehicles
(Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 reg.98:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/part/IV/chapter/E/made
98. (1) Save as provided in paragraph (2), the driver of a vehicle
shall, when the vehicle is stationary, stop the action of
any machinery attached to or forming part of the vehicle so
far as may be necessary for the prevention of noise.
I think none of the exceptions in (2) apply to the OP's neighbour.
These regulations are made under s40 of the Road Traffic act 1972
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/20/section/40/enacted
and contravening them is made an offence by 40(5).
There are various requirements for the prosecution of such offences in
s177 of the RTA 1972. But (without having gone through them in
detail) I think these requirements are just the general kind of ones
that apply to Construction and Use offences.
So the OP could perhaps consider asking the police to enforce the
reg.98 offence.
As others have pointed out, and has been discussed in various messages
here, this only apples on roads. The thread has articles from me on
the exceptions in 98(2) in the OP's context; and on the limitation of
the regulation to roads in the context of (hypothetical, if other
posters here are to be believed) cars designed to "require"
substantial periods of idling.
There is room for discussion about these things of course, and I won't
assert that my reference "_proves_ [emph. mine] that [idling] is
prohibited" as you put it.
Paul Cummins <paulc...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <5fb*0W...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
>ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Ian Jackson) wrote:
>>I am in awe of your well-reasoned and fully-referenced rebuttal.
>
>Considering you haven't provided a reference to prove it is prohibited...
I think you should check whether your news server is working properly.
>In article <5fb*0W...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
>ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Ian Jackson) wrote:
>>I am in awe of your well-reasoned and fully-referenced rebuttal.
>
>Considering you haven't provided a reference to prove it is prohibited...
It seems to be missing my article. Here's another copy (with
signature, and headers not relevant to the sense or to post-approval
news propagation, removed):
Path: nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!n1no451400qai.0!news-out.google.com!9ni31935qaf.0!nntp.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.readnews.com!s09-01.readnews.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: uk.legal.moderated
Message-ID: <DvB*1N...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>
References: <l66bat$b6n$1...@dont-email.me> <beosv1...@mid.individual.net> <75WdnRTTvp7b3BrP...@giganews.com>
Approved: uk-legal-moderated moderators <uk-legal-...@moderation.org.uk>
From: ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Ian Jackson)
Subject: Re: Noisy neighbour problem?
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 12:45:03 +0000
In article <75WdnRTTvp7b3BrP...@giganews.com>,
Tosspot <Frank...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Sorry for the double post, but the 'stationary idling offence' is
>mentioned here
> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/1808/made?view=plain
>Does that mean it's the councils problem or the police? If indeed it
>means anything.
The requirement to stop one's engine is in the Road Vehicles
(Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 reg.98:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/part/IV/chapter/E/made
98. (1) Save as provided in paragraph (2), the driver of a vehicle
shall, when the vehicle is stationary, stop the action of
any machinery attached to or forming part of the vehicle so
far as may be necessary for the prevention of noise.
I think none of the exceptions in (2) apply to the OP's neighbour.
These regulations are made under s40 of the Road Traffic act 1972
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/20/section/40/enacted
and contravening them is made an offence by 40(5).
There are various requirements for the prosecution of such offences in
s177 of the RTA 1972. But (without having gone through them in
detail) I think these requirements are just the general kind of ones
that apply to Construction and Use offences.
So the OP could perhaps consider asking the police to enforce the
reg.98 offence.
As others have pointed out, and has been discussed in various messages
here, this only apples on roads. The thread has articles from me on
the exceptions in 98(2) in the OP's context; and on the limitation of
the regulation to roads in the context of (hypothetical, if other
posters here are to be believed) cars designed to "require"
substantial periods of idling.
There is room for discussion about these things of course, and I won't
assert that my reference "_proves_ [emph. mine] that [idling] is
prohibited" as you put it.
Paul Cummins
Nov 20, 2013, 2:15:13 PM11/20/13
to
In article <GXy*CI...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
it can be sanctioned.
It certainly doesn't prohibit it.
Compare with Drug prohibitions, where there are exemptions, to this,
where there are specific conditions to be met.
ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Ian Jackson) wrote:
> >Considering you haven't provided a reference to prove it is
> prohibited...
>
> I think you should check whether your news server is working
> properly.
> It seems to be missing my article.
that states that in certain circumstances and under limited circumstances
> >Considering you haven't provided a reference to prove it is
> prohibited...
>
> I think you should check whether your news server is working
> properly.
> It seems to be missing my article.
it can be sanctioned.
It certainly doesn't prohibit it.
Compare with Drug prohibitions, where there are exemptions, to this,
where there are specific conditions to be met.
Gefreiter Krueger
Nov 20, 2013, 1:25:01 PM11/20/13
to
On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 14:30:04 -0000, Wm <tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 17/11/2013 03:20, David L. Martel wrote:
>
>> I've no idea whether they have calibration procedures. If the downloaded
>> meter does register a lot of noise the OP should look into buying or renting
>> a "real" meter. I'm mostly trying to decide whether Sue is sensitive to
>> noise. An uncalibrated meter may do that.
>
> I'm not sure about the OP but noise disturbance can be more complex than
> dB alone though this seems to be how councils, etc. prefer to measure
> it, presumably for their own convenience.
>
> I have a standing offer from my landlord for use of a "real" meter for a
> week which I am sure would be useful if my neighbour was pumping out
> loud music at 2 in the morning. That isn't the problem, though. The
> problem is the neighbours child running around, volume is relatively
> low, but it is a bit like having someone tapping you on the head at
> unexpected times. The child knows she shouldn't run indoors and
> responds when I say, "don't run, please" (there is little sound
> insulation between the flats) by stopping ... for a while.
>
> For me the disturbance is equivalent to someone knocking on my door at
> unexpected times, waiting a bit and then doing it again and again and again.
>
> A noise meter is no use in situations like this. My neighbour denies
> her child runs inside so we have an impasse where, effectively, my
> neighbour has abrogated part of her child's behaviour to a neighbour
> (me) she won't even talk to.
>
> In conclusion I ask that people don't see all neighbourly or similar
> noise as a simplistic volume issue.
I see where you're coming from. I have a neighbour who constantly forgets his burglar alarm code. I've given up telling him not to use it, and complaining to the council who don't bother doing anything. I even tried calling the police once to say he was being burgled, but they couldn't be bothered coming out. They told me a burglar alarm is not evidence of a burglary, even when I pointed out there were people moving around suspiciously inside (which I didn't tell them were the occupants). Now I just put my stereo on full blast and pass on the annoyance to everyone else.
> On 17/11/2013 03:20, David L. Martel wrote:
>
>> I've no idea whether they have calibration procedures. If the downloaded
>> meter does register a lot of noise the OP should look into buying or renting
>> a "real" meter. I'm mostly trying to decide whether Sue is sensitive to
>> noise. An uncalibrated meter may do that.
>
> I'm not sure about the OP but noise disturbance can be more complex than
> dB alone though this seems to be how councils, etc. prefer to measure
> it, presumably for their own convenience.
>
> I have a standing offer from my landlord for use of a "real" meter for a
> week which I am sure would be useful if my neighbour was pumping out
> loud music at 2 in the morning. That isn't the problem, though. The
> problem is the neighbours child running around, volume is relatively
> low, but it is a bit like having someone tapping you on the head at
> unexpected times. The child knows she shouldn't run indoors and
> responds when I say, "don't run, please" (there is little sound
> insulation between the flats) by stopping ... for a while.
>
> For me the disturbance is equivalent to someone knocking on my door at
> unexpected times, waiting a bit and then doing it again and again and again.
>
> A noise meter is no use in situations like this. My neighbour denies
> her child runs inside so we have an impasse where, effectively, my
> neighbour has abrogated part of her child's behaviour to a neighbour
> (me) she won't even talk to.
>
> In conclusion I ask that people don't see all neighbourly or similar
> noise as a simplistic volume issue.
I see where you're coming from. I have a neighbour who constantly forgets his burglar alarm code. I've given up telling him not to use it, and complaining to the council who don't bother doing anything. I even tried calling the police once to say he was being burgled, but they couldn't be bothered coming out. They told me a burglar alarm is not evidence of a burglary, even when I pointed out there were people moving around suspiciously inside (which I didn't tell them were the occupants). Now I just put my stereo on full blast and pass on the annoyance to everyone else.
Gefreiter Krueger
Nov 20, 2013, 1:30:06 PM11/20/13
to
On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 22:55:02 -0000, <spuorg...@gowanhill.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, November 17, 2013 4:10:04 PM UTC, Percy Picacity wrote:
>> I think that if one cannot stand the noise of children joyfully running
>> about the only solution is to live in one of those Florida-style
>> retirement complexes.
>
> The sort where you get a notice of violation if you speed above 2 mph in a golf buggy?
>
> I don't mind children running around on Saturday afternoons. I do mind them causing havoc at midnight.
Make your own noise to drown them out. If she complains tell her why you did it, she'll get the picture.
> On Sunday, November 17, 2013 4:10:04 PM UTC, Percy Picacity wrote:
>> I think that if one cannot stand the noise of children joyfully running
>> about the only solution is to live in one of those Florida-style
>> retirement complexes.
>
>
> I don't mind children running around on Saturday afternoons. I do mind them causing havoc at midnight.
Make your own noise to drown them out. If she complains tell her why you did it, she'll get the picture.
Gefreiter Krueger
Nov 20, 2013, 1:30:06 PM11/20/13
to
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 15:15:06 -0000, Paul Cummins <agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <87bo1f2...@news2.kororaa.com>, aug...@kororaa.com (August
> West) wrote:
>
>> Road Traffic (Vehicle Emissions) (Fixed
>> Penalty) (England) Regulations 2002.
>
> That doesn't prohibit it.
>
> The "stationary idling" regulations relate to Regulation 98 of the Road
> Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986.
>
> This only requires idling to be prevented to prevent noise on the
> highway.
>
> There are clear exemptions.
>
> Stationary idling has therefore not been prohibited except in specific
> circumstances, which do not apply to the OP.
What does it say about sitting in a queue on the motorway when they've closed it due to an accident?
> In article <87bo1f2...@news2.kororaa.com>, aug...@kororaa.com (August
> West) wrote:
>
>> Road Traffic (Vehicle Emissions) (Fixed
>> Penalty) (England) Regulations 2002.
>
> That doesn't prohibit it.
>
> The "stationary idling" regulations relate to Regulation 98 of the Road
> Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986.
>
> This only requires idling to be prevented to prevent noise on the
> highway.
>
> There are clear exemptions.
>
> Stationary idling has therefore not been prohibited except in specific
> circumstances, which do not apply to the OP.
Gefreiter Krueger
Nov 20, 2013, 1:20:02 PM11/20/13
to
Gefreiter Krueger
Nov 20, 2013, 1:20:10 PM11/20/13
to
On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 10:00:15 -0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <beosv1...@mid.individual.net>, at 09:45:12 on Sat, 16
> Nov 2013, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> remarked:
>> What's a Subaru?
> ...
>> If you can describe here why it is a nuisance to you and why it
>> particularly upsets you, maybe there is a chance that you could also
>> persuade a court.
>
> My first thought was that perhaps it was an especially clattery diesel.
>
> I had a neighbour with a noisy diesel once, and every morning he'd leave
> it running to "warm up" before he left the house. I expect the extra
> wear this is likely to cause, might contributes to the engine getting
> progressively louder as the months go by.
Less wear than colliding with something he can't see through the frosted window.
> In message <beosv1...@mid.individual.net>, at 09:45:12 on Sat, 16
> Nov 2013, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> remarked:
>> What's a Subaru?
> ...
>> If you can describe here why it is a nuisance to you and why it
>> particularly upsets you, maybe there is a chance that you could also
>> persuade a court.
>
> My first thought was that perhaps it was an especially clattery diesel.
>
> I had a neighbour with a noisy diesel once, and every morning he'd leave
> it running to "warm up" before he left the house. I expect the extra
> wear this is likely to cause, might contributes to the engine getting
> progressively louder as the months go by.
Less wear than colliding with something he can't see through the frosted window.
Gefreiter Krueger
Nov 20, 2013, 1:20:10 PM11/20/13
to
On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 20:15:06 -0000, Paul Cummins <agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <XWw*m3...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
> ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Ian Jackson) wrote:
>
>> I.e. I don't think
>> "it will wear more quickly or be less efficient if I don't idle it"
>> is
>> a "purpose other than driving the vehicle".
>
> In July 2005, my diesel engined car was left idling in London for over 36
> hours.
>
> This was entirely legal, and necessary. I leave you to consider why.
>
> Are you really saying that 31 seconds of idling to protect the
> turbo-charger is unacceptable?
Probably one of these stupid laws nobody adheres to, and no sane policeman would do you for.
> In article <XWw*m3...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
> ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Ian Jackson) wrote:
>
>> I.e. I don't think
>> "it will wear more quickly or be less efficient if I don't idle it"
>> is
>> a "purpose other than driving the vehicle".
>
> In July 2005, my diesel engined car was left idling in London for over 36
> hours.
>
> This was entirely legal, and necessary. I leave you to consider why.
>
> Are you really saying that 31 seconds of idling to protect the
> turbo-charger is unacceptable?
Mark Goodge
Nov 20, 2013, 4:05:04 PM11/20/13
to
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 12:55:12 +0000, Ian Jackson put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>In article <X4idnfNtK6ob8xfP...@giganews.com>,
>Tosspot <Frank...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>I am very drunk, but I thought that permitted set of exceptions applied
>>to road users, and if it's sitting on my private drive, it isn't a road
>>user.
>
>Yes, the whole RV(C&U)R apply only to vehicles on roads. So this
>doesn't help the OP. But this doesn't help the designers of cars
>which "need" to idle at the beginnings or ends of journeys[1]. A car
>which you could only leave on the drive, and not park in a public car
>park, would be very inconvenient.
>
>[1] I have no idea whether such cars actually exist.
Some people claim they do[2]. Others claim they don't[3]. But it's worth
noting that even the former measure the idle time in seconds, not minutes
(and certainly not double-digit minutes). I think that the courts would
probably consider that de minimus, especially given that you can exceed
that time just by going through the normal pre-movement checks before
driving off from a standstill or doing things like turning off the wipers,
lights, radio etc after coming to a standstill.
[2] http://tinyurl.com/qbg3urj or
http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/technical-stuff/131875-why-you-must-practice-idling-rule-turbo-charged-cars.html
[3] http://tinyurl.com/ovvxyb2 or
http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/13910/does-a-turbo-charged-engine-require-a-cooling-down-period
typed:
>In article <X4idnfNtK6ob8xfP...@giganews.com>,
>Tosspot <Frank...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>I am very drunk, but I thought that permitted set of exceptions applied
>>to road users, and if it's sitting on my private drive, it isn't a road
>>user.
>
>Yes, the whole RV(C&U)R apply only to vehicles on roads. So this
>doesn't help the OP. But this doesn't help the designers of cars
>which "need" to idle at the beginnings or ends of journeys[1]. A car
>which you could only leave on the drive, and not park in a public car
>park, would be very inconvenient.
>
>[1] I have no idea whether such cars actually exist.
noting that even the former measure the idle time in seconds, not minutes
(and certainly not double-digit minutes). I think that the courts would
probably consider that de minimus, especially given that you can exceed
that time just by going through the normal pre-movement checks before
driving off from a standstill or doing things like turning off the wipers,
lights, radio etc after coming to a standstill.
[2] http://tinyurl.com/qbg3urj or
http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/technical-stuff/131875-why-you-must-practice-idling-rule-turbo-charged-cars.html
[3] http://tinyurl.com/ovvxyb2 or
http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/13910/does-a-turbo-charged-engine-require-a-cooling-down-period
Paul Cummins
Nov 20, 2013, 4:30:25 PM11/20/13
to
In article <op.w6u06...@red.lan>, n...@spam.com (Gefreiter Krueger)
wrote:
> What does it say about sitting in a queue on the motorway when
> they've closed it due to an accident?
That's permissible - sitting in traffic.
wrote:
> What does it say about sitting in a queue on the motorway when
> they've closed it due to an accident?
Gefreiter Krueger
Nov 20, 2013, 4:40:05 PM11/20/13
to
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 21:30:25 -0000, Paul Cummins <agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <op.w6u06...@red.lan>, n...@spam.com (Gefreiter Krueger)
> wrote:
>
>> What does it say about sitting in a queue on the motorway when
>> they've closed it due to an accident?
>
> That's permissible - sitting in traffic.
And if it's shut for hours?
> In article <op.w6u06...@red.lan>, n...@spam.com (Gefreiter Krueger)
> wrote:
>
>> What does it say about sitting in a queue on the motorway when
>> they've closed it due to an accident?
>
> That's permissible - sitting in traffic.
--
If it's zero degrees outside today and it's supposed to be twice as cold tomorrow, how cold is it going to be?
0 new messages