Why I’m reluctant to bet on a LAB majority – pt1 – politicalbetting.com

RobD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RobD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Anabobazina said:

BlancheLivermore said:

I think we should renationalise Royal Mail

But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark

It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition

I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it

We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?

Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second

The engine running thing from deliverymen is effing maddening and should be made illegal IMO

Already is I think - a "must not" in the Highway Code.

That's debatable.

Rule 123
The driver and the environment. You MUST NOT leave a parked vehicle unattended with the engine running or leave a vehicle engine running unnecessarily while that vehicle is stationary on a public road. Generally, if the vehicle is stationary and is likely to remain so for more than a couple of minutes, you should apply the parking brake and switch off the engine to reduce emissions and noise pollution. However it is permissible to leave the engine running if the vehicle is stationary in traffic or for diagnosing faults.

The question is what is "unnecessarily". Eg in midwinter I will start my engine a couple of minutes before leaving the house, to warm it up and defrost everything, that is I would say "necessary".

Similarly if you're stepping out of the car for 30 seconds to drop a parcel then getting back is it unnecessary to leave it running? At first glance would have thought so, but on second thought given the damage stop/start can cause and the further reference to "... more than a couple of minutes ..." in the rule, then arguably a delivery person doing their job falls under necessary.

Common sense should apply here I think.

It doesn't matter what unnecessarily means, the first part of the rule says you shouldn't leave a car unattended with the engine running. The unnecessarily bit is when you are in it.

If a driver is stood next to the vehicle, have they left it unattended?

If a driver gets out, picks up their parcel they're dropping off, puts it in front of the door, rings the bell, takes a photo to show they've dropped it off and then is back in their car all within a minute and without ever leaving sight of their vehicle, then have they actually left it unattended?

I don't know incidentally, genuinely asking a question. I always switch my vehicle off if I'm leaving it, but then I'm not doing deliveries.

That's got nothing to do with the definition of "unnecessarily" is. To me unattended means not in the immediate vicinity of, i.e. next to.

eek said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

I feel like with this latest crisis the government has crossed the Rubicon into the kind of territory where there is no way back. I wouldn't bet against a Labour majority.

If Sunak stays, I would see Labour getting a majority. If he goes, then all bets are off, as what happens next is an unknown quantity. The new leader could be better, or *gulps* worse.

Love to know who you think would be able to get middle of the road Tories more likely to vote than Sunak...

There are a few options that could get right wing UKIP voters out to vote Tory but I don't think that would help them in winnable seats..

Dura_Ace said:

Sandpit said:

Dura_Ace said:

BlancheLivermore said:

I think we should renationalise Royal Mail

But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark

It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition

I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it

We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?

Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second

500-800 CCA to start a diesel engine. That is a lot of load on the battery/voltage reg if you are doing it a hundred times a day. I'd leave it running.

They should buy vehicles designed for stop/go operation, with appropriate battery/starter/ignition systems. The technology’s been in cars for a decade now - although I always turn it off as well, don’t trust it to suddenly fire up the engine on the throttle as the lights go green in front.

Some manufacturers just implement stop/go in the ecu without any hardware changes. Hence why starters are a consumable item in Ford Rangers.

RobD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RobD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RobD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Anabobazina said:

BlancheLivermore said:

I think we should renationalise Royal Mail

But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark

It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition

I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it

We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?

Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second

The engine running thing from deliverymen is effing maddening and should be made illegal IMO

Already is I think - a "must not" in the Highway Code.

That's debatable.

Rule 123
The driver and the environment. You MUST NOT leave a parked vehicle unattended with the engine running or leave a vehicle engine running unnecessarily while that vehicle is stationary on a public road. Generally, if the vehicle is stationary and is likely to remain so for more than a couple of minutes, you should apply the parking brake and switch off the engine to reduce emissions and noise pollution. However it is permissible to leave the engine running if the vehicle is stationary in traffic or for diagnosing faults.

The question is what is "unnecessarily". Eg in midwinter I will start my engine a couple of minutes before leaving the house, to warm it up and defrost everything, that is I would say "necessary".

Similarly if you're stepping out of the car for 30 seconds to drop a parcel then getting back is it unnecessary to leave it running? At first glance would have thought so, but on second thought given the damage stop/start can cause and the further reference to "... more than a couple of minutes ..." in the rule, then arguably a delivery person doing their job falls under necessary.

Common sense should apply here I think.

It doesn't matter what unnecessarily means, the first part of the rule says you shouldn't leave a car unattended with the engine running. The unnecessarily bit is when you are in it.

If a driver is stood next to the vehicle, have they left it unattended?

If a driver gets out, picks up their parcel they're dropping off, puts it in front of the door, rings the bell, takes a photo to show they've dropped it off and then is back in their car all within a minute and without ever leaving sight of their vehicle, then have they actually left it unattended?

I don't know incidentally, genuinely asking a question. I always switch my vehicle off if I'm leaving it, but then I'm not doing deliveries.

That's got nothing to do with the definition of "unnecessarily" is. To me unattended means not in the immediate vicinity of, i.e. next to.

So someone who pulls up to the kerb of a house, gets out, opens a door to their van, gets the parcel out of their van, puts the good down at the front door, and gets back into their van and drives off all within ~60 seconds - they've never left the immediate vicinity of the van have they?

Depends on your definition of immediate vicinity

Certainly if you can't see the car anymore it is unattended. Might be interesting to see if there's any relevant case law.

Foxy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

BlancheLivermore said:

I think we should renationalise Royal Mail

But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark

It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition

I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it

We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?

Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second

Well said.

I remember making the point about the inefficiency of multiple parcels vans right here a number of years ago, only to be castigated by the capitalist herd, telling me that I didn't understand the efficiencies of the free market.

Because multiple parcel vans are efficient. They mean that you can get whatever you want same or next day far quicker than getting it posted via Royal Mail.

If the alternative is instead of having a private parcel van that's doing 30-40 deliveries all in the same postcode area is each of those people makes a trip to the shops, then that's less efficient.

It's part of the reason the roads are clogged up. A large chunk of the additional mileage in the last few years, particularly on minor roads, is delivery vans.

Of course, your answer will be "mOre RoAdS".

Its the only answer, yes.

Each of those delivery vans is typically operating efficiently, businesses spend a fortune to ensure its efficient. Its the consumers who have decided that instead of going to the shops and buying everything once a week in one shopping trip, that buying an individual item when they want/need it is what they'll do instead.

Unless you want to lower customer service back to 20th century and mean that people have to travel to the shops, then we need the roads to work for people and what they're buying.

On the whole people buying less tat over the Internet would be a good thing. Better for the environment, trade deficit,health and personal finances in so many ways if people shop in person when they truly need stuff.

Malmesbury said:

A

SandyRentool said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

BlancheLivermore said:

I think we should renationalise Royal Mail

But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark

It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition

I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it

We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?

Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second

Well said.

I remember making the point about the inefficiency of multiple parcels vans right here a number of years ago, only to be castigated by the capitalist herd, telling me that I didn't understand the efficiencies of the free market.

Because multiple parcel vans are efficient. They mean that you can get whatever you want same or next day far quicker than getting it posted via Royal Mail.

If the alternative is instead of having a private parcel van that's doing 30-40 deliveries all in the same postcode area is each of those people makes a trip to the shops, then that's less efficient.

Nonsense. Five vans driving around five housing estates, delivering 20% of the parcels to each is a ridiculous set up when the alternative is one van delivering all of the parcels on each estate.

Why? If each van is full when it departs its depot, then the same number of vans is needed either way.

If the five vans are eg coming from five different depots, then how is it more efficient to unnecessarily move the goods to the one central depot, resort the goods yet again, then send out five vans still as a secondary step, now from another hub? How does that actually improve matters?

Sometimes what may seem inefficient above the surface can actually be supremely efficient below the surface, or vice-versa.

It's obvious. Each van travels five times the distance. More time, more fuel, more traffic. And there wouldn't be five depots with a single integrated delivery system.

Sometimes a well run, well regulated monopoly is best. Avoiding unnecessary duplication is a good thing.

You’re assuming the vans are 1/5 full or less.

SandyRentool said:

Malmesbury said:

A

SandyRentool said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

BlancheLivermore said:

I think we should renationalise Royal Mail

But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark

It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition

I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it

We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?

Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second

Well said.

I remember making the point about the inefficiency of multiple parcels vans right here a number of years ago, only to be castigated by the capitalist herd, telling me that I didn't understand the efficiencies of the free market.

Because multiple parcel vans are efficient. They mean that you can get whatever you want same or next day far quicker than getting it posted via Royal Mail.

If the alternative is instead of having a private parcel van that's doing 30-40 deliveries all in the same postcode area is each of those people makes a trip to the shops, then that's less efficient.

Nonsense. Five vans driving around five housing estates, delivering 20% of the parcels to each is a ridiculous set up when the alternative is one van delivering all of the parcels on each estate.

Why? If each van is full when it departs its depot, then the same number of vans is needed either way.

If the five vans are eg coming from five different depots, then how is it more efficient to unnecessarily move the goods to the one central depot, resort the goods yet again, then send out five vans still as a secondary step, now from another hub? How does that actually improve matters?

Sometimes what may seem inefficient above the surface can actually be supremely efficient below the surface, or vice-versa.

It's obvious. Each van travels five times the distance. More time, more fuel, more traffic. And there wouldn't be five depots with a single integrated delivery system.

Sometimes a well run, well regulated monopoly is best. Avoiding unnecessary duplication is a good thing.

You’re assuming the vans are 1/5 full or less.

No I'm not. Each van is full. But rather than each van dropping parcels around five housing estates, each van drops all of the parcels in one estate. Same number of vans, same number of parcels, less distance travelled.

SandyRentool said:

Malmesbury said:

A

SandyRentool said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

BlancheLivermore said:

I think we should renationalise Royal Mail

But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark

It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition

I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it

We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?

Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second

Well said.

I remember making the point about the inefficiency of multiple parcels vans right here a number of years ago, only to be castigated by the capitalist herd, telling me that I didn't understand the efficiencies of the free market.

Because multiple parcel vans are efficient. They mean that you can get whatever you want same or next day far quicker than getting it posted via Royal Mail.

If the alternative is instead of having a private parcel van that's doing 30-40 deliveries all in the same postcode area is each of those people makes a trip to the shops, then that's less efficient.

Nonsense. Five vans driving around five housing estates, delivering 20% of the parcels to each is a ridiculous set up when the alternative is one van delivering all of the parcels on each estate.

Why? If each van is full when it departs its depot, then the same number of vans is needed either way.

If the five vans are eg coming from five different depots, then how is it more efficient to unnecessarily move the goods to the one central depot, resort the goods yet again, then send out five vans still as a secondary step, now from another hub? How does that actually improve matters?

Sometimes what may seem inefficient above the surface can actually be supremely efficient below the surface, or vice-versa.

It's obvious. Each van travels five times the distance. More time, more fuel, more traffic. And there wouldn't be five depots with a single integrated delivery system.

Sometimes a well run, well regulated monopoly is best. Avoiding unnecessary duplication is a good thing.

You’re assuming the vans are 1/5 full or less.

No I'm not. Each van is full. But rather than each van dropping parcels around five housing estates, each van drops all of the parcels in one estate. Same number of vans, same number of parcels, less distance travelled.

david_herdson said:

londonpubman said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

On topic

Sunil_Prasannan said:

On topic

Similarly on topic:

Lots of days since CON led an opinion poll!

It's coming up to the one year anniversary, later this month, of the last time Labour *didn't* have a double-digit lead in any UK/GB opinion poll.

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

BlancheLivermore said:

I think we should renationalise Royal Mail

But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark

It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition

I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it

We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?

Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second

Well said.

I remember making the point about the inefficiency of multiple parcels vans right here a number of years ago, only to be castigated by the capitalist herd, telling me that I didn't understand the efficiencies of the free market.

Because multiple parcel vans are efficient. They mean that you can get whatever you want same or next day far quicker than getting it posted via Royal Mail.

If the alternative is instead of having a private parcel van that's doing 30-40 deliveries all in the same postcode area is each of those people makes a trip to the shops, then that's less efficient.

It's part of the reason the roads are clogged up. A large chunk of the additional mileage in the last few years, particularly on minor roads, is delivery vans.

Of course, your answer will be "mOre RoAdS".

Its the only answer, yes.

Each of those delivery vans is typically operating efficiently, businesses spend a fortune to ensure its efficient. Its the consumers who have decided that instead of going to the shops and buying everything once a week in one shopping trip, that buying an individual item when they want/need it is what they'll do instead.

Unless you want to lower customer service back to 20th century and mean that people have to travel to the shops, then we need the roads to work for people and what they're buying.

BartholomewRoberts said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

I feel like with this latest crisis the government has crossed the Rubicon into the kind of territory where there is no way back. I wouldn't bet against a Labour majority.

I think there is a way back if the Tories have a change of leadership.

However since that's improbable, then Labour majority should be odds-on IMHO.

Foxy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

BlancheLivermore said:

I think we should renationalise Royal Mail

But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark

It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition

I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it

We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?

Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second

Well said.

I remember making the point about the inefficiency of multiple parcels vans right here a number of years ago, only to be castigated by the capitalist herd, telling me that I didn't understand the efficiencies of the free market.

Because multiple parcel vans are efficient. They mean that you can get whatever you want same or next day far quicker than getting it posted via Royal Mail.

If the alternative is instead of having a private parcel van that's doing 30-40 deliveries all in the same postcode area is each of those people makes a trip to the shops, then that's less efficient.

It's part of the reason the roads are clogged up. A large chunk of the additional mileage in the last few years, particularly on minor roads, is delivery vans.

Of course, your answer will be "mOre RoAdS".

Its the only answer, yes.

Each of those delivery vans is typically operating efficiently, businesses spend a fortune to ensure its efficient. Its the consumers who have decided that instead of going to the shops and buying everything once a week in one shopping trip, that buying an individual item when they want/need it is what they'll do instead.

Unless you want to lower customer service back to 20th century and mean that people have to travel to the shops, then we need the roads to work for people and what they're buying.

On the whole people buying less tat over the Internet would be a good thing. Better for the environment, trade deficit,health and personal finances in so many ways if people shop in person when they truly need stuff.

Phil said:

Flatlander said:

Sandpit said:

Dura_Ace said:

BlancheLivermore said:

I think we should renationalise Royal Mail

But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark

It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition

I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it

We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?

Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second

500-800 CCA to start a diesel engine. That is a lot of load on the battery/voltage reg if you are doing it a hundred times a day. I'd leave it running.

They should buy vehicles designed for stop/go operation, with appropriate battery/starter/ignition systems. The technology’s been in cars for a decade now - although I always turn it off as well, don’t trust it to suddenly fire up the engine on the throttle as the lights go green in front.

I always turn mine off. In fact, I've a mind to hacking the car to turn it off permanently (apparently it is only a single bit flip).

It has a habit of turning the engine off when coasting to a junction - particularly roundabouts. I lose power steering and cannot pull out swiftly if required. It is thus quite dangerous.

Also, after having had an unexpected starter motor failure in the middle lane of the M62, I don't even like turning the engine off when stuck in a queue on a main road unless it is a 'people wandering about the central reservation' type stoppage.

I wonder how yours is implemented? The Start/Stop on ours will only kick in if the vehicle is in neutral & the clutch up. Put the clutch down again & it starts the engine before you’ve got first gear engaged. It’s surprisingly natural in use.

Any implementation that cuts the engine out altogether during normal driving is broken, surely? (Excepting the normal case where the ECU cuts fuel to the engine when you run downhill - all the usual driver aids like power steering & brake assist still work in that case.)

Andy_JS said:

"Laughing gas will be categorised as a class C drug and made illegal by the end of the year, the UK government has announced.

Possession of nitrous oxide, also known as NOS, will carry a sentence of up to two years in prison. Laughing gas is one of the most commonly used recreational drugs by 16 to 24-year-olds. Heavy use can lead to a range of illnesses including nerve-related symptoms. Supply of nitrous oxide for recreational use is currently banned - but possession is not."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66718165

Malmesbury said:

Foxy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

BlancheLivermore said:

I think we should renationalise Royal Mail

But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark

It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition

I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it

We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?

Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second

Well said.

I remember making the point about the inefficiency of multiple parcels vans right here a number of years ago, only to be castigated by the capitalist herd, telling me that I didn't understand the efficiencies of the free market.

Because multiple parcel vans are efficient. They mean that you can get whatever you want same or next day far quicker than getting it posted via Royal Mail.

If the alternative is instead of having a private parcel van that's doing 30-40 deliveries all in the same postcode area is each of those people makes a trip to the shops, then that's less efficient.

It's part of the reason the roads are clogged up. A large chunk of the additional mileage in the last few years, particularly on minor roads, is delivery vans.

Of course, your answer will be "mOre RoAdS".

Its the only answer, yes.

Each of those delivery vans is typically operating efficiently, businesses spend a fortune to ensure its efficient. Its the consumers who have decided that instead of going to the shops and buying everything once a week in one shopping trip, that buying an individual item when they want/need it is what they'll do instead.

Unless you want to lower customer service back to 20th century and mean that people have to travel to the shops, then we need the roads to work for people and what they're buying.

On the whole people buying less tat over the Internet would be a good thing. Better for the environment, trade deficit,health and personal finances in so many ways if people shop in person when they truly need stuff.

Has anyone done a fact based analysis of shopping deliveries?

I strongly suspect that nearly all is stuff people will have bought in the shops anyway. But “suspect” isn’t data.

BartholomewRoberts said:

RobD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RobD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Anabobazina said:

BlancheLivermore said:

I think we should renationalise Royal Mail

But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark

It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition

I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it

We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?

Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second

The engine running thing from deliverymen is effing maddening and should be made illegal IMO

Already is I think - a "must not" in the Highway Code.

That's debatable.

Rule 123
The driver and the environment. You MUST NOT leave a parked vehicle unattended with the engine running or leave a vehicle engine running unnecessarily while that vehicle is stationary on a public road. Generally, if the vehicle is stationary and is likely to remain so for more than a couple of minutes, you should apply the parking brake and switch off the engine to reduce emissions and noise pollution. However it is permissible to leave the engine running if the vehicle is stationary in traffic or for diagnosing faults.

The question is what is "unnecessarily". Eg in midwinter I will start my engine a couple of minutes before leaving the house, to warm it up and defrost everything, that is I would say "necessary".

Similarly if you're stepping out of the car for 30 seconds to drop a parcel then getting back is it unnecessary to leave it running? At first glance would have thought so, but on second thought given the damage stop/start can cause and the further reference to "... more than a couple of minutes ..." in the rule, then arguably a delivery person doing their job falls under necessary.

Common sense should apply here I think.

It doesn't matter what unnecessarily means, the first part of the rule says you shouldn't leave a car unattended with the engine running. The unnecessarily bit is when you are in it.

If a driver is stood next to the vehicle, have they left it unattended?

If a driver gets out, picks up their parcel they're dropping off, puts it in front of the door, rings the bell, takes a photo to show they've dropped it off and then is back in their car all within a minute and without ever leaving sight of their vehicle, then have they actually left it unattended?

I don't know incidentally, genuinely asking a question. I always switch my vehicle off if I'm leaving it, but then I'm not doing deliveries.

That's got nothing to do with the definition of "unnecessarily" is. To me unattended means not in the immediate vicinity of, i.e. next to.

So someone who pulls up to the kerb of a house, gets out, opens a door to their van, gets the parcel out of their van, puts the good down at the front door, and gets back into their van and drives off all within ~60 seconds - they've never left the immediate vicinity of the van have they?

rcs1000 said:

If you want to be positive on the Conservatives, it's not unreasonable to assume that they get two-thirds of both the DK/WV and the Reform vote. In that case, they're getting about 70% of their previous vote out. Add a bit for new voters and switchers to Con (yes they do exist), and that works out at about 32-33%.

Which - especially if there's some anti-Conservative tactical voting - is probably not quite enough to prevent a Labour majority.

Peter_the_Punter said:

Phil said:

Flatlander said:

Sandpit said:

Dura_Ace said:

BlancheLivermore said:

I think we should renationalise Royal Mail

But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark

It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition

I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it

We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?

Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second

500-800 CCA to start a diesel engine. That is a lot of load on the battery/voltage reg if you are doing it a hundred times a day. I'd leave it running.

They should buy vehicles designed for stop/go operation, with appropriate battery/starter/ignition systems. The technology’s been in cars for a decade now - although I always turn it off as well, don’t trust it to suddenly fire up the engine on the throttle as the lights go green in front.

I always turn mine off. In fact, I've a mind to hacking the car to turn it off permanently (apparently it is only a single bit flip).

It has a habit of turning the engine off when coasting to a junction - particularly roundabouts. I lose power steering and cannot pull out swiftly if required. It is thus quite dangerous.

Also, after having had an unexpected starter motor failure in the middle lane of the M62, I don't even like turning the engine off when stuck in a queue on a main road unless it is a 'people wandering about the central reservation' type stoppage.

I wonder how yours is implemented? The Start/Stop on ours will only kick in if the vehicle is in neutral & the clutch up. Put the clutch down again & it starts the engine before you’ve got first gear engaged. It’s surprisingly natural in use.

Any implementation that cuts the engine out altogether during normal driving is broken, surely? (Excepting the normal case where the ECU cuts fuel to the engine when you run downhill - all the usual driver aids like power steering & brake assist still work in that case.)

My car works the same as your, Phil, and I hate it (the cut-out system, not the car...it's fine otherwise.)

It saves bugger all fuel and it can be dangerous. Since the engine is quiet normally you don't always know when it has switched itself off, nor can you tell the difference between deliberate cut-out and a genuine stall. Panic can result.

Who ever dreamed up such a dumb idea?

rcs1000 said:

If you want to be positive on the Conservatives, it's not unreasonable to assume that they get two-thirds of both the DK/WV and the Reform vote. In that case, they're getting about 70% of their previous vote out. Add a bit for new voters and switchers to Con (yes they do exist), and that works out at about 32-33%.

Which - especially if there's some anti-Conservative tactical voting - is probably not quite enough to prevent a Labour majority.

Peter_the_Punter said:

Phil said:

Flatlander said:

Sandpit said:

Dura_Ace said:

BlancheLivermore said:

I think we should renationalise Royal Mail

But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark

It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition

I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it

We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?

Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second

500-800 CCA to start a diesel engine. That is a lot of load on the battery/voltage reg if you are doing it a hundred times a day. I'd leave it running.

They should buy vehicles designed for stop/go operation, with appropriate battery/starter/ignition systems. The technology’s been in cars for a decade now - although I always turn it off as well, don’t trust it to suddenly fire up the engine on the throttle as the lights go green in front.

I always turn mine off. In fact, I've a mind to hacking the car to turn it off permanently (apparently it is only a single bit flip).

It has a habit of turning the engine off when coasting to a junction - particularly roundabouts. I lose power steering and cannot pull out swiftly if required. It is thus quite dangerous.

Also, after having had an unexpected starter motor failure in the middle lane of the M62, I don't even like turning the engine off when stuck in a queue on a main road unless it is a 'people wandering about the central reservation' type stoppage.

I wonder how yours is implemented? The Start/Stop on ours will only kick in if the vehicle is in neutral & the clutch up. Put the clutch down again & it starts the engine before you’ve got first gear engaged. It’s surprisingly natural in use.

Any implementation that cuts the engine out altogether during normal driving is broken, surely? (Excepting the normal case where the ECU cuts fuel to the engine when you run downhill - all the usual driver aids like power steering & brake assist still work in that case.)

My car works the same as your, Phil, and I hate it (the cut-out system, not the car...it's fine otherwise.)

It saves bugger all fuel and it can be dangerous. Since the engine is quiet normally you don't always know when it has switched itself off, nor can you tell the difference between deliberate cut-out and a genuine stall. Panic can result.

Who ever dreamed up such a dumb idea?

Peter_the_Punter said:

Benpointer said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Phil said:

Flatlander said:

Sandpit said:

Dura_Ace said:

BlancheLivermore said:

I think we should renationalise Royal Mail

But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark

It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition

I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it

We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?

Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second

500-800 CCA to start a diesel engine. That is a lot of load on the battery/voltage reg if you are doing it a hundred times a day. I'd leave it running.

They should buy vehicles designed for stop/go operation, with appropriate battery/starter/ignition systems. The technology’s been in cars for a decade now - although I always turn it off as well, don’t trust it to suddenly fire up the engine on the throttle as the lights go green in front.

I always turn mine off. In fact, I've a mind to hacking the car to turn it off permanently (apparently it is only a single bit flip).

It has a habit of turning the engine off when coasting to a junction - particularly roundabouts. I lose power steering and cannot pull out swiftly if required. It is thus quite dangerous.

Also, after having had an unexpected starter motor failure in the middle lane of the M62, I don't even like turning the engine off when stuck in a queue on a main road unless it is a 'people wandering about the central reservation' type stoppage.

I wonder how yours is implemented? The Start/Stop on ours will only kick in if the vehicle is in neutral & the clutch up. Put the clutch down again & it starts the engine before you’ve got first gear engaged. It’s surprisingly natural in use.

Any implementation that cuts the engine out altogether during normal driving is broken, surely? (Excepting the normal case where the ECU cuts fuel to the engine when you run downhill - all the usual driver aids like power steering & brake assist still work in that case.)

My car works the same as your, Phil, and I hate it (the cut-out system, not the car...it's fine otherwise.)

It saves bugger all fuel and it can be dangerous. Since the engine is quiet normally you don't always know when it has switched itself off, nor can you tell the difference between deliberate cut-out and a genuine stall. Panic can result.

Who ever dreamed up such a dumb idea?

Good God, what a luddite! Why don't you just switch the stop/start off if you hate it so much?

Far too technical for me, Ben. I can just about operate the automatic windows.

Benpointer said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Benpointer said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Phil said:

Flatlander said:

Sandpit said:

Dura_Ace said:

BlancheLivermore said:

I think we should renationalise Royal Mail

But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark

It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition

I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it

We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?

Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second

500-800 CCA to start a diesel engine. That is a lot of load on the battery/voltage reg if you are doing it a hundred times a day. I'd leave it running.

They should buy vehicles designed for stop/go operation, with appropriate battery/starter/ignition systems. The technology’s been in cars for a decade now - although I always turn it off as well, don’t trust it to suddenly fire up the engine on the throttle as the lights go green in front.

I always turn mine off. In fact, I've a mind to hacking the car to turn it off permanently (apparently it is only a single bit flip).

It has a habit of turning the engine off when coasting to a junction - particularly roundabouts. I lose power steering and cannot pull out swiftly if required. It is thus quite dangerous.

Also, after having had an unexpected starter motor failure in the middle lane of the M62, I don't even like turning the engine off when stuck in a queue on a main road unless it is a 'people wandering about the central reservation' type stoppage.

I wonder how yours is implemented? The Start/Stop on ours will only kick in if the vehicle is in neutral & the clutch up. Put the clutch down again & it starts the engine before you’ve got first gear engaged. It’s surprisingly natural in use.

Any implementation that cuts the engine out altogether during normal driving is broken, surely? (Excepting the normal case where the ECU cuts fuel to the engine when you run downhill - all the usual driver aids like power steering & brake assist still work in that case.)

My car works the same as your, Phil, and I hate it (the cut-out system, not the car...it's fine otherwise.)

It saves bugger all fuel and it can be dangerous. Since the engine is quiet normally you don't always know when it has switched itself off, nor can you tell the difference between deliberate cut-out and a genuine stall. Panic can result.

Who ever dreamed up such a dumb idea?

Good God, what a luddite! Why don't you just switch the stop/start off if you hate it so much?

Far too technical for me, Ben. I can just about operate the automatic windows.

Look for a button that looks like this. And press it once when you get in the car.



Edit: I don't know why I'm telling you this - better to let Stop/Start do its thing and help the environment.

Anabobazina said:

Benpointer said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Phil said:

Flatlander said:

Sandpit said:

Dura_Ace said:

BlancheLivermore said:

I think we should renationalise Royal Mail

But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark

It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition

I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it

We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?

Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second

500-800 CCA to start a diesel engine. That is a lot of load on the battery/voltage reg if you are doing it a hundred times a day. I'd leave it running.

They should buy vehicles designed for stop/go operation, with appropriate battery/starter/ignition systems. The technology’s been in cars for a decade now - although I always turn it off as well, don’t trust it to suddenly fire up the engine on the throttle as the lights go green in front.

I always turn mine off. In fact, I've a mind to hacking the car to turn it off permanently (apparently it is only a single bit flip).

It has a habit of turning the engine off when coasting to a junction - particularly roundabouts. I lose power steering and cannot pull out swiftly if required. It is thus quite dangerous.

Also, after having had an unexpected starter motor failure in the middle lane of the M62, I don't even like turning the engine off when stuck in a queue on a main road unless it is a 'people wandering about the central reservation' type stoppage.

I wonder how yours is implemented? The Start/Stop on ours will only kick in if the vehicle is in neutral & the clutch up. Put the clutch down again & it starts the engine before you’ve got first gear engaged. It’s surprisingly natural in use.

Any implementation that cuts the engine out altogether during normal driving is broken, surely? (Excepting the normal case where the ECU cuts fuel to the engine when you run downhill - all the usual driver aids like power steering & brake assist still work in that case.)

My car works the same as your, Phil, and I hate it (the cut-out system, not the car...it's fine otherwise.)

It saves bugger all fuel and it can be dangerous. Since the engine is quiet normally you don't always know when it has switched itself off, nor can you tell the difference between deliberate cut-out and a genuine stall. Panic can result.

Who ever dreamed up such a dumb idea?

Good God, what a luddite! Why don't you just switch the stop/start off if you hate it so much?

Luddism is strong on PB; as is the ownership of cars that seemingly don't work.

Ghedebrav said:

Anabobazina said:

Benpointer said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Phil said:

Flatlander said:

Sandpit said:

Dura_Ace said:

BlancheLivermore said:

I think we should renationalise Royal Mail

But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark

It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition

I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it

We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?

Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second

500-800 CCA to start a diesel engine. That is a lot of load on the battery/voltage reg if you are doing it a hundred times a day. I'd leave it running.

They should buy vehicles designed for stop/go operation, with appropriate battery/starter/ignition systems. The technology’s been in cars for a decade now - although I always turn it off as well, don’t trust it to suddenly fire up the engine on the throttle as the lights go green in front.

I always turn mine off. In fact, I've a mind to hacking the car to turn it off permanently (apparently it is only a single bit flip).

It has a habit of turning the engine off when coasting to a junction - particularly roundabouts. I lose power steering and cannot pull out swiftly if required. It is thus quite dangerous.

Also, after having had an unexpected starter motor failure in the middle lane of the M62, I don't even like turning the engine off when stuck in a queue on a main road unless it is a 'people wandering about the central reservation' type stoppage.

I wonder how yours is implemented? The Start/Stop on ours will only kick in if the vehicle is in neutral & the clutch up. Put the clutch down again & it starts the engine before you’ve got first gear engaged. It’s surprisingly natural in use.

Any implementation that cuts the engine out altogether during normal driving is broken, surely? (Excepting the normal case where the ECU cuts fuel to the engine when you run downhill - all the usual driver aids like power steering & brake assist still work in that case.)

My car works the same as your, Phil, and I hate it (the cut-out system, not the car...it's fine otherwise.)

It saves bugger all fuel and it can be dangerous. Since the engine is quiet normally you don't always know when it has switched itself off, nor can you tell the difference between deliberate cut-out and a genuine stall. Panic can result.

Who ever dreamed up such a dumb idea?

Good God, what a luddite! Why don't you just switch the stop/start off if you hate it so much?

Luddism is strong on PB; as is the ownership of cars that seemingly don't work.

For balance, our car (a Kia Rio, bought second hand) has run trouble free for three years so far.

RochdalePioneers said:

The debate about stop-start systems is instructive. My 2009 i30 airport car has no automation beyond the choke. You want to stop/start you switch it off. So it means sitting at traffic lights with the engine pointlessly running.

Happily there are only a couple of sets of lights between me and the airport so it isn't an issue. But for those of you who drive these dino cars why on earth would you not welcome the S/S system doing its thing?

Less fuel burnt. Less crap pumped into the atmosphere. What is there to dislike?

Ghedebrav said:

Also re. the new Con leader talk - I’m fairly certain the party in its current state would elect someone even worse.

Benpointer said:

Flatlander said:

Phil said:

Flatlander said:

Sandpit said:

Dura_Ace said:

BlancheLivermore said:

I think we should renationalise Royal Mail

But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark

It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition

I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it

We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?

Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second

500-800 CCA to start a diesel engine. That is a lot of load on the battery/voltage reg if you are doing it a hundred times a day. I'd leave it running.

They should buy vehicles designed for stop/go operation, with appropriate battery/starter/ignition systems. The technology’s been in cars for a decade now - although I always turn it off as well, don’t trust it to suddenly fire up the engine on the throttle as the lights go green in front.

I always turn mine off. In fact, I've a mind to hacking the car to turn it off permanently (apparently it is only a single bit flip).

It has a habit of turning the engine off when coasting to a junction - particularly roundabouts. I lose power steering and cannot pull out swiftly if required. It is thus quite dangerous.

Also, after having had an unexpected starter motor failure in the middle lane of the M62, I don't even like turning the engine off when stuck in a queue on a main road unless it is a 'people wandering about the central reservation' type stoppage.

I wonder how yours is implemented? The Start/Stop on ours will only kick in if the vehicle is in neutral & the clutch up. Put the clutch down again & it starts the engine before you’ve got first gear engaged. It’s surprisingly natural in use.

Any implementation that cuts the engine out altogether during normal driving is broken, surely? (Excepting the normal case where the ECU cuts fuel to the engine when you run downhill - all the usual driver aids like power steering & brake assist still work in that case.)

I think the problem is that my car:

1 - Is a semi-automatic (VAG DSG) gearbox
2 - Has auto-coasting on lifting the accelerator

So technically it is in neutral with the clutch up even though it is still moving, which you wouldn't normally be doing with manual gears.

I prefer to have the auto-coasting than the auto-cutout , so I have to disable the latter. I suspect it is a bug that VAG don't know how to fix, because the auto-cutout is EU mandated.

1. DSG is fully automatic, not semi-automatic.
2. Adaptive cruise control (if you have it) is your friend here. When in heavy traffic it will follow the car in front, slow when it does, speed up when it moves away, stop if the car in front stop, and stop the engine, then re-start the engine when the car in front begins to move again. I wish I'd had ACC when I was commuting along the M62 every day - I could have got an extra 30 mins of sleep every morning on that commute.

IanB2 said:

Benpointer said:

Flatlander said:

Phil said:

Flatlander said:

Sandpit said:

Dura_Ace said:

BlancheLivermore said:

I think we should renationalise Royal Mail

But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark

It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition

I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it

We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?

Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second

500-800 CCA to start a diesel engine. That is a lot of load on the battery/voltage reg if you are doing it a hundred times a day. I'd leave it running.

They should buy vehicles designed for stop/go operation, with appropriate battery/starter/ignition systems. The technology’s been in cars for a decade now - although I always turn it off as well, don’t trust it to suddenly fire up the engine on the throttle as the lights go green in front.

I always turn mine off. In fact, I've a mind to hacking the car to turn it off permanently (apparently it is only a single bit flip).

It has a habit of turning the engine off when coasting to a junction - particularly roundabouts. I lose power steering and cannot pull out swiftly if required. It is thus quite dangerous.

Also, after having had an unexpected starter motor failure in the middle lane of the M62, I don't even like turning the engine off when stuck in a queue on a main road unless it is a 'people wandering about the central reservation' type stoppage.

I wonder how yours is implemented? The Start/Stop on ours will only kick in if the vehicle is in neutral & the clutch up. Put the clutch down again & it starts the engine before you’ve got first gear engaged. It’s surprisingly natural in use.

Any implementation that cuts the engine out altogether during normal driving is broken, surely? (Excepting the normal case where the ECU cuts fuel to the engine when you run downhill - all the usual driver aids like power steering & brake assist still work in that case.)

I think the problem is that my car:

1 - Is a semi-automatic (VAG DSG) gearbox
2 - Has auto-coasting on lifting the accelerator

So technically it is in neutral with the clutch up even though it is still moving, which you wouldn't normally be doing with manual gears.

I prefer to have the auto-coasting than the auto-cutout , so I have to disable the latter. I suspect it is a bug that VAG don't know how to fix, because the auto-cutout is EU mandated.

1. DSG is fully automatic, not semi-automatic.
2. Adaptive cruise control (if you have it) is your friend here. When in heavy traffic it will follow the car in front, slow when it does, speed up when it moves away, stop if the car in front stop, and stop the engine, then re-start the engine when the car in front begins to move again. I wish I'd had ACC when I was commuting along the M62 every day - I could have got an extra 30 mins of sleep every morning on that commute.

I have that on my Toyota, together with lane following. I first got given one as a hire car for my 2019 US trip, and it reduces the workload in driving considerably. After 7000 miles around the US, which it made super-easy (I could even turn round and feed the dog in the back seat while the car continued to follow the road), I returned to my British manual and I knew right away it had to go. Not slowing down by itself when there was traffic ahead on the motorway was the deal breaker.

Now I have my Toyota at home, yet for last year’s US trip I got given a hire car without lane following, and my driving was all over the place. It must have taken me a couple of weeks to get used to the car not doing most of the steering, during which I found myself in a few situations that in Europe would probably have been accidents; fortunately in the states there’s more time and space to take avoidance. Which may well presage a big problem if people ever start to get used to self-driving cars…

Benpointer said:

Flatlander said:

Phil said:

Flatlander said:

Sandpit said:

Dura_Ace said:

BlancheLivermore said:

I think we should renationalise Royal Mail

But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark

It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition

I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it

We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?

Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second

500-800 CCA to start a diesel engine. That is a lot of load on the battery/voltage reg if you are doing it a hundred times a day. I'd leave it running.

They should buy vehicles designed for stop/go operation, with appropriate battery/starter/ignition systems. The technology’s been in cars for a decade now - although I always turn it off as well, don’t trust it to suddenly fire up the engine on the throttle as the lights go green in front.

I always turn mine off. In fact, I've a mind to hacking the car to turn it off permanently (apparently it is only a single bit flip).

It has a habit of turning the engine off when coasting to a junction - particularly roundabouts. I lose power steering and cannot pull out swiftly if required. It is thus quite dangerous.

Also, after having had an unexpected starter motor failure in the middle lane of the M62, I don't even like turning the engine off when stuck in a queue on a main road unless it is a 'people wandering about the central reservation' type stoppage.

I wonder how yours is implemented? The Start/Stop on ours will only kick in if the vehicle is in neutral & the clutch up. Put the clutch down again & it starts the engine before you’ve got first gear engaged. It’s surprisingly natural in use.

Any implementation that cuts the engine out altogether during normal driving is broken, surely? (Excepting the normal case where the ECU cuts fuel to the engine when you run downhill - all the usual driver aids like power steering & brake assist still work in that case.)

I think the problem is that my car:

1 - Is a semi-automatic (VAG DSG) gearbox
2 - Has auto-coasting on lifting the accelerator

So technically it is in neutral with the clutch up even though it is still moving, which you wouldn't normally be doing with manual gears.

I prefer to have the auto-coasting than the auto-cutout , so I have to disable the latter. I suspect it is a bug that VAG don't know how to fix, because the auto-cutout is EU mandated.

1. DSG is fully automatic, not semi-automatic.
2. Adaptive cruise control (if you have it) is your friend here. When in heavy traffic it will follow the car in front, slow when it does, speed up when it moves away, stop if the car in front stop, and stop the engine, then re-start the engine when the car in front begins to move again. I wish I'd had ACC when I was commuting along the M62 every day - I could have got an extra 30 mins of sleep every morning on that commute.

Benpointer said:

eek said:

And in other insane news

Spain’s football association fired Jorge Vilda, the coach of the national women’s team, amid a scandal over the country’s football chief kissing a player.

Vilda's sacked but Rubiales is still there? Odd.

Anabobazina said:

Benpointer said:

Flatlander said:

Phil said:

Flatlander said:

Sandpit said:

Dura_Ace said:

BlancheLivermore said:

I think we should renationalise Royal Mail

But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark

It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition

I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it

We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?

Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second

500-800 CCA to start a diesel engine. That is a lot of load on the battery/voltage reg if you are doing it a hundred times a day. I'd leave it running.

They should buy vehicles designed for stop/go operation, with appropriate battery/starter/ignition systems. The technology’s been in cars for a decade now - although I always turn it off as well, don’t trust it to suddenly fire up the engine on the throttle as the lights go green in front.

I always turn mine off. In fact, I've a mind to hacking the car to turn it off permanently (apparently it is only a single bit flip).

It has a habit of turning the engine off when coasting to a junction - particularly roundabouts. I lose power steering and cannot pull out swiftly if required. It is thus quite dangerous.

Also, after having had an unexpected starter motor failure in the middle lane of the M62, I don't even like turning the engine off when stuck in a queue on a main road unless it is a 'people wandering about the central reservation' type stoppage.

I wonder how yours is implemented? The Start/Stop on ours will only kick in if the vehicle is in neutral & the clutch up. Put the clutch down again & it starts the engine before you’ve got first gear engaged. It’s surprisingly natural in use.

Any implementation that cuts the engine out altogether during normal driving is broken, surely? (Excepting the normal case where the ECU cuts fuel to the engine when you run downhill - all the usual driver aids like power steering & brake assist still work in that case.)

I think the problem is that my car:

1 - Is a semi-automatic (VAG DSG) gearbox
2 - Has auto-coasting on lifting the accelerator

So technically it is in neutral with the clutch up even though it is still moving, which you wouldn't normally be doing with manual gears.

I prefer to have the auto-coasting than the auto-cutout , so I have to disable the latter. I suspect it is a bug that VAG don't know how to fix, because the auto-cutout is EU mandated.

1. DSG is fully automatic, not semi-automatic.
2. Adaptive cruise control (if you have it) is your friend here. When in heavy traffic it will follow the car in front, slow when it does, speed up when it moves away, stop if the car in front stop, and stop the engine, then re-start the engine when the car in front begins to move again. I wish I'd had ACC when I was commuting along the M62 every day - I could have got an extra 30 mins of sleep every morning on that commute.

ACC is the dog's bollocks.

Benpointer said:

RochdalePioneers said:

The debate about stop-start systems is instructive. My 2009 i30 airport car has no automation beyond the choke. You want to stop/start you switch it off. So it means sitting at traffic lights with the engine pointlessly running.

Happily there are only a couple of sets of lights between me and the airport so it isn't an issue. But for those of you who drive these dino cars why on earth would you not welcome the S/S system doing its thing?

Less fuel burnt. Less crap pumped into the atmosphere. What is there to dislike?

Progress - some people don't like it.

Benpointer said:

Anabobazina said:

Benpointer said:

Flatlander said:

Phil said:

Flatlander said:

Sandpit said:

Dura_Ace said:

BlancheLivermore said:

I think we should renationalise Royal Mail

But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark

It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition

I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it

We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?

Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second

500-800 CCA to start a diesel engine. That is a lot of load on the battery/voltage reg if you are doing it a hundred times a day. I'd leave it running.

They should buy vehicles designed for stop/go operation, with appropriate battery/starter/ignition systems. The technology’s been in cars for a decade now - although I always turn it off as well, don’t trust it to suddenly fire up the engine on the throttle as the lights go green in front.

I always turn mine off. In fact, I've a mind to hacking the car to turn it off permanently (apparently it is only a single bit flip).

It has a habit of turning the engine off when coasting to a junction - particularly roundabouts. I lose power steering and cannot pull out swiftly if required. It is thus quite dangerous.

Also, after having had an unexpected starter motor failure in the middle lane of the M62, I don't even like turning the engine off when stuck in a queue on a main road unless it is a 'people wandering about the central reservation' type stoppage.

I wonder how yours is implemented? The Start/Stop on ours will only kick in if the vehicle is in neutral & the clutch up. Put the clutch down again & it starts the engine before you’ve got first gear engaged. It’s surprisingly natural in use.

Any implementation that cuts the engine out altogether during normal driving is broken, surely? (Excepting the normal case where the ECU cuts fuel to the engine when you run downhill - all the usual driver aids like power steering & brake assist still work in that case.)

I think the problem is that my car:

1 - Is a semi-automatic (VAG DSG) gearbox
2 - Has auto-coasting on lifting the accelerator

So technically it is in neutral with the clutch up even though it is still moving, which you wouldn't normally be doing with manual gears.

I prefer to have the auto-coasting than the auto-cutout , so I have to disable the latter. I suspect it is a bug that VAG don't know how to fix, because the auto-cutout is EU mandated.

1. DSG is fully automatic, not semi-automatic.
2. Adaptive cruise control (if you have it) is your friend here. When in heavy traffic it will follow the car in front, slow when it does, speed up when it moves away, stop if the car in front stop, and stop the engine, then re-start the engine when the car in front begins to move again. I wish I'd had ACC when I was commuting along the M62 every day - I could have got an extra 30 mins of sleep every morning on that commute.

ACC is the dog's bollocks.

It is. I am not so keen on the Lane Control though - seems to have a mind of it's own. ;-)

El_Capitano said:

RochdalePioneers said:

The other thought on the joys of the free market vs a monopoly. Currently we have choice. And all the choices are equally shit. None of the private couriers are clearly better than any other - all have dramatically bad failings.

What is worse, consumers have zero choice which is used. If you order from Lego, its going to be DPD. Regardless of how terrible DPD are. And all seem to follow each other to impose the same crapola policies and restrictions - a cabal with no actual competition.

So why not make Royal Mail the monopoly carrier. At least if shit happens you can shout at your local postie. Mine says people complain to him about courier drop screw-ups as well...

The "why not" is because Royal Mail is a dysfunctional organisation with an industrial relations playbook borrowed straight from the 1970s and that could barely optimise a route around Toytown, whereas DPD is moderately competent and tends to deliver things promptly, undamaged and to the correct address. Our Royal Mail posties are great, in true "poor bloody infantry" style. Their generals aren't.

DPD is, of course, owned by the French state.

Peter_the_Punter said:

Jim_Miller said:

Off topic: One more potential disaster for you to worry about: "A significant increase in Asian hornet sightings in the United Kingdom is raising alarm because of concerns that the hornets could ravage local bee populations.

This year, British officials have reported at least 22 confirmed sightings of Vespa velutina, mostly in southern England. That was up from two last year and two in 2021."
source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/09/05/uk-asian-hornet-honeybees-deadly/

If the experience here in the Pacific Northwest applies, you should be able to cope with these pests fairly easily. (Officials ask people to report sitings, set up traps to locate the nests, and then destroy the nests.) https://agr.wa.gov/departments/insects-pests-and-weeds/insects/hornets/reported-sightings

BTW, it has occurred to me that setting up traps and checking on them would be a good project for Boy Scouts, assuming you still have them.

(In the US, it is now politically correct to call them "Northern Giant Hornets".

Do the Boy Scouts not object to that name?

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

BlancheLivermore said:

I think we should renationalise Royal Mail

But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark

It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition

I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it

We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?

Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second

Well said.

I remember making the point about the inefficiency of multiple parcels vans right here a number of years ago, only to be castigated by the capitalist herd, telling me that I didn't understand the efficiencies of the free market.

Because multiple parcel vans are efficient. They mean that you can get whatever you want same or next day far quicker than getting it posted via Royal Mail.

If the alternative is instead of having a private parcel van that's doing 30-40 deliveries all in the same postcode area is each of those people makes a trip to the shops, then that's less efficient.

Nonsense. Five vans driving around five housing estates, delivering 20% of the parcels to each is a ridiculous set up when the alternative is one van delivering all of the parcels on each estate.

Why? If each van is full when it departs its depot, then the same number of vans is needed either way.

If the five vans are eg coming from five different depots, then how is it more efficient to unnecessarily move the goods to the one central depot, resort the goods yet again, then send out five vans still as a secondary step, now from another hub? How does that actually improve matters?

Sometimes what may seem inefficient above the surface can actually be supremely efficient below the surface, or vice-versa.

It's obvious. Each van travels five times the distance. More time, more fuel, more traffic. And there wouldn't be five depots with a single integrated delivery system.

Sometimes a well run, well regulated monopoly is best. Avoiding unnecessary duplication is a good thing.

No, its not obvious, you only think its obvious as you are superficially paying attention only to the top of the iceberg.

The iceberg effect is worth remembering for almost any business or industry. The visible bit you are seeing is only a tiny fraction of what is happening and what happens below the surface matters.

No, each van doesn't travel five times the distance. If the bulk of the distance is primarily between the depot and the relevant postcode area, then going to five neighbouring estates within the same postcode area is miniscule 'extra' mileage. Being efficient getting from A to B is the bulk of the relevant efficiency, not from B1 to B4.

I can get 4 different deliveries to my house in the same day. But if those 4 deliveries are coming from 4 different places - and if those vans are all filled with drop offs near to me - then each of those vans is operating efficiently.

But they wouldn't be coming from four different places if there was a monopoly provider.

Yes they would. Currently you have goods coming from all over the country, do you think they should all be in the same place? Would that be more efficient?

Take Widnes, in Liverpool City Region but in Warrington's postal area for the Royal Mail. There are sorting offices in Liverpool and Warrington.

If someone from Widnes orders a good from a business in Liverpool it is more efficient to send a full van from Liverpool to Widnes to drop off those goods.

What do you propose instead? Send the van from Liverpool, through and past Widnes into Warrington to have the goods resorted in Warrington before being sent out for a second time back into Widnes?

How is that "more" efficient?

Benpointer said:

Anabobazina said:

Benpointer said:

Flatlander said:

Phil said:

Flatlander said:

Sandpit said:

Dura_Ace said:

BlancheLivermore said:

I think we should renationalise Royal Mail

But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark

It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition

I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it

We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?

Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second

500-800 CCA to start a diesel engine. That is a lot of load on the battery/voltage reg if you are doing it a hundred times a day. I'd leave it running.

They should buy vehicles designed for stop/go operation, with appropriate battery/starter/ignition systems. The technology’s been in cars for a decade now - although I always turn it off as well, don’t trust it to suddenly fire up the engine on the throttle as the lights go green in front.

I always turn mine off. In fact, I've a mind to hacking the car to turn it off permanently (apparently it is only a single bit flip).

It has a habit of turning the engine off when coasting to a junction - particularly roundabouts. I lose power steering and cannot pull out swiftly if required. It is thus quite dangerous.

Also, after having had an unexpected starter motor failure in the middle lane of the M62, I don't even like turning the engine off when stuck in a queue on a main road unless it is a 'people wandering about the central reservation' type stoppage.

I wonder how yours is implemented? The Start/Stop on ours will only kick in if the vehicle is in neutral & the clutch up. Put the clutch down again & it starts the engine before you’ve got first gear engaged. It’s surprisingly natural in use.

Any implementation that cuts the engine out altogether during normal driving is broken, surely? (Excepting the normal case where the ECU cuts fuel to the engine when you run downhill - all the usual driver aids like power steering & brake assist still work in that case.)

I think the problem is that my car:

1 - Is a semi-automatic (VAG DSG) gearbox
2 - Has auto-coasting on lifting the accelerator

So technically it is in neutral with the clutch up even though it is still moving, which you wouldn't normally be doing with manual gears.

I prefer to have the auto-coasting than the auto-cutout , so I have to disable the latter. I suspect it is a bug that VAG don't know how to fix, because the auto-cutout is EU mandated.

1. DSG is fully automatic, not semi-automatic.
2. Adaptive cruise control (if you have it) is your friend here. When in heavy traffic it will follow the car in front, slow when it does, speed up when it moves away, stop if the car in front stop, and stop the engine, then re-start the engine when the car in front begins to move again. I wish I'd had ACC when I was commuting along the M62 every day - I could have got an extra 30 mins of sleep every morning on that commute.

ACC is the dog's bollocks.

It is. I am not so keen on the Lane Control though - seems to have a mind of it's own. ;-)

Carnyx said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Jim_Miller said:

Off topic: One more potential disaster for you to worry about: "A significant increase in Asian hornet sightings in the United Kingdom is raising alarm because of concerns that the hornets could ravage local bee populations.

This year, British officials have reported at least 22 confirmed sightings of Vespa velutina, mostly in southern England. That was up from two last year and two in 2021."
source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/09/05/uk-asian-hornet-honeybees-deadly/

If the experience here in the Pacific Northwest applies, you should be able to cope with these pests fairly easily. (Officials ask people to report sitings, set up traps to locate the nests, and then destroy the nests.) https://agr.wa.gov/departments/insects-pests-and-weeds/insects/hornets/reported-sightings

BTW, it has occurred to me that setting up traps and checking on them would be a good project for Boy Scouts, assuming you still have them.

(In the US, it is now politically correct to call them "Northern Giant Hornets".

Do the Boy Scouts not object to that name?

Haven't been the Boy Scouts in the UK since, I don't know, 1965 or so? Plain Scouts.

Benpointer said:

Andy_JS said:

"@Tomorrow'sMPs
@tomorrowsmps

🔵TAMWORTH: there are rumours Chris Pincher will resign as an MP in the next day or so and not go through with the likely humiliation of the Commons voting to suspend him, and then a recall petition. That would enable by-elections in both Mid-Beds & Tamworth on 12 October."

https://twitter.com/tomorrowsmps/status/1698753111106433440

Could that allow Labour and LDs to divide and rule? Tamworth was Labour until 2010.

Ghedebrav said:

Anabobazina said:

Benpointer said:

RochdalePioneers said:

The debate about stop-start systems is instructive. My 2009 i30 airport car has no automation beyond the choke. You want to stop/start you switch it off. So it means sitting at traffic lights with the engine pointlessly running.

Happily there are only a couple of sets of lights between me and the airport so it isn't an issue. But for those of you who drive these dino cars why on earth would you not welcome the S/S system doing its thing?

Less fuel burnt. Less crap pumped into the atmosphere. What is there to dislike?

Progress - some people don't like it.

Such folk are disproportionately represented on PB.

I imagine them driving their manual cars around towns at 37mph (so their car doesn't blow up), fiddling with their chokes when nobodies looking, before stopping off at the bank with their passbooks to deposit a £5.01 donation in cash to the Stop Ulez In Rural Bedfordshire Now pressure group.

First they came for the incandescent light bulbs and,
I did not speak out.