Excessive Vehicle Idling

Council has decided to keep Excessive Vehicle Idling an educational program for one year, rather than a bylaw, and after that year there will be a re-evaluation.  I still feel some kind of idling bylaw would be beneficial. Without a bylaw, education is demonstrably ineffective and we have no way of dealing with the more extreme cases that create negative effects for others.  I too have some concerns about bylaws being complaint driven. However that it is the way we deal with all similar bylaws. The one difference is that in other areas we would often have a bylaw officer also available to testify, although with barking dogs and noise the way a complaint would get followed up on is very similar to what is being proposed for idling. I should also point out that the proposed bylaw would not include the instances mentioned about thawing out a windshield. It specifically exempts situations where you have to let a vehicle warm up longer for safety reasons. Nor is the bylaw designed in such a way that we would expect anyone to be out there with a thermometer or a stop watch looking to hand out tickets. It is more to set a benchmark so that anyone flagrantly ignoring it can be asked to stop.

Not mentioned much is that issuing a ticket and going to court, as with all of our bylaws, would only happen in extreme circumstances where someone had consistently and willfully refused to comply. The way we deal with all of our bylaws is to send out a warning in the mail as the first step. In the case of something like shoveled sidewalks for instance, the first thing residences get is a notice in the mail asking you to shovel your sidewalk. 95% of people comply and that is where the matter ends. The idling bylaw would be no different. Having the bylaw is first and foremost an educational tool, not a tool designed to create opportunities for punishment or cash for the city.

Bylaws like “Excessive Barking” protect your rights as a neighbour. To protect those rights our first and primary response is an educational one, letting people know that their dog is being a disturbance.  With no bylaw then we would be powerless to do anything on your behalf. That is the case we are now in without an idling bylaw. If your neighbour left their truck idling in the driveway next door all weekend, as we have heard about from a number of people, or left their car idling in front of your fresh air vent, or left their buses and cars idling in front of a school, currently there is nothing we can do. It is a perfectly acceptable activity. There are no grounds for anyone to ask them to behave differently. The City has spent a great deal of money already on an education campaign and it achieved nothing.

Without a bylaw are we not saying that the behaviour is acceptable and we have no recourse to deal with even the heinous cases? If people do not accept that something is wrong to begin with then education is impossible. People did not voluntarily decide that smoking in public places was bad. There was great resistance to that bylaw as well. But I think very few would now argue that smoking in public places should be permitted. In fact once started the trend continued and now many people do not even smoke in their own homes. Although the bylaw was put in place, very few if any tickets were ever actually written, although I am sure numerous warnings were given out. The educational benefits of that bylaw have been profound but would be unlikely to have happened if they had not had the bylaw in place as part of the package.

I agree that the proposed bylaw did need some tinkering, but I also believe that a bylaw is necessary and in the public interest if we are to move forward on this issue. And I also wanted to assure you that the effects of the bylaw would not be nearly as alarming as has been suggested in the media. Thanks for sending me your thoughts on this.