^ I can't tell if you agree with him or not.
So remote start is now illegal?
Land mines have ONE purpose in life. Hurt or kill people. If you set out land mines, you set them out with the intention of hurting or killing people. That is illegal.
Ladders and kids are not intended to hurt or kill people. Your comparison of the two is as asinine as the idling law.
You CAN do what ever the hell you want, as long as it doesnt impose on the rights of others and as long as it is not illegal. Murdering someone obviously imposes on their right to live and is illegal.
Do I really have to spell this out for you?
just get a block heater. It's much better for your car + environment anyway.
Also, for those arguing that it's your property and you can do what you want : the air that enters and leaves your property doesn't belong to you, and if you're uselessly messing it up, especially for no reason, then yea ticket.
Edit: oh wait, this is in insurance thing. well don't leave your ****e unattended. do you think thieves make a distinction between on the street and on your driveway?
Kind regards,The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten." -Benjamin Franklin
What would the ticket actually say?
You need a depends option. I'm totally fine if you can remotely monitor kill motor and track you car.
Kids steal from cars and given the opportunity have been known to steal cars. A well-known recent case is an 8 year-old that took his 4 year-old sister to the local burger place for some drive-through knoshing. I say, why give them the opportunity? I think that's the intent of the law.
If the judge interprets the law as an anti-theft/public safety issue then a cop should be able to use some degree of common sense when the doors are locked. That's not rocket science.
Yes you are liable for leaving your car run while idling. When I did work for a new/used dealership I saw a local policeman trying to tell the dealership that idling their vehicles is illegal. He said he was going to ticket the dealership $125 ticket per vehicle. The GM said to the policeman we are rearranging our lot so we can plow the snow off our lot. Policeman was not having it so he started writing tickets for each vehicle.
Then few minutes later I saw the owner literally go off on the policeman saying he pays his taxes and how can he be ticketed when he big name in this town etc.. The dealership did end up getting a couple of idling tickets for $125 per ticket because owner was going off on the policeman.
4 BANGER 4 LIFE
Crazy. Is there any other law that punishes you for putting your own property at risk of being stolen? Isn't this a form of victim blaming? Maybe outlaw women from drinking alcohol on a date as they increase the risk of rape.
Whether you think the law is valid or not, it is the law.
This link takes you to a section on the law that explains whey unsecured cars are treated the same as an unsecured horse.
Just start it and go. Sure, let the idle settle, and go easy on it those first couple miles. Wear a coat and sac-up
It's going to come down to the jurisdiction, the specifics in the law, and the charge. So if you receive one be sure to look up if they've charged you under a law actually on the books. If they have not properly documented the infraction it will be thrown out. Make sure if the statute relies on keys in the car but yours weren't, the ticket might be invalid if it doesn't say the keys were in the car.
These laws are not driven by horse statutes, although horse statutes might apply in the case where an unsecured car trespasses (if you will) into another property and causes damage, failure to secure. That's a liability application, a particular favorite on bar exams. This is a civil ordinance. The driver is not the beloved equus of 1900 but the Environmental Protection Agency, and to a degree the Department of Energy. They are the organizations most responsible for supporting the now widely held view that running a car is a better way to warm it up than just warming it up.
So looking at the AZ Statute it is limited (as it should be) by time place and scope. There is a statute presumably built on public safety grounds for failing to properly secure a car by a roadway. And there is a standard AZ ordinance...
A. By July 1, 2002, a county that contains any portion of area A as defined in section 49-451 shall adopt, implement and enforce ordinances that place limits on the maximum idling time for engines that propel heavy-duty diesel vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than fourteen thousand pounds. The ordinances shall at least include exemptions for:
And that goes on, absolving police and fire vehicles first.
B. A county with a population of less than one million two hundred thousand persons shall adopt, implement and enforce the ordinances required by this section only for those portions of the county that are located in area A.
And that goes on. There are elements of the statute that exempt cases where the drivers safety might be at risk, etc. so even the statutes are open to interpretation, and that matters once you try to enforce them, as I've noted above.
In any case the justification here is probably based on pollution statutes, since they are referring to region A and that's an air quality region. But a municipality could also enforce these on existing noise statutes, or other such grounds. Municipal Lawyers who specialize in balancing issues of property and the public good would track this better from here.
The Car Lounge Friday Night Bar Exam Question!