It's hard to imagine a London ban on drive-through service windows for motorists. We simply love our cars and our coffees too much.

Indeed, some could be forgiven for thinking we've become a "drive-thru nation." It might be easier to imagine a ban on the leisurely consumption of coffee over a downtown lunch counter or even a household breakfast table.

But just try force a nation of increasingly obese hypocrites, who insist government must act soon on global warming, that they actually venture outside their personal vehicles for a coffee and a sandwhich -- that will be the day.

Not even warnings from police, health officials and insurance organizations can stop motorists from this kind of multi-tasking.

Meanwhile, London has had an anti-idling bylaw for years, yet not a single charge has been laid -- and some politicians actually believe idling is better than the alternative. If we can't agree on or enforce the existing bylaw, how can we expect something new to be workable?

That doesn't, of course, make the current debate at London city council without merit.

After all, cities in California and North Carolina have banned drive-throughs. The mayor of Hamilton wants a moratorium.

Never mind the noise and litter problems caused by drive-throughs. And never mind global warming. These things foul the air in the immediate neighbourhoods. You don't need a scientific study to know that.

Students at the University of Alberta studied drive-through behaviour at a single Tim Hortons outlet in Edmonton for 54 hours, and noted vehicles idled for an average of more than five minutes. They estimated greenhouse gases produced by vehicles in drive-through lineups in the city amounted to 23.5 tonnes a day.

Just one study, but probably a reasonable conclusion, given what we all know about this modern convenience.

Would a bylaw be nice? Probably. Is it worth the trouble?

Probably not -- yet.