An Argument That We Need To Kill

[coolfilmaker]

Whenever I have criticized plug in Prius owners for blocking EVSEs that we need their response has always been that I'm "irresponsible for getting a car without enough range". It's really annoying and it's only PiP owners that use this argument. Even other standard Prius owners don't agree with it. There're going to be a lot of people with PiPs and inevitably a lot of people making this argument. I think we need to argue that public charging stations are not intended for PHEV use. That is, unless someone can come up with a better argument.

 

[TomT]

Perhaps we should just criticize PIP owners for buying a car that can barely get down to the end of the street without having to be plugged in again... :lol:

Whenever I have criticized plug in Prius owners for blocking EVSEs that we need their response has always been that I'm "irresponsible for getting a car without enough range". It's really annoying and it's only PiP owners that use this argument. Even other standard Prius owners don't agree with it. There're going to be a lot of people with PiPs and inevitably a lot of people making this argument. I think we need to argue that public charging stations are not intended for PHEV use. That is, unless someone can come up with a better argument.

 

[LakeLeaf]

On the other hand - 12 more miles on electricity is 12 less miles on fossil fuel no matter what the vehicle is. I thought that was the point.

 

[TomT]

I dunno... For 11 miles, the extra cost and complexity seems barely worth it.

On the other hand - 12 more miles on electricity is 12 less miles on fossil fuel no matter what the vehicle is. I thought that was the point.

 

[padamson1]

Whenever I have criticized plug in Prius owners for blocking EVSEs that we need their response has always been that I'm "irresponsible for getting a car without enough range". It's really annoying and it's only PiP owners that use this argument. Even other standard Prius owners don't agree with it. There're going to be a lot of people with PiPs and inevitably a lot of people making this argument. I think we need to argue that public charging stations are not intended for PHEV use. That is, unless someone can come up with a better argument.

I'm not sure I can agree that public charging stations are not for PHEV use, but certainly the case can be made that BEVs should get priority. However I don't have any idea how one can implement such a priority system.

As for the argument that one is "irresponsible for getting a car without enough range", I'd have to say that the PiP owner is simply the pot calling the kettle black. He's the one you can only drive 10mi on electricity, the BEV owner is the one who can drive at least seven times as far, but doesn't have a tank of gas they can call on to pollute their way home if they don't get a charge.

As long as everyone (BEVs, EREVs & PHEVs) follows the charging protocol, we should all be able to live with each other. Since a PiP takes a fraction of the time a BEV takes to charge, they should vacate the spot as soon as their done, and free it up for the next guy just like every one else should do. As long as they're charging, they're not 'blocking' the EVSE, and a PHEV doesn't charge for long.

 

[cwerdna]

I think we need to argue that public charging stations are not intended for PHEV use.

As a regular Prius owner, I do sympathize since PHEVs don't need the juice to get home/on w/their journey.

Unfortunately, who is going to enforce that? Is there going to be some mandate/legislation? Are the police or parking enforcement going to issues tickets or tow? How about businesses?

I already hear enough stories here about EV spots being ICE'd, and even worse by Hummer H2s taking TWO spots.

 

[Nubo]

I can't see that they are any less entitled to charge their car.

 

[smkettner]

Whenever I have criticized plug in Prius owners for blocking EVSEs that we need their response has always been that I'm "irresponsible for getting a car without enough range". It's really annoying and it's only PiP owners that use this argument. Even other standard Prius owners don't agree with it. There're going to be a lot of people with PiPs and inevitably a lot of people making this argument. I think we need to argue that public charging stations are not intended for PHEV use. That is, unless someone can come up with a better argument.

I disagree. If the vehicle has the connector and is charging that is how it should work. It would be nice if the PIP did not hog the spot for six hours.
This is why more lower power charging stations are needed instead of the one or two 30 amp stations. It will get far worse before it gets better so we all better adjust.

Besides PIP cannot help it if there are so few QC for Leaf.

 

[TimLee]

As long as everyone (BEVs, EREVs & PHEVs) follows the charging protocol, we should all be able to live with each other. ... free it up for the next guy just like every one else should do. As long as they're charging, they're not 'blocking' the EVSE, and a PHEV doesn't charge for long.

+1
But civility in parking seems to be somewhat in short supply.
At an establishment with two designated "To Go" parking spots, today I saw an ICE vehicle pull in dead in the middle taking up both spots rather than properly parking the vehicle in one of the two spots.
Civility seems to be in short supply in many areas, particularly politics, but it is in pretty short supply in the area of parking too.

 

[kubel]

I don't see a problem with a PHEV using a charging station. It's every man for himself. Get 'em while they're hot. First come, first serve. You snooze, you lose. Etc...

But at the same time, I wouldn't have a problem if the owner of the charging station put up a sign that that said "BEVs ONLY" or "BEVs, YOU CAN UNPLUG PHEVs AT ANY TIME".

If it's an actual public charging station (owned by a municipality), then too bad. That's what you get for becoming dependent on government infrastructure. :twisted: :lol:

 

[Herm]

They have as much right as you to plug in.. after all, they may just have a gallon of gas in the tank.

This will be an issue with L3 fast chargers also, thats why I advocate that the driver be required to remain with the car as it fast charges.

 

[TEG]

I don't mind plug-in hybrids charging at public charge stations.
*but* they will fill their small battery quickly, and better free up the station when "full".
What I do mind is a car that parks all day at an EV spot, and didn't need to charge.
The same situation could happen with a LEAF that pulls up to a charge spot nearly full already.

I don't like that the Volt can be set to sound an alarm if someone tries to move the charge cable to a neighboring spot. Many EVSEs have cables that can reach two or more spaces, and letting others take over the charging function once you are done seems only reasonable.

But, I have heard of Volts that set the alarm if someone moves the cable, and stay parked at airport lots for days, because the owner wants to be able to remotely turn on climate controls just before they arrive, and they don't want to drain the EV battery for that. That seems wrong to tie up a charge space for a long time just so you can still be plugged in hours or days later when you want to use the EVSE for climate control power.

Another thing to consider - cars doing slower charging are also hogging up the spot. When we have 2013 LEAFs with 6.6kW chargers are they going to feel that they should get charge spot priority over 2011/2012 LEAFs because they can better make use of the available power, and the older LEAFs are just too slow at charging?

 

[foobert]

:idea: Market economics will end this "problem" :idea:

Monetizing the charging infrastructure will do the most to avail public chargers. PHEVs with pathetic ranges will hardly think it's worth the hassle to plug in on an errand when they have to pay for it. BEVs will likely be more understanding about paying a modest premium for the power. More interestingly, BEVs will begrudgingly pay an exorbitant premium when they really need it.

Personally, I've yet to pay for any power when charging away from my home. Granted, I've never ventured beyond the round-trip range of the Leaf, and thus, have never put myself into a situation where I'm at the mercy of some distant charging facility to be A) on-line, and B) not already in use or, Lord help their paint job, ICE'd :twisted:

 

[Nubo]

They have as much right as you to plug in.. after all, they may just have a gallon of gas in the tank.

This will be an issue with L3 fast chargers also, thats why I advocate that the driver be required to remain with the car as it fast charges.

People with certain medical implants can't be inside the car while it's charging.

 

[coqui]

+1
Does an ICE driver pull up to a gas station, fill the car, then leave it blocking the pump to go and eat lunch? No. There aren't any L3's here, but if there were I'd stay with my vehicle until done and then vacate for the next user. Just common courtesy.

Also, if establishments would place chargers in an undesirable spot, there'd be less chance of it becoming ICE'd.

They have as much right as you to plug in.. after all, they may just have a gallon of gas in the tank.

This will be an issue with L3 fast chargers also, thats why I advocate that the driver be required to remain with the car as it fast charges.

 

[adric22]

As long as the PHEV is moved after it is done charging, I have no problems with them using a public charger. Same goes for a Leaf or any other BEV. Once charging is done, move your car.

And honestly.. around here in DF/W it is pretty rare to see any car plugged into these stations, which might lead people to believe there is no point in installing them. So I'd be happy to see more PHEVs plugged into them.

 

[Mx5racer]

as much as we complained.
I thought that the CA law was that you had to be actively charging, or you would be ticketed.

this would make a PIP driver have to come back and move their car away from the charger after a short
amount of time.
Or make it not worth it to them to charge at all.

My argument for higher rates to charge also helps to guarantee more open chargers.
If it is free more will charge for the "fun of it"

 

[lpickup]

as much as we complained.
I thought that the CA law was that you had to be actively charging, or you would be ticketed.

Yes, but in actual practice, what does "actively charging" mean? Here in Raleigh, it means plugged into the car. The parking enforcement officers are not responsible for determining if electricity is actually flowing into the car (and with some of the chargers here, you can't really tell anyway unless, for example, you are familiar with the LEAFs dash lights).

I'll weigh in as well, although it's basically what others have said. I liked how adric22 put it best. Basically they have the same right to charge as you do, but once their charge is complete they should move their car. I know that will never happen and it's basically non-enforceable, but that's the only "argument" I would be willing to put forth. They'll have to decide for themselves if it's worth the hassle of charging for 20 minutes and then moving their car for the sake of being a good EV citizen.

 

[TonyWilliams]

as much as we complained.
I thought that the CA law was that you had to be actively charging, or you would be ticketed.

V C Section 22511 Off-Street Parking: Electric Vehicles

Off-Street Parking: Electric Vehicles

22511.  (a)( )1 A local authority, by ordinance or resolution, and ( )2 a person in lawful possession of an offstreet parking facility may designate stalls or spaces in an offstreet parking facility owned or operated by that local authority or person for the exclusive purpose of ( )3 charging and parking a vehicle that ( )4 is connected for electric charging purposes. ( )5

(b) If posted in accordance with subdivision (d) or (e), the owner or person in lawful possession of a privately owned or operated offstreet parking facility, after notifying the police or sheriff’s department, may cause the removal of a vehicle from a stall or space designated pursuant to subdivision (a) in the facility to the nearest public garage if ( )6 the vehicle is not connected for electric charging purposes.

(c) If posted in accordance with subdivision (d), the local authority owning or operating an offstreet parking facility, after notifying the police or sheriff’s department, may cause the removal of a vehicle from a stall or space designated pursuant to subdivision (a) in the facility to the nearest garage, as defined in Section 340, that is owned, leased, or approved for use by a public agency if ( )6 the vehicle is not connected for electric charging purposes.

(d) The posting required for an offstreet parking facility owned or operated either privately or by a local authority shall consist of a sign not less than 17 by 22 inches in size with lettering not less than one inch in height ( )7 that clearly and conspicuously states the following: "Unauthorized vehicles not ( )8 connected for electric charging purposes will be towed away at owner’s expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at

___________________________________________________ or by telephoning

(Address)

____________________________________________________________________."
(Telephone number of local law enforcement agency)

 

The sign shall be posted in either of the following locations:

(1) Immediately adjacent to, and visible from, the stall or space.

(2) In a conspicuous place at each entrance to the offstreet parking facility.

(e) If the parking facility is privately owned and public parking is prohibited by the posting of a sign meeting the requirements of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 22658, the requirements of subdivision (b) may be met by the posting of a sign immediately adjacent to, and visible from, each stall or space indicating that a vehicle not meeting the requirements of subdivision (a) will be removed at the owner’s expense and containing the telephone number of the local traffic law enforcement agency.

(f)( )9 This section does not interfere with existing law governing the ability of local authorities to adopt ordinances related to parking programs within their jurisdiction, such as programs that provide free parking in metered areas or municipal garages for electric vehicles.

Added Sec. 2, Ch. 640, Stats. 2002. Effective January 1, 2003.
Amended Sec. 1, Ch. 274, Stats. 2011. Effective January 1, 2012. The 2011 amendment added the italicized material, and at the point(s) indicated indicated, deleted the following:
1. "Any "
2. "any"
3. "fueling"
4. "displays a valid zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) decal identification posted on the driver’s side rear window or bumper of the vehicle or, notwithstanding any other provision of law, if the vehicle does not have a rear window or bumper, on the driver’s side of the windshield issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles pursuant to this section"
5. "The designation shall be made by posting a sign in compliance with subdivision (d) or (e)."
6. "a valid ZEV decal identification issued pursuant to this section is not displayed on the vehicle."
7. "which"
8. "displaying valid zero-emission vehicle decal identifications "
9. "(1) For purposes of implementing this section, the Department of Motor Vehicles shall make available for issuance, beginning July 1, 2003, for a fee determined by the Department of Motor Vehicles to be sufficient to reimburse it for actual costs incurred pursuant to this section, distinctive decals for zeroemission vehicles.
(2) The department shall design the decal, which shall be two inches by two inches, and be placed on the driver’s side rear window or bumper of the vehicle, or, notwithstanding any other provision of law, if the vehicle does not have a rear window or bumper, on the driver’s side of the windshield. Each decal shall display a unique number. The decal may be provided to car dealers who sell electric vehicles for distribution to ZEV purchasers. (g) For purposes of this section, "zero-emission vehicle" means any car, truck, or any other vehicle that produces no tailpipe or evaporative emissions.
(h) Nothing in this section is intended to"

  

 

[tps]

:idea: Market economics will end this "problem" :idea:

Monetizing the charging infrastructure will do the most to avail public chargers. PHEVs with pathetic ranges will hardly think it's worth the hassle to plug in on an errand when they have to pay for it. BEVs will likely be more understanding about paying a modest premium for the power. More interestingly, BEVs will begrudgingly pay an exorbitant premium when they really need it.

Exactly right. This is already starting to happen here in Philly. I've paid for charging a couple times in Center City. I don't mind, because it will help to keep people from frivolously using charging spots.