Building codes require all kinds of things, both for safety as well as standardization (and some that are completely idiotic). We had a remodel on our house a couple years ago, and the electrical codes now require many more outlets than they used to. Something like every corner has to have an outlet within 10 feet or so, can't remember the details, but they actually had to ADD outlets to any of the rooms where they were doing significant work simply to meet the code.LEAFer wrote:Why does building code require them ?
This is such clear cut common sense and I can't believe there is any debate over this whatsoever. It seems some people were raised with subjective values and a good dose of denial and justification. It's sad to see people joining the EV community with such an outlook on basic courtesy and respect for private property.
It is likely that passenger elevators were installed with the intention of transporting people from one level to another. It is less likely, at this time, that outlets were installed with the intention of charging electric vehicles. It's not entirely clear to me what the intention of outlets in the parking garage is, probably for use by maintenance crew or such.Jimmydreams wrote:If you're paying for parking in a garage, then what you pay provides you the lights, elevators, etc. I would argue that the outlet (again, NOT locked and NOT marked) is just like the elevator: I paid for it, I can use it. If a business provides parking for it's customers and there is an outlet there, who is to say it's not provided for the use of the patrons of the business that already provided the parking?
Train wrote:This is such clear cut common sense and I can't believe there is any debate over this whatsoever. It seems some people were raised with subjective values and a good dose of denial and justification. It's sad to see people joining the EV community with such an outlook on basic courtesy and respect for private property.
I agree. There some serious rationalizing going on here. I guess some people will justify anything, including taking what is not their's.
I like his reasoning..........However, I bet he never had to test his theory with the old 1800's equalizer.... "Quickest Draw, WINS"Rokeby wrote:Collis P. Huntington was a railroad magnate of the 1800's.
He was considered to be " 'ruthless, grim, cold, crafty,'
whom someone neatly described as 'scrupulously dishonest.' "
Allegedly, his Code of Ethics was:
"Whatever is not nailed down is mine.
Whatever I can pry loose is not nailed down."
quoteinvestigator.com
Carlos wrote:I like his reasoning..........However, I bet he never had to test his theory with the old 1800's equalizer.... "Quickest Draw, WINS"Rokeby wrote:Collis P. Huntington was a railroad magnate of the 1800's.
He was considered to be " 'ruthless, grim, cold, crafty,'
whom someone neatly described as 'scrupulously dishonest.' "
Allegedly, his Code of Ethics was:
"Whatever is not nailed down is mine.
Whatever I can pry loose is not nailed down."
quoteinvestigator.com
Using this thought process one might assume that plugging in establishes the crime when it is the current drawn that would cause the theft.
How would a current draw from one outlet be established and presented in a legal courtroom setting? I guess if you had a handy legal degree or cared to take a Public Defender by your side you could argue in court. It would be up to the Prosecutor and Cop to establish that something of value was actually stolen. I'm not sure how a single unattended plug would allow anyone to even establish that current was drawn.
And as we all know the Defendant has the right to remain silent....