Blink Charging Spaces Mostly Used by Gas Cars

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

KellyROlsen

Active member
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
26
Location
Santa Monica, Ca
Here is a link to an article which is about a video I made showing that most of the blink chargers in my neighborhood are rarely available for an electric car. I have been working with the Police Department, the City Attorney and the City Traffic Engineer about getting enforcement. I also contacted Whole Foods management about the issue and they seem interested in solving the problem.

My discussions with the the people in City Hall revealed that the signs posted do not comply with State law and they need to be replaced with new ones with the correct wording and then enforcement by the PD can take place.

I have contacted ECOtality to inform them that I have gotten all the information needed and can tell them how to proceed to secure the spaces but even after posting in the comments section of the article that they had done white papers about the problem of ICE'ing they showed no interest in receiving the information or making the changes necessary so enforcement can take place.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/whats-that-gas-guzzler-doing-in-ev-parking/
 
KellyROlsen said:
My discussions with the the people in City Hall revealed that the signs posted do not comply with State law and they need to be replaced with new ones with the correct wording and then enforcement by the PD can take place.
Can you explain what the correct wording is?
 
A private business may not want to irritate the customers that are still driving conventional cars with a towing warning on the signs.. so they put in a mild warning that does not meet the requirements of the law.
 
garsh said:
KellyROlsen said:
My discussions with the the people in City Hall revealed that the signs posted do not comply with State law and they need to be replaced with new ones with the correct wording and then enforcement by the PD can take place.
Can you explain what the correct wording is?


The correct wording usually includes something like:

violators will be towed/ticketed persuant to municipal code 123.33.333....
 
The correct signs cite the actual vehicle code that allows them to tow violators.

In my experience, when approaching an "ice'ing" in progress, the first thing they ask is whether it's illegal. Then we have to explain that, no, the way the sign is, they can actually get a away with parking there. Then in a fit of courtesy (or after seeing that someone with an EV really does want to use the space), they move their car.

I think these people can pretty much tell what's going on. But we've all been in that other position, where in a sea of cars, you find this one incredibly convenient parking space, which you eye suspiciously, because it's too good to be true, and so you're looking for "the catch". At this point one's thinking jumps to the mode of "figure out an excuse as to why it's really OK to park there". I don't think most of these people mean ill, although those are undoubtedly out there as well.

Meanwhile, in the Encinitas public parking, the signs for EV parking have been vandalized (removed) twice so far. I think we should print up 100 cardboard ones and just replace them as needed.
 
gbarry42 said:
\ At this point one's thinking jumps to the mode of "figure out an excuse as to why it's really OK to park there". I don't think most of these people mean ill, although those are undoubtedly out there as well.
\

I would expect people who ICE these spots fall under one of 4 categories.
  • 80% have no idea what the charging station is for and no idea that electric vehicles exist.
  • 10% know what the station is for, but have never seen an electric vehicle (that they know of) so assume nobody would be needing the spot and they won't be hurting anything by parking there.
  • 5% know exactly what it is for but are just rude, inconsiderate people who think only of themselves.
  • 5% know exactly what it is for but are actively against the EV movement and feel they are making a statement by parking their hummer or dually pickup in that spot.
 
adric22 said:
gbarry42 said:
\ At this point one's thinking jumps to the mode of "figure out an excuse as to why it's really OK to park there". I don't think most of these people mean ill, although those are undoubtedly out there as well.
\

I would expect people who ICE these spots fall under one of 3 categories.
  • 80% have no idea what the charging station is for and no idea that electric vehicles exist.
  • 10% know what the station is for, but have never seen an electric vehicle (that they know of) so assume nobody would be needing the spot and they won't be hurting anything by parking there.
  • 5% know exactly what it is for but are just rude, inconsiderate people who think only of themselves.
  • 5% know exactly what it is for but are actively against the EV movement and feel they are making a statement by parking their hummer or dually pickup in that spot.

That's 4 categories ;)

I once parked in 1 of 2 EV-only spots (there were 2 ChargePoints). I got out, swiped my card and plugged the car in. Just as I was doing that a non-EV pulled into the other spot. Luckily their window was down and i kindly informed that that, "this spot is for EVs to recharge while shopping" (it was a Whole Foods). The lady said, "Oh really? I didn't know. Thanks" and moved her car. So I believe your 80% figure.
 
EricBayArea said:
adric22 said:
gbarry42 said:
\ At this point one's thinking jumps to the mode of "figure out an excuse as to why it's really OK to park there". I don't think most of these people mean ill, although those are undoubtedly out there as well.
\

I would expect people who ICE these spots fall under one of 3 categories.
  • 80% have no idea what the charging station is for and no idea that electric vehicles exist.
  • 10% know what the station is for, but have never seen an electric vehicle (that they know of) so assume nobody would be needing the spot and they won't be hurting anything by parking there.
  • 5% know exactly what it is for but are just rude, inconsiderate people who think only of themselves.
  • 5% know exactly what it is for but are actively against the EV movement and feel they are making a statement by parking their hummer or dually pickup in that spot.

That's 4 categories ;)

I once parked in 1 of 2 EV-only spots (there were 2 ChargePoints). I got out, swiped my card and plugged the car in. Just as I was doing that a non-EV pulled into the other spot. Luckily their window was down and i kindly informed that that, "this spot is for EVs to recharge while shopping" (it was a Whole Foods). The lady said, "Oh really? I didn't know. Thanks" and moved her car. So I believe your 80% figure.


didnt know my ass!! she probably thinking "Damn!! got caught"

i think we should make the EV charging signs blue so they look like handicap signs from a distance
 
The correct wording as deemed by the Deputy City Attorney, the City Traffic Engineer and the Lt. of the Parking Enforcement office complies with the California Vehicle Code which is below.

Vehicle Code Section 22511 provides specific guidance on the type and wording required for a sign designating electric vehicle parking:

1. The sign must be at least “17 by 22 inches in size with lettering not less than one inch in height.”

2. The sign must contain the following wording:

"Unauthorized vehicles not 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)

3. The sign(s) must be conspicuously posted, meaning either
a. “Immediately adjacent to, and visible from, the stall or space.” or
b. “In a conspicuous place at each entrance to the offstreet parking facility.”

It looks like the the added language of giving a ticket needs to be there as well. At least this what the police Department has said, so I'm having signs designed for store owners that would have this added in the sentence about towing, so it would read, ""Unauthorized vehicles not connected for electric charging purposes will be "cited and" towed away at owner’s expense.

Santa Monica has had a law for ten years regarding EV spaces but has only interpreted the law to be for City owned lots. However, the recent law passed by the State (above) gives authority to local jurisdictions which now authorizes the 10 year old law to be enforced as long as the signage complies with State law. Santa Monica's current sign does not comply and since I have raised the issue about enforcement in general, this has caused them to recognize the deficiency of the City sign and the City is now going to change their signs as well. Although, my experience is that it takes a bit of time for City Hall to take action.

My attempt to insert an image is not working so I can't post the current sign we are working from. Tried the image button but did not seem to work.
 
Hi Kelly,
I'm sensitive to your situation, but as an EV driver down here in San Diego I do not want signs with that wording put in place.

Why?

Because of the key phrase "not connected for electric charging purposes" that GM lobbied to have put into the bill before it was passed.

I may have the best of intentions and connect my EV properly to the charging station, but since the vast majority of the J1772 connectors don't lock in place, anyone could come along and unplug me to charge their own car or just to be rude. Then I'm left unplugged and subject to citation or tow. No thanks.

Besides, there are times when we as EV community members WANT to share the charging stations, which was ignored when brought up during the bill approval process.....

Because of the bad bill language that was passed into law, I'm opposed to having those signs installed here. I'd rather take my chances on the occasional ICE'd spot I see (it's not most of the spots down here)...
 
I do understand that the language fought for by GM was controversial and opposed even by Plug In America.

Your points have been made well by yourself and many other people and I don't disagree with you in theory, but the real world in my neighborhood here is different than the theory. You may want to watch the video I made where there is basically never a time that an EV space is open. Occasional icing, as you put, it is not the case. I'm going to have a little wire system with a lock that will make it impossible to remove the plug from my car without a key, so it is not an issue for me personally.

However, my actions are that of an EV activist concerned with what is good for most, not myself, so I'm working from that angle here. I think most are willing to risk that somebody is going to remove the plug out of spite. This is an act of aggressiveness that most in my part of town will not do because it is in a highly visible area with cameras and a lot of people.

Taking a EV parking space with a passive sign is not like getting out of a car and walking up to a car and trying to figure out how the plug comes out. This is an aggressive act which calls for some real action. Most non-EV people think that they are going to get shocked. And what would be the point? It still won't make the space available to a non EV driver? It is a stretch to me to think that a person is going to read the language, think about it for a moment and then come to the conclusion that they can get that EV driver by disconnecting that weird looking thing hooked up to a big electric machine and maybe the EV car will get towed or a ticket.

Just not a plausible plan of action for the vast majority. It requires too much trouble and risk for the person to do this.

I do see your issue about another EV driver unplugging a car so they can plug in. This of course is also rude if you are not finished charging and have not left a note saying it is OK to unplug, but it might happen. However, some of these spaces are only accessible by one car at a time and there is no other place to park close to get a car over to another EV. But some of the other spaces do allow this to happen.

This is where another factor comes in play, at least here in my community. On private property enforcement is up to the discretion of the Police Department and the owners of the business. That is, the business has to inform the police that the correct signs are up and that they want enforcement. Also, they have the right to tell them what type of enforcement they want.

So, there are several scenarios.

1. The signs with the language that conforms to the State and local law can be in place and act as a deterrent. They will be so official looking and so much like the regular City signs that they will be heeded by the fast majority of the populous because they perceive a big downside for them which outweighs the convenience of a parking space close to the door.

So at first, the business can tell the police department that they do not wish them to come onto the property and cite or take any action until a test period is over. If everything is working out with only minor violations nothing more will need to be done. No harm, no foul and the sign as a deterrent has served its purposes. This would also address you fear of being disconnected and you paying for it.

If the above is the case and the spots are largely left open, then the business can continue as is with no more action and nobody gets a ticket or towed.

2. If there is a problem, then the business can say to the police department that they want tickets ONLY given and no towing. They can also say that they don't want any EV ticked even if it is not connected because the assumption is that they were connected and somebody pulled out the plug. You will not get a ticket even if somebody acted in malice or was rude and took your plug (assuming they could get to it, which is not the case in may of the spaces).

Under no scenario do I see where the towing of any vehicle will take place on private or even public property.

My suspicion is that the first scenario is going to be good enough and the signs will be effective just the way that "most' people obey the handicapped spaces signs.

Anyway, the problem is big here and needs to be addressed and we have come up with some good possible solutions that fit within the framework of what is prescribed by law but also allows us to be judicial and fair and at the same time may mostly fix the problem.
 
gbarry42 said:
Meanwhile, in the Encinitas public parking, the signs for EV parking have been vandalized (removed) twice so far. I think we should print up 100 cardboard ones and just replace them as needed.
Grr, I hate vandals/thieves. I think that vandalism of public charging infrastructure is unfortunately going to be a major issue going forward. This is probably the best argument for wireless charging embedded into the ground with parking-meter style payment acceptors. Those have obviously stood the test of time in terms of being ruggedized and vandal resistant.

That also pretty much eliminates the "must be plugged in to park" issue as well.
 
Randy said:
Because of the key phrase "not connected for electric charging purposes" that GM lobbied to have put into the bill before it was passed.

I may have the best of intentions and connect my EV properly to the charging station, but since the vast majority of the J1772 connectors don't lock in place, anyone could come along and unplug me to charge their own car or just to be rude. Then I'm left unplugged and subject to citation or tow. No thanks.
GM dealt a severe blow to the public charging infrastructure in California with this bill. Without it there would now be fine and towing penalties to prevent ICEing, rather than just relying on gas drivers' better natures. But as you suggest, it could be a lot worse. At least charging station owners in my area aren't posting signs per the new law, which would render them unusable.

The irony is that GM's supposed rationale for ramming the bill through was to ensure equal access for plug-in hybrids. A fine goal. But at $1/hr and up to charge, rounded up to the next hour, plus $30 membership fee, public charging will rarely be less expensive for Volt drivers than premium gasoline. I doubt that we will see many Volt drivers using Blink stations; only the most committed greens who don't mind extra cost and inconvenience to avoid using oil.

<Edit: I shouldn't extrapolate my observations of charging station signage to the entire state. Thanks to KellyROlsen >
 
KellyROlsen said:
Under no scenario do I see where the towing of any vehicle will take place on private or even public property.

Nativity in the extreme.

My suspicion is that the first scenario is going to be good enough and the signs will be effective just the way that "most' people obey the handicapped spaces signs.


I would add some additional official looking verbiage of "Cost of impound, towing, and other fees up to $738" or some other odd number.

I now support the GM bill / AB475 / CVC 22511 because:

1. Each of us have the option to physically lock the EVSE to our car (or not use that parking spot or charger / EVSE at all). That could be as simple as a cable wrapped around the EVSE with a padlock locked to the car. Or a fancy clamp around the "hose". Lots of simple, easy and cheap options for the law abiding citizen.

2. This could be a HUGE revenue stream for EV charging providers, easily surpassing the income from growing cobwebs on the charger by multiples of HUNDREDS. Let's see; $0.50 for some L2 to a customer (who will just complain that next time, they will Just-Drive-The-Prius(TM)), or $739 in fees to remove an ICE?

3. From my experiences of gazillions of ICE drivers in EVSE / charging spots, a DEDICATED on site tow service could pay for itself, just dedicated to removing ICE cars. That's a lot of money that can be used to install more chargers / EVSE's !!!!

4. The chances of you, the law abiding EV driver, having a blocked parking spot are greatly reduced and your chances of charging nirvana is greatly increased.
 
I seem to find a plug in Prius in many of the SF L2 stations often parked there for 4-6 hours or longer. Nothing like having one bar and not being able to charge because both L2 stations are occupied almost the entire day by cars that need about a 30 min charge on average, perhaps the correct word is "can use" not need. As soon as there are many plug in hybrids there will be no station access because people have discovered the "convenient" parking slots.
 
I had the same problem with an EV spot in Madison, WI. There was a week that I really needed the spot so I added a note asking for the spot to be left open for EVs.

It worked. The spot was open for EVs after that. My feeling is that people think there are no EVs, and that a spot like that is unnecessary until they realize another fellow human being actually needs it.

IMG_3415.jpg
 
EVDRIVER said:
I seem to find a plug in Prius in many of the SF L2 stations often parked there for 4-6 hours or longer. Nothing like having one bar and not being able to charge because both L2 stations are occupied almost the entire day by cars that need about a 30 min charge on average, perhaps the correct word is "can use" not need. As soon as there are many plug in hybrids there will be no station access because people have discovered the "convenient" parking slots.
Well, that certainly validates the Blink policy of counting time until the car is unplugged.
 
walterbays wrote: "At least charging station owners aren't posting signs per the new law, which would render them unusable."

If you have some insight that you can share that would prove that not one operator or one business in California is putting up the signage, then I'd be very interested in see this. However, I think it is far too broad of a statement to substantiate.

In fact, there are going to be many of these signs in my community. The City will be modifying the current signs to include this language and at least one business will be doing so as well and probably by the time I'm done with the project several others will be posting it as well.

I have no understanding of why a sign would make a charger "unusable." Maybe it was meant that you wouldn't want to use it out of fear of being disconnected and then perhaps towed, but that is a personal choice, and does not make them unusable for others.

To my statement "Under no scenario do I see where the towing of any vehicle will take place on private or even public property."

TonyWilliams wrote in reply:

"Nativity in the extreme".

I suspect that it was meant that I was being naive (not the birth of Jesus) and the auto correct went haywire ;)

Maybe it was my mistake in not making it clear.

Again, I'm only talking about privately operated commercial parking lots, but in my municipality there CANNOT be ANY enforcement (ticketing or towing) unless the business operators specifically ask for one of, or both of the measures.

The signs can be in place and no enforcement will happen. The only way it will happen is if the business contacts the police department and says, "Please put our lot on the patrol route and check for violations. If you see a violation please ticket, or please ticket and tow." This is not a matter of conjecture, it is a matter of fact operating under the policy of the Police Department and City Attorney's department. And no matter how much the businesses want to bring in EV drivers, they are not going to want to piss off gas drivers by having them towed.

Again, no businesses have indicated that they were interested in having any of its customers towed. In fact, even at the City owned and operated lots where there are chargers the City does not tow. They do ticket and have for several years on City owned lots, (32 to date) but they do not tow.

And again, even a car that is disconnected by somebody else for whatever reason will not be ticketed, at least at a EV space at a commercial parking lot if the business owner sates that they don't want an EV ticketed under any circumstances.

I hope I have been able to clear up any misconceptions. Again, I'm sharing about the community I live in and what we are doing to secure EV spots and make certain they are available with the laws that we have to work with. What you do in your community is up to you and your policy makers.
 
There are spots in SF where there are about seven signs in one stall plus cones blocking it. But of course this does not help with a Prius.
 
KellyROlsen said:
walterbays wrote: "At least charging station owners aren't posting signs per the new law, which would render them unusable."

If you have some insight that you can share that would prove that not one operator or one business in California is putting up the signage, then I'd be very interested in see this. However, I think it is far too broad of a statement to substantiate.
You're right. I will correct it to "charging station owners in my area."

In fact, there are going to be many of these signs in my community. The City will be modifying the current signs to include this language and at least one business will be doing so as well and probably by the time I'm done with the project several others will be posting it as well.

I have no understanding of why a sign would make a charger "unusable." Maybe it was meant that you wouldn't want to use it out of fear of being disconnected and then perhaps towed, but that is a personal choice, and does not make them unusable for others.
I'm glad I don't live in Santa Monica! I consider your chargers "unusable" for anyone who fears being towed away, like me. I think most drivers would not want to risk being towed, but that is only my conjecture.

To my statement "Under no scenario do I see where the towing of any vehicle will take place on private or even public property."
But maybe this explains why you don't have any fear of towing, if in Santa Monica cars are very rarely towed no matter where they park. I read another posting a while back where someone was describing a long complicated chain of complaints and police dispatching that would finally result in a tow truck arriving several hours later - after the illegally parked car was long gone. Such desultory enforcement would make AB475 of little risk to EV drivers, but also of little deterrent value to ICEing.

Some years ago Houston took a very effective free market approach to parking enforcement. The city had an ordinance empowering any licensed tow truck operator to tow away any illegally parked car from any public or private property after something like 30 minutes, and set a standard schedule of fees. The tow truck drivers quickly learned where parking infractions were most common, and regularly cruised by those locations looking for business. If you parked in a tow-away zone even for a short time, there was a good chance you'd be in for several hours phoning to locate your car and check whether it was stolen, waiting, riding a taxi to a distant impound lot, waiting, and paying a few hundred dollars fine and towing fees to get your car back.

It worked - sometimes too well. Some businesses came up with unscrupulous ways of making money. Suppose you had a retail store open 7am-6pm, located next to a very popular night club or restaurant with limited parking. Even though you don't care whether cars park in your lot in the evening, you put up signs restricting parking to customers 24 hours a day. Tow truck drivers tow away dozens of cars each day, and cut you in for a portion of the takings. I think the city was going to modify the law somehow to deal with some of the towing rackets like that, but don't know how or whether they did so.

Anyway, with a towing law like Houston's, and with the repeal of AB475, the ICEing problem would go away, leaving only the lesser problem of plug-in cars hogging the space when they don't need it.
 
Back
Top