Beverly Hills bans plug in hybrids from public charging stations...

Seems you have missed my post that started this line.

If you are out in your Prime, and the only way for you to get home is to get a charge, then something has gone wrong. The entire point of getting a PHEV over a BEV is to have that gasoline fueled engine in the event that the grid charge isn't enough for the trip, correct?

As for needs vs. wants, well I want ice cream, but I need air. Going without one results in disappointment, and the other in death.

A BEV with a flat battery needs a charge to keep moving, just like any non-plug in needs fuel in the tank. A PHEV with a flat battery, but with fuel in the tank, does not need a charge to keep going. You may want to charge it, and there are multiple valid reasons to do so, but those reasons don't elevate the want to a need.

Personally, I think getting a PHEV and trying to not use the ICE is wasteful. Don't want to drive by an engine, get a BEV. But I don't care if people do, or if they use public chargers. I don't think public chargers that aren't for customers of another business should be free. It just encrourages poor manners and bad behavior. B.H. should have started with fees, and seen how the situation changes before banning PHEVs from chargers.

 

Then why buy a PHEV at all ? Just buy an ICE.

Perhaps B.H. had a PHEV squatting problem, not just for cheap/free electricity but for inexpensive/desirable parking. I agree 100% that fees would have solved it.
Fees are collected now; is it true that they were not collected before the changes ?

I really think that this entire thread is fueled by people turning it into an 'us' Vs 'them' debate when the underlying motivations and reasoning are mostly unstated.

 

imagine what it's like out in the real world?

 

Still a few months until football season.

 

This is where you got it wrong, IF I want to charge my Prime, it is not it's the only way, it is because I choose to. And there is nothing wrong about what I choose what I want to do.

Your example is totally out of proportion, not quite applicable in this debate. To charge my prime or not is not a life and death decision.

Here you are making assumption that every time I charge my Prime, there is someone with a flat battery fighting with me for the charging station but this is not true all the time, BUT if it happens that someone does have a flat battery and need to charge, then I might want to be nice and let him charge, this is totally out of me being nice, NOT because there need to be a LAW to force me to BE NICE to the other.

Some how it seems to me is that you are trying to push your point of view onto the others and forget totally about the source of the problem.
I believe the problem is due to not enough charging stations to meet the current demand, and you might know that the demand will increase with time and will not disappear later on.
There are many ways to deal with this problem without creating new laws to FORCE people to behave and waste 'time', 'energy' and 'taxpayer money' in the process. Setup more charging stations is one of the solution, charge a reasonable fee to use the charging station is another and I'm sure there are many other solutions also. The worst thing is to take away people's ability to choose what they want to do or take away their 'freedom of choice'.

 

Reading your Tea Party drivel makes me more supportive of the B.H. decision

 

Touchy are we?

Precisely, and that is charging it is a want as oppose to a need.

Freedoms have limits; you can't cry Fire in a loaded theater, you can't own a RPG(the weapon), people under 21 can't buy alcohol, etc.

Excluding a PHEV from a charging spot isn't limiting your freedoms. It does not limit where you can go, who you can meet, and where you can do business any more than traffic and road regulations already do. You are already excluded from certain fuel pumps. Those for business or government fleets aren't open to everyone to use. Diesel cars and trucks can't use the diesel pumps for commercial trucks. PHEVs excluded from a charger is no different.

 

In Salt Lake City we get major inversions which create bad air days and if you have a PHEV, they would prefer you driving as much EV as possible. Just trying to do my part.

 

Which I would say is a valid reason to drive in EV, but that still doesn't make it a need for a PHEV.
As a hybrid, the Prime emits a fraction of what other cars do out the tailpipe.

 

if the city wants peeve's to charge as much as possible for air quality reasons, they won't limit stations to pure bev's.

 

The geography of California and in particular the LA basin creates major problems with air circulation/inversion layers. PHEVs should be encouraged to use public charging stations as much as possible to avoid gasoline use.

BEVs are in no more need of public charging stations than PHEVs. Almost all "needs" are self inflicted. It is the person who acquired the BEV that made the choice to go BEV as opposed to PHEV or ICE or long range BEV. Most on these threads support the electrification of vehicles, both PHEVs and BEVs alike, and if one can safely make the leap to go all electric, that's great and admirable.

Most households are 2+ vehicles. Which means most households could have a BEV and a PHEV or ICE, or a short range BEV and a long range BEV.

In a scenario where one can't be guaranteed to safely make a commute in a BEV because that would depend on some city charging location not being occupied, that driver should take the other PHEV or ICE or long range BEV in the stable. What about a one vehicle household? That person should have acquired a PHEV or hybrid or long range BEV instead if range safety was in question.

But bypassing those logical choices and prematurely going BEV and expecting that public charging ensures an uninterrupted commute and insisting a PHEV show charging deference is abusive and discourteous. The BEV driver should not count on a public charging spot being open.

 

imo, those arguing that phev's shouldn't block stations based on etiquette, have simply argued too long to admit they are wrong.

 

You can make that your first edict when you become King.

 

No need to. Just basic human decency.

 

They really just need to have a fee for use of the charger. It did cost the city to put it in, and the electric isn't free.

Great idea to have them free to improve air quality, but there is always going to be some asshat that ruins it for everyone.

 

with all the fee's, fines, taxes, charges and etc. that we have from government, it is interesting that they choose to give free electricity, parking and infrastructure to a select class of people.

 

That did it, I'm not moving there now.

 

Yep, Beverly Hills prefers Tesla drivers...... Go Figure.