Plug-In Road Rage: It begins

From past posts, it sounds like those smart ED are the previous generation. I don't think they had limited regions for fleet sales of it. Smart's site for the current ED had always mention wider availability even when only available on the west coast. I noticed during the summer that the availability map had expanded to the east coast, and language still sounds like expansion further is planned.

I might take an ED over a Leaf. I don't need a back seat for my commute and most errands. It looks like it will be more fun day to day than a Leaf. The Leaf's range advantage can't be ignored though. Neither would work for my current commute though. Smart's optional battery lease and protection plan might make it easier for some to take the EV plunge.

The Spark and Fit EV have better range, and might actually work for me. beyond an initial "yeah, it will be more available," there hasn't been any more news from GM about that happening. Perhaps Honda is allowing for the possibility of doing so with the Fit once they have their data from the leases.

 

One thing's for sure, "I" won't have to deal with Plug-In Road Rage for at least a few more years...and likely these "problems" will be worked out by then. Best wishes.

 

Yea, I can imagine what happened to the Leaf that had one of these on it.

 

I wouldn't got that far, although I know you are being facetious.
Look, CA is most likely to have "EV road rage" because CA has the most EV's, period.

What would be interesting is any data we can see that ranks states and/or cities by the ratio of EVs to EV chargers (I know it would be harder for cities since cars are registered by state, but the smaller the geographic area, the more useful it is (and hopefully employers would be keeping tabs on such info, especially given they've spent money on EVSE and it is causing personnel problems)).

Bottom line: The higher the ratio, the higher the incidences of EV Rage and vice versa.

Now, as far as building out an employer-based EVSE network, I see no problem in mandating that all employers provide no less than 1 station for every 2 EVs/PHEVs driven by employees. This mandate could even come from the federal government. I know certain people will decry erosion of liberties and/or over-reach by Big Government, but the cold, hard fact is that commuting to and from work is THE largest component of U.S. oil consumption....far dwarfing interstate trucking, airlines, the military, heating oil.

If a mandated 2-to-1 EVSE ratio were found to be the most cost-effective means of speeding transition to EV/PHEVs, and thus reducing U.S. oil imports, then it would follow there is room for a national program with either a hard mandate or some sort of tax-credit sweetener. One can disagree with that, but then one would also have to be opposed to federal involvement in the above-mentioned, lesser users of oil (trucks, military, heating, oil, airlines), all of which are regulated in the name of national interest.

 

They also are the only state where it is so prevelant that it even has a legal definition. Hey but the worst video of road rage last year was from nyc. Long commutes in heavy traffic is a recepe. At least that prius driver wasn't like that ny van driver than ran into a motorcylist, then was beaten by the motorcycle group.

Austin has the data. Cars, chargers, how much they charge at home versus public chargers. I'm sure other cities have this as well. No personal problems here yet on public chargers, but they do have a fee, and there isn't much road rage. 90% of charging is done at home, and teslas and volts are the cars I see most often, and they don't get into much trouble.

No. You need #1 people likely to act out road rage. That is a low proportion here, but may be high in LA or NYC. 2 you need the number of plug-ins that need to charge outside the home. To me the prius phv driver in most of the country would not have acted out. He prevented a volt driver of charging up to a gallon of gas worth of electricity, and the volt driver stopped him from charging at most 1/5 of a gallon. Its pretty sad if you excuse his vandalism, and think if only their were more chargers. This is bad behavior, plain and simple. Perhaps a $5000 fine to help install cameras, whould help that vandal not key a car because someone took a plug and (s)he had to pay for up to $0.90 for gas. And it wasn't about helping the environment, the volt probably saved more gas by plugging in.

I'm more concerned that employers create jobs then install outlets. I know all my past employers except one would happily add at least an outdoor plug, but that is not a majority of the country. I don't understand the need to force employers to do this. Median leaf owner commutes 29 miles and drives less than 40 a day, tesla and volt owners don't have range anxiety at all. Why try to force those with long commutes to buy electric vehicles? They are a very small part of the population. Here is where we get to california again. Forget about zero, and think low. They are trying to force only bevs and fcv, and that is part of the problem. PHEVs are appropriate for those with certain driving patterns. 5 prius phevs or 2 volts in Southern California surely reduce pollution as much as one fcv, but california is trying to force bevs and fcv, and not counting phevs towards the required cars. They would also reduce oil use more. But as long as you are going to try to force this zero that is not zero there will likely be a problem with public chargers, that was really created by the regulators.

That is an unlikely if. I know toyota has told people that 11 miles is some how optimum, but it is not, and most of the volume in plug-in cars are in those that can do the majority of daily driving charged at home. We have a spoiled brat in california that keyed anouther car. This is a problem with the person, not that their are too few public chargers.

 

It is not the employers responsibility to provide FUEL to or for it's employees for their work commute, go shopping, pick up the kids, reducing oil imports or any other environmental or economic reason YOU think the government should mandate (force) them to do it for. I don't care if it's electricity, gas, diesel, jet fuel, natural gas, propane, animal feces or anything else you might think of now or in the future. If the employee's vehicle, by choice or not, can not get them to work and back, that is their problem and responsibility, not the employers. I know many people who can not afford a car, let alone an expensive EV or Plug-In, that use mass transit. If that won't get them to work and back, that is their problem too. The cold, hard fact that commuting to and from work is THE largest component of U.S. oil consumption has nothing to do with it. You may see a problem with this, but we go to work to MAKE MONEY...so we can take care of own business. I'm not saying whether or not I agree it should happen, but if you want the government to mandate anyone to do as you suggest, force the oil companies to provide the infrastructure for the small percentage of plug-in whatevers we now have...and to keep pace with the growth as it occurs. After all, they are the ones with all the money and organization to do it. But that wouldn't be their responsibility either would it.

Sorry Scorpion, I know you intentions are noble, but you are dead wrong on this one.

 

Apologies I am not fully up to date on all these cars.

I really don't follow it day to day, but we have smart eds charging at city chargers;-) outside of california. If they were to be causing charger rage in austin we have enough. I'm sure they aren't current generation, but smart used the car2go comments to design it. Current generation gets rolled out nationally next month.
Smart Fortwo Electric Drive Available Nationwide in February

Nah, that was the old japanese group think that low prices are what sell these things. Drive a smart then drive a leaf. The smart is a short distance city car that mercedes bought into. There real plug-in, powered by tesla comes out later this year. I haven't driven a imev, perhaps you want one of those. Just lease a leaf if you want protection from falling battery prices.

Don't know. Conspiracy theory on the spark is gm is losing money on each one, but is making money on the volt, so they don't want to sell many more. That may be what is going on with the fit ev, if you believe the chatter.

Either way I don't think lack of the 500e, spark ev, and fit ev in most of the country is what is causing the rage in california and not elsewhere. We don't hear about these vehicles involved ;-) It is likely a california only problem. My solutions would be.

1) Attempt to get rid of the free riders, but still give it cheap at public chargers. Austin Energy charges $25 for 6 months unlimited. This would likely get rid of the bulk of prius phvs, and many of the volts, just making them pay something. If you don't join the club they are $2/hr. I am not saying these rates are right, but some rates would get rid of the entitement. Charging will at least all the state to know where new chargers need to be installed.

2) Totally reconfigure the credit system in zev. Allow phevs partial credit, don't give a huge bonus for hydrogen or battery swap. Most people don't need this. If you want electric miles and low tailpipe emissions that will get there faster without picking fcv as the winner with special perks, and phev as the loser because part of the time they use the ice. That would allow infrastructure to grow organically.

3) Provide state incentives for businesses to install plugs for plug in drivers. Drop the incentive of state money over the federal incentive, to help pay for the plugs. That will get less people angry at plug-in drivers.

 

I'm not sure which group you are comparing to the Prius driver. I know the story went national, but the details might not have made it out. I don't remember all the details at this point. The bikers were slowing down traffic to create an open space to zip along or even perform stunts. Range Rover bumps one. Bikers stop and surround the SUV. The driver becomes afraid for himself and family, and runs one over getting away. Then the rest.

From goggle hits it appears the trail against the bikers was last month. One reveal is that they also threaten the woman in the car.

Modern day road rage started in California with actual shootings. There is a joke about it in the Steve Martin film L.A. Story.

As for the rest of your post, a person should not buy a BEV with a range that won't meet their daily needs from a home charge. People shouldn't ride on fumes, hoping to get to the cheaper gas station either. Running out of any fuel is a big hassle.

Employers offering charging to reduce gasoline use, and extend battery life is a nice perk. They shouldn't be forced too. In addition to the personal liberty issue, we'll end up with chargers at coal fired power plants, and the anti-BEV pointing to those cars has dirtier than a hybrid. I do think we should revisit the issue of incentivizeing employer chargers once availability of west coast/CARB cars expand.

Or it was just a drunk or asshat that likes breaking things.

 

Good news there. Smart's site only states early 2014.

My commute is a little over 60 miles round trip. I figure an 80 mile range is the minimum I could live with. Hence, I have not test driven any of them. I did favor the iMiEv over the Leaf. I prefer smaller cars in general since they tend to be more agile. The Leaf would probably win out in a hypothetical because of its increased range. It just seems to be trying too hard to be more like an ICE car. I understand it being better for a family, but I don't have kids.

Over 95% of the time these BEVs would just be me going to work and back though. So I'm happy with just skipping the pretense that they might see use beyond that, and drive the one that would bring me more fun. I wouldn't have mind owning a gas, or diesel, smart before this generation of ED arrived. I agree the previous one was lacking in areas from the specs.

I personally would skip on the seperate battery lease. I just think it is good that smart offers it. It's another option that might get someone to go BEV that might not have.

After the issues Nissan had in Arizona or New Mexico, I can understand Honda's lease to test the tech stance. So I can wait and see how it goes in the future, but don't hold out a real hope seeing how the Accord PHEV is Ca and NY only.

I think it's a shame the Spark and Fit aren't more widely available. Their 80 something ranges make a BEV possible for more people. From the business side, it is probably better to wait until a 100+ mile range one before committing nation wide because of the even greater potential customer pool.

Agree with the rest.

 

Frodoz, I am not going to teach you a refresher course in Econ 101.....you will need to re-take this course to find out how dead WRONG you are.

I am only "dead wrong" in your own mind. Any economist from a Nobel Prize winner on down will validate the legitimate role of government to regulate inter-state commerce, of which oil and energy is.

I'm afraid you don't even understand my arguments, based on your reply. I never said employers should provide FUEL, I said they should provide ACCESS to fuel; in many cases it won't cost them anything, they simply have to agree to let their property host EVSE.

The fact that commuting to work is the largest component of u.s. oil consumption has EVERYTHING to do with it. If you don't understand this, then perhaps we need to deploy you to a Mideast military base so it hits home for you.

Someone not having a properly maintained car or taking public transportation has nothing to do with it. Nor does an employee using fuel for shopping or picking up kids have anything to do with it. These are minor users of fuel that have nothing to do with employers or commuting, but don't get me wrong....there should be EVSE at schools and shopping centers too. Whether these are achieved with tax incentives or mandates is debatable, but the focus should be on the LARGEST consumers of oil.

Further, it seems you think that I am calling for some sort of "fuel entitlement".....I am not. I am NOT trying to to creat a monetary benefit for employees, I simply want the government to do what it is supposed to do. That means dealing with what we in economics call "externalities". The act of commuting imposes costs upon the general public, including those who don't even have jobs or cars. These include health, environmental, national security, tax and economic costs. Dealing with these external costs is a JOINT responsibility of those engaging in the transaction, namely employees and employers.

How far down this road do you want to go? By the way, the road ends in Somalia, like all liaisez-faire fantasies.
Next you are going to say the government has NO role in health care, which is the largest part of our economy, and bigger than the GDP of France?

Employees can't work if they are sick. They can't be productive if the are uneducated. That's why the government is involved in health and education. Similarly, our nation can't be strong and successful if we don't radically reduce our oil usage. I am not sure the best path because I have not seen cost vs. benefit comparison of employer-based EVSE, but whatever the solution, YES there is a legitimate government role.

The government already regulates energy use in federal agencies. (Including the single largest consumer of oil in the world, the U.S. Military), speed limits were originally about conservation, biofuel mandates, current and proposed regulations do airlines and heavy trucks (now subject to CAFE, and possibly the Pickens plan).....deal with it.

I want to make crystal clear my position.....I am not advocating employer EVSE; I want to see studies to determine if it's cost effective.
I am simply saying the government DOES have a legitimate role to play in reducing our oil use, however that may play out.



iPad ? HD

 

Providing free power for charges does not seem like a good idea. It provides an incentive to avoid charging at home in order to get free power elsewhere. This presumably contributess to excess demand on the free power and greater potential for confrontations.

It may be better to charge the peak rate that users will pay at home and use any spare incentive dollars to provide more charging stations where they will help most.

 

Seem like your are advocating the government should put heavy tax on gas to price above $10/gal such that only the very rich can afford to buy ICE cars and the poor should buy BEVs.

 

If you noted from last night's SOTU, that role and decision is now advocating for conversion to natgas for transportation (and Biofuel and GTL processes for DoD), not batteries and EVs. No doubt Boone Pickens is smiling, Elon Musk not so much, then again, he has already consumed more than his fair share at the all-you-can-eat federal buffet.

 

Hmmm.... Great idea.

That way only the 1% can afford to buy ICE cars, and the rest buys EV (ie. mostly middle working class). The 47% of the other people can take public transit, and retire all the gas guzzlers and heavy polluting cars.

Sierra Club smiling on this idea.

 

As I understand it, prices in the US are artificially low to begin with... and even at the typical prices in other countries that don't do that/as much, a lot of vehicles are ICE still. (Now how much/often they drive is another matter)

If you did raise the prices to their full price in the US, you'd probably end up with an outcry. (Lots of other differences too though, like public transportation). Also, the commute of some people would make you think they ought to move... ridiculously far.

 

When I said the EV-EVSE ratio is proportional to 'EV Rage', I obviously mean ceteris paribus, or as we say in econ "all things being equal". In other words, the ratio factors in driver psychology and holds true even over different geographic regions. Thus, in "polite" TX, there will still be more 'EV Rage' in an area with high EV-to-EVSE than in an area with a low one; the same relationship hold true in "rude" NY, although the actual #'s are higher in both cases. BTW, I wouldn't be so quick to point fingers at other people in the country. Yes, the stereotype is that ppl in NY and LA are rude, but being a dick doesn't make you violent, it just makes you a dick. I'd be much more worried in a place like TX, with all the gun fanatics. Forget about keying, I'd be more worried about getting shot, or having my car shot at.

I'm not so sure why employers have to give away electricity for free. I'm against that in principle. I think costs of both installing and using employer EVSE should be shared between employee, employer, utilities, and local and possibly state/federal government. Exactly how these costs are distributed is debatable, but obviously the one that maximizes EV sales at the lowest possible cost is ideal. An 8-hour long 110v charge would put far less stress on the grid than a 20-minute 480v charge, even though both occur during peak hours. Also, think of how much more convenient it is to let an employee charge their car while it is sitting there anyways, doing nothing for 8 hours other than waiting for you to drive it home, than it is to have them stop 20-30 minutes out of their way for a L3 charge?
So, yes, peaktime charging should be managed, but it can jump-start new techs like grid storage and V2G.

I'm not sure I follow you re: BEV vs. ICE....are you saying it is somehow a vow of poverty to be driving a Tesla? Or Even a Volt? Most of the EVs produced to date have been median or higher-priced models.....but your math doesn't follow for the Sparks, Fits, iMievs, Smart EDs, Fiat 500 EVs, etc.
Think of this: the 'median' american car, if it were to have an EV drive train, would have an efficiency of approx. 3mi/kwh. According to GM, 87% of Americans have a round-trip commute of less than 40 miles per day. If workplace charging were the norm, then we would only be concerned with how to get 20 miles of EV range Well, if we wanted to double the MPG of the 'median' car (which would 101% eliminate oil imports), we need only 10 miles of EV range, or about 3.3 kwh! That is nothing......I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if in the very near future, a PHEV-10 would cost only $2000 more than a pure ICE version of the exact same car. So, I don't quite follow your logic of how BEVs will be for the poor and ICE only for rich.....I see the future consisting of luxury Teslas as well as Coda-type EVs; luxury v12 BMWs, but also 3-cylinder Fiestas.

Well, I am all for natural gas too. Question is where to focus....seems Pickens Plan already targets trucks, so question is does Obama have some sort of NG plan for cars? I don't know, but again, we have to compare cost-vs.-benefit of all proposals. I have no problem with cars slowly filling their CNG tanks at work, but that equipment seems better suited for commercial and governmental vehicles that are all the same model, and return to the same fueling depot, rather than many different individual cars and driving patterns. I don't know this because I haven't seen the numbers, but what if - WHAT IF - the woes to our energy problems were literally right below our feet? What if all this talk about hydrogen highways, DC chargers, 200-mile EVs is just hot air, and we can very CHEAPLY harness 110v on mass scale at employers across the country, and combine this with a "sweet-spot" of PHEV-10 become the most popular type of car sold?
What if PHEV-10 + workplace 110v-charging is the least complex, lowest cost way of achieving our goals with regard to oil and emissions?

 

Aka Summer 2008 The End of the Bush Era when gas prices hit $5 a gallon in California...