You might want to pass that suggestion on to the Nevada legislature, then. The law on the books, NRS 484B.468, is not that forgiving:
Before anybody bothers agitating to the lot owners or authorities on the matter and potentially making themself look like an ignorant prig, they should carefully read the relevant statute (NRS 484B.468) and understand that it doesn't apply to the supercharger. Specifically, none of the stalls are marked or signed in such a way to meet the requirements laid out in Section 2 of the statute and therefore it doesn't apply. BTW, this is 100% intentional and not an oversight or mistake. Hell, the signs that are there even explicitly include (conditional) allowances for parking by non-charging vehicles.
Okey-dokey. I can't recall what the signs at the site specifically state, or even if the parking spaces are marked. I guess I'll just volunteer to be the "ignorant prig" and contact Tesla to suggest that they consider doing what's necessary to make the site conform to the NRS 484B.468 statute:
I know, I’m in the minority. I never got so many thumbs down as when I challenged the idea of idle fees. People are ridiculously punitive.
Oh, no. I wasn't suggesting that someone would be an ignorant prig for making polite requests or suggestions to Tesla that they change the site markings/signs so that the law applies. I meant that people hassling the property owners/Tesla/police under the mistaken belief that the law already applied and complaining that it isn't being enforced could come off this way. As for your volunteering, of course your time is your own to spend as you'd like. Unfortunately though, you'd be wasting it on this matter because Tesla and the owners have no intention of ever making the changes needed so that the law applies and aren't going to regardless of the number/volume of requests to the contrary. It would run very much against their interests to do so.
I believe that there is a gate at the entrance and Tesla give you a code to enter,
- What kind of adapter this Bolt use?
