It is marked on both the ground and on the sign. I'll check tomorrow to see if it has blue lines.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Supercharger - San Diego, CA - Camino Del Sur (Black Mountain Ranch area, LIVE 11 Jan 2019)
- Thread starter Cosmacelf
- Start date
-
- Tags
- California Supercharging USA
I was looking back on the thread, and the lines definitely were white when the photos were taken, but you're right, the emblem is there on the ground. It didn't show up in the most recent photo in this thread (out of frame), but it's there in earlier photos.
Supercharger - San Diego, CA - Camino Del Sur (Black Mountain Ranch area, LIVE 11 Jan 2019)
Supercharger - San Diego, CA - Camino Del Sur (Black Mountain Ranch area, LIVE 11 Jan 2019)
I just looked up the regulation. It isn't required that it has blue lines, just says that it needs to be marked with contrasting colors preferably in blue or white.
There are some other details I’ve seen just about everywhere else, like the words “parking only” on the sign below the wheelchair emblem and a “minimum fine” sign.
It looks like the “minimum fine” language is the law in California:
Law section
This SC was completely full both Friday evening (7PM or so) and Monday morning (10AM). I waited more than 20 minutes on Friday for a spot. Some people seemed to be parking and taking the family to one of the restaurants nearby.
Also, on Monday there was a non-placarded S in the handicapped spot. No driver standing by so I assume they felt confident they would not get ticketed.
Also, on Monday there was a non-placarded S in the handicapped spot. No driver standing by so I assume they felt confident they would not get ticketed.
Sandiegodoug
Active Member
A lot of people charging go to target too. I find the line seems to move faster than the one at Qualcomm, when there is one. There are a ton of Tesla’s in 4s ranch.
A lot of folks do park in the disabled spot illegally. I explain the law to them when I see them. I've also seen several folks receive tickets when parked illegally in the disabled spot.
Legalities aside, I find it morally wrong to park illegally in a disabled parking spot.
I agree. The line here moves much faster than at Qualcomm.
You assumed that they were confident that they wouldn't get a ticket. I disagree with your assumption. I think that they lack the morals to understand that taking a disabled parking spot is wrong.
Moderator note: several posts were removed due to one member using inappropriate language.
On TMC, civility is not optional, it is required. Reasoned, civil discussion is what we do here.
Thank you. Carry on...
On TMC, civility is not optional, it is required. Reasoned, civil discussion is what we do here.
Thank you. Carry on...
Moderator note: multiple posts moved to
Idea: Tesla could limit charge to 80% when a location is extremely busy
They will be merged into the existing thread that @mociaf9 kindly found and referred to. I’m not a mod in that forum so I can’t merge the threads.
Idea: Tesla could limit charge to 80% when a location is extremely busy
They will be merged into the existing thread that @mociaf9 kindly found and referred to. I’m not a mod in that forum so I can’t merge the threads.
Last edited:
This is not a true disability-placard-only parking spot for two reasons: (1) it is not correctly signed as a disability-placard-only parking spot (see above link) and (2) charging is not "parking" according to the state of California, see below link.
What would be "illegal" is any parking ticket issued to EVs charging in this space, see Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559 (1965),
a U.S. Supreme Court case which holds that citizens cannot be sanctioned "for exercising a privilege which the State had clearly told him was available to him." In this present situation, the State of California, through its State Architect, gave clear guidance that all EVs may charge in such charging spaces, even if such spaces have a preferential use for vehicles bearing disability placards.
I suggest that TMC members (and the police) take a step back and try to be respectful of those who need accessible charging spaces while also not castigating those who should use an open charging station when no one who requires accessibility is using it. These two civil attitudes are not mutually exclusive.
https://www.apta.com/mc/sustainabil...ric Vehicle Charging Stations - Ida Clair.pdf
I appreciate your well researched and thoughtful post.
I don't think (2) holds water as a reason that charging in accessible chargers is open to all. EV charging spaces are specifically treated as a type of parking spaces by the vehicle code, see http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH§ionNum=22511.
When the article that you linked says that parking and charging are distinct, what they mean is that parking and charging are different services that both require disability accommodation. As a property owner who offers both parking and charging, it's not enough for there to be accessible parking spaces near the building, you also need to make sure that you have accessible charging stalls.
I agree that the suggested markings in that document are insufficient to make a legally enforceable disabled-only parking space, but it's not clear to me that this is by design. They are certainly very confusing to someone who doesn't know the specific elements required for such in California (which can vary depending on when the spot was installed!): Law section
It all comes from the overloading of the ISA (wheelchair symbol) to not just mean "here's the accessible option anyone can use" (like for restrooms or building entrances) but also "reserved only for those who need it" in the context of parking spots. It seems the former interpretation is intended here, but then even the author of the doc you linked seems to be confused by this, as they state that the requirements for small charging stations (having at least one van accessible spot that needn't be labeled as such) result in an accessible stall "available to everyone and not limited to those with access license plates or placards", hinting that this is not true for the larger cases where the ISA is required.
I can see why Tesla installations sometimes include signage with explicit permission to use the accessible stall; it could help people worry less about getting into legal arguments over what the ISA symbol means...
I don't know weather to love this post, agree with it, or mark it as informative. I wish that I could do all three. Thank you.
I'm fine with the sentiment, but your position on the legal situation is not correct. You correctly pointed out that a parking stall and an EV charging station (EVCS) are not the same thing under CA law and are treated differently. And likewise, you've correctly identified that the stalls in question aren't "disability-placard-only parking spots". But, they ARE "disability-placard-only" EVCS. At least they are so long as they're signed with the ISA (wheelchair symbol). Any EVCS that is signed with the ISA is for disabled access use only.
Here is the FAQ on accessible EVCS [PDF] from the Department of the State Architect which addresses this exact question (last two pages):
Where I think you may have been getting confused from the PDF you linked is that, depending on the number of EVCS in an installation, a stall which is otherwise designed to meet the accessibility requirements ISN'T always required to be signed with the ISA. This is true for locations with between 1-4 EVCS. In such an instance, you are absolutely correct that anyone can use that stall to charge. It's still an accessible EVCS which meets the requirements for providing accessible services, it's just not a "restricted use" one because it isn't signed for that. Should the owner decided to put up an ISA sign at that stall, it would become a "restricted" EVCS legally available for use only by those with disabled access placards/plates.
