Person tripped over my outside cable cover whilst charging car...

Baldytyke88

Okell said:

People who deliberately run trip hazards across the footpath have no justification for escaping liability.

I live in a "city" but the road I live on has no street lights between midnight and just before dawn.  No matter how prominent or colourful a cable cover was, it wouldn't be visible to anyone at 1am.

Surely an overhead cable would have been better?

unforeseen

Baldytyke88 said:

Okell said:

People who deliberately run trip hazards across the footpath have no justification for escaping liability.

I live in a "city" but the road I live on has no street lights between midnight and just before dawn.  No matter how prominent or colourful a cable cover was, it wouldn't be visible to anyone at 1am.

Surely an overhead cable would have been better?

It would need to be a minimum height of 5.8 metres above the highway. The pavement being part of the highway. 

Baldytyke88

unforeseen said:

It would need to be a minimum height of 5.8 metres above the highway. The pavement being part of the highway. 

Why have you picked that figure, the tallest man ever was less than 9 foot.

Emmia

Baldytyke88 said:

unforeseen said:

It would need to be a minimum height of 5.8 metres above the highway. The pavement being part of the highway. 

Why have you picked that figure, the tallest man ever was less than 9 foot.

It's not picked at random, 5.8m is the law, to allow for people and vehicular traffic, since the same regulations apply to the road (carriageway) and pavements (footway)

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1988/1057/part/IV/made

Exodi

booneruk said:

born_again said:

I can never see public charging getting anywhere near home charging costs.
Given the cost of the actual chargers, the cost of the infrastructure, maintenance & as this is a service the extra VAT incurred.

Maybe there should be a fixed standing charge to cover the cost of infrastructure etc, rather than enduring an inflated cost per kWh.

I say that slightly tongue in cheek, I bet certain types would absolutely (not) LOVE it!

I think even disregarding the cost of installing the infrastructure, you must still consider overheads and profits for the company installing them. Plus even if you could disregard all of that, I'm still not sure it could be matched.

E.g. I'm currently on the EON Next Drive tariff - my unit rate is 6.7p/kWh when charged between the hours of midnight and 7am. Obviously I have my charger scheduled to only dispense electricity during those hours. I have a 61kWh battery, meaning if I plugged it in at 15% charge, it would just about charge to 100% overnight in that window for a total cost of £3.47.

A significant amount of public chargers I've encountered charge 79p/kWh, which would put the cost for the same charge at £40.96 - frankly insane difference, hence I would rather push the car down the motorway than charge at the services.

Some charge even more, but some also charge less, generally the speed of the charge dictates the rate. I have seen some for 59p/kWh and google suggests some curbside chargers can charge from 44p/kWh (which is still 6.5x the rate I pay). The problem is, people shouldn't be comparing this to the typical household electricity unit rate of ~30p/kWh, most EV users will be using EV tariffs.

On the flipside, homeowners would need to pay ~£1k to have an EV charger installed, so while you may be paying £30 extra per charge (just using my car as an example), I'd need to charge the car 30+ times to break-even on the EV charger install cost. As I charge my car maybe every week or two, this could take a year on (though of course higher users will breakeven quicker!).

I can't see a world where public chargers can get even remotely close to the rates home users can enjoy.

Mildly_Miffed

unforeseen said:

Baldytyke88 said:

Okell said:

People who deliberately run trip hazards across the footpath have no justification for escaping liability.

I live in a "city" but the road I live on has no street lights between midnight and just before dawn.  No matter how prominent or colourful a cable cover was, it wouldn't be visible to anyone at 1am.

Surely an overhead cable would have been better?

It would need to be a minimum height of 5.8 metres above the highway. The pavement being part of the highway. 

As a theoretical height, that's one thing.

As a practical height, there's an awful lot of electricity and telecomms infrastructure - not to mention trees - that may beg to differ.

Tryinghardtosave

get one of these Charge Gully | Charging an EV without a Driveway

user1977

Mildly_Miffed said:

unforeseen said:

Baldytyke88 said:

Okell said:

People who deliberately run trip hazards across the footpath have no justification for escaping liability.

I live in a "city" but the road I live on has no street lights between midnight and just before dawn.  No matter how prominent or colourful a cable cover was, it wouldn't be visible to anyone at 1am.

Surely an overhead cable would have been better?

It would need to be a minimum height of 5.8 metres above the highway. The pavement being part of the highway. 

As a theoretical height, that's one thing.

As a practical height, there's an awful lot of electricity and telecomms infrastructure - not to mention trees - that may beg to differ.

Whatever the height it's still going to be unlawful without the highway authority's consent.

MeteredOut

Tryinghardtosave said:

get one of these Charge Gully | Charging an EV without a Driveway

Needs council approval, which (anecdotally) is difficult to get, or expensive.

(assuming pavement is council owned and not private)

The OP was online yesterday so it looks like we might not be getting any more updates, which is a shame.

Baldytyke88

user1977 said:

Whatever the height it's still going to be unlawful without the highway authority's consent.

It is an offence to obstruct public roads, footpaths and pavements, but that doesn't stop cars from parking on it. Their defence is(outside London) that they only obstruct part of it, so the police don't enforce it.

My suggestion is not that it's entirely legal, but that it's a practical solution and better than causing a tripping hazard.