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

Grey_Critic

People area;ready complaining about cars being parked on the pavement and causing an obstruction. and you are Running a Power Cable across a public footpath (particularly in the dark)

Just looking for trouble.

ThorOdinson

Where do you live? In Hampshire the council allows what you are doing, so your liability is greatly reduced

Okell

ThorOdinson said:

Where do you live? In Hampshire the council allows what you are doing, so your liability is greatly reduced

Are you sure the council is permitted to authorise trip hazards on the pavement?  Do their insurers know?

photome

ThorOdinson said:

Where do you live? In Hampshire the council allows what you are doing, so your liability is greatly reduced

Do they allow what the OP is doing or do they allow a “slot” cut in to the pavement so the pavement remains level

edit…after looking at Hampshire county council website they do indeed allow what the OP is doing .  Personally I think it’s crazy to allow a trip hazard across a pavement

HampshireH

photome said:

ThorOdinson said:

Where do you live? In Hampshire the council allows what you are doing, so your liability is greatly reduced

Do they allow what the OP is doing or do they allow a “slot” cut in to the pavement so the pavement remains level

edit…after looking at Hampshire county council website they do indeed allow what the OP is doing .  Personally I think it’s crazy to allow a trip hazard across a pavement

Technically that is true but it's not a blanket approach. What they actually say is highly caveated with the person being responsible and to check with their home insurer they are covered.

"Please note that it is the responsibility of the person charging the vehicle to adhere to any

parking restrictions that may be in place and to not obstruct the footway or any accesses.

The guidance is intended to help residents make informed decisions about how they can

charge a vehicle in these locations, but it is the responsibility of the person charging the

vehicle to avoid putting themselves and others at risk when trailing a cable across a footway

or an area people may cross."

"It is the resident’s responsibility to ensure that the cable does not cause a danger or a

nuisance to the public."

OP has not done this. The council have no authorised the OP to create a hazard.

Daytime charging as the OP has done it wouldn't be as much of a hazard nighttime absolutely is

born_again

sheslookinhot said:

I noticed today that cables ( the type that counts traffic) were located across a main road in Glasgow. They were secured to lamp standards and the cables were covered with the rubber protectors across the width of the pavement on either side of the road.

They will have permission to do so.
Something that the OP has not confirmed that they have from their council.

Mildly_Miffed

joeythepoey said:

I've seen it happen from my front room window at several occasions during the day - and people were always on their phone.

This should have been your clue that your solution was not workable - and you should have removed it before you reached the point where somebody came after you for injury you had caused.

Instead, your argument here is actually working against you, since you admit that you knew of the risk to pedestrians.

That's before we get to the legality questions...

Section62

Baldytyke88 said:

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.

Strictly anything which doesn't have lawful authority to be on a highway (and that includes parked cars outside designated parking places) is an obstruction and the person leaving the thing there is committing an offence.

That someone (outside London and Scotland) parks partly on a footway can't really use the fact they have only obstructed part of it as a defence.  Because it is still an obstruction.  What happens in practice is the courts (and therefore the police) have decided that some obstruction isn't important enough to convict someone for (in effect de minimis) but this revolves around case law and anyone parking on (or otherwise ostructing) the highway risks becoming the next famous case law name.

These days a decision to prosecute is likely to be influenced by the outcome - if someone is hurt or injured as a result of the obstruction they better hope they have good legal cover.

The difference in the OP's case is there is a specific offence where "A person who for any purpose places any rope, wire or other apparatus across a highway in such a manner as to be likely to cause danger to persons using the highway"

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/162

If the OP was prosecuted then it is probably more likely to be for this, rather than obstruction, because it is unlikely he would be able to show "he had taken all necessary means to give adequate warning of the danger"

Baldytyke88 said:

joeythepoey said:

We live in a residential neighbourhood and I bought two heavy duty cable covers for the charging cable so we can run the cable from our home to our car - it covers the width of the pavement.

Personally, I would say covering the cable with a rug would have been better. You have lots of advice, so I will just add this - in my local area there are large trees along the main road, the roots from these trees push up the tarmac pavement.

The council doesn't seem interested in leveling the pavement, perhaps a "bump" on the pavement is deemed ok?

The main difference is the trees have a right to be there.

Highway Authorities have what is known as the "special defence" (Section 58).  In essence, so long as the council has a highway maintenance policy in place, and that policy is complied with (including periodic inspections of the highway), then road users have something of an uphill battle to win a claim for damages.

Within that, case law has determined that road users have to take a highway as they find it - in other words use some common sense.  So if you see a big tree planted in the footway then you have to reasonably expect that the roots may have made the surface uneven and take extra care.  If you trip over a 'bump' caused by a tree root and try to claim against the council then the first thing they will do is to check when that footway was last inspected, and whether the 'bump' was within the accepted condition threshold for that kind of road.

Councils will deem some of their own 'bumps' as OK, but not bumps caused by other people who don't have the authority to cause them.

OP, in your position I would be talking to both the car and home insurer and tell them what happened (in terms of the person knocking on the door).  If someone has taken the trouble to (come back) and knock on your door there is a good chance they will take it further.  It isn't ideal for your (car) insurer to find out about an incident when someone makes a claim against you, rather than hearing it from you first.

Section62

photome said:

ThorOdinson said:

Where do you live? In Hampshire the council allows what you are doing, so your liability is greatly reduced

Do they allow what the OP is doing or do they allow a “slot” cut in to the pavement so the pavement remains level

edit…after looking at Hampshire county council website they do indeed allow what the OP is doing .  Personally I think it’s crazy to allow a trip hazard across a pavement

I think 'crazy' is a massive understatement.

Hampshire's guidance appears incompatible with their basic duty to "assert and protect the rights of the public", they can't just delegate decision making about what is and isn't safe to members of the public.  As Highway Authority they remain responsible (and liable) for that function.

I suspect the guidance hasn't been seen by someone with legal training.  E.g. It claims "the County Council has existing powers under Section 162 of the Highways Act to seek to have the cable removed."  Nope, there is no such power contained in S162.

Likewise, "Currently an EV charging cable does not require a licence. However, as policies are reviewed and updated this may change in the future." doesn't reflect any of the legal advice I've seen to date - there is no distinction in law between other (temporary) cables (which Hampshire say a license is needed for) and a cable used for charging an EV.  I'd love to know what they base this distinction on.

Exodi

born_again said:

Exodi said:

Grumpy_chap said:

I suspect the cost of public EV charging is not set from a bottom-up pricing generating a target profit percentage but is set to market-price as high as can be tolerated by the consumer and by reference to a competitive product.

I have, over the past few years, worked out energy cost per mile for public EV charging and, whenever I have done this, the cost has come out in the similar range to the cost of fuelling an ICE at the local petrol station.

My napkin maths do not align with this.

As a crude average, I might get ~200 miles from my 61kWh battery, and the car is only about a year old. When it's hot outside I'll get more than that, but when it's cold I'll get less, so it roughly in the right ballpark (though I see people in the EV forum suggest absolutely insane mile per kWh figures).

Charging at a services/petrol station/rapid charger/etc costs 79p/kWh meaning a total cost of £48.19 for ~200 miles. In my experience this is loosely about double the cost per mile of an ICE vehicle.

Whenever I look at Zapmap, it is quite hard to find anywhere nearby that charges significantly less than that, all are around 60/70/80p - the cheapest is Tesco but that's obviously limited by how long you can spend in the car park.

All I can say is last year I did 800 miles in a E-Niro. previous year I did 800 miles (same area) in a Niro HEV.
Cost was only a couple of £ more in the EV & that was my fault for charging too much on the way home.

I could have brought charge costs down by 20p kWh if I hade used Tesla chargers. But their location had nothing round it, so could not get a coffee or food, but as on holiday. I did not just want to sit in car charging. Prefer to spend a bit more & use facilities at the same time.
Had I used them, it would have been cheaper in EV.

Tesla was 51p
Average of others used was 72p

I think I understand the confusion now. I was talking about an EV being significantly more expensive than an ICE vehicle if you don't have access to a cheap home EV tariff, which brings down the average (I wasn't very clear), it's obviously cheaper if you can subsidise the majority with cheap home electricity.

Using your numbers, I suggested around 200 miles for my 61kW battery and a quick google on the e-Niro suggests "The Kia e-Niro uses a 64 kWh battery with a usable capacity of 64 kWh. It offers a range of about 230 miles, but actual range can vary based on driving conditions and style."

The capacity isn't terribly important, it's the m/kW. I suggested around ~3.3, whereas google suggests ~3.6, so in the ballpark.

For the sake of comparison on your example, 800 miles/222.6kW at 72p/kW (based on your average above) would be £160.27.

Alternatively, 800 miles/222.6kW at 51p/kW (based on constant access to Tesla chargers) would be £113.53

If you were able to fill the battery up at home before you left with a cheap EV tariff, you'd do 230 miles/64kW at 6.7p/kW = £4.23, and then 570 miles/158.6kW at 72p/kW (based on your average) = £114.19, total £118.42

Or lastly, if you were able to fill the battery up at home before you left with a cheap EV tariff, you'd do 230 miles/64kW at 6.7p/kW = £4.23, and then 570 miles/158.6kW at 51p/kW (based on constant access to Tesla chargers) would be £80.89, total £85.12

While I own an EV now, I believe I used to get about ~450 miles from a tank in my previous ICE car, and a tank was about £50. This would put the cost for the same trip around £88.89 (hence my earlier comment that public chargers are about double the cost of an ICE vehicle per mile - especially as most round my way are 79p/kW instead of 72p/kW).

As can be seen, the EV works out more expensive on this long drive for all scenarios except if you can charge on an EV tariff and have constant access to cheaper public charging.

I appreciate there will be some challenges - for example, some ICE cars are much less efficient than my previous, something huge with a big engine will naturally reduce the gap.

Likewise as an EV owner, I'm painfully aware of the significant difference in range depending on temperature. If it happened to be hot when you were doing your drive (hot being ~20 degrees), you might have been able to get 300 miles out a charge, maybe cut out a charge entirely, favouring the EV calculations. Of course I'm speaking in averages.

I guess my point was if you're solely relying on public charging (like the OP), it is unlikely to be cheaper than fueling an ICE vehicle per mile (unless it's hot, or you have access to cheap public rates).