Comment by kamran20 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by kamran20 | Hacker News Reader

Unlike the majority of gas stations in Japan however, the 40,000 electric car charging points quoted by Nissan includes ones in private homes, causing some critics to cry foul. After all, if a charging station is hidden in a privately-owned garage, it isn’t easily accessible to the public. Yet while we understand that criticism — and it’s why we used an asterisk in our headline — the rise of charger-sharing sites like PlugShare.com means that more people than ever before are offering their private charging station for others to use, either as an altruistic gesture or for cold, hard cash. Moreover, it’s possible to argue that because privately-owned charging stations are enabling owners to drive their cars without visiting public charging stations, they’re providing just as valid a service to everyday drivers as publicly-assessable, higher-powered ones. But while electric car charging stations may now be far more common in Japan than a gas station, the numbers of electric cars on the roads of Japan still represent a tiny proportion of the total cars registered. It includes public and private charging spots but the article does raise some good points about 'charge spot pooling' and reducing the dependency on petrol stations. Interesting times ahead!

I'd like to read exactly what those critics say because I'm curious to see if they are accounting for the difference in driving culture between the US and Japan. Specifically, in Japan:

1. Owning a car in Japan is no where near as simple as in the US. One of the requirements that makes the private charging stations criticism sound ignorant is that you must have a legal verified parking spot to own a car. So the majority of people who own electric cars will only need to use a charging station when they are away from home for longer than a single charge. This is probably not applicable in most daily use.

2. Charging stations can be left unattended for 24 hour use. That's a huge plus as electric cars start spreading. Why? Because in Japan, many gas stations close and are unavailable during most night hours. Finding 24 hour stations (usually self pump ones) after 7-8pm can be difficult in some areas. So the gap between accessible fill-up/charge-up spots isn't as big as most Americans are imagining. Of course a gap exists, but that will only close over time. (edit: people also are much more conscious about having a full tank before departing on long trips. It's just one of those things you have to think about when driving in Japan.)

3. Last is the daiko/taxi system in Japan. Read about the 0% alcohol tolerance system and how this car service system works to make people's lives easier here. Heck, you can't even ride your bike while drunk in Japan. The way people approach transportation here is just different.

The driving culture in Japan is very different and it's hard to take that criticism seriously unless some hard numbers and studies are done to take into account the massive difference in driving culture.

It's true that you must have a parking spot to own a car, but not necessarily at your residence. People with unused parking often rent it out, through an intermediary company or directly to a neighbor. Empty lots awaiting construction are also often rented out as parking spaces.

Yup, I'm aware of that but also know that the situation is very dependent on where you live (prefectures, cities, etc.) which is why I want to see numbers and actual studies rather than a hollow criticism. The differences in cultures is real. I think I've given enough examples to show that. The question is, have the people criticizing the numbers done any real studies? Because in a vacuum, 40,000 charging spots, regardless of whether or not they are private or public, is an amazing number.

> Heck, you can't even ride your bike while drunk in Japan.

That is true in many places officially, though a blind eye is often turned.

In the UK (my location) this is covered by section 30 or the Road Traffic Act (1988): "It is an offence for a person to ride a cycle on a road or other public place when unfit to ride through drink or drugs".

You can't be breathalysed (well, you can but you can't be forced to, if they ask you can decline unlike when in a car or other such vehicle) or be made to give other samples (though as with breath, if they ask and you volunteer the sample can be used as evidence), but other tests can be demanded (i.e. the standard finger-to-nose, straight-line, and alphabet physical & mental coordination tests). It'll not affect your driving license if you have one but there are potentially significant fines.

> That is true in many places officially, though a blind eye is often turned.

And it happens where I live too (in Japan). But I have seen police officers stop people who were obviously drunk from riding their bike too. It's very situational, but at least in Japan, it's a real enough thing that people actively think about it here.

[That is true in many places officially, though a blind eye is often turned.]

This is kind of off topic, but there are some places in the USA where you can get a DUI for riding a dirt bike in your own back yard (while drunk).

Since DUI laws often even extend down to roller skates, one could extrapolate that you could technically get a DUI for roller skating drunk around your kitchen.

Of course, no sensible judge would let that fly (I hope).

The problem in this case is that many of the DUI laws don't distinguish between private and public property.

> The problem in this case is that many of the DUI laws don't distinguish between private and public property.

Neither do injuries caused by drunk drivers.

I mean, fundamentally, on your own private property you are far less likely to cause injury to someone else or someone else's property, for the sheer fact that people would be trespassing on your private property to be there for the accident to happen. There's a material difference between private and public property, one having more chances for injury of others than the other.

I don't know about DUI specifically, but this is why crimes have many degrees of misdemeanor and felony for the same core behavior.

> This is kind of off topic, but there are some places in the USA where you can get a DUI for riding a dirt bike in your own back yard (while drunk).

In what situation could this happen though? I feel like other laws would prohibit this from happening. A police officer can't enter your property without a warrant or probable cause. So unless you're visible in your backyard, and very noticeably intoxicated, how could they tell you're not just clumsy and practicing?

But if you end up driving through your neighbor's fence, or run over a guest/family member in your own backyard, I don't think a DUI is unreasonable. Or if you drive into your own home, tree, whatever, and try to contact insurance for damages, it also makes sense to consider that you were intoxicated.

I think there are different types of "enter your property." A police officer could certainly walk into your yard without a warrant, and if they saw "suspicious biking" in your backyard, I bet they wouldn't need a warrant to go in the backyard.

You're on much safer ground drunkenly roller skating in your kitchen.

I knew a guy who got a DUI pulling a fellow out of ditch. Mr. DUI was driving in his yard and yard travelled perhaps 15 feet. I don't think he touched the public road, or even intended to, but it doesn't matter, at least in my state

This would also apply to larger properties and businesses, such as farms. It is probably a good thing to have regulations against intoxicated driving around a farm when there are other people that could get hurt there.

I suspect people also tend to get busted for this sort of thing when the cops get called for some other (possibly related) reason, e.g. you're doing drunken donuts on your property and the neighbor calls the police because you're disturbing her with loud music.

In most places the cops would probably tell you yes, indeed, you can get a DUI for driving drunk on your own property, so turn off the radio, go inside, and we'll call it even.

When you're dumb enough to start mouthing off at that point, that's when you get the DUI.

> [In what situation could this happen though? A police officer can't enter your property without a warrant or probable cause.]

While this may seem like an extremely unlikely scenario for many people, it's actually not that hard to think of a situation where this could happen, particularly in more rural areas of the country.

Where I live (South Jersey), there aren't many places where you can legally ride dirt bikes and ATV's, but many people have a decent amount of land, so they ride around in their back yards.

Consider the following hypothetical scenario:

A group of friends riding around on dirt bikes in their back yard, drinking some Budweiser, when suddenly, a neighbor calls the cops for the noise. The cops arrive and notice the beer bottles on the ground.

Now, most rational cops would probably just tell the people to knock it off, but you're essentially at their mercy at this point.

Each person could end up getting a DUI charge for doing something that was not endangering anyone other than themselves.

> [But if you end up driving through your neighbor's fence, or run over a guest/family member in your own backyard, I don't think a DUI is unreasonable.]

There's one key detail here: You're referring to cases where an accident has actually (possibly) occured as a result of being drunk. In these cases, I agree, being drunk should definitely result in a more severe punishment. However, I'm talking about a DUI being used proactively as a method of preventing risky behavior that could have potentially harmed others, but has not actually resulted in any accidents.

My argument is that, unlike driving a car drunk on public roads (where a DUI is certainly justified), the risk of harming innocent bystanders in this scenario is exceedingly small, and therefore does not warrant a potentially life-ruining charge when no harm has actually occured.

If not here, then where do we draw the line?

Should a group of people playing baseball in their back yard while drunk be arrested and charged with a crime because they could have potentially hit the ball just right and killed someone?

There are tons of examples of crazy accident scenarios that could have been avoided by better judgement.

I think that situations like these should be addressed on a per-incident basis. It doesn't make sense to proactively punish people for things that are of such a low risk of harming others. These scenarios are rare and unique enough that a general law really doesn't work well.

> [Or if you drive into your own home, tree, whatever, and try to contact insurance for damages, it also makes sense to consider that you were intoxicated.]

I'm 80% sure that insurance would still have to pay out in this case. They pay out for house fires caused by cigarettes, so I assume this is no different, but I really have no confirmation of this.

About 15 years ago, a friend almost got a DUI for riding his bike while drunk in the SF bay area - the cop was going to cite him if he couldn't get a friend to come pick him up.

Another important point is that people in Japan are much more able (and likely) to travel by train for the kind of long journeys where refuelling/recharging would be important. So comprehensive charging station infrastructure is less of a prerequisite for most people to consider an electric vehicle.

In general, most gas stations have more than one petrol or diesel pumping point!

Also, electric cars mostly have a much shorter range than gas/diesel vehicles, so need to charge more frequently.

And electric cars take much longer to charge than internal combustion engines (double-digit minutes to multiple hours, vs. single-digit minutes).

So, really, even if all of these charge points were publicly accessible, there are about two orders of magnitude too few of them to service an electric vehicle fleet of the same size as the IC vehicle fleet.

(It is, however, a very promising early sign.)

Yes, it would be more useful to compare capacity in range delivered. Filling up at a gas station takes ~ 5 minutes and adds 400 miles /640 kilometres of range. Filling up at a charging point takes x hours and delivers y range.

Stick in some real world average numbers, count pumping points (not gas stations) and charging points, and then adjust for peak demand (gas by day, electricity by night) and you have comparable numbers.

You also have to factor in (at least for trips) the real total time it takes to fill up. Typically you turn off the interstate and drive a mile or so into town, find the gas station, pull in, fill up (where you have to be at the pump while filling), then you may make a pit stop / grab a snack, and generally stretch you legs (assuming you've been driving for 400 miles = 7 hours). Whereas the Tesla quick charge stations, I believe you can leave your car unattended while it is charging.

> Whereas the Tesla quick charge stations, I believe you can leave your car unattended while it is charging.

This is correct.

I think I agree with you. The key thing to note is the speed at which new technologies are adopted, rather than the question of adopting as private vs public. I suspect someone with the right connections and resources could invest in the Yen, then strategize to put Japan as a frontrunner for electric car technologies (thus revitalizing its economy) and make a lot of money.

That sounds like a multi billion dollar investment, and Japanese companies do a great job of building electric cars for the export market already.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com