Filed under: Hybrid
Thieves stealing carpool stickers in California
We told you a couple of months ago about the State of California having handed out all of the carpool lane stickers that they had allocated for hybrid vehicles. A few weeks later it was reported that used hybrids that came with a carpool lane sticker were fetching price premiums of up to $4,000 just for the ability to use the HOV lanes.
Now comes word of the inevitable byproduct that comes with such scarcity. Nefarious entrepreneurs are braking out the razor blades to remove the stickers from parked hybrids. California DMV officials are reporting two to three dozen requests a month for replacements of stickers that have been absconded with. If you received a set of stickers for your car, you may want to check that they're still there before venturing out into the carpool lane.
[Source: KABC-TV]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
gregger 1:22PM (4/12/2007)
One defense against that (which might damage your bumper paint) is to slice through the stickers in a hash pattern with a razor blade after they have been applied. That way when someone tries to take it, they destroy the sticker, but they'll probably give up.
Some areas in California have a high rate of registration sticker theft, so that's a defense that's used. Nobody cares about scratching your license plate with a razor blade though.
I did see a Toyota Sienna Minivan in Marin with hybrid stickers on it. Which is pretty funny because that's a moving violation if you're just standing still...
TTFN
Reply
Phil L. 1:30PM (4/12/2007)
Yet more proof that we need to keep government out of the business of choosing which vehicle technologies are best for the future.
Carpool lanes are a mechanism to encourage more efficient commuting by sharing rides. Giving a carpool lane pass to a hybrid vehicle - merely because it's a hybrid - defeats the original purpose, and creates unintended consequences.
Governments can be good at:
- Creating concensus on direction and priorities
- Creating funding mechanisms for large efforts
When government gets involved in the specifics of technology and applications, it tends to mess it up because politics takes precedence of choosing the best solution (witness corn-based ethanol subsidies as just one example).
Reply
Phil L. 1:35PM (4/12/2007)
...and see eBay item 280102390541 for a parody of the mess California has created for itself (or just search on "carpool sticker").
Kind of clever, really. Perhaps this is what was really on the Sienna gregger mentioned above.
Look soon; no doubt these won't be around long...
Reply
Geoff Gibson 3:37PM (4/12/2007)
@ Phil L.
The reason behind the law Phil was for two reasons, as far as my knowledge goes:
1. To reward somebody for buying a cleaner vehicle
2. Hybrid vehicles do worse and get less gas mileage in stop-go traffic than they would in free flowing traffic
The carpool lanes were made to encourage people to drive less, ease traffic, and overall put less emissions in the air. They did not account for the future bearing hybrid vehicles and have therefor adapted the carpool lane to accomodate them.
Hybrid vehicles are lighter on the environment therefor they should get preferential treatment over the H2's of the world.
Reply
Geoff Gibson 3:40PM (4/12/2007)
P.S. The CA gov't should not be held responsible for people stealing other people's "Access OK" stickers. It was probably something nobody really thought of would happen.
In any case an easy solution would be for the CA DMV to start issuing specialized liscense plates for hybrid vehicles. There may be some holes in my solution, but its better than a sticker. Its a hellofalot harder to steal a liscense plate.
Reply
Don 5:23PM (4/12/2007)
Boy, would I ever love to catch a bastard trying to remove my sticker...
Reply
Phil L. 5:25PM (4/12/2007)
Geoff -
Again, my annoyance is the government choosing technology 'winners' (and, therefore, punishing losers). For example:
- How many carpoolers quit their carpool and opted to drive solo in a hybrid when this program was announced?
- Why don't clean biodiesel cars or DIY EVs get the same preferential treatment?
- Why can't the native benefits of the hybrid be enough for their owners? If the technology doesn't have enough benefit for people to use it without government subsidies, is it actually better? How would we know?
- So... Can I get a carpool lane pass if I put solar cells on my home's roof?
- Why can't I get a carpool lane pass if I sell my old carburetor V8 clunker and get a new non-hybrid 4-cylinder Accord? It gets better mileage than the Hybrid Accord!
This has merely been a feel-good program for publicity and political gain. The fact that California had to limit the size of the program is evidence enough (so California is essentially saying that older hybrid technology is better than newer technology - since new hybrids can't get the stickers). If it's such a good idea to give carpool lane passes to hybrid drivers, why limit the number of passes? Yet another a example of unintended consequences taking over; using one program to develop an unrelated program.
How many green technologies *won't* be developed in coming years in California because buyers would rather find an old Prius with a carpool sticker?
The best technologies and solutions need to be developed based on real, demonstrable advantages, not government program dictated by political expediency.
Reply
Janis Mara 5:36PM (4/12/2007)
This reinforces an idea that has been considered in California - making it possible to pay to use the carpool lane. I think that's a good idea, actually. I realize it's lame in a way because then convenient driving becomes tied to income level. But it sure would enrich the state's coffers ;-) and seems to me like it would cut down on the congestion in the other lanes. The commute lanes are never crowded, at least not in my observation.
Janis Mara
www.ecotality.com
Reply
Phil L. 5:37PM (4/12/2007)
From above:
>> 2. Hybrid vehicles do worse and get less gas mileage in stop-go traffic than they would in free flowing traffic
Huh?
Many hybrids get *worse* mileage in steady state driving than stop-n-go driving. This makes sense: There's no gain to be had from regerative braking at constant highway speeds.
By this logic, many hybrids should be *prevented* from using those smooth-flowing carpool lanes; they're more efficient in bogged-down commuter traffic!
Quick examples (using the corrected "New" figures from fueleconomy.gov):
2007 Prius: 48 city/45 hwy
2007 Ford Escape Hybrid 2WD: 31 city/29 hwy
This effect depends on the technology involved, and how it's measured. For example, the 'old' measurement method put the Hybrid Camry's city mileage better than hwy - but reversed the two for the 'new' method.
Reply
Andy 2:29PM (4/13/2007)
Carpool stickers are clearly a valuable commodity in the free market. People are interested in obtaining a product that gives them a tangible benefit besides better fuel economy. How is that bad again, Phil L.? What solar cells on your roof have to do with carpool lanes is beyond me.
Since these cars spend more time in stop and go traffic than carpool lanes, the overall benefit is justified.
Reply
Phil L. 2:46PM (4/13/2007)
What does a hybrid car have to do with limiting traffic congestion by promoting carpools? Nothing.
If the point of allowing hybrids to drive solo in carpool lanes is to promote environmentally friendly technology, why not allow other technologies the same benefit? Perhaps even rooftop solar cells!
Once again, from the top: When government meddles in the details of promoting specific technologies, politics begins to take precedence over true environmental benefits. The net effect is the environment take a back seat - and unintended consequences rule the day.
For example, if the point of hybrid carpool stickers is to promote green technologies - but the benefit is limited by wanting to avoid clogging carpool lanes with solo hybrid cars, it would make more sense to rescind existing stickers yearly - and give them to the latest, most efficient transportation technology. But then every driver who lost their privilege would complain about how unfair it is to their representatives - who would tend to vote to benefit their most vocal constituents, no matter what the environmental benefit might be.
The best environmentally sound transporation technology solutions flourish when their benefits and disadvantages are clearly seen and understood on a fair, level playing field. Government subsidy of particular technologies muddies the marketplace and prevents the best technologies from being developed, unless they have the necessary political clout.
Reply
Andy 5:06PM (4/13/2007)
To use your words: "Once again, from the top:"
"What does a hybrid car have to do with limiting traffic congestion by promoting carpools? Nothing."
But that isn't the point. Your entire free market theoretical premise (that government shouldn't be in the business of promoting one technology over another) isn't relevant to this discussion. The govenrment isn't promoting hybrid technology over another.
It is, however, encouraging people (in an incentive-based way) that they can obatain a tangible benefit when they stop driving solo in their SUV and getting into a more fuel-efficient vehicle. If someone comes up with a mass production, market-viable 1000 mpg solar car, you bet they'll get carpool stickers.
And, if you read the legislation, you'll know that the state has the option to revoke the carpool lane privilege...which, hypothetical straw man arguments and irrelevant anecdotes aside, they may well do once the sales quotas for all maufacturers have been met. It's not open-ended as you imply.
Reply
Phil L. 8:57AM (4/15/2007)
>>>The govenrment isn't promoting hybrid technology over another.
Yes it is. California has explicitly prohibited other technologies that aren't in their list of hybrid vehicles. So these hybrids have a government-sponsored advantage other technologies don't have available to them. BTW, this means our dollars go to support this, like it or not.
Again, if other technologies end up being far better in the future, the realities of governmental programs mean it is difficult for a politician with his eye on the ballot box to change the status quo, no matter how many clever words you use to obscure the issue.
Example: It's generally accepted in the green transportation community that corn ethanol doesn't really make sense as a long-term solution (an argument I don't care to get involved in). However, you can be that we'll be trying to figure out how to get rid of the subsidy programs long after the rest of the world figures it out.
Mixing traffic congestion program incentives and green transportation programs feels good, but it doesn't make good policy - and likely slows our progress in the long term.
Reply