[HN Gopher] Oregon finally legalizes pumping your own gas
___________________________________________________________________
Oregon finally legalizes pumping your own gas
Author : PaulHoule
Score : 281 points
Date : 2023-06-26 14:21 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.thedrive.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.thedrive.com)
| zirgs wrote:
| Does that mean that there are no self-service gas stations in
| Oregon?
| jwestbury wrote:
| Correct. Self-service has only been an option in rural counties
| (with a populated threshold), and only overnight, and even that
| is only relatively recent.
| loeg wrote:
| It was fully illegal for fuel businesses to operate self-serve
| stations from 1951 until very recently (like, 2017, when
| limited hours rural only self-serve was legalized).
| sircastor wrote:
| There are, but it depends on where you are or the type. For
| instance, out in rural Oregon there are a few stations where
| you can pump your own gas. Also some commercial stations allow
| you to pump your own gas.
|
| Briefly during the pandemic, people could pump their own gas.
|
| As an Oregonian, I welcome the change. The change will mostly
| mean not waiting for an attendant to come over.
| karaterobot wrote:
| In most cases it's just regular gas pumps, with nothing
| specifically to prevent you from serving yourself. Usually
| there's someone standing there as you pull up, but if it's
| cold, or if it's not super busy they may be inside. If you
| forget the rule and start pumping your own gas, someone runs
| out with a slightly panicked look and says "this is Oregon,
| this is Oregon!"
| [deleted]
| tzs wrote:
| In addition the those given in the other answers so far, there
| are also gas stations on Native American reservations in Oregon
| and they are usually self-service.
| balozi wrote:
| Do you have to tip your service attendant? How much, 10, 15, 20,
| 30%?
| rootusrootus wrote:
| No, there is no tipping culture for gas attendants in Oregon.
| Maybe with this change full service will be seen as special and
| tipping could happen.
| teawrecks wrote:
| I used to live in Oregon. I never tipped, and they never asked.
| I think one time I saw someone hand a cash tip through the
| window, but that's it.
|
| Honestly not having to get out of my car was really nice in
| some weather. Other times there's just no one there, and you
| and a few other drivers are out of your cars looking around
| wondering if you should just do it yourself.
| whywhywhydude wrote:
| If you have travelled through the NJ portion of I-95, and stopped
| at any service stations, you quickly realize how stupid this law
| is. A single attendant trying to fill gas for 10 cars. Drivers
| just waiting in line for 20 minutes to fill their gas!
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| I could see a Uber-like service where someone picks up your
| car, goes to the station, has the attendant fill it, and
| returns it for you.
| banana_giraffe wrote:
| There's a company called Yoshi that does this, only they come
| out to you with a pump on a van. One of my neighbors uses
| them. I guess it works, though I never go the appeal, not to
| mention I'm not 100% sure how it'd work with my car, since it
| auto locks the fuel cap unless the fob is nearby.
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| On the flip side, while on road trips, I've seen start the
| pump, then go into the store for 10 minutes to use the bathroom
| and buy a snack, hogging the pump spot for 8 extra minutes
| unnecessarily
|
| I swear, I was the only person who would fill their tank and
| THEN park and go into the store.
| RandallBrown wrote:
| People still do that in Oregon and New Jersey.
| noduerme wrote:
| In the 80s a lot of gas stations in California still had a full
| service line alongside a self serve line. Full service cost more
| for the gas. They would come to your car with the credit card
| slider (carbon paper), check your oil, wash your windows. It was
| also expected to tip.
|
| An attendant at a gas station in Oregon actually washed my window
| the other day while the gas was pumping. First time I tipped a
| station attendant in years.
| prpl wrote:
| There is/was full service at a gas station in Menlo Park on
| Sand Hill Rd - That is the only full service gas station I
| recall ever seeing in California
| ghaff wrote:
| I won't say they're common in Massachusetts but you see them
| now and then.
| 01100011 wrote:
| From what I hear, locals don't tip. Not a surprise given they
| don't have a choice (and a lot of Oregon has historically been
| poor, up until the recent flood of Californians).
| rendleflag wrote:
| When I lived in Colorado, I had a habit of checking my oil
| every time I filled up my tank, and would top it off when it
| was low.
| devy wrote:
| After this, New Jersey (NJ) is the only state in the USA that
| still have laws to prohibit self pumping gasoline/diesel.
| Nifty3929 wrote:
| I'm wondering about how this line works out: "Oregon's bill
| crucially prevents stations from charging more for a full-service
| pump than a self-service, which will effectively eliminate full-
| service pumps."
|
| I'm not sure the effect of this is so obvious. Clearly full-serve
| will have higher costs and lower margins - but then again, since
| it's all the same price customers might prefer full-serve and go
| to those stations that offer it. Will full-service have lower
| margins but make it up in volume? Or be some kind of loss-leader
| for selling snacks at the store?
|
| I don't know - it just seems really strange? Like why not just
| allow them to charge more for full-service? What's the downside
| to the public of allowing this to just be another option?
|
| We have both options in CA, and while full-service is somewhat
| rare, in most areas you can find it if you want it and are
| willing to pay more for it.
| bbor wrote:
| Business interests I guess? Presumably they wrote the bill.
| presto8 wrote:
| I interpreted this to mean that stations would stop offering
| full-service entirely, and thus they are not charging more for
| it since it doesn't exist.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > why not just allow them to charge more for full-service
|
| Because they would, and this is the main reason voters have
| rejected self-service in the past in Oregon. It's not like they
| would _lower_ the price for self-service, they 'd just _raise_
| it for full service. So of course people tend to vote to keep
| full service prices the same.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| This chain of reasoning is crazy. If gas stations had that
| much pricing power, why would they not charge $20 per gallon?
|
| Believe it or not, gas stations do compete on price.
| Exceptionally located gas stations might have some ability to
| set their own price, but otherwise, if you have two gas
| stations next to each other, and one priced gas lower than
| the other, then the other will have to match it.
|
| Which means either the gas price will go down by the cost of
| the labor for gas stations that are no longer needed, or
| every gas station owner is in collusion to maintain the same
| price (obviously false).
| jncfhnb wrote:
| Maybe. I think the big problem is that people don't want to tip
| the gas pumper guy, who usually only accepts cash. Or interact
| with them really. It's very dumb and uncomfortable for a lot of
| people to engage in this kind of social ritual if they're used
| to pumping their own gas.
| ewoodrich wrote:
| Tipping a gas attendant is definitely not an expectation in
| Oregon, but people driving through from out-of-state
| sometimes seem to think so.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| Interesting.
|
| I'm curious if anyone from Jersey can weigh in on norms for
| their area?
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Most people do not tip gas station attendants in NJ
| either.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| Dang, guess I'm a dummy then
| lalaland1125 wrote:
| > Like why not just allow them to charge more for full-service?
| What's the downside to the public of allowing this to just be
| another option?
|
| If gas stations charged more for full service, that would lead
| to an eventual decline in full service availability and use.
|
| You would have a cycle where customers shift to self-service to
| save money, making full service even more expensive, meaning
| more shift to self-service, etc, etc
| Nifty3929 wrote:
| That probably is what would happen. That's certainly the way
| it's played out in CA - it's a relatively rare (but still
| findable), meaningfully more expensive service for those who
| want it.
|
| Why is that a bad outcome though? Few people want/need it,
| and it's certainly more expensive to provide, so this seems
| like a pretty reasonable outcome to me.
| yojo wrote:
| The article says the law mandates each station must still staff
| half its pumps.
|
| So obviously this means full service isn't going away (it's
| still legally required), but if it's very popular, there might
| be a line for the full service pumps. Personally, I doubt it.
|
| Not sure how the writer drew such a clearly wrong conclusion.
|
| Edit: text from the bill
|
| > SECTION 2. (1) A filling station, service station, garage or
| other dispensary where Class 1 flammable liquids are dispensed
| at retail may not designate more than the same number of fuel
| dispensing devices for self-service use by customers as are
| designated for attended service by an owner, operator or
| employee of the dispensary of Class 1 flammable liquids.
|
| https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023R1/Downloads/Meas...
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| > A filling station, service station, garage or other
| dispensary where Class 1 flammable liquids are dispensed at
| retail
|
| So many words to say "gas stations".
|
| > may not designate more than the same number of fuel
| dispensing devices for self-service use by customers as are
| designated for attended service by an owner, operator or
| employee of the dispensary of Class 1 flammable liquids.
|
| So many words to say "may not have more self-service pumps
| than full-service pumps".
|
| Dammit, I hate legalese. Unfortunately, it's a requirement
| because some lawyer would nitpick what a "gas station" is, or
| what defines a "full-service" pump.
|
| Even the term "fuel dispensing device" is ridiculous, but I
| know if the law said "pump", then a lawyer would argue that
| "pump" could refer to the actual device that pumps the fuel
| from the underground tank, and that one pump could go to
| multiple dispensers, so a gas station filling station,
| service station, garage or other dispensary where Class 1
| flammable liquids are dispensed at retail could have two
| pumps, but one goes to 8 full-service dispensers, and the
| other goes to only 4 self-service dispensers, and not be in
| violation of the law because they have an equal number of
| pumps.
| amethyst wrote:
| If they said "pump", you know the gas stations would
| immediately find a way to put tanks above the level of the
| cars so that they could operate on gravity instead.
| progman32 wrote:
| or pressurize the tanks using air cylinders that they
| later pump back up offsite.
| redleggedfrog wrote:
| Well that fucking sucks. Now I have to get out of my car, in the
| sweltering heat or bitter cold, stand there while it fills, or
| get in and back out, and have my hand smell like gas until I can
| find a sink to wash, which sure as Hell isn't going to be in the
| bathroom at the service station.
|
| I'm born and raised in Oregon, _and_ know how pump gas, but
| certainly don 't like it.
|
| You folks all got Stockholm Syndrome. It has been great just
| pulling up, giving your credit card, and having a friendly chat.
| Now get to be like everywhere else where cat litter is sprinkled
| all over the ground from people who can't be bothered to fill
| correctly and doing stupid shit like driving away while still
| attached.
|
| 1 step forward, 2 steps back.
| BashiBazouk wrote:
| I'm with you. Moved up from California half a decade ago and I
| don't think I've ever self pumped gas into my current car and I
| thoroughly enjoy that fact. The only time I've encountered
| lines is once in a blue moon, the station just happens to be
| busy (less often than California) or at Costco...
| apexalpha wrote:
| If there's demand for a more expensive service like this the
| market will fill it.
| mjhay wrote:
| Full service isn't so fun when you're in rural areas outside of
| working hours. I've been in a couple of dicey situations in
| Eastern Oregon due to closed gas stations.
| iancmceachern wrote:
| Oregon has sweltering heat and bitter cold?
| irrational wrote:
| Yes? We had the unfortunate experience of moving houses
| during a week when temperatures hit 115 degrees (though our
| car claimed it was 119).
| 01100011 wrote:
| Portland has hit over 110F in the last few years. It's also a
| city with nasty ice storms.
|
| Was there last year driving through and it was over 90F at
| 11:00p.m.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| I live in Oregon, and a couple years back it was 47C here at
| my house. The year before that, we had an ice storm that
| covered everything with 1.5 inches of ice and knocked down a
| half dozen poles within a quarter mile of my house, and
| countless trees.
|
| So... yes?
|
| Edit: Ha, those two events were actually the same year.
| iancmceachern wrote:
| I've lived in places (Tracy, CA, Sacramento, Ca) where it's
| over 120 for 2 weeks straight in the summer, every summer.
| Not just that one time.
|
| I've also lived in places (New York, Colorado) where storms
| like that knocking out critical infrastructure is again, a
| yearly occurrence.
|
| It's true, Oregon has way more extreme temperatures than I
| personally thought before this interaction, but it's still
| milder than many other places in the country I suppose.
| loeg wrote:
| Heat, yes.
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| Depending on where you live, yes.
|
| Oregon is more than just Portland, but even Portland summers
| reach the 90s on a regular basis, and we've gone over 100
| degrees several times in the summer. Winter usually hovers
| around 30-40 degrees, but sometimes dips to the 20s, and
| we've definitely had 10-20 degree cold snaps.
|
| Go outside of Portland, and you'll easily find deserts that
| reach 100+ degrees on a regular basis, and highlands that go
| below zero.
| dharmab wrote:
| Oregon is amazing, it's got deserts, beaches, mountains
| (including ski areas), forests, volcanic areas...
| redleggedfrog wrote:
| Well said. I live in Ashland, OR, and we get 100+ in the
| summer and pretty darn cold and snowy in the winter.
| Fauntleroy wrote:
| I can see that you're emotional about this, but as someone who
| doesn't exactly love pumping gas it's nowhere near as
| apocalyptic as you seem to think it is.
| redleggedfrog wrote:
| Yes, you're quite right. I can go electric in a few years
| when the ranges are better.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| We got our first electric car four years ago and it's been
| great. It's actually my preferred road trip car (Model 3
| LR) these days. Even the Bolt my wife drove for a few years
| was mostly just fine, as long as we were staying within
| Oregon & Washington.
|
| I haven't been to a gas station in months, and maybe longer
| than a year. And IIRC that wasn't even to get gasoline,
| just to refill a propane tank. We have one remaining ICE
| vehicle (a pickup, which tows our travel trailer) and my
| wife takes care of that when she goes to Costco. Even then,
| it only gets driven a thousand miles a year or so, so she
| doesn't have to do it too often. Plugging in at home and
| starting every day with a full battery is really nice.
| pathartl wrote:
| If your hand smells like gas after using the pump, I'm not sure
| you're doing it right.
| buildsjets wrote:
| There is frequently residual petroleum, and therefore petrol
| stank, on the pump handle from incompetent previous users.
| Especially the Diesel pump.
| empressplay wrote:
| I think they're suggesting you should wear a glove.
| pathartl wrote:
| No, I just can't remember the last time my hand smelled
| like gasoline. I mean generally the gas goes out of the
| nozzle into the tank. Seems like there might be some
| weird acrobatics involved to actually get it on the
| handle. Hell, most handles have a boot on them to further
| prevent that sort of thing.
| timeon wrote:
| > from incompetent previous users
|
| Never seen this before. But in my area there are only self-
| service pumps except for few Shell pumps.
| chx wrote:
| Marie Antoinette would be proud of you. (I am aware she didn't
| say Let them eat cake or even Qu'ils mangent de la brioche but
| that doesn't change the metaphor.)
| bbor wrote:
| Wow thanks so much for posting a defense - I had no idea people
| thought like this. I've literally never once noticed my hands
| smelling like gas, but I'm assuming you're just a sensitive
| person on that front.
|
| In general/more substantively, I feel this is a place where the
| free market is an appropriate tool. If there are people like
| you, there should still be some full-service gas station
| attendants.
|
| I think the law being repealed is great for one big reason: can
| you _imagine_ having to work a job that you know for a _fact_
| is useless and unwanted by (almost) all of your clientele?
| That's soul crushing shit right there
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| Oh for fuck's sake, no, you don't. [0]
|
| The law requires stations to still have full-service pumps. In
| fact, half of their pumps must remain full-service.
|
| > SECTION 2. (1) A filling station, service station, garage or
| other dispensary where Class 1 flammable liquids are dispensed
| at retail may not designate more than the same number of fuel
| dispensing devices for self-service use by customers as are
| designated for attended service by an owner, operator or
| employee of the dispensary of Class 1 flammable liquids.
|
| https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023R1/Downloads/Meas...
|
| [0] EDIT: I should probably clarify that my frustration at the
| beginning of this comment is not directed at you, but how this
| information is being widely missed.
| dharmab wrote:
| Read the law. It allows stations to provide both self service
| and attendant service.
| pc86 wrote:
| "I know how to pump gas" and "my hand smells like gas after I
| pump gas" are mutually exclusive statements.
| redleggedfrog wrote:
| It is? It sure seems like the handles of the pumps end up
| smelling like gas. Maybe where you live it's better, but when
| I've driven elsewhere this was most certainly the case. Or
| maybe my sense of smell is too sensitive. ;^)
|
| Also, grew up on a farm with its own gas pump for the
| vehicles. Pumped a lot of gas.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Eh, you shouldn't regularly get gasoline on your hand, for
| sure, but it is a legitimate point that pump handles do
| frequently have some smell. Not that it's ever bothered me,
| but I like the smell of gasoline so I'm probably not the best
| to ask.
| hans_malone wrote:
| [dead]
| orangepurple wrote:
| Is this how you pump gas?
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3j6Kl5MaPc
| treeman79 wrote:
| Zoolander has mastered the art.
|
| https://youtu.be/4xwsZ5vC5Oc
| oregano wrote:
| My family drove to Crater Lake in Oregon last summer. We stopped
| for gas in a tiny one road town near the park. Due to it being
| tourist season, we needed to wait around 20 minutes to get
| 'service' at the gas pump. The station only had one person
| pumping gas. This person was completely overwhelmed. I gave her
| my credit card and she started to fill up our tank. 5 minutes
| after driving away from the station I realized the fuel gauge was
| still indicating close to empty. I turned around and waited
| another 15 minutes just to tell her she had apparently forgotten
| to fill my tank. She was incredibly embarrassed (rightly so!).
| She then told me to LEAVE MY CAR RUNNING while she pumped gas so
| I could watch the gauge move "just to make sure it was working".
| LOL! I still smdh thinking about this experience.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| >My family drove to Crater Lake in Oregon last summer. We
| stopped for gas in a tiny one road town near the park.
|
| Shady Cove? Chevron next to a fire station? If so, I stop by
| there whenever I go out that way. Really conveniently sited,
| honestly.
| justsomehnguy wrote:
| > LEAVE MY CAR RUNNING
|
| AFAIR it was a problem almost a century ago, not now. It's
| still a thing I can't get comfortable with, but there is no
| chance of going wrong of a car just running while it's being
| fueled up.
| progman32 wrote:
| Some fuel systems are pressurized these days, running cars
| with such a system opened up to the air will cause warnings
| to be displayed on the dash. Probably fine but may cause
| confusion/unneeded mechanic visits.
|
| I personally will continue to religiously minimize spark and
| heat sources while fueling. I've seen damaged spark plugs
| complete their circuit by sparking through the air (and
| apparently keep running the engine just fine). Best to
| eliminate a class of problems entirely.
| anthomtb wrote:
| My mother-in-law once attempted to turn on the ignition while
| my father-in-law was pumping gas. She was hot and wanted the
| A/C back on.
|
| My wife and I were in the back seat and not pleased by that
| action. I would think a modern car can handle that without
| exploding but why risk it? Just deal with the heat for, oh,
| another 30 seconds. We were filling up a Honda Accord, not
| some camper van with a giant tank.
| WirelessGigabit wrote:
| I heard that the gas station owners say things like: "it will not
| change anything, as we had to close half of the pumps anyway due
| to lack of employees".
|
| No, you're just not paying them enough to do this job.
| sakopov wrote:
| I remember stopping in Portland for a fill-up around 2 AM on my
| drive from Seattle. It was pouring that night and the gas station
| clerk was standing in the doorway and watching me with the door
| closed. I thought it was weird and then I found out the next day
| that pumping your own gas is not allowed in Oregon and the guy
| from last night just didn't feel like getting wet. I spent the
| next few days spent in queues trying to get gas because there was
| not enough attendants serving everyone during busy hours.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Not that it matters now, but the best trick is just going to
| Costco. Assuming you have a membership. The lines can seem
| fairly long, but they have lots of lanes, all staffed, and they
| run cars through each lane three at a time. The only time I've
| seen self-service be faster is at a relatively empty station
| where I could slot myself in to an open pump.
| empressplay wrote:
| You need a membership? LOL. I stopped at a few of these
| driving back from SF to BC and nobody ever asked me for a
| membership card. But then maybe they saw the BC plate and
| decided not to bother?
| nawgz wrote:
| Driving from California thru Oregon, a few guys have let me pump
| my own fuel. Didn't realize they maybe shouldn't have!
| aaron695 wrote:
| [dead]
| ovulator wrote:
| As dumb as this law was, I think it will make road trips a little
| less magical as a Washingtonian. It was like driving into this
| strange land with these strange customs. That little anxiety
| where you pull up to what would be a routine gas fill up and have
| to wonder, what exactly is the protocol here? How do I not offend
| the locals?
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > How do I not offend the locals?
|
| That sounds so weird. Washingtonians and Oregonians are
| frightfully similar as it is. For better or worse :). I can't
| imagine it being any more magical than an Oregonian wondering
| what the protocol is for self-service when they go across the
| river.
| ksenzee wrote:
| We're almost identical, which is one reason why the gas thing
| is so weird: these seemingly identical people have an entire
| set of unknown customs around an everyday activity. I
| wouldn't call it magical. I would call it uncomfortable. Glad
| to see the end of it.
| Rediscover wrote:
| East-coaster, now in Seattle for almost three decades.
|
| Yeah, Oregonians and Washingtonians share some strange
| behaviors, but there are many things pretty alien between the
| two.
|
| Handling of minor riots, drunkenness (on your own property,
| or not -- ok, sleeping on your front lawn), tipping, public
| transit (in populated areas), shopping, strip clubs, ... Wow.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| That's an interesting perspective, in my experience on
| basically all of those issues I don't see a notable
| difference in attitude between Oregon & Washington. There's
| a pretty big shift in mindset going to the east side of
| either state, but west of the Cascades it might as well be
| the same state.
| Rediscover wrote:
| Completely agree about going to the east side [of each
| state].
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| The interesting bit is yet to come. Show me the YouTube
| compilation of Oregon drivers using a fuel pump for the very
| first time. I bet you 90% will be issues with payment and not the
| physical act of refueling the tank.
| irrational wrote:
| I doubt this will happen. How many drivers have stayed in one
| state their entire lives? Especially when the vast majority of
| Oregonians live a few miles from the Washington border?
| bbor wrote:
| I have personally seen this happen, albeit to a young person
| from Oregon. Still, I suspect there are far more people that
| do little traveling in Oregon than y'all expect
| green-salt wrote:
| I know of people who spend their whole lives in a single
| town.
| irrational wrote:
| Those kinds of people are going to be at a disadvantage no
| matter what the situation.
| ewoodrich wrote:
| Not likely to be a big problem for the Portland metro due to
| Vancouver, WA being right across the river and more or less
| part of the greater metro area.
| jjice wrote:
| Yeah this is definitely an interesting situation. I remember
| another state started allowing it a few years ago and there
| were quite a few issues. I can't blame them though, imagine
| having never done something before and now you have to start.
| Probably tricky the first time.
|
| Growing up pumping your own gas for you parents while they run
| into the gas station store or something makes you forget that
| not everyone knows it.
| lesuorac wrote:
| > Growing up pumping your own gas for you parents while they
| run into the gas station store or something makes you forget
| that not everyone knows it.
|
| How will those rental car drivers from NYC ever manage!
|
| But honestly, in states where you can pump your gas just
| drive around for an 1 hour with your eyes open. You'll pass
| by several other cars whose gas lids aren't actually closed
| ...
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > imagine having never done something before
|
| Oh jeez. Most people in Oregon live in Portland, across the
| river from Washington, and have pumped their own gas many
| times.
|
| I'm sure the media will find some confused elderly people to
| put on the evening news, though.
| tzs wrote:
| > Oh jeez. Most people in Oregon live in Portland, across
| the river from Washington, and have pumped their own gas
| many times.
|
| I've never compared gas prices in Portland and Washington,
| but I'd expect them to be higher in Washington.
|
| 1. Washington has sales tax. Oregon does not. Washington
| will return that tax if the Oregonian keeps their receipt
| and files for a refund with the Washington Department of
| Revenue (it used to be that they could show Oregon ID at
| the time of purchase and the retailer would not collect the
| tax, but that changed in 2020.
|
| 2. Washington gas taxes are $0.11/gallon higher than Oregon
| gas taxes.
|
| I'd thus expect Oregonians to try to avoid gassing up in
| Washington, and generally only do so when they are going to
| be going somewhere in Washington far enough from Oregon
| that they have to gas up there.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Use the Costco app to compare real time gas prices all
| over the country. Tue are Costco's on both sides of the
| Columbia River. Note that WA started a carbon tax on oil
| producers or sellers Jan 1 however that should have
| increased gas prices.
|
| > 1. Washington has sales tax. Oregon does not.
| Washington will return that tax if the Oregonian keeps
| their receipt and files for a refund with the Washington
| Department of Revenue
|
| How does this work in the case of gas, because one of the
| stipulations is:
|
| > Purchases are for eligible items that will only be used
| outside of Washington state.
|
| >Purchases are for tangible property/goods, digital
| products, or digital codes. Common examples include home
| appliances and electronics, household goods, and clothes.
|
| https://dor.wa.gov/file-pay-taxes/apply-tax-refund/state-
| sal...
|
| Seems like it would hard to show that you used a certain
| amount of gas outside of WA.
| ksenzee wrote:
| I live in Washington, well north of the Oregon state line,
| and I've helped sheepish Oregonians pump their gas once or
| twice. I doubt it'll be hard to find confused people of all
| ages.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| The vast majority of Oregon drivers have pumped their own gas
| before in other states. I doubt there will be many issues.
| jedberg wrote:
| I asked my brother and SIL how they feel about this. Both of
| them immediately said it will be a shitshow because no one
| knows how to pump their own gas. My brother lives in one of
| the rural areas where self-serve has been legal since 2017.
| He says he helps someone pump for the first time at least
| once a week.
|
| Last week he tried to help an older man who just gave up and
| left.
|
| I think you overestimate how many people have ever pumped for
| themselves or are willing to learn.
| hellojesus wrote:
| We've had several periods over the past few years where gas
| stations were outright refusing to pump, and customers had
| to self service. Mostly covid and heat driven, but I'd
| venture to say that most Oregonians have pumped their own
| gas a nonzero number of times.
|
| Now the logistics at the pump may be another beast
| entirely...
| sircastor wrote:
| One thing I don't look forward to about this is that (I assume)
| this will inevitably result in our pumps having those awful video
| ads that I see all over the place in other states. Gas stations
| won't be held back from playing those, now that their attendants
| aren't around.
| lost_tourist wrote:
| trust me, you'll tune them out after a couple of visits. The
| human psyche is amazing and a wonderful mystery.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| For those who might not know, one of the (unlabeled) buttons
| next to the screen will mute the audio at least. Just push them
| one by one until it mutes.
| bbor wrote:
| Usually second from the bottom on the right :)
| timw4mail wrote:
| Sometimes, not always.
| h2odragon wrote:
| Ripping the thing off the pump (with a crowbar if needed) and
| chucking it int he trash can also works.
|
| Just saying.
| perfect-blue wrote:
| Been to quite a few gas stations in eastern Oregon that have
| these advertisement screens. I reckon it's only a matter of
| time.
| kirenida wrote:
| Is this feature present only in th US, or are there any other
| countries that play ads on the pumps?
| irrational wrote:
| And political stickers being put onto the pumps.
| sircastor wrote:
| A little while back I came across one of those Biden "I did
| that" gas stickers on an Electric charging station. It was
| amusing to see a sticker that was intended to be a dig on a
| politician to be repurposed into praise.
| mauvehaus wrote:
| I bike toured with a liquid fuel camping stove some years back.
| Few things will confuse a gas station attendant quite like
| sliding a quarter across the counter and telling them "pump #3,
| please". And then they look out there and see a loaded touring
| bike.
|
| In Oregon, though, not only were they not confused, the
| attendants managed to fill the fuel bottle without making a mess.
| That's a trick I still haven't quite mastered. Going
| reeeeeaaaalllly slowly seems to be part of it, but I still spill
| about half the time.
|
| The gas seems to come out aerated, and foams over before settling
| down. It's a bit like pouring a carbonated beverage, but you
| can't see how full the glass is.
| SilasX wrote:
| [flagged]
| reaperman wrote:
| > Was this at a time when gas was cheap
|
| Just to be clear, they're not talking about filling up his
| vehicle, they're talking about topping off their <1L camp
| stove, which they may have only used 20% of but want it to be
| full for the upcoming nights of camping. It's feasible they
| both only needed $0.25 of fuel to top it off, and also that
| the extra $0.25 of fuel could make the difference over a 4-6
| night stay.
|
| As for sliding a quarter, often gas stations have a barrier
| between the customer and the proprietor, necessitating one
| party or the other to do some sliding of coins at some point
| during the transaction. GP could have placed the quarter near
| the slot without sliding, but the clerk would still have to
| reach past the slot and slide it towards them.
| SilasX wrote:
| [flagged]
| ubermonkey wrote:
| You seem nice.
| reaperman wrote:
| 20% of a liter is $0.25 -- There are cases when you're
| traveling/camping that you may have used 20% of your 1L
| can but need to refill it for the next leg of camping.
|
| If I was buying $0.25 of gasoline I'd be slightly weird
| about it too, at least to acknowledge / show awareness
| that the situation is indeed strange. Doing it in the
| same non-plussed manner as I buy $20 of gas would seem
| more awkward to me than adding in a touch of bashfulness.
| Adding additional social cues that something is unique
| about the transaction can also head off clerical errors
| like processing my request as "oh he clearly meant $25,
| not 25 cents".
| Kye wrote:
| I thought those used butane or propane. I've never heard of one
| that uses gasoline.
| reaperman wrote:
| The most common camp stoves do use pressurized gases like
| you're mentioning. However, this is a relatively modern
| invention -- historically (pre-1980?) most camp stoves
| operated on liquid fuels ... in the 1950's to 1970's this was
| "white gas" due to being particularly clean burning. Before
| that, kerosene was popular.
|
| MSR is a top-tier camping gear manufacturer and they
| specialize in making stoves which can be fueled using damn
| near any fuel[0] (gas AND liquid!).
|
| These can burn:
|
| - The pressurized canister gas you're talking about (any
| proportion blends of propane, isobutane, n-butane)
|
| - White gas ("Naphtha", "Coleman liquid camping fuel", C5 to
| C12)
|
| - Kerosene ("Paraffin oil", "Lamp Oil", C10 to C16)
|
| - Unleaded gasoline (C7 to C12, nominally)
|
| - Diesel (C12 to C16, nominally)
|
| - Aviation gasoline ("Avgas" or 100LL)
|
| - Jet Fuel (JP-A, JP-4, JP-8)
|
| - Mineral spirits (C9 to C12)
|
| - Alcohols (Typically ethanol but in a pinch isopropyl or
| methanol would probably "work" as well but should be
| considered to bring safety issues)
|
| And they might, sometimes, also work with biodiesels and
| plant oils (e.g. vegetable oil, olive oil), though they are
| not rated for this.
|
| Serious adventurers across the undeveloped world rely on
| these types of stoves because you can never be sure what kind
| of fuel you'll be able to get.
|
| 0: https://www.msrgear.com/blog/liquid-fuel-
| stoves-101-choosing...
| sterlind wrote:
| is it.. safe to burn leaded fuel on your camping stove?
| mikestew wrote:
| As a general rule, it's not safe to burn leaded fuel at
| all. that's why MSR specified "unleaded". Though in the
| U. S. it's moot as you'd have to go out of your way to
| find leaded gasoline.
|
| I also view the fuels other than white gas to be a matter
| of necessity. IOW, no white gas, so I guess we'll use the
| kerosene that's more readily available. But last time I
| saw a multi-fuel stove in such a scenario, it involved
| changing the jet, and the stove didn't seem to burn quite
| as cleanly. That might have changed in the last 20 years,
| but I just stick with white gas.
| reaperman wrote:
| The avgas is leaded and marketing materials "encourage"
| using it, FWIW.
|
| But yes the efficiency and heat output definitely differ
| based on the fuel used, some will work better than others
| for a given stove design. You should be able to combust
| most of the hydrocarbons regardless of fuel source by
| adjusting the air intake but any non-hydrocarbon
| additives will produce strange byproducts which will seem
| like it's not burning "cleanly". e.g. SOx, NOx.
| loeg wrote:
| Butane and propane are not liquid fuels at standard
| temperature/pressure; they're pressurized gases. You would
| not be able to fill them at a gas station pump. GP is talking
| about an old "white gas" stove (white gas is just gasoline
| without additives) which were popular before propane stoves
| dominated over the last 20 years.
| dietrichepp wrote:
| I'll add that, my guess, the reason people don't use white
| gas as much is because the stoves are more difficult to
| use. You have to pump them, go through a warmup stage, and
| keep them level. I don't know the exact terminology for the
| parts, I just know the process, since I always used a white
| gas stove.
| loeg wrote:
| Right, I've used white gas stoves in the past. Propane
| cans sized for camping may have also became easier or
| cheaper to buy over time, although that's pure
| speculation.
| ghaff wrote:
| Small propane tanks have been widely-available for car
| camping for a long time but the tanks are fairly heavy
| for backpacking or bike touring. Pre-LED lamps you also
| saw them used a lot in lanterns.
|
| What _has_ happened in the US is that other gas cylinder
| stoves have become more common (and maybe more
| standardized per another comment).
| callalex wrote:
| They also have a higher potential to spill, and the gas
| doesn't go away into the atmosphere very quickly so you
| can end up setting your picnic bench on fire.
| dietrichepp wrote:
| Have you seen this happen? It is surprisingly difficult--
| not impossible, just difficult--to light a small gas
| spill on fire.
|
| The reason that gas stoves are difficult to work with is
| because the flame so easily goes out. Under the right
| circumstances, gasoline will ignite, and the gas stove is
| designed to make that just barely possible. The picnic
| bench is a less ideal environment for lighting gasoline
| on fire. The movies make it look like you can just drop a
| match or lighter onto some spilled gasoline and get a
| raging inferno, but if you actually try to do this
| yourself (safely!) you may see that dropping a lit match
| into gasoline often extinguishes it.
|
| Depending on the ambient environment--the wind,
| temperature, how much gasoline, etc.
| callalex wrote:
| I have seen it happen, because I did it as a young scout.
| The spill was ignited by a nearby lit stove. You are
| right that it's nothing like the movies. It wasn't a
| particularly dangerous situation or anything, I just
| looked and felt like a fool.
| grogenaut wrote:
| IIRC One of the problems they brought up at Philmont was
| that the old peak stoves had pressure and leak issues
| where you'd pump it up and it's start squirting
| pressurized gas out of the cap, pump, or some other
| orifice that may have been created recently during
| pumping or by rust. Which means you've got a nice
| atomized mist of fuel / air going on and a super soaker
| filled with white gas situation. I think most of those
| cleared up. I like the MSR ones a lot better because the
| fuel is seperate from the stove (not built into it) and
| you can basically shut it of or QD it from the tank. I
| figured out how to prime it after trying 2 times. Then it
| ran like a champ and the amount of white fuel you can get
| into those bottles is great. I barely touched my 20oz
| bottle in a 5 day backpack trip up on mount hood and the
| stove weights literally nothing.
| asciimov wrote:
| I imagine compressed gas stoves are more common now, is
| that the companies make more off of selling those little
| bottles of fuel, also maintenance is easier.
|
| The advantage a white gas stove has is that it will work
| in freezing weather and it is easier to store.
| ghaff wrote:
| There are liquid fuel camp stoves. White gas is the usual but
| there are models that will burn pretty much anything.
| Propane/butane also don't work very well in cold weather
| although some fuel mixes are better.
| dharmab wrote:
| Sometimes motorcycle campers still use them so they can
| combine their cooking fuel supply and emergency fuel supply
| mjhay wrote:
| There's plenty of liquid fuel stoves around, although
| butane/propane is probably more common. I like them because
| the fuel is cheaper and more available, and you can reuse the
| containers. The downside is they must be "primed" by
| preheating the with a bit of liquid fuel, so that the fuel
| comes out vaporized. I prefer kerosene/diesel over white
| gas/gasoline because it runs a bit hotter and is safer (at
| the cost of more difficult priming).
|
| Liquid fuel stoves can also be run in very cold temperatures,
| where butane mixtures or propane stop working.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| When I was in Boy Scouts the stoves were all white gas,
| similar to gasoline from the gas station but burns a bit
| cleaner because it's more refined and without any
| additives. Less generically also called "Coleman fuel." But
| the stoves will happily burn regular gasoline if you have
| to.
| time0ut wrote:
| I have a Coleman duel fuel camping stove. It can run on
| gasoline. It has a small reservoir. The screw on cap doubles
| as a hand pump to pressurize it. Fairly common style for
| backpacking where size and weight are critical and you don't
| want to carry a separate gas cylinder (as a personal
| preference).
| zikduruqe wrote:
| Into the rabbit hole ye shall go.
|
| https://youtu.be/D_qFWoa_HR4?t=601
| carabiner wrote:
| Whisperlite international does
| mauvehaus wrote:
| There are both, and they have their trade offs. Canister
| stoves use propane or a propane-butane mix. The stoves tend
| to be less expensive, and the fuel more expensive. Canister
| stoves also range in weight from very little to nearly
| nothing. You'll also find integrated cooking systems with a
| pot that matches a stove. Those claim higher efficiency at
| the expense of increased weight.
|
| (Edited to add) Liquid fuel stoves have better cold weather
| performance, and are popular in mountaineering for that
| reason. I am not a mountaineer and rarely camp cold enough
| that I need the cold weather performance. Canisters will do
| down to 20F/-6C with even minimal care.
|
| Liquid fuel stoves burn a variety of fuels, but white gas is
| a common one. Pump gas burns a little dirtier than white gas,
| but the upside of a stove that'll safely burn pump gas is
| that the fuel is available _everywhere_. Canisters and white
| gas often require a camping store, or at least a well-stocked
| Walmart.
|
| If you're outside of areas with a lot of demand for canister
| fuel, a stove that burns pump gas is a godsend.
|
| The canister situation has gotten enormously easier with the
| near-universal adoption of EN 417[1] canisters by
| manufacturers. Prior to that, there were a lot of
| incompatible standards.
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EN_417
| xattt wrote:
| > Pump gas burns a little dirtier than white gas, but the
| upside of a stove that'll safely burn pump gas is that the
| fuel is available everywhere.
|
| How does exposure of food to benzene vapours from gasoline
| factor into safety?
|
| I feel like using gasoline for cooking food would be a fuel
| of last-resort.
| grouchomarx wrote:
| plenty of benzene in white gas/naphtha. The stoves burn
| very hot and should theoretically limit exposure if
| you're decently ventilated. White gas is $20/gal,
| gasoline is a bit less
| rootusrootus wrote:
| We never grilled over our white gas stoves, we just used
| them to heat a pot. The flame is pretty hot, and isn't
| benzene pretty flammable? There probably isn't a lot left
| floating around.
| xattt wrote:
| I've got an MSR Whisperlight stove that does
| kerosene/diesel and white gas/gasoline using different
| nozzles. It's a heck of a lot more lighter that lugging a
| propane cooktop around.
|
| I did a double-take when I read that you can use
| gasoline.
| mauvehaus wrote:
| Point of order for anyone wanting to buy a stove: I
| believe the parent poster has the Whisperlite
| International. The regular Whisperlite is only rated to
| burn white gas and does not have interchangeable jets for
| kerosene.
|
| The international simmers a little more poorly than the
| regular in my limited experience. I have a Dragonfly
| which is a whole 'nother animal entirely. It simmers
| brilliantly, but it's comparatively bulky and takes a
| different pump from every other stove MSR makes. And it's
| loud as hell.
| lost_tourist wrote:
| does it smell at all like gasoline as it burns? I really
| hate that smell, otherwise they sound quite convenient for
| ease of obtaining fuel
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Not in my recollection. A white gas stove burns very hot.
| Even during warm up when the flame is comparatively cold,
| I don't remember much odor. Maybe if you spilled it out
| of the bowl before lighting it. Which I may have done
| once or twice as a young child learning how to light a
| stove without setting everything around me on fire...
|
| We also used actual white gas, though, not auto pump
| gasoline.
| mauvehaus wrote:
| My Dragonfly does not, but the odor definitely lingers
| when it's not running.
| grecy wrote:
| I used this gasoline stove when I drove Alaska-Argentina,
| around Africa and around Australia [1] - Gasoline is
| everywhere, other sources are not.
|
| Plenty of countries also has their own propane bottle
| fittings, so getting a bottle filled from what ever country
| you bought it in while touring can be a nightmare. I've met
| people who carry a bag with 15 adapters, and I still watched
| propane flow out onto the ground in Argentina after visiting
| 6 stations with them.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bi4opxsQmn0
| causi wrote:
| Even under the hypothetical scenario that pumping your own gas is
| dangerous, the prohibition would _still_ do more harm than good:
| instead of learning to pump your gas as a matter of course,
| Oregonians would _not_ learn it growing up and then suddenly have
| to do it when they take an out-of-state trip.
| prh8 wrote:
| This is exactly what happens to every Oregonian. For most it's
| taking a car to college out of state.
| mr_00ff00 wrote:
| I grew up in NJ and had to learn on the fly at college.
|
| At the risk of sounding a bit mean, it's very easy to figure
| out. Most gas stations have screens that say "insert card,
| select gas".
|
| I don't understand how anyone struggles with that.
| beej71 wrote:
| One of the more confusing parts is probably the variety of
| ways you can flip up a pump handle cradle to start it up.
| jaywalk wrote:
| I haven't used a pump like that in years. All of the ones
| I've used recently have just one handle that you grab and
| start pumping after selecting the fuel you want.
| timw4mail wrote:
| I think the vast majority of those have been replaced
| already.
| throwawaaarrgh wrote:
| Seriously. The POS walks you through each step. There's a
| button to call an attendant for help, if you don't want to
| walk inside and ask how to pump your gas. Or you could
| stand there and watch other customers do it.
|
| I'm having a memory of trying to pump the gas for my dad
| when I was a kid. I got confused about what to do, so after
| completely filling up, I ended up swiping the credit card
| again after finishing the purchase, leaving the machine
| open to being charged again. My dad stood there and yelled
| at me, and the whole time I thought, I don't know what I
| did, so when he's done yelling I'll just gonna go ask the
| attendant.
| chrchr wrote:
| You know you're an Oregonian when you're out-of-state trying to
| figure out how to put gas in your rental car and the clerk at
| the gas station starts yelling "What are you doing??" over the
| P.A.
| lvspiff wrote:
| I was so confused when one day at a gas station in Vegas a
| group of college aged girls flagged me over and asked if I
| could help them fill their car. They never had before as they
| were from Jersey and couldnt figure out how to open the gas
| door. I mean in all honesty it was a push door style where
| you pushed and it popped open so thats a little tricky but I
| was amused i still had to walk them through the entire
| process.
| jcpst wrote:
| And the same thing the other way around. Out-of-stater goes
| to Oregon, gets out to try and pump gas.
|
| "What are you doing??"
| lo_zamoyski wrote:
| "You've never actually set foot in a _gas station_ , have
| you?" [0]
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl_Qyk9DSUw
| TehShrike wrote:
| [flagged]
| raldi wrote:
| We can't learn anything from your comment, but if you add the
| reasoning behind your opinion, some of us might.
| ZacharyPitts wrote:
| I can tell that most of you don't live in Oregon.
|
| When I had a gas car up until two years ago, and I mostly got gas
| at CostCo. I did live in Virginia for three years. And I would
| say getting gas at CostCo in Oregon was 80% of the time faster
| than waiting for Virginians to pump their own gas at CostCo.
|
| I'd rather not pump my own gas, and will miss the service. As
| will most people I know here.
| cornstalks wrote:
| > _Close-up of unrecognizable white man purchasing gas at pump._
|
| The caption isn't wrong but it seems... kinda weird, no? At least
| for an article that's focused on pumping your own gas. Is this a
| machine-generated caption?
| renewiltord wrote:
| Perhaps they used the stock photo description as a caption.
| mikeyouse wrote:
| Yep - exactly that;
|
| https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/man-uses-credit-
| car...
| phkahler wrote:
| >> The Northwest Grocery Association, an advocate for retail and
| food suppliers, claims that jobs won't be lost because half of
| gas pumps are already closed due to understaffing.
|
| Not sure why they needed to say anthung, but the logic here is
| comically wrong.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Remember: regulations are written in blood.
| loeg wrote:
| What is that supposed to mean in this context?
| WorldMaker wrote:
| There _were_ a lot of gas station explosions in early
| internal combustion engine history. It 's a massive testament
| to technology and design (both car and pump adaptations over
| the decades) that these aren't so regularly occurring as they
| once were. But all the compensating technologies and designs
| don't necessarily mean that the original lessons weren't
| valid or that gas itself, an incredibly flammable substance,
| is ever truly "safe".
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| Sure, but we have 48 other states who seem to manage fine.
| WorldMaker wrote:
| Through a lot of safety regulations of their own (just
| ones that made different choices) _and_ a lot of
| technical development since 1951.
| loeg wrote:
| Any of them in self-pumping states since 1951, which is
| when Oregon implemented the full service law?
| WorldMaker wrote:
| How is that relevant? The benchmark for Oregon in 1951
| was the safety past prior to 1951. Oregon wasn't building
| regulations based on future data they couldn't possibly
| have.
| loeg wrote:
| The benchmark for the experiment is the control group.
| The control group is comprised of states without this
| law, over the relevant time period (when the law was in
| effect).
| WorldMaker wrote:
| The context is "regulations are written in blood", not a
| multi-decade scientific experiment. Oregon doesn't know
| or care about the "control group" in defining its own
| laws. How well the "control group" fared following the
| passing of the law is irrelevant to the spirit behind the
| law and why the law was passed (the "blood" of the past).
|
| (You can easily Google to find out that of course there
| have been gas station explosions since 1951 in "the
| control group". Would some portion of them have been
| prevented by similar laws to Oregon's? Who knows; Oregon
| probably doesn't know, it was never Oregon's intent to
| run their regulations as a science experiment. It was
| Oregon's intent to deal with issues they saw in the past
| safety record of gas stations _as they saw fit_.)
| renewiltord wrote:
| Gasoline is a dangerous and volatile substance. There are
| numerous incidents of people being harmed by incorrect use -
| not just the operator but also bystanders - and millions of
| dollars in facility damage occurring due to insufficient
| training. There is a reason why Oregon requires Class C UST
| Operators and above have training regarding emergencies. We
| should require more training, not less.
|
| Industrial substances need high standards. Within this
| calendar year we have been reminded of this repeatedly: train
| fires and derailment, the OceanGate submarine, the recent
| train bridge collapse carrying hazardous materials.
|
| Gasoline can be fatal if consumed, is a known carcinogen, and
| is harmful to aquatic life so it needs regulation. Here is a
| safety sheet to warn you of the dangers https://lasierra.edu/
| fileadmin/documents/risk/safety/safety-...
|
| It's important that we treat this substance with respect.
| Licensed operators should be the only ones handling it
| routinely. But of course, there's no surprise that Big Oil
| would like to socialize the risks and privatize the profits,
| speaking nothing of the job losses this will cause.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Big Oil does not own or operate gas stations, nor do they
| employ gas station attendants.
|
| Therefore, Big Oil is not affected by this change and does
| not care about requiring or not requiring gas stations
| attendants.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Big Oil interests are in increasing customer demand,
| while socializing the costs of uncertified, untrained,
| and unlicensed UST operators posing as self-service
| customers. Dangerous substances require training.
| kneebonian wrote:
| This one was written in the desire of people to preserve their
| jobs in the face of economic change at the loss of overall
| efficiency and economy.
| WorldMaker wrote:
| It was certainly "both". It preserved jobs. It increased
| safety. Whether or not you agree that the marginal safety
| improvement was worth the marginal "efficiency and economy"
| lost.
| loeg wrote:
| Big citation needed on the "increased safety" claim.
| WorldMaker wrote:
| Reread my last sentence? It is entirely orthogonal to my
| point. I don't think a citation is needed because think
| it should be obvious that gatekeeping operations
| involving flammable liquids to people paid to do it (with
| some modicum of safety training) is at least _marginally_
| an increase in safety. Again, it doesn 't matter how much
| you think it increased safety nor if you agree that it's
| maybe subtle/slight shift in safety was "warranted", it
| can still be _for safety reasons_ that the regulations
| were adopted.
| loeg wrote:
| You claim it increased safety. You repeat this claim in
| your last sentence, qualifying it with "marginal." It
| seems central to your point, not orthogonal.
|
| > I think it should be obvious that [Oregon mandatory gas
| attendants law] ... is at least marginally an increase in
| safety.
|
| I don't agree that it's obvious and doesn't need
| substantiation. Note that I am not disagreeing with your
| claim, just asking for substantiation.
| WorldMaker wrote:
| I included relevant information to why I felt it
| "obvious": incentives (wages), training. That's the
| entire extent of what I feel relevant to discuss with
| regards to my wider argument. It's not my job or intent
| to defend _how_ much increased safety it applies, or to
| save you from googling whatever supporting information
| you are actually looking for. I 'm only arguing that
| Oregon given information they had _at the time_ believed
| it to be in part a safety measure. Again, the correctness
| of that belief (especially _at the time_ ) is "obvious",
| and the actual "magnitude" of safety gained is irrelevant
| to any claim I am making and starts to move the debate
| out of context.
| chunk_waffle wrote:
| So, you could huff it, smoke it, or inject it legally before you
| could pump it legally (at least in Portland)? lol
| servrite wrote:
| Now it's New Jersey's turn to exit the dark ages.
| tamaharbor wrote:
| Now do New Jersey.
| barnabask wrote:
| Let's see if the laws change in time to be relevant. Good thing
| it's not required for EVs to have an attendant plug the
| charging cable in for us.
| irrational wrote:
| Frankly, this sucks. We pay less for gas than surrounding states,
| but don't have to get out of our cars to pump gas. That is
| awesome in the winter. And less anyone say I don't know how to
| pump my own gas, I grew up outside of Oregon, so I know very well
| how to do it, I just don't want to do it anymore.
| relyks wrote:
| You still can't pump your own gas in New Jersey (as mentioned in
| the article) and it's really annoying
| systems_glitch wrote:
| Diesel's fine though.
| uptown wrote:
| You can. You just get out and start doing it and they leave you
| alone.
| leviathant wrote:
| I used to fill up in Camden on my way back from New York into
| Philadelphia, and never with my usual credit card - I had one
| specific for gas and automotive costs (which got me free Amtrak
| rides, basically), and about a decade ago, that card was
| regularly cloned by New Jersey gas station attendants. It never
| really affected me, I'd get a new card in the mail in short
| notice, but I was always struck by how they'd just go to Wal
| Mart or a convenience store, and never actually blow that much.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| If you attempt to steal $1000 from 100 people it gets noticed
| quickly. If you steal $25 from 100 people, probably half of
| them don't notice at all.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| You can with a motorcycle. The attendants just hover around and
| may help with the pump since they aren't set up for normal
| self-serve menus.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| can you legally transfer that fuel into your car?
| brink wrote:
| Lawmakers should spend as much time getting rid of laws as they
| do creating them.
| lockhouse wrote:
| Better yet, every law should have an expiration date that must
| be explicitly renewed.
| AuryGlenz wrote:
| I've thought there should be a period of time - maybe 30
| years or so, where every law needs to be renewed or thrown
| out. I'd assume a committee would take years to do this.
|
| I'm sure most would just be put right back through, but
| politicians would probably be wary of effectively signing on
| to the worst stuff again.
| shagie wrote:
| https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_811.315
|
| ORS 811.315 Failure of slow driver to drive on right
|
| A person commits the offense of failure of a slow driver to
| drive on the right if the person is operating a vehicle upon
| a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the
| time and place and under the conditions then existing and the
| person fails to drive:
|
| ---
|
| So, when does this law expire and need to be renewed? If it
| was to expire and needed to be renewed, would it get a
| meaningful review as part of the renewal process?
|
| How long would it take to go through
| https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_chapter_811 to renew
| each one? ... and then going up one level
| https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_title_59
|
| If some individuals were protesting big government and
| refused to show up to establish quorum in a timely manner,
| would that result in there being _no_ laws for the road? ...
| and would that be seen as a good thing?
| comte7092 wrote:
| Think that through for a second.
|
| The Oregon legislature only meets for 6 months in odd
| numbered years and a month and a half in even years.
|
| In that time they barely have time to address pressing issues
| of the day, do we really need them to be rubber stamping a
| bunch of laws for weeks every time?
|
| It's a terrible idea.
| philwelch wrote:
| Set the laws to expire in ten years, offset in tranches two
| years apart, so the legislature only needs to renew 1/5 of
| the laws every other year. If that isn't manageable, maybe
| there are too many laws!
| comte7092 wrote:
| Governance is complicated.
| caturopath wrote:
| Hell if I know. Work will fill whatever's allotted to it.
|
| Is 6/1.5/6/1.5... "enough" for what they should be doing
| now or "enough" to do what they should be doing in a world
| where all laws sunset? How would I know from looking at the
| number of months they're in session?
|
| If they only met 1.5 months every year, would it be obvious
| to you that they didn't have enough time to "address
| pressing issues of the day"?
|
| If they met 6 months every year, would it seem to you like
| they must be spinning their wheels a bit?
| comte7092 wrote:
| Take some time and learn what it takes to conduct
| legislative activities.
|
| This comment reads similar to people saying "why does it
| take so long to add a button to a website! It seems so
| simple to me I don't know why you're just wasting your
| time! What do we even pay you for?"
| krisoft wrote:
| > The Oregon legislature only meets for 6 months in odd
| numbered years and a month and a half in even years.
|
| You are saying that as if that is some in-mutable fact of
| life. I work the whole year. Odd and even years included.
| Why don't they?
|
| > do we really need them to be rubber stamping a bunch of
| laws for weeks every time?
|
| Maybe they will think harder about how to achieve the same
| level of service with less and better laws then.
| comte7092 wrote:
| Why do you think less laws are magically better?
|
| Assuming you're a programmer, why don't you just write
| fewer lines of code?
|
| Maybe we should just have every line of code
| automatically delete itself after a specified period of
| time.
| some_random wrote:
| I mean, I think everyone kinda agrees that in general
| having less code is better. That said, a better analogy
| would be to imagine a world in which every program you
| ever push to prod, every docker container, every EC2 box,
| all by default were around forever. Making them
| automatically stop themselves is a way to keep system
| complexity down and make sure each component is actually,
| you know, doing something useful.
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| The law is a monolith. It doesn't work like docker
| containers. It works like a codebase.
|
| If anything it works like a series of patches. Imagine a
| codebase where each commit has an expiration date. If
| some patches are left to expire, I think we can would be
| in agreement that at the very least we would have no
| expectation that patch application would still be
| successful - leaving us with textual issues.
|
| At the very worst, we have no guarantee that the
| resulting body of law would be consistent, or result in a
| consistent society. We already have potential loopholes
| when folks are careful with drafting laws. This is asking
| for exploits. There is no static analysis for political
| economy.
| comte7092 wrote:
| I definitely agree that having a simplified legal code is
| a good thing.
|
| What I don't agree with is the idea that you should just
| slash away at it with a machete rather than cut away with
| a scalpel.
|
| Making changes to laws is extremely politically fraught
| and challenging, the real world is messy, and we _need_
| laws.
|
| For as much flak as people like to give our political
| system, America has succeeded for having fairly effective
| and good government, not in spite of it.
| lockhouse wrote:
| If a law has been effective and is still relevant it
| should be easy to get it renewed.
|
| Lines of code is actually a great analogy. The Linux
| kernel frequently removes old, irrelevant code that is
| poorly maintained and is no longer useful.
| toast0 wrote:
| I don't know about Oregon's legislature. But other
| legislatures sometimes have trouble getting any work
| done, even the easy work.
|
| Most likely, they'd just resort to blanket renewing
| everything, in order to get to the real work, if it were
| a year that work was doable. And in years where there's
| no appetite for getting things done, it will probably
| take the whole session to get the renewals done.
| pseudalopex wrote:
| Linux kernel maintainers remove code when convinced it is
| a good idea. Legislators remove code when convinced it is
| a good idea. Linux kernel code does not expire. Laws
| should not expire if the analogy is great.
| lozenge wrote:
| In my experience, many issues have been caused by
| removing code based on assumptions it isn't used/has no
| effect/has been superseded, while there aren't many
| issues caused by letting dead code hang around a bit.
| comte7092 wrote:
| Old laws get overwritten, edited, and removed all the
| time.m, _after_ review and discussion.
| lockhouse wrote:
| Not often enough.
| comte7092 wrote:
| And stale code isn't removed often enough either.
| krisoft wrote:
| > Assuming you're a programmer, why don't you just write
| fewer lines of code?
|
| Oh I'm working very hard on that. Code is liability.
|
| > Maybe we should just have every line of code
| automatically delete itself after a specified period of
| time.
|
| I actually proposed that. We should just try to randomly
| delete lines of code and if it doesn't break any tests
| just commit it. And I was only half joking.
| denlekke wrote:
| i just read the wiki and apparently it's considered a
| Citizen Legislature and is a part time job, with
| corresponding pay and most people have another job
|
| i imagine the original goal was to have "regular people"
| vs "career politicians"
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Legislative_Assembly
| comte7092 wrote:
| This.
|
| The even numbered year session was added relatively
| recently (i.e. within the last 20 years.) And the
| minority party still complains when major when major work
| is done during that period of time, because "that's not
| what it is for".
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| Because they have to campaign the rest of the time?
| comte7092 wrote:
| State legislators spend relatively little time
| campaigning.
|
| From anecdotal experience most people don't even know who
| they are or what they do.
| imgabe wrote:
| Maybe they could meet more often? What are they doing the
| rest of the time?
| comte7092 wrote:
| It's not up to them, it's what the Oregon constitution
| prescribes.
| ghaff wrote:
| They're probably working another job given they're paid
| $33K/year. A lot of state and local political positions
| don't pay much.
| ellisv wrote:
| I like the spirit of this idea - to remove outdated and
| unenforceable laws from the books - but I think this is
| unpractical at most levels of government. I also think
| legislative bodies would adopt work arounds that would
| nullify the desired effect.
| altacc wrote:
| I wouldn't trust politicians at all with this. They
| purposefully stalemate laws that are needed to use a
| bargaining chips or attach irrelevant but self-serving
| amendments. The midnight vote to keep murder a crime will
| also fund a nuclear waste plant in Ohio and a pig jacuzzi in
| Kentucky!
|
| It would be better to vote for better politicians who work
| together to enact sensible, reasonable and evidence based
| policies but that'll never happen, because humans.
| philwelch wrote:
| > attach irrelevant but self-serving amendments
|
| A lot of state constitutions have single subject rules
| prohibiting this.
| lockhouse wrote:
| We could use more compromise in our legislatures. The
| current system of ramming through your party's agenda
| before the next election takes away your majority is
| terrible.
| suby wrote:
| We're never going to get universal healthcare with such a
| law. I'd wager that almost all welfare is as good as dead in
| fact.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Ah you're thinking too small, if both major parties
| filibuster each other's law renewals then in a short while
| there will be no laws at all after they all expire. The
| libertarian dream I guess.
| yboris wrote:
| I've heard of something called _sunset clause_ which can be
| included in laws that make them expire _if some condition is
| (not) met_.
|
| For example, if the goal of the law is to lower incidence of
| crime X and if crime X has not decreased by 10% by Jan 1st,
| 2026 the law automatically is voided.
| quantified wrote:
| They'l just set the expiration date for the year 3000.
| baggy_trough wrote:
| Lawmakers should spend much more time getting rid of laws than
| creating them.
| YChacker100 wrote:
| Why was this illegal previously?
| WorldMaker wrote:
| _In theory_ gas pumping is a dangerous thing that should be
| left to professionals. If you pump your own gas, do you ever
| read the long list of safety requirements posted on the pumps?
| They say all number of things including: You must be
| electrically grounded. You must watch the pump _at all times_.
| You must not open car doors while pumping. You must not spill
| gas onto the ground. You must not leave the pump attached when
| you drive away. And so on for lists of hundreds of safety
| requirements, all of which are based on real (explosive)
| problems.
|
| There are so many failure cases, and most people that regularly
| pump their own gas are naive/blase about them. (Watching people
| at gas stations fill gas tanks while understanding that massive
| list of safety requirements, being very aware that all mistakes
| involve an explosive substance, and counting all the violations
| you can spot is one "fun" way to lose a lot of faith in
| humanity.)
|
| Thankfully, there's a lot of regularly inspected safety
| equipment compensating for how blase so many people are. Modern
| pumps have all sorts of auto-shut-off sensors and require all
| sorts of (literal) firewalls and conscious designs. These have
| mostly eliminated a lot of the errors from being fatal _in
| practice_ , allowing so many of naive and/or blase to live
| another day.
|
| _In practice_ in places like Oregon (and Japan) this was a
| jobs protection thing. It saved some low wage jobs from
| companies that had every incentive to eliminate those jobs to
| scrimp and save money. It was more useful to Oregon to keep
| those jobs than to let them disappear.
|
| (Arguably Oregon is allowing them to disappear only just a few
| years in advance of them disappearing naturally because gas
| pumps are likely to start disappearing altogether as EVs become
| more prominent. They can't protect those jobs in the EV
| present.)
| lesuorac wrote:
| I mean cars used to be terribly dangerous (and dirty).
|
| EVs were originally a "Woman's Car" because a petrol car
| would get the operator quite dirty while an EV wouldn't stain
| a dress.
| WorldMaker wrote:
| Relatedly and further off-topic, I still love how the now
| often thrown around term "range anxiety" shows up in early
| literature too but it was originally reversed to how people
| brandish it about today: early EVs had a reliable range
| that you knew before you set out and could be charged just
| about anywhere. Internal combustion was rife with
| inefficiencies (fuel lossage among them) and available
| range wasn't always obvious and early fuel gages weren't
| always reliable and finding sources of fuel relied on
| lucking into the right sorts of pharmacists/chemists. One
| of the original reasons for the founding of the AAA
| (American Automobile Assocation) was "combatting range
| anxiety" by getting fuel to cars stopped on the side of a
| road.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| At some point we could return to the original meaning, as
| gas stations become less profitable and less prevalent.
| It's far easier to have an EV with no public charging
| than it is to have a gas vehicle with no public filling
| stations.
| WorldMaker wrote:
| I agree and have gotten into some interesting debates for
| suggesting that not only do I think it likely, that I
| think it will probably snowball a lot faster (and wilder)
| than a lot of people expect. (Gas pumps are already weird
| margin "loss leaders" for other businesses such as
| convenience stores or supermarkets. Expecting a closure
| snowball seems reasonable once demand starts to really
| shift in favor of EVs.)
| blahyawnblah wrote:
| "Safety"
|
| You can pump your own diesel, or your own gas for a motorcycle.
| But it was for Class 1 (I forget number) flammable liquids
| some_random wrote:
| And so ends my joke that Oregonians are so stupid they legally
| can't be trusted to pump their own gas. Now only New Jersey
| stands as the dumbest state in the Union ;)
| rootusrootus wrote:
| On the other hand, Oregon is one of the very few states that
| don't have sales tax. Perhaps they're smarter than you give
| them credit for.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Oregon has sales tax on alcohol, cannabis, tobacco, hotel
| rooms, gasoline, rental cars, new car purchase, etc.
| hellojesus wrote:
| No sales tax is awful! Instead of only getting taxed on
| purchases (WA), you pay 10% of your entire income to the
| state. It is tragic! And it also means any unreported wages
| are never taxed. It's pretty much the worst system possible.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Europe: "Por que no los dos!"
| stackola wrote:
| But make it 30%+ instead of 10.
| hellojesus wrote:
| 10% was state only. The Federal gov will take another
| progressive rate that will make my all-in around 33%.
|
| Oregon and WA are exceptions in the US. Most states have
| both sales and income tax. WA has sales only, and OR has
| income only. Both have real estate taxes too.
| babypuncher wrote:
| Raising state income tax to 10% is not enough to exceed
| what I pay in sales tax in my state, so such a move would
| be a net positive for me.
|
| If I were a millionaire, it would be a very different
| story, and I would end up paying more in taxes. But if I
| were that rich, a relatively small change in my tax burden
| wouldn't have any real impact on my lifestyle, so who
| cares?
|
| I think sales taxes are generally regressive. They
| disproportionately impact the poor and middle class, who
| spend a greater percentage of their income on taxable goods
| and services than the wealthy.
| hellojesus wrote:
| I'm solidly middle class, and the 10% burden is really
| painful. Remember that is also counts against the $10k
| salt deduction federally. As it is, I pay well over the
| salt threshold in income alone, making all property tax
| unwriteoffable.
|
| The other thing income tax disallows is tax avoidance
| through nonconsumption. I have to pay it all regardless
| of how much I consume, which I try to keep low.
|
| It also means that my adjusted wages per hour are lower.
| Spent 70 hours a week on a pressing project? Congrats,
| you don't get paid OT so not only is your hourly wage
| lower, but your taxes per hour are disproportionately
| higher.
| [deleted]
| oneplane wrote:
| That sounds like a very one-sided argument. If you want a
| functioning government you're going to need money to pay for
| it, and if you don't have sales tax it means you have to get
| it elsewhere; it doesn't "make it go away".
|
| If the argument was supposed to be 'a smarter, well-
| functioning tax system that pays for government facilities'
| then say that. But such a statement would need some
| references to back it up.
| teawrecks wrote:
| Sales tax disproportionately impacts the lower class. If I
| had the choice between no income tax vs no sales tax, I'd
| take no sales tax.
| hellojesus wrote:
| It only does so if the sales tax itself is regressive.
| The entire point of excise taxes is to be avoidable
| through conscious consumption. Heavy sales taxes on
| luxury goods are better than income taxes because it
| ensures anyone can avoid them by not spending but also
| ensures luxury good consumption merits disproportionate
| societal funding.
| eldritch_4ier wrote:
| It isn't all or nothing. Imagine the government we could
| have if we all paid 90% in taxes - except I don't want
| that. I don't even want the kind of government that needs a
| budget of 40% of my income.
|
| If you live in a rural area, the government needs a budget
| to repair infra and run a few programs, it doesn't need the
| budget of NYC. Likewise, a government that lacks a sales
| tax mechanism doesn't "need to get the money elsewhere", it
| can simply go without and adjust it's services accordingly.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Sales tax is an abomination. I walk into the store, pick
| something off the the shelf that says it costs $9.99, but I
| can't actually buy it for that. Argh.
| sircastor wrote:
| I understand in some places in Europe (for instance) the
| price on the shelf is the price including tax. This is
| not a hard problem to solve.
|
| I think Sales tax for most things is probably the fairest
| means of taxation. It can be applied equally between the
| wealthy and the poor. It is applied when you choose to
| get something, rather than arbitrarily before or after.
| It tends to be applied evenly whether you're buying a box
| of chocolates or a flatscreen TV.
| Symbiote wrote:
| It's pretty much only the USA where the prices on the
| shelves aren't the final price with taxes.
|
| Sales tax (and VAT) is regressive since poor people spend
| a much larger portion of their income on goods subject to
| sales tax.
| hellojesus wrote:
| Meh, you could lower taxes on inferior goods and increase
| them on luxury goods to compensate. Income taxes are pure
| evil as they are unavoidable and maximally painful. As an
| Oregonian, federal+state income tax means I don't make
| any money I get to keep until late April. I think about
| killing myself every year because of it.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| That has nothing to do with the existence of a sales tax.
|
| That has to do with the merchant not wanting to show a
| price label inclusive of all taxes.
|
| There could be a law requiring merchants to display a
| final price, but I have yet to see a jurisdiction in the
| US with a law like that so I presume it is not a
| politically popular enough of an issue.
| Arrath wrote:
| I hate the argument that it would be too hard on the
| merchant to post proper price tags, there are too many
| different taxes to account for and so on.
|
| Wait a minute, the register/POS figures it out just
| fine...
| FredPret wrote:
| The POS figures it out because it likely has a
| subscription to a sales tax calculation service like
| Avalara. US sales taxes are frightfully complicated and
| change constantly, compliance is not optional, and
| ignorance is no excuse.
|
| Local/state politicians can raise or lower taxes on all
| sorts of products with conditions attached for fun /
| electability.
|
| www.accuratetax.com/blog/top-10-weirdest-sales-tax-laws/
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I have never heard of that. The argument is usually if
| merchant A advertises prices excluding taxes, and
| merchant B advertises prices including taxes, then
| merchant B will risk losing out on some customers who go
| to merchant A because they think buying from merchant A
| will cost less.
|
| On the internet, taxes are based on shipping address, so
| there I think it would be impossible for a merchant to
| show tax inclusive price unless the buyer enters a
| shipping address first.
| activiation wrote:
| They have state income tax so I guess that offsets that....
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Yep, the state still has to have some kind of tax base.
| Oregon ranks right in the middle, usually 24-26th amongst
| all 50 states in terms of total tax burden. But we are
| usually the least regressive (or close). As opposed to
| Washington, right across the river, who is frequently most
| regressive.
| activiation wrote:
| They can get very creative when it comes to taxes
| bobro wrote:
| i'd strongly prefer a sales tax to the high income tax,
| especially given how much tourism we have.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| The biggest difference comes down to income. It varies a
| little year-by-year, but in general Oregon has the least
| regressive tax regime in the US, while Washington has the
| most regressive. If you make a lot of money, living in
| Vancouver can make a real difference.
| dboreham wrote:
| We don't have sales tax here in Montana either, but I'm not
| sure how "smart" it is, since it basically means richer
| people pay less and less rich people pay more.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Generally it's the other way around -- sales tax is
| strongly regressive. In fact, Oregon is usually just about
| the least regressive tax state in the US, and Washington is
| just about the most regressive. All because of sales tax vs
| progressive income tax.
| jwagenet wrote:
| I understand sales tax is in theory regressive, but this
| seems wrong/naive upon scrutiny because you would assume
| higher earners consume more than low earners, thus
| contribute more sales tax in absolute terms, if not quite
| in relative terms.
| rednerrus wrote:
| This would be a good argument if they weren't so bad at
| allocating the taxes they do collect.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| I blame that on the politicians. Hell, Oregon politicians
| like to just walk out of the legislature when they think
| they lack popular support.
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| Comparison to modern-day IT trends: only allowing a
| "Platform/Ops/IT Team" to do certain things for users. Wait for
| someone else to do something you could have done yourself if it
| wasn't for bureaucracy and a jobs program.
| joeythedolphin wrote:
| Dumb law finally repelled by dumb legislatures. Dumb legistures
| now looking at future dumb laws. Story at 9.
| legitster wrote:
| "Full service" used to mean checking oil and air and other
| driving essentials during stops. Oregon passed legislation
| intending to stop the death of "full service" stations but failed
| to meaningfully define The level of service.
|
| The only excuse for the law being around so long was that it
| created jobs. Which was lame reasoning. They intentionally kept
| the gas tax lower in the state so consumers didn't notice the
| price difference. So effectively these were government subsidized
| jobs.
|
| Good riddance. Forcing someone to stand in gas fumes all day was
| clearly not good for their health. And I always avoided filling
| up in Oregon because waiting for the "service" could sometimes be
| longer than the fill-up itself.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > The only excuse for the law being around so long was that it
| created jobs.
|
| That may have been one excuse, but as a long time Oregonian my
| recollection is that the real reason is voters have rejected it
| when it did come up for a vote. People liked the idea of citing
| in their car and letting someone else do the work.
|
| > They intentionally kept the gas tax lower in the state so
| consumers didn't notice the price difference
|
| I recall once reading that the cost of insurance on a self-
| service station isn't far off the cost of staff, and it's
| mostly a wash overall.
|
| > waiting for the "service" could sometimes be longer than the
| fill-up itself.
|
| These days, Costco runs a massively efficient assembly line
| fill-up procedure, and self-service might well be slower. At
| quieter stations that may not be true. Even then, it depends on
| if you can navigate around the cars that are just parked in
| front of a pump while they are shopping inside the convenience
| store.
| briffle wrote:
| > That may have been one excuse, but as a long time Oregonian
| my recollection is that the real reason is voters have
| rejected it when it did come up for a vote. People liked the
| idea of citing in their car and letting someone else do the
| work.
|
| About once a year or so, I get a person at the pump behind me
| that is FURIOUS that I am pumping my own fuel, and start
| yelling at me. They ignore what I say, until the station
| employees confirm with them that yes, it is legal to pump
| your own Diesel in Oregon, just not gasoline, since gasoline
| is flambile. (the existing law is governed by the state fire
| marshall). They are usually grateful, since they are always
| down at least one attendent, and busy as heck.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > I recall once reading that the cost of insurance on a self-
| service station isn't far off the cost of staff, and it's
| mostly a wash overall.
|
| If this were true, then there would be gas stations with
| attendants in the other 48 states.
| derefr wrote:
| > People liked the idea of citing in their car and letting
| someone else do the work.
|
| I like that idea too. But I don't like the idea of forcing a
| human to do the work. I like the idea of legislating for
| standardized interfaces between gas pumps and gas doors on
| cars, such that it becomes possible to build "full service"
| _robot_ gas stations.
|
| I think the only reason this hasn't been pushed for, is that
| the automotive-sector companies with the robotics expertise
| are all electric-car companies. (Or hydrogen-fuel-cell car
| companies -- lotta robotics people in that space.)
| admax88qqq wrote:
| Pumping gas is already 95% automated. A human is only in
| the loop to make the connection between the pump and the
| vehicle. It's not that much more work for a person driving
| in to a station to also connect the pump to the car.
| jfengel wrote:
| I wonder how much any of those "driving essentials" could
| matter at this point. Tire pressure sensors are mandatory. Oil
| pressure sensors won't tell you until it's too late, but cars
| are now built better and are no longer assume to leak oil after
| a few tens of thousands of miles.
|
| It might be nice to have somebody wash the windows and check
| the washer fluid level, but it's hardly essential.
|
| We don't even need them to run the credit cards any more. It's
| so weird going to a station in New Jersey, handing the
| attendant your card, and having them slide it right on the
| pump, just as you would. (And yeah, I've avoided filling up in
| New Jersey for the same reason: it takes longer.)
|
| Maybe this served a goal at some point, but technology seems to
| have vaporized whatever it could have ever served.
| nickvanw wrote:
| I don't even have a dipstick in my car at this point - the
| computer will warn you when the oil level is low, otherwise
| you're to assume it's fine. It also warns me when the
| windshield wiper fluid reservoir is low so that I can fill it
| before running out.
|
| Not that gas stations in Oregon were doing any of this
| anyway, they were pumping gas and nothing else.
| jfengel wrote:
| Oh, man. I've never even looked for the dipstick on my
| (25,000 mile old) car.
|
| I used to change the oil on my cars myself. I've never even
| tried on my newest car.
| kodah wrote:
| Oregon has a runaway train of taxation, especially in dense
| counties. Interestingly, if you ask residents they think our
| government is poor: https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-
| center-initiative...
| ramesh31 wrote:
| >So effectively these were government subsidized jobs.
|
| Is that so bad? Plenty of other countries use tax dollars to
| pay the poor to do busywork. And Oregon is an extremely rural
| state outside the Portland metro, with very little agriculture
| or industry other than logging and fishing, so gas stations are
| most likely one of the few decent options available.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Yes. There is plenty of more worthwhile work Oregon taxpayers
| could be paying for, like picking up the trash everywhere.
| ellisv wrote:
| > The only excuse for the law being around so long was that it
| created jobs. Which was lame reasoning.
|
| This was my understanding and I agree it is bad reasoning. It
| _might_ have created jobs, but certainly not good ones.
| treeman79 wrote:
| "While traveling by car during one of his many overseas
| travels, Professor Milton Friedman spotted scores of road
| builders moving earth with shovels instead of modern
| machinery. When he asked why powerful equipment wasn't used
| instead of so many laborers, his host told him it was to keep
| employment high in the construction industry. If they used
| tractors or modern road building equipment, fewer people
| would have jobs was his host's logic."
|
| "Then instead of shovels, why don't you give them spoons and
| create even more jobs?" Friedman inquired.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| Usually these kinds of regulations are about keeping
| existing jobs rather than creating new jobs. I certainly
| understand the impulse, even when misguided, to slow down
| the rate of "progress". There are always winners and
| losers, even if society as a whole would be better off in
| the long run.
| MSFT_Edging wrote:
| This feels like a constant whenever "job creation" is talked
| about.
|
| Sure there's plenty of uber eats driving jobs but this isn't
| exactly something you can raise a family with.
| [deleted]
| seany wrote:
| Only applied to gas. You could always pump your own diesel.
| dieselgate wrote:
| Also motorcycles and boats as well Can pump their own fuel?
| It's funny to make small talk with the attendants while
| pumping diesel, they really want to do something like clean a
| windshield in my experience
| willio58 wrote:
| > So effectively these were government subsidized jobs.
|
| Hey now, without government-subsidized jobs we'd have millions
| out of work if you take into account not only government
| agencies but also the US military.
|
| While I think this specific version of government-subsidized
| jobs (pumping gas) feels forced, I think the government
| creating jobs is a great thing on the whole. The New Deal was a
| great example of this, created 20-something million new jobs
| for a decade or so and pulled us out of the great depression.
|
| Now if we want to talk about truly bad government-subsidized
| labor it revolves around private companies abusing our welfare
| systems by paying their workers starvation wages _cough_ Wal-
| mart _cough_.
| brantonb wrote:
| My first job was pumping gas at a full service station in Ohio
| in the late '90s, where full service stations were rare. We had
| two islands, with two pumps each. When out-of-towners would
| pull up and see us approach, they'd often drive to the other
| island. We'd get a big grin and walk over to them again. We'd
| get the best tips from them, because they didn't know what to
| do.
|
| I'd probably check someone's oil about once an hour, but we
| washed windshields by default. It was before "pay at the pump",
| so I spent a lot of my time walking credit cards in and out of
| the store to run them. It was actually a fun summer job for a
| high school kid.
|
| A few summers later, I got a software internship at that oil
| company's headquarters, working on a Visual Basic app for the
| pricing department to set prices at all of their stations. I'd
| often complete my week's work by Monday afternoon and spend the
| rest of the week in their library, learning about all sorts of
| new technology. They treated me well and I was fortunate they
| didn't offer me a full-time job at the end of my internship,
| because I likely would've taken it.
|
| When I've filled up in Oregon, I've not seen them do anything
| but pump gas. During the pandemic, I drove through Oregon many
| times and learned to get gas before entering the state.
| hans_malone wrote:
| [dead]
| talldatethrow wrote:
| I always felt the same about toll booth collectors. Sitting in
| exhaust fumes for 8 hours must have been terrible.
| Analemma_ wrote:
| Yeah I don't see this mentioned nearly often enough in this
| discussion: gasoline fumes are very toxic and carcinogenic,
| mainly because of the benzene, which is just terrible for you.
| It's not a huge deal if you pump your own gas, because it's
| just a couple minutes of exposure at most a few times a week,
| but when it's your job and so you're getting hours of exposure
| many times a week, that's a whole different ballgame. We were
| forcing people into this actually-very-dangerous but
| nonetheless minimum wage job for literally no benefit. It was
| fucked up.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| This seems like a really easy thing to study and get reliable
| results. And assuming it is true, I'd expect some kind of
| class-action suit like we saw for mesothelioma.
| hedora wrote:
| You mean like the one where a bunch of stewardesses got
| cancer from exactly this (due to planes sucking fumes into
| the HVAC system at the gate), then won a huge class action
| lawsuit?
|
| The airlines stopped pumping exhaust into passenger
| compartments for a few years, but then everyone forgot
| about the whole thing. Now you get that good-old-fashioned
| jet-fuel eye sting again until you wash your face after the
| end of the flight.
|
| On the bright side, I don't think there's been many studies
| showing the old results on studies of stewardesses transfer
| to today's flight attendants.
| no_wizard wrote:
| Honestly, that excuse is why there was the compromise
| provision in this bill that mandates half of the pumps must
| remain full service.
|
| The only reason this passed _at all_ is because of COVID. Gas
| stations are complaining pretty uniformly and quite loudly
| that they can 't get their labor levels back to pre-COVID
| levels
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Gas stations can get their labor levels back. Make the gas
| $20 per gallon and pay an attendant $100 per hour.
|
| But that would not be popular, and so the current staffing
| levels are also not popular, so there is finally sufficient
| political pressure to somewhat drop the gas station
| attendant requirement.
|
| Let labor prices keep going up, and soon no gas station
| attendants will be required because voters will want
| cheaper gas prices more than they want someone to fill
| their gas.
| Arrath wrote:
| Shit I might work the pumps for $100 an hour, if part
| time. Full face respirator for the fumes and I'm golden.
| meragrin_ wrote:
| It seems to me you are saying gas stations cannot get
| their labor levels back.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| Get labor levels back and get labor levels back _at below
| market rate_ are different.
|
| Market rate changes for jobs and some corporations (and
| people) seem to think that people should take jobs as
| offered even when they're bad. We have record low
| unemployment, yet companies that complain about labor
| levels are basically outing themselves as bad employers,
| for some definitions of bad (pay, safety, comfort, etc).
| lost_tourist wrote:
| I don't hover around the gas while it's filling. I get back
| in my car or step up front (depending on how hot/cold it is)
| Ancapistani wrote:
| People will tell you not to get back in the car, because
| it's dangerous. What's really dangerous is that potential
| static buildup getting in and out, which can discharge when
| you touch the nozzle.
|
| If you _do_ get in and back out, make sure to ground
| yourself by touching the bare metal of the pump itself
| before you grab the nozzle. It 's not perfect, but it's
| much safer than not taking the time to ground at all.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Is there data on this? I have never heard of this
| happening and I imagine there are millions of gas pumping
| events per day (or at least hundreds of thousands) where
| a person sets the nozzle, sits in the car, then comes
| back out.
|
| Compared to all the other risks of cars and gasoline, the
| relative risk seems miniscule.
| ordersofmag wrote:
| from back in 2008 "the Petroleum Equipment Institute, a
| trade group, found that there were at least 170 static
| electricity fires at gas stations from 1992 to 2006.
| Considering that the American Petroleum Institute
| estimates that there are 11 billion refuelings in the
| United States a year, the problem probably isn't a big
| one." from https://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/automobiles
| /27STATIC.html
|
| I'll note that in the state I live (MN) it's technically
| illegal to get back in your car while pumping (you have
| to be " in close attendance to the dispenser nozzle").
| Arrath wrote:
| I know for certain I've discharged static electricity by
| touching metal of my car after getting in/out, or
| cleaning out trash, etc while the pump runs.
|
| Would that little spark be enough to ignite the vapors? I
| have no earthly idea.
| Eisenstein wrote:
| > Would that little spark be enough to ignite the vapors?
|
| Yes.
|
| > Gasoline...has a flashpoint of minus 43degC. Sparks and
| static electricity can easily ignite gasoline fumes.[0]
|
| [0] https://www.skybrary.aero/articles/ignition-fuels
| Arrath wrote:
| Good to know! I have a little tic of grounding myself
| before coming near the pump handle so I guess I'll just
| keep doing that.
| darreninthenet wrote:
| A few years back Richard Hammond (the short former Top
| Gear UK) presenter did an experiment with this on another
| British show of his called Braniac (a sort of light
| entertainment popular science show) where he filled a
| caravan with petrol and fumes and attempted to get it to
| ignite through static electricity (they did lots of
| different ways of generating it).
|
| They couldn't do it and even when for the laughs they
| decided to blow it up with a match it still didn't
| ignite.
| astura wrote:
| Well, Here's a few videos of it happening
|
| https://youtube.com/watch?v=FPKen4QwY7I
|
| https://youtube.com/watch?v=MctxwqTLYjk
|
| https://youtube.com/watch?v=1tYO4jvnJHw
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| The fumes actually make me nauseous basically instantly. My
| understanding is that modern vehicles can't vent the tank, so
| when you pump gas in vapor must exit via the same hole that
| the liquid is going in. So a fillup discharges ~20 gallons of
| fumes or something.
|
| There is basically always wind where I live. The pumps shut
| off automatically. So I just turn the pump on and walk over
| to the curb, upwind from the fumes.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| This varies by state, but since we're talking about Oregon,
| I can tell you that Oregon requires fuel vapor recovery at
| the pump. Makes the nozzle bulkier and harder to work with,
| but doesn't discharge a bunch of fumes.
|
| Washington seems more lax about it, in my experience.
| dockd wrote:
| I think this only holds for the urban areas (or where you
| have to take your car to the DEQ). Drive out to Hood
| River and no such thing exists. Maybe the state has
| allowed the rural areas to update on a longer schedule.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| oh yeah I stopped somewhere once that required this and
| banned the latching handle mechanism. It wouldn't
| actually allow me to put the nozzle into my truck so I
| inverted the weird rubber thing and shoved a water bottle
| into the handle so I didn't have to stand there while it
| filled the truck.
| mikestew wrote:
| For a lot of cars, the gas cap itself can be wedged into
| the pump handle to keep it latched. The auto shutoff will
| still work.
| darreninthenet wrote:
| It irritates me because we don't have those latches in
| the UK as it's illegal to pump petrol unattended - I
| believe this extends to the EU as its an EU law we've
| retained.
| evilkorn wrote:
| I'll have to try my gas cap but I normally used my wallet
| because it was already out from paying if the latch was
| broken or missing.
| pmoriarty wrote:
| There could have been regulations requiring workers to wear
| respirators.
|
| If these fumes really are so dangerous then I'm surprised
| there hasn't been some kind of class action lawsuit filed for
| workplace health and safety violations.
| Ancapistani wrote:
| > There could have been regulations requiring workers to
| wear respirators.
|
| It's already absurd on its face that everywhere else in the
| country - or hell, in the _world_ - just lets people pump
| their own gas. Having gas station attendants in respirators
| in Oregon would just take it to a whole new level.
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| > _in the _world__
|
| ... not Japan. Or at least, not when I lived there. Maybe
| things have moved on.
|
| haiokudeMan tanoYuan ishimasu
| worik wrote:
| geureona naneun ihaehaji anhneunda
| pezezin wrote:
| How long ago was that?
|
| I have been living in Japan for almost 5 years, and I
| usually pump my own gas. It depends on the gas station
| though, many (usually the small ones) are still full-
| service only.
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| 2012.
| Karrot_Kream wrote:
| It depends. A lot of stations off the expressway have
| full service where they fill your gas and offer to clean
| your windshields. Also depends on where, I still find a
| lot of full-service stations in Hokkaido.
| niij wrote:
| > in the world
|
| Sample of countries that don't permit self-service gas:
| ~Belgium~ (maybe not, see below), Brazil, Chile, China,
| Egypt, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Morocco, South Africa,
| Thailand, Turkey, and Uruguay. See
| https://itif.org/publications/2019/07/29/self-service-
| gas-in...
| hyperman1 wrote:
| As an inhabitant from Belgium: self-service gas is
| permitted. In fact, I can't think of any gas station
| where you don't self-service. I wouldn't trust that
| article too much.
|
| E.g. here is a random photo of a gas station. No room for
| an attendant:
|
| https://www.google.be/maps/place/Esso+Express/@51.0211239
| ,3....
| niij wrote:
| Good to know! The only country I can confirm on that list
| having attendants is Thailand.
| azinman2 wrote:
| Have you been to one of these stations in Oregon,
| especially anywhere rural (which is most of the state)? I
| can guarantee you these folks will not want to wear any
| kind of "mask."
| tejtm wrote:
| and there is rub, or at least part of it.
|
| If you got gas at one of those stations it is because it
| was open. being open cost an employee even when no one
| show up which in a sparsely populated area is usually.
| The only rational response is to limit hours. now you
| have a condition where people over a wide area are being
| blocked from being able to buy gas when ever they want
| like the people in the city who are preventing them just
| take for granted.
|
| These paper cuts accumulate add in some divisive
| propaganda and here we are.
|
| source: I'm one of those city folk now.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Just because you're a covid truther doesn't mean that you
| will refuse to wear protective gear in general. I'd be
| willing to bet that most of the people in the US at this
| very moment who are wearing protective gear for their
| jobs are covid truthers to some extent, because anti-
| maskers are pretty numerous among people who work with
| their hands and backs.
| azinman2 wrote:
| I'd wager that it's about doing something different than
| has been done with clear risk. No one wears respirators
| pumping gas, and if the gov starts mandating it I don't
| think it's a huge leap to assume push back.
| [deleted]
| dheera wrote:
| > And I always avoided filling up in Oregon because waiting for
| the "service" could sometimes be longer than the fill-up
| itself.
|
| Also because they would look at you with sheepy eyes expecting
| tips. I avoid valet parking for the same reason. I can fill up
| my own gas and park my own car, I don't need the service in the
| first place.
| kbos87 wrote:
| Just in time for the electric revolution!
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Yeah that's the thing for me -- I've always wanted self-service
| to be legal in Oregon, so I should be happy. But I haven't put
| gas in a car in quite a while, so I feel pretty ambivalent
| about this. I've been pumping my own electrons for several
| years.
| treeman79 wrote:
| Was driving through Oregon and had no idea about self service.
|
| Pulled up. Put my card in, had pump in hand when this crazy
| person came running up and tried to take away the pump.
|
| Much confusion for both us as I figured it was some homeless
| person trying to get money for a pointless job.
|
| Something I see at some local attractions where they try to
| "help" with parking machines and such.
|
| Been making fun of the state ever since and am cheering on East
| Oregon, breaking free from the nonsense
| starkparker wrote:
| It was already conditionally legal in rural parts of the state
| since 2017.
|
| > Oregon drivers that would prefer to save time by simply pulling
| up to an empty pump rather than waiting in line for a forced
| full-service pump.
|
| Anecdata n=1, but this hasn't been the problem, at least in east
| Portland. The article describes stations where "half the pumps"
| are closed because they can't staff, but as a daily driver for 10
| years and especially since 2021 I haven't seen a pump closed due
| to staffing -- the one or two attendants for the pumps just take
| longer to get to everyone. Go to smaller stations with 4-8 pumps
| and it usually moves faster.
|
| The more pertinent shift I've seen is shorter operating hours,
| which is the biggest benefit of allowing self-service. Having
| self-service pumps means stations can more feasibly open earlier
| and stay open later, especially those already attached to
| convenience stores that are already staffed.
|
| Also this is going to be great for out-of-staters already
| familiar with pumping gas, but based on road-trip experience
| there are some native/lifelong urban Oregonians who have no
| fucking idea what do at or with a gas pump.
| legitster wrote:
| > Having self-service pumps means stations can more feasibly
| open earlier and stay open later,
|
| This was a common problem before the rules on rural stations
| loosened up. Driving through Oregon during the night could be
| pretty risky - there were very few 24/7 stations.
| Arrath wrote:
| Back in the day membership to a card-lock station chain
| (Pacific Pride, CFN) was the best option, it was an end-run
| around the law since membership supposedly ensured you were
| 'competent' to safely pump your own gas, and the stations
| were 24/7 since they were unstaffed. No attendants to wait
| on, no lines, no stressing about having to park up next to a
| gas station and wait for it to open in the morning.
| dfinninger wrote:
| I drive an electric car, but my wife has had a difficult time
| getting gas sometimes in Portland due to the operating hours,
| like you said. There have been days where she couldn't fill up
| because there was no one at the pump. She's excited for the
| change.
| y-c-o-m-b wrote:
| I think this is less common in Portland because of those
| smaller stations with the pumps closer in proximity to each
| other. Out in Beaverton you'll notice the larger stations tend
| to block off half the pumps and the pumps have huge spaces
| between them. The Chevron Extra Mile station off Scholls Ferry
| for example had half the station coned off two weekends ago.
| The Walker Rd stations tend to do this regularly as well.
| jjulius wrote:
| I pulled into the 76 on Walker Road & 185th a few weeks back
| at around 7PM on a weeknight. Every single pump was locked
| up, and as I looked around, a kid hollered from right next to
| the car wash, "Sorry, we're closed! Not enough staff!".
|
| First and only time I've encountered a full station closed,
| but it blew my mind, having grown up in Washington and never
| having an issue pumping gas because an attendant wasn't
| there. Really happy it looks like I'll be able to start
| pumping my own again.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-26 23:01 UTC)