[Sealobo]

Gas station attendant mistakenly sets pump price at $0.33/gal - Autoblog

vote and check for the poll result too... doesn't really surprise me...

[Chuckit]

Yes, and I'd smoke a cigarette afterward.

[KeriVit]

I'm not sure why I would easily notify someone they undercharged me on something or gave me too much change, but for some reason I would have no problem buying the gas. Though it is not the owner's fault, I just feel we have been gouged far too long for gas.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by KeriVit 

I'm not sure why I would easily notify someone they undercharged me on something or gave me too much change, but for some reason I would have no problem buying the gas. Though it is not the owner's fault, I just feel we have been gouged far too long for gas.

Countdown till perpetual “our gas is more expensive than yours” flamefest in 5... 4... 3... 2...

(Seriously, though, US gas prices may be a lot of things, but gouging isn’t one of them. Oh, and they’re saying gas prices here will be sky-rocketing to about 250 per cent of current prices within the next two or three months, bringing us up to a possible 25 DKK per litre (that’s about $18.5 per gallon). We’ll see if it comes to anything.)

Edit: Sorry, my bad. They’re only predicting prices to go up to about 150 per cent of current prices, not 250 per cent; so we’re looking at 15 DKK per litre ($11.2 per gallon), not quite as much as I said above.

[ghporter]

I'd fill up immediately, if that's what you mean. Yes I would take advantage of some poorly paid idiot that gets himself in trouble. But I'd think the first couple of customers' reactions would sort of spill the beans...

[Doofy]

I would not hit it. Stealing, methinks.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Countdown till perpetual “our gas is more expensive than yours” flamefest in 5... 4... 3... 2...

(Seriously, though, US gas prices may be a lot of things, but gouging isn’t one of them. Oh, and they’re saying gas prices here will be sky-rocketing to about 250 per cent of current prices within the next two or three months, bringing us up to a possible 25 DKK per litre (that’s about $18.5 per gallon). We’ll see if it comes to anything.)

Edit: Sorry, my bad. They’re only predicting prices to go up to about 150 per cent of current prices, not 250 per cent; so we’re looking at 15 DKK per litre ($11.2 per gallon), not quite as much as I said above.

Man, that's ridiculous. Can't you invade Norway and commandeer some of theirs or something?

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Man, that's ridiculous. Can't you invade Norway and commandeer some of theirs or something?

It’s about the same price in Norway. I expect they’ve been hearing the “gas prices are about to inflate explosively” things, too.

[KeriVit]

Regardless of who's gas is more expensive, it's all relative. That wasn't the question. Nor was I comparing to other countries or government. My gouging comment is based on the fact that there are 2 stations within 5 miles of each other near me and there is a 23¢ difference per gallon. It is also based on the fact that when there are certain "crises" the price skyrockets. The gas was already in the wells before the price went up, it should remain the same until the company pays a higher price for the next shipment.

[besson3c]

I normally don't like to have sex with gas.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by KeriVit 

Regardless of who's gas is more expensive, it's all relative. That wasn't the question. Nor was I comparing to other countries or government. My gouging comment is based on the fact that there are 2 stations within 5 miles of each other near me and there is a 23¢ difference per gallon. It is also based on the fact that when there are certain "crises" the price skyrockets. The gas was already in the wells before the price went up, it should remain the same until the company pays a higher price for the next shipment.

I don't think that works, since most gas stations are actually owned by the same companies that pull the stuff out of the ground.

[scaught]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I normally don't like to have sex with gas.

boooooooring

OT:

If a gas station where I'd have to make 2 left turns to get in and out of it is 10 cents cheaper than one I could get in and out of more conveniently (2 right turns), I'd go to the 2 right turn station. I see people go apeshit over a nickel a gallon and wait in line, etc. Someone people apparently don't value their time.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I normally don't like to have sex with gas.

But some robots run on gas, right?

Anyway, if the big sign out front said $3.299, and the pump said $.3299, I would probably have told someone about it, since it was obviously an error....

after I filled up.




(But I would have paid the difference if I was asked to....)

[KeriVit]

Originally Posted by analogika 

I don't think that works, since most gas stations are actually owned by the same companies that pull the stuff out of the ground.

But what about the gas in the tanks at the station?

Anyway, I still woulda filled up.

[Shaddim]

I would make sure and notify the management...



right after I fill up all my vehicles and every container I can get my hands on.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I would not hit it. Stealing, methinks.

Exactly.

[moonmonkey]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

It’s about the same price in Norway. I expect they’ve been hearing the “gas prices are about to inflate explosively” things, too.

So you would condone an invasion if the gas was cheaper?

[iLikebeer]

aren't most gas stations franchises now? they usually sell the gas a few cents above cost and count on overpriced candy and drinks to make money. if so, you're stealing from the local business owner, the oil company already made their money.

[Chuckit]

The candy and drinks at all the gas stations around here are quite reasonably priced compared to other places.

[Kenneth]

Don't bother. I will sit there and watch.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The candy and drinks at all the gas stations around here are quite reasonably priced compared to other places.

The candy bars that are $0.48 at Wal-Mart are sold for $0.89 at the gas stations around here.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

The candy bars that are $0.48 at Wal-Mart are sold for $0.89 at the gas stations around here.

I don't shop at Wal-Mart, but I do know that using their prices as a standard for "reasonable" is quite unreasonable. They'll force vendors to sell them goods below cost so they can charge such low prices. Nobody else can charge so little and get away with it. 89¢ is not exceptionally expensive for most candy — outside of Wal-Mart, that's the lower end of the scale.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by scaught 

Someone people apparently don't value their time.

My thoughts exactly.

If I see a place with 10¢ cheaper gas and a friggin' line I'll just go pay the extra couple bucks and pump my gas right away so I can get the hell outta there as fast as possible.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by moonmonkey 

So you would condone an invasion if the gas was cheaper?

Nah, we tried that already and it didn’t work out too well.

(I should mention, though, that I’m all for the 150 per cent price surge. I don’t have a driving licence and I don’t want one; same goes [obviously] for a car. I’d be happy to see prices go up so much that people would have no choice but to use their cars less. Perhaps we’d get traffic down to a properly manageable level, then.)

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

(I should mention, though, that I’m all for the 150 per cent price surge. I don’t have a driving licence and I don’t want one; same goes [obviously] for a car. I’d be happy to see prices go up so much that people would have no choice but to use their cars less. Perhaps we’d get traffic down to a properly manageable level, then.)

An easier, less fascist way of doing that would be to make the driving test harder. It'd have the side-effect of making the roads safer too.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Nah, we tried that already and it didn’t work out too well.

(I should mention, though, that I’m all for the 150 per cent price surge. I don’t have a driving licence and I don’t want one; same goes [obviously] for a car. I’d be happy to see prices go up so much that people would have no choice but to use their cars less. Perhaps we’d get traffic down to a properly manageable level, then.)

And since I don't kiss other guys, I'm now supporting a $1000/month fine on anyone who does. Because people who are different from me deserve to get screwed.

I'd love not to have to drive. It would be awesome. But there is no alternative aside from just staying at home playing Halo until my savings run out and I get evicted and die — which I'm selfish enough not to want.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

And since I don't kiss other guys, I'm now supporting a $1000/month fine on anyone who does. Because people who are different from me deserve to get screwed.

I'd love not to have to drive. It would be awesome. But there is no alternative aside from just staying at home playing Halo until my savings run out and I get evicted and die — which I'm selfish enough not to want.

This entire post made my day.

[JoshuaZ]

No. I don't own a car.

Though I would propose a threesome with my girlfriend who is really into doing unleaded.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

An easier, less fascist way of doing that would be to make the driving test harder. It'd have the side-effect of making the roads safer too.

Good point.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

And since I don't kiss other guys, I'm now supporting a $1000/month fine on anyone who does. Because people who are different from me deserve to get screwed.

Not because they’re ‘different from me’, but because minimising the amount of cars constantly roaming the streets all over the world is generally a pretty good thing, as long as cars are still a significant player in the global CO₂ emission games.

Same reason I fully support the VAT reform they’re proposing here, whereby ‘healthy food’ (big blanket category warning!) will receive lower taxes than it does now, while ‘unhealthy food’ (another one!) will receive higher taxes than they do now. If it makes it easier for people (okay, me) to buy the Good Food instead of the Bad Food just a bit more often, then it’s worth it. Same with gas prices: if higher gas prices can get just some people to leave the car at home and ride their bike instead just some of the time, then it’s worth it in my book.

I'd love not to have to drive. It would be awesome. But there is no alternative aside from just staying at home playing Halo until my savings run out and I get evicted and die — which I'm selfish enough not to want.

Well, there are alternatives ’round these parts. Distances are shorter, public transportation networks denser (I don’t know how San Diego is in this regard, but if you say there’s no alternative, then I guess that means not so great).

Plus, people don’t usually die when they’re evicted over here, must be an American thing.

[Chuckit]

I know there are places where public transportation works well, but I'd bet those places are actually in the minority (can't prove it, but it seems that way to me). Big cities, sure. Really small towns where everything is within a mile or two, sure. Over here, I was losing 15+ hours a week — that's a full month every year — just sitting in the damn bus. I finally broke down and got a car even though it meant my transportation costs went up 500%. People who live in cities that can actually support a good public transportation system tend to have a very "Let them eat cake" kind of attitude about the whole thing, but mass transit well and truly sucks in a lot of places.

[torsoboy]

This same thing happened at a station just down the road from where I live a couple of months ago. Gas was priced at $.35/gal for a few hours until someone hit the emergency cutoff switch and called the owners. I was actually there while people where filling up; they were hooting and hollering all excited like and we wondered what the heck their problem was... we found out the next morning in the paper what was going on with that pump they were on. A couple of days later there was an article with comments from the owner saying how dishonest people were for taking advantage of the situation.

I don't know if I would have filled up on that pump had I know it was giving out almost free gas... I probably would have and then felt bad later when I thought about it.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Not because they’re ‘different from me’, but because minimising the amount of cars constantly roaming the streets all over the world is generally a pretty good thing, as long as cars are still a significant player in the global CO₂ emission games.

It's all lies. If they were serious about cars pumping out CO2, they'd ban catalytic convertors. They haven't, so what does that tell you?

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Same reason I fully support the VAT reform they’re proposing here, whereby ‘healthy food’ (big blanket category warning!) will receive lower taxes than it does now, while ‘unhealthy food’ (another one!) will receive higher taxes than they do now.

Who decides what's healthy food?

I like to think that *I* decide what's healthy for me, not have the choice made for me by some government jobsworth.

[moonmonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Who decides what's healthy food?

I like to think that *I* decide what's healthy for me, not have the choice made for me by some government jobsworth.

Exactly, It bad enough they tax my gin, now my cake and peanuts too?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I like to think that *I* decide what's healthy for me, not have the choice made for me by some government jobsworth.

Well, Mother Nature has already decided what's healthy for you. You can disagree with her, but I don't think you're going to win the argument.

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Not because they’re ‘different from me’, but because minimising the amount of cars constantly roaming the streets all over the world is generally a pretty good thing, as long as cars are still a significant player in the global CO₂ emission games.

Jacking up prices to stop driving won't work that well because the only people that will really have to stop driving are the poor working people that can't afford to drive to work every day. Some carpooling and public transportation might help but most will just lose their jobs and get evicted and die while prices on all the stuff they used to do go thru the roof because it will have to be done by people paid enough to buy gas. You don't really thing many people just drive around on those roads for fun do you? Most of them are rich enough to buy plenty of gas for their pleasure drives. Jacking up the price of cigarettees doesn't make people quit either... they just get poorer and poorer so you can pay for their heath care that they can't afford anymore. I don't like any of this either but I don't think I have the solutions like you do. And stop blaming cars for global warming because you're just killing the American auto industry and helping out the foreign oil industry by making high gas prices seem acceptable as a good thing.

[ghporter]

From my experience with public transportation in the U.S., I'd have to disagree with mrtew. Taking the bus is not an option for a lot of people, it's the only way. Gas prices are not anywhere near the biggest financial challenge for people with low incomes; insurance is a major expense in most places, and even if you pay on a month-by-month basis, it's a lot of money at any one time, particularly if you compare it to what an hourly worker at minimum wage pulls in. So lots of people who can't afford not to go to work take the bus and wind up spending less money on commuting. The trade off is that it generally takes more time to get from point to point.

I tend to drive to school very early so that I avoid traffic. This means that I have fewer mentally challenged drivers to deal with, and that I spend less time idling, so I get better mileage and thus a lower per mile cost. If I get out of the house 20 minutes later than normal, I go from a 15 minute drive to a 35 minute ordeal that features 60-0MPH transitions for no apparent reason, and maniacs who seem to think that letting me change lanes somehow lessens their manhood. If I budget 30 minutes for this 10 mile journey, I have to also pay attention to WHEN I go. Given bus schedules, if I get to the nearest transfer station 45 minutes before I need to be at school, I'm fine. Go figure.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Nah, we tried that already and it didn’t work out too well.

(I should mention, though, that I’m all for the 150 per cent price surge. I don’t have a driving licence and I don’t want one; same goes [obviously] for a car. I’d be happy to see prices go up so much that people would have no choice but to use their cars less. Perhaps we’d get traffic down to a properly manageable level, then.)

I see you're in Copenhagen, so this may not apply to you. But if that were to happen here in the US, we'd have MAJOR problems. Our entire economy is run by the trucking industry, and if gas prices shoot up to $7.50/gal (currently at $3/gal average) prices of everything in the country would skyrocket. It would affect everyone in the country, not just those with cars...

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

I see you're in Copenhagen, so this may not apply to you. But if that were to happen here in the US, we'd have MAJOR problems. Our entire economy is run by the trucking industry, and if gas prices shoot up to $7.50/gal (currently at $3/gal average) prices of everything in the country would skyrocket. It would affect everyone in the country, not just those with cars...

It would have some chain-effect-like consequences outside the realm of actual car driving, of course; but I think (naïvely, perhaps?) that they would tend to be less here than in the US.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

Jacking up the price of cigarettees doesn't make people quit either... they just get poorer and poorer so you can pay for their heath care that they can't afford anymore.

What?

Price may be the most effective way to prevent teens from becoming daily smokers. A joint study from the University of Illinois at Chicago and the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research matched price hikes with teen smoking rates over six years. They found that a 10% price increase would decrease the number of children who started to smoke between 3% and 10%, depending on their stage of smoking, such as experimentation, beginning daily smoking, or relatively heavy daily smoking.

"More states that haven't (raised taxes) should do so. This will stop tax-skirting smuggling of cigarettes from low-tax to high-tax states and discourage youth smoking," Todd said.

One analysis by the activist group Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids estimated that if cigarette prices were raised 10% per pack across the nation, it could save more than a million teens from becoming regular smokers.

and

In Washington state voters overwhelmingly approved a 60-cent tax increase for a pack of cigarettes along with increases for other tobacco products, too. Revenue will go to tobacco prevention programs and health care for low-income people.

(Emphasis mine)

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I normally don't like to have sex with gas.

AHHAAHHAAHHHHAAHHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHHA

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

What?



and



(Emphasis mine)

So basically, in order to pay for the programs to help people stop smoking and give them health care after they've smoked for a lifetime you need people to keep buying cigarettes? Yeah that makes a whole lot of sense.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Rollseyes! What a burn!

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

So basically, in order to pay for the programs to help people stop smoking and give them health care after they've smoked for a lifetime you need people to keep buying cigarettes? Yeah that makes a whole lot of sense.

No, but it seems like an appropriate place for the money to go. It takes part of the burden off of the rest of us non-smoking tax payers. In no ways is the government saying "Please smoke because we need the money," but they're saying, "If you're dumb enough to keep smoking even after we've hiked up the price, we're going to put your money to good use."

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

No, but it seems like an appropriate place for the money to go. It takes part of the burden off of the rest of us non-smoking tax payers. In no ways is the government saying "Please smoke because we need the money," but they're saying, "If you're dumb enough to keep smoking even after we've hiked up the price, we're going to put your money to good use."

I guess, as long as you support vice taxes. Seems like a horrible idea to me (who said the government should get ANYTHING from cigarettes???).