Crazy Gas Prices

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

I don't have a choice of driving a truck, I'm a contractor and have to have a truck to move materials and tools, I need 4 wheel drive to get in and out of job sites, its stock height though, but I cant use a Prius or work, and gas prices are a major problem. We traded my wifes SUV for a minivan, 27mpg hwy 20 city, three years ago when prices started up. I also drive an Accord and a motorcycle when I don't need the truck. Our town is very unfriendly to bikes, not just a lack of shoulders and lane width, but extremely hilly, and people gunning to hit you . We usually go to the Katy trail to ride or there is a green way that runs through part of the town, but it is limited in its scope for transportation purpose, It was designed for excercise, not as an alternative to other types of transporation. There are a few buses that run very limited routes and shut down at 6pm and don't run weekends or bad weather, which we get a fair amount. And due to the hills, when we get snow and ice, if you don't have at least on 4x4, you can't get out to work. I have to take my wife to work now and pick her up during winter weather. During one storm last year, it took the street crews 4 days to clear side streets, if it wasnt for my truck, we couldn't have gotten out. In many places like the southern states, there is NO reason for SUVs, but for the central and northern states, they are essential. So gas prices do have an impact. We have combined trips, cut back on speed, stopped eating out almost completely (which effects the economy), cut back on vacations, and bike riding since we have to drive to a place to ride safely.


I would have thought that successive goverments in the USA would have made it a priority to develope public transports systems, given the disparsity
of populations/towns across the country.
It would make sense to connect all the major cities using rail connection - this would provide an alternative to car/plane travel and it would ensure
lower fuel consumption/CO emmissions.

I would have thought that successive goverments in the USA would have made it a priority to develope public transports systems, given the disparsity
of populations/towns across the country.
It would make sense to connect all the major cities using rail connection - this would provide an alternative to car/plane travel and it would ensure
lower fuel consumption/CO emmissions.It is a question of culture I think. I know Americans who drive to work even though there is excellent public transportation between their home and work just for the sake of convenience and not having to adhere to bus schedules - never mind that you are fleeced for the parking permit, pay more for gas, etc. And I know singles who own gas guzzling SUVs. If you check opinions of many people in Texas, they view SUVs as a "necessary evil that is worth it". Since it is very difficult to change the underlying culture, I don't expect things to change anytime soon.

It is a question of culture I think. I know Americans who drive to work even though there is excellent public transportation between their home and work just for the sake of convenience and not having to adhere to bus schedules - never mind that you are fleeced for the parking permit, pay more for gas, etc. And I know singles who own gas guzzling SUVs. If you check opinions of many people in Texas, they view SUVs as a "necessary evil that is worth it". Since it is very difficult to change the underlying culture, I don't expect things to change anytime soon.

Yeah, I agree to a point.

But cultural/societal behaviour can and does change, if the gov, wants it to change.

Over here, the goverment (correctly) decided that disposable plastic bags were an environmental problem (they're not bio degradable, they're a pollutant).

So they levied a tax on the purchase of disposable plastic bags - plastic bag sales have dropped.
They did the same with banning smoking in public places (pubs/restuarants).
Cleverly they enacted legislation stating that because public places - like pubs/restaurants - can/do employ people, that under health and safety, legislation was to be enacted to "protect the health of the worker".
Cigarette sales have fallen.........and the employees of pubs/restaurants get to work in a more pleasant (less smokey) workplace.

The amount of opposition to this legislation was huge -restaurant/pub owners
said that their business "would be destroyed....... the social upheaval would be traumatic.......you can't expect people to give up the habit of a lifetime".
All manner of excuses were used to try to postpone/stop this legisation.

My point is - that if the US goverment really wanted to take on CO emmission issue.......it would enact policies which would encourage use of public transport and discourage private car usage, by developing public transport linkage.

Yeah, I agree to a point.

But cultural/societal behaviour can and does change, if the gov, wants it to change.

Over here, the goverment (correctly) decided that disposable plastic bags were an environmental problem (they're not bio degradable, they're a pollutant).

So they levied a tax on the purchase of disposable plastic bags - plastic bag sales have dropped.
They did the same with banning smoking in public places (pubs/restuarants).
Cleverly they enacted legislation stating that because public places - like pubs/restaurants - can/do employ people, that under health and safety, legislation was to be enacted to "protect the health of the worker".
Cigarette sales have fallen.........and the employees of pubs/restaurants get to work in a more pleasant (less smokey) workplace.

The amount of opposition to this legislation was huge -restaurant/pub owners
said that their business "would be destroyed....... the social upheaval would be traumatic.......you can't expect people to give up the habit of a lifetime".
All manner of excuses were used to try to postpone/stop this legisation.

My point is - that if the US goverment really wanted to take on CO emmission issue.......it would enact policies which would encourage use of public transport and discourage private car usage, by developing public transport linkage.I agree with you Lim. But the officials in the US government have links to the oil industry and would rather that things stay the way they are. You can see the way in which the current administration has procrastinated when it comes to improving fuel economy of vehicles (or doing anything good for the environment for that matter), or downright tampered with scientific reports to suit its view on climate change (and in some cases intimidated scientists from giving public interviews). Yes, if the government wants to, it can change things, but this government doesn't want to do anything about it.

A lot of Americans have been brainwashed into thinking that bigger = safer. If you want to protect yourself against the maniac drivers you must have the biggest SUV available so that you can outweigh what ever hits you....
but it's actually quite untrue - a well designed car can protect you even if it is small, and in fact cars in general are safer than their larger counterparts.

This little table was on a web site about debunking the "cycling is really dangerous" myth it's the odds of death vs injury in an accident by vehicle

Bus 1 in 1000
Car, Station Wagon 1 in 108
Pickup, SUV, Van 1 in 75
Bicycle 1 in 71
Large Truck 1 in 43
Motorcycle, Motorbike 1 in 26
On Foot 1 in 15

as you can see an accident in a truck or SUV is only a little less dangerous than a cycling accident....

A lot of Americans have been brainwashed into thinking that bigger = safer. If you want to protect yourself against the maniac drivers you must have the biggest SUV available so that you can outweigh what ever hits you....
but it's actually quite untrue - a well designed car can protect you even if it is small, and in fact cars in general are safer than their larger counterparts.

This little table was on a web site about debunking the "cycling is really dangerous" myth it's the odds of death vs injury in an accident by vehicle

Bus 1 in 1000
Car, Station Wagon 1 in 108
Pickup, SUV, Van 1 in 75
Bicycle 1 in 71
Large Truck 1 in 43
Motorcycle, Motorbike 1 in 26
On Foot 1 in 15

as you can see an accident in a truck or SUV is only a little less dangerous than a cycling accident....Wow regarding the odds of injury for pedestrians!

Wow regarding the odds of injury for pedestrians!
It's worse.... that's the odds that you will die, instead of being injured. Being hit by a car if you are on foot is bad news...

It's worse.... that's the odds that you will die, instead of being injured. Being hit by a car if you are on foot is bad news...So, the odds quoted are those of death vs injury if hit by a vehicle (as opposed to overall odds of injury/death in that mode of transportation)?

You guys bitch about $3.75 per gallon of regular gas over there. Come to Europe and see how much it costs here! Last I checked, it was about 1.4 euros per litre, which translates to 5.3 euros per gallon, or close to $8 per gallon.
I heard about the gas prices in Europe and you all are paying some crazy amounts. I know alot of people in Los Angeles complain because taking the public transportation is seen as low around here. Unlike in New York were everyone rich and poor taking public transportation or cabs. I've been catching buses and trains for a while to get around and laugh at people who have to pay for gas. I need a car because I've been traveling a loooong distances lately and need to make it easy for myself until my schedule calms down.

So, the odds quoted are those of death vs injury if hit by a vehicle (as opposed to overall odds of injury/death in that mode of transportation)?

Yes, if I'm reading it correctly- though I think that it does not take into account what exactly hits you in those figures. The fatalities for cyclists go down if you just look at accidents with cars v/s accidents with larger vehicles - 1 in 113 if hit by a car vs 1 in 47 for cyclits hit by SUV's. That still doesn't change the fact that accidents are more survivable in cars than in SUVs... I doubt that every SUV (or car) accident happens between vehicles of similar weights

this is a little OT -but its an interesting web page http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm

Yes, if I'm reading it correctly- though I think that it does not take into account what exactly hits you in those figures. The fatalities for cyclists go down if you just look at accidents with cars v/s accidents with larger vehicles - 1 in 113 if hit by a car vs 1 in 47 for cyclits hit by SUV's. That still doesn't change the fact that accidents are more survivable in cars than in SUVs... I doubt that every SUV (or car) accident happens between vehicles of similar weights

this is a little OT -but its an interesting web page http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm
Hopefully times will get better. Slowly but surely.

Hopefully times will get better. Slowly but surely.

Which times: the ones where we kick the oil habit and actually invest in renewable or alternate energy sources, or the ones where Americans can happily and cheaply fill their gas hog's tank until the oil runs out......in the not too distant future?

Which times: the ones where we kick the oil habit and actually invest in renewable or alternate energy sources, or the ones where Americans can happily and cheaply fill their gas hog's tank until the oil runs out......in the not too distant future?I agree that we need to kick the oil habit but what practical renewable energy sources do you suggest? Solar Power is great for someplace like Arizona, but what about places like Maine and Minnesota that don't see much sun? Nuclear Power is viable, but expensive and frightens too many people. The waste is a big problem. Biofuels require more energy to make than what they produce and hydrogen requires too much electrical power to make it economically feasible. Renewable or alternate fuels would be great but they have to be less expensive than oil to make sense, otherwise people won't use them and there would be no incentive to develop them. Except when there is no more oil of course.

See, unlike the great masses of dim witted Americans, we actually realize that oil is a finite resource and will be gone some day. We also realize that there are a lot of important things that come from oil, things that are much more important than gasoline, things like plastics, things used in health care.....This could be the first time in the history of the earth, that a species extinguishes a practically non-renewable resource (I guess it takes hundreds of millions of years to renew) in the space of what... 200 years... merely a speck in the ocean of earth's lifetime.

I once asked a CEO of an oil company about this foreseeable scenario of oil running out and future generations being unable to use it (what if it has other uses that we don't even know about). His answer was that we can currently reproduce oil synthetically but it is not worth it at current prices (oil was about $26 a barrel then in 2002). I guess it might be feasible now... at 2008 prices, but I'm skeptical that organic oil can be exactly reproduced in significant volumes. Where does the carbon come from?

There are many forms of energy which can be incorporated into our society, not necessarily for transportation, but these will limit wastes and use of nonrenewable energy sources like natural gas and coal. Using biomass is not feasible in our society, but it is in 3rd world countries in particular. Hydropower and wind power can be used easily although they are expensive to maintain and obtain, these are still less expensive than nuclear power. Geothermal energy is not available in many places, plus it is expenisve to "harvest" and use. Photovoltaic cells or solar power is the most viable source for energy in many areas of the United States. If all people were willing to have their houses constructed in a certain geometrical shape, the sun would provide heat, and solar power can assist with other necessities in the house.

I agree that we need to kick the oil habit but what practical renewable energy sources do you suggest? Solar Power is great for someplace like Arizona, but what about places like Maine and Minnesota that don't see much sun? Nuclear Power is viable, but expensive and frightens too many people. The waste is a big problem. Biofuels require more energy to make than what they produce and hydrogen requires too much electrical power to make it economically feasible. Renewable or alternate fuels would be great but they have to be less expensive than oil to make sense, otherwise people won't use them and there would be no incentive to develop them. Except when there is no more oil of course.

That's a perfect argument for not doing anything: it has to be less expensive than oil. Using that logic, nothing will get done, and seeing how it's believed that there is less than 100 years of oil left--at current levels of consumption--why, there's no reason to do anything at all. Of course, people could push the country's leadership, but that would require effort. With people like Bush being elected, we certainly don't have to worry about weening ourselves off of oil.

For the record, photovoltaics are much farther along than you or most people even know. Rigid substrate cells are over 15% efficient and going up. A new PV structure was demonstrated to be 40%+ efficient. Elsewhere, work is going with solar collectors to overcome the efficiency limits of PV by concentrating more energy on the PV sites. Even with low efficiency, you lose nothing at all. There are no byproducts and no thermal effluent. As long as the Sun exists there is energy. PV costs are low enough to be incorporated into building costs and building upgrades. Arizona, alone, could provide, with current technology, over 10% of the countries energy. Solar cell farms are being built here.

Wind turbines are cheap, easy to install, and again have no harmful byproduct. There are many roof mounted turbines--with prop spans of a meter or so--on the market for homeowners. In both cases, PV and wind turbine, it doesn't matter if they sit idle for a period of time. When they're not idle, they pay for themselves and provide, in terms of Earth's thermodynamic system, free energy.

With hybrid technology now available, the manufacture of IC cars should come to an end. The technology for electric cars is already here. That is a fact. In fact, part of my work group at a defense contractor went to an auto manufacturers fuel cell research center. We were offered, for our project, free fuel cells. These cells were very advanced spec, yet they were several generations old for that auto manufacturer. Of course there's no need to start putting that technology on the road, when you can still suck more money out of the IC production lines. It's better to wait so the profit will go up for fuel cell technology.

Nuclear fusion is a viable option somewhere in the future, but fusion research in this country has been hamstrung by coal and oil interests and the president who lives off of them.

Nuclear fission is a real option. The vast majority of nuclear waste is low level waste in the form of tools, pipes, and etc. The French make great use of nuclear fission and their fuel reprocessing. Once again, we could learn a thing or two from the French.

Energy research? That's not even in the vocabulary of the current government. The DOE focuses a large portion of its work on military/defense/weapons research.

Next year, our house is getting a PV array, a wind turbine, and a water farming tank. We're of the mind that we should pay now, instead of passing the cost onto our children.

With that cost being increased conflict in the world as energy resources become more scarce as the world's population increases, global warming that may become irreversible, and the disease, food shortages, and other fun things that come of all that, it seems pretty fucking petty, for people today, to complain about "the cost," when none of us will pay the real cost.

There are many other ways to ease our energy problems, but at least in this country and others, no one seems particularly interested in trying. Why should they when oil and gas are so cheap? Hell, we'll be dead when the oil runs out. It's not our problem, right?

Interesting discussion. I have always been surprised about the American fascination with the 'it's only a small aircraft carrier = not big enough car for me' mentality.

I find it interesting that the 1.8cc gas engine in my Toyota Corolla Verso is able to get me and the family (four people, four bicycles, lots of luggage) wherever we need in comfort and with sufficient speed. I speak to my brothers in law and they do not understand how I can survive with anything less than a V12 and 6800 cubic inch engine, or some such silliness, which they then drive in mortal fear of the traffic police at about 3kph (I remember arguing in the US when I was pulled over in a rented Nissan Altima - I was doing over 15mph in a school zone when the 'lights were flashing'... mamma mia!). But I digress...

And please do not complain about gasoline prices in the US. LOL. I always find this entertaining. If you had European gas prices FOREVER then there would be little joking about the size of European cars, while you all fought to purchase an 850cc Hyundai/Fiat/Citroen or whatever else actually makes sense to drive.

For the record, want to discourage the driving culture? Tax gasoline. Increase tolls. Watch the gas guzzlers become less common...

For the posters who come up with all kinds of reasons to have trucks - funny that plenty of contractors seem to survive just fine in Europe without Dodge Rams or Ford F150s... doing the same job (sorry, not picking on anyone in particular, but there is ALWAYS a reason not to change habits)!

BTW, we have installed a pantload of solar panels in our backyard, and supply energty into the national grid and are paid handsomely for it by the government, as part of their (small and sad) effort to plug into alternative sources. This year I begin commuting to work by bicycle. In Rome, possibly the most bike unfriendly city short of Istanbul or something. Come to see real traffic...

And as a family we heat our water through solar panels. And despite relatively high installation costs, we still save money year-round!

Sorry for the rant. We all need to do more in this regard...

Interesting discussion. I have always been surprised about the American fascination with the 'it's only a small aircraft carrier = not big enough car for me' mentality.

I find it interesting that the 1.8cc gas engine in my Toyota Corolla Verso is able to get me and the family (four people, four bicycles, lots of luggage) wherever we need in comfort and with sufficient speed. I speak to my brothers in law and they do not understand how I can survive with anything less than a V12 and 6800 cubic inch engine, or some such silliness, which they then drive in mortal fear of the traffic police at about 3kph (I remember arguing in the US when I was pulled over in a rented Nissan Altima - I was doing over 15mph in a school zone when the 'lights were flashing'... mamma mia!). But I digress...

And please do not complain about gasoline prices in the US. LOL. I always find this entertaining. If you had European gas prices FOREVER then there would be little joking about the size of European cars, while you all fought to purchase an 850cc Hyundai/Fiat/Citroen or whatever else actually makes sense to drive.

For the record, want to discourage the driving culture? Tax gasoline. Increase tolls. Watch the gas guzzlers become less common...

For the posters who come up with all kinds of reasons to have trucks - funny that plenty of contractors seem to survive just fine in Europe without Dodge Rams or Ford F150s... doing the same job (sorry, not picking on anyone in particular, but there is ALWAYS a reason not to change habits)!

BTW, we have installed a pantload of solar panels in our backyard, and supply energty into the national grid and are paid handsomely for it by the government, as part of their (small and sad) effort to plug into alternative sources. This year I begin commuting to work by bicycle. In Rome, possibly the most bike unfriendly city short of Istanbul or something. Come to see real traffic...

And as a family we heat our water through solar panels. And despite relatively high installation costs, we still save money year-round!

Sorry for the rant. We all need to do more in this regard...Agree with every single one of your comments. A couple have a baby, and immediately they have to sell their sedan (which can fit a family with 2 children easily) and buy a SUV! This is literally true since that's how I bought my first car second-hand - the person selling it got an SUV because the couple had a baby. You can always come up with umpteen excuses on why you need SUVs and trucks; the reality is that you often CAN manage without those things.

BTW Pete, the $3+ per gallon gasoline is already beginning to change the car culture if I read the news articles correctly. Some families have sold 2 of their 3 SUVs in exchange for smaller and more fuel efficient cars. That's a start. ;) But there is a fundamental problem in that mass transit is quite under-developed in US. If you have to go from one city to another, you often take the train in Europe, while in contrast, you drive in US. Dunno if that will change anytime in future. The point is not that driving cars is bad (ok, not exactly true, but that is a different story), but that there is often no alternative to driving in US as opposed to Europe.

Interesting discussion. I have always been surprised about the American fascination with the 'it's only a small aircraft carrier = not big enough car for me' mentality.

.....Powerful Pete's stuf......
Sorry for the rant. We all need to do more in this regard...

Spot on. You'd think by the whining and rationalizing done over here, Americans are the only ones that ranch, farm, have large families, or (insert played out American excuse here). Americans are number one, in the world, when it comes to forgetting about the rest of the world and how the rest of the world exists and gets by.

By the excuses people spew, anyone can see that your analysis is correct: people will come up with any number of excuses just so that won't have to change their behavior or adapt to something different. Our country has gone so far, with its excuses, that we now make up justifications for war so that we can maintain our oil fix. It's painfully obvious that is the case: America had almost zero interest in the Middle East until oil was found. We do oh so little to advance the cause of liberty in oil countries friendly to us--Saudia Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, and etc.--but we're bloody all fired up to destabilize or fight any country with oil that doesn't do as we tell them. I'd say that is something that is very telling.

The increasing entropy in Earth's thermodynamic system and the accompanying climate change doesn't give two shits about our rationalizations and excuses: it'll continue and accelerate unabated if we do nothing, eventually leading to things we'd rather not think about.

And the oil? Well, the sand is draining out of that hourglass, and the proof is here: S=k⋄Ln(ω). To wit: nothing lasts forever.