NJ Self-Service Gas?

[Brandon]

Note, cell phones have never caused a fire or an explosion at a gasoline filling station.  They may cause distraction, but they cannot cause a fire or explosion.

"cannot"?

The cell phone is an electric device. Electric devices sometimes spark. In the right situation, a badly malfunctioning cell phone could theoretically cause a spark.

No, they cannot.  The Mythbusters did their best to get one to do so, and it was Busted.

[jeffandnicole]

Newer Hondas don't even have service intervals any more... you just rely on the car to tell you what needs to be done.

And the dumbing down of America contines at a blistering pace.

Yes and no.  The maintenance interval is designed to tell you the optimal times when to change oil, preform routine maintenance, etc.

I shake my head when people say they still get their oil changed based on when they want to change it, ignoring the manufacturer's guidelines on changing oil.  Those recommended service intervals are designed to get the maximum mileage from the various oils and parts, which will save you money in the long run.  Changing the oil every so many miles for one's made-up beliefs is simply throwing money out the window.

The dumbing down of America, personally, is more in regards to those that basically say "well, that's what I did in 1957, so I'm still going to do it today".

[hbelkins]

My old Toyota Tacoma has a recommended time/mileage interval for oil changes.

My Saturn Vue does not have a manufacturer's recommendation for mileage, relying instead on the "oil life remaining" sensor. I suspect there is a time interval recommendation, though.

Valvoline Instant Oil Change seems to have an overall 3 months/3,000 miles recommendation, whichever comes first. Wonder why? Surely not to maximize revenue.

[Pete from Boston]

Valvoline Instant Oil Change seems to have an overall 3 months/3,000 miles recommendation, whichever comes first. Wonder why? Surely not to maximize revenue.

Marketing-driven advice like this sure doesn't help our collective intelligence, either.  Reminds me of a rumor a few years back that one of the leading building vapor-barrier wraps would only be warrantied if installed with one particular side up–completely irrelevant to its function, but critical to the trademark being read.

[formulanone]

My civic is new enough that it tells me the oil level to the nearest 10%.  Newer Hondas don't even have service intervals any more... you just rely on the car to tell you what needs to be done.

And the dumbing down of America contines at a blistering pace.

I don't think that's particularly fair: I've worked at a Honda dealer, and your gentle drivers require less maintenance and your Hoonigans require more frequent maintenance. Nobody wants to pay for unnecessary maintenance, and this cuts down on that. Theoretically, if you run the engine over higher temperatures, hit more tachometer redlines, drive it raggedly, then you'd need more frequent maintenance anyway. It does make controlled interval planning a bit more difficult.

As to the low-oil sensor...plenty of cars still have them. If you're actually taking care of oil leaks and maintaining it as recommended, then only a few modern cars will regularly burn or consume oil. I check the oil level after an oil change, to make sure they didn't oil-out my car.

There are some cars with transmissions without dipsticks, but there has to be some way to get the fluid in...probably some over-complicated way.

Pity the tire pressure sensors can't do that.  The "check tire pressure" light can mean anything from "one of your tires has leaked 1psi over the past 4 hours" to "you just had a blow out", and pulling over on I-95 in PA to figure out which is NOT fun.  Of course, it won't tell you which tire either, so an inaccurate/sticky pressure rod can even CAUSE the problem when you check!  Had to buy a new one over this car (turns out the old rod underestimated by 5psi, so it was probably time anyways).

Some cars have this; lots of modern GM vehicles have it, so do some VW/Audi products, a bunch of Mercedes-Benz and BMW vehicles have it, too. I think it's far better than a light which comes on when you're 20% over/under the placard.

Note, cell phones have never caused a fire or an explosion at a gasoline filling station.  They may cause distraction, but they cannot cause a fire or explosion.

"cannot"?

The cell phone is an electric device. Electric devices sometimes spark. In the right situation, a badly malfunctioning cell phone could theoretically cause a spark.

Yeah, because nobody's ever smoked near a gas station, left their car running while pumping, nor crashed into anything at a gas station. Nobody's proven a single gas station fire has started from a cellphone having a spontaneous combustion. Time to get over the cellphone paranoia just because you don't want one.

Could a faulty charger cable cause it...possibly, but only if the ignition is left on, or in accessory mode.

No, they cannot.  The Mythbusters did their best to get one to do so, and it was Busted.

...and the phrase "panty-static charge" has been permanently stuck in my head ever since.

[jeffandnicole]

Of my two Hondas, one has the tire pressure system with individual tire alerts; the other (CRV) has just a general alert.  Going back a year now (or 2 years, I forget), the TPMS light came on during a road trip to Ohio.  I'll come on, then go off.  After a few stops at Hondas along the way, I understood it to be the monitoring system in general is failing.  I finally had it checked out at my local Honda, and it was determined that the system itself needs to be replaced - a $300 or so repair job.

Or, I can live with the orange TPMS light, and check my tire pressure occasionally.  Cost: $7.99 for a digital tire pressure gauge.

[vdeane]

I don't get the attraction of waiting in line for an overworked jockey to scratch your paint by just dropping your gas cap on the side of the car instead of putting it in the holder on the car's whatchamacallit, and then waiting another five minutes after the pump is done for him to finish with someone else.

I wouldn't understand that attraction, either.  Fortunately what you describe almost never happens, so an attraction to it or lack thereof is more or less a non-issue.

There's always a bit of waiting whenever I get gas in NJ, and the guy always just drops the gas cap rather than putting it in the holder.  Yes I'm impatient; I fully admit that.

[Duke87]

My civic is new enough that it tells me the oil level to the nearest 10%.  Pity the tire pressure sensors can't do that.  The "check tire pressure" light can mean anything from "one of your tires has leaked 1psi over the past 4 hours" to "you just had a blow out", and pulling over on I-95 in PA to figure out which is NOT fun.

Eh. If you have a flat or blown out tire, you'll know immediately based on the sudden lack of handling and unusual noise it makes. The low tire pressure light is just "thank you Captain Obvious" at that point.

As for it not being able to tell you which tire is low, yeah, only a pressure gauge can do that. Better yet, get a portable air compressor. Not only tells you what the pressure is, but can reinflate any floppy tires so long as they are only leaking slowly.

[oscar]

My civic is new enough that it tells me the oil level to the nearest 10%.  Pity the tire pressure sensors can't do that.  The "check tire pressure" light can mean anything from "one of your tires has leaked 1psi over the past 4 hours" to "you just had a blow out", and pulling over on I-95 in PA to figure out which is NOT fun.

Eh. If you have a flat or blown out tire, you'll know immediately based on the sudden lack of handling and unusual noise it makes. The low tire pressure light is just "thank you Captain Obvious" at that point.

That notwithstanding, my Toyota Prius' tire pressure warning light blinks rapidly if there's a blowout, rather than shine steadily for a slower leak.

[bugo]

Note, cell phones have never caused a fire or an explosion at a gasoline filling station.  They may cause distraction, but they cannot cause a fire or explosion.

"cannot"?

The cell phone is an electric device. Electric devices sometimes spark. In the right situation, a badly malfunctioning cell phone could theoretically cause a spark.

No, they cannot.  The Mythbusters did their best to get one to do so, and it was Busted.

The Mythbusters is just a TV show. Who knows if their conclusions are truthful or not because they often do not use the scientific method. If there's electricity, there's a possibility of a spark. Period. Maybe somebody mowing a yard will send a rock flying into the cell phone that is being used. Don't tell me that it's impossible to do something that is very possible. We're not trying to redefine gravity here.

[Pete from Boston]

I don't get the attraction of waiting in line for an overworked jockey to scratch your paint by just dropping your gas cap on the side of the car instead of putting it in the holder on the car's whatchamacallit, and then waiting another five minutes after the pump is done for him to finish with someone else.

I wouldn't understand that attraction, either.  Fortunately what you describe almost never happens, so an attraction to it or lack thereof is more or less a non-issue.

There's always a bit of waiting whenever I get gas in NJ, and the guy always just drops the gas cap rather than putting it in the holder.  Yes I'm impatient; I fully admit that.

I just look at it as time to use as I see fit.  For example, someone is pumping my gas as I type this, and I am seated the whole time in a nice cushy chair.

Edit: seated for the full four minutes it took to get 16 gallons of gas.

[Duke87]

Note, cell phones have never caused a fire or an explosion at a gasoline filling station.  They may cause distraction, but they cannot cause a fire or explosion.

"cannot"?

The cell phone is an electric device. Electric devices sometimes spark. In the right situation, a badly malfunctioning cell phone could theoretically cause a spark.

No, they cannot.  The Mythbusters did their best to get one to do so, and it was Busted.

The Mythbusters is just a TV show. Who knows if their conclusions are truthful or not because they often do not use the scientific method. If there's electricity, there's a possibility of a spark. Period. Maybe somebody mowing a yard will send a rock flying into the cell phone that is being used. Don't tell me that it's impossible to do something that is very possible. We're not trying to redefine gravity here.

Semantically, yes, it is theoretically possible for a cellphone to ignite an explosion. It's theoretically possible for a lot of things to ignite an explosion, including the pump itself (also runs on electricity!).

But while theoretically possible, it would require some odd freak circumstances to actually happen. So the point stands that the risk is negligible and we don't need to freak out about people using their phones while pumping gas.

[Pete from Boston]

Interesting paragraph from a article in today's Times:

"But Robert Scott III, a professor of economics at Monmouth University who wrote a 2007 analysis of the self-service bans, found the savings [from allowing self-serve] would be negligible – three or four cents. And self-service did not save drivers much time at the pump: It took just 15 seconds longer to fill up at New Jersey stations than in neighboring Pennsylvania."

Full item:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/23/nyregion/new-jersey-drivers-dont-pump-gas-and-dont-intend-to.html

[vdeane]

They must have done the study on a station that had a jockey for each pump and/or paid cash.  Paying with a credit card, the difference between just pulling up at the pump in a neighboring state and a typical NJ station with one jockey covering every single pump there, and the difference is huge enough that Fucillo needs to get involved.

My civic is new enough that it tells me the oil level to the nearest 10%.  Pity the tire pressure sensors can't do that.  The "check tire pressure" light can mean anything from "one of your tires has leaked 1psi over the past 4 hours" to "you just had a blow out", and pulling over on I-95 in PA to figure out which is NOT fun.

Eh. If you have a flat or blown out tire, you'll know immediately based on the sudden lack of handling and unusual noise it makes. The low tire pressure light is just "thank you Captain Obvious" at that point.

As for it not being able to tell you which tire is low, yeah, only a pressure gauge can do that. Better yet, get a portable air compressor. Not only tells you what the pressure is, but can reinflate any floppy tires so long as they are only leaking slowly

After having two flats and a leaking valve stem in the span of a single year, I'm definitely paranoid about everything tire related right now.  Even bumpy pavement or gusty winds can get me worried about whether something is wrong.

[Pete from Boston]

I use almost exclusively full serve stations here (they're cheaper) and the usual order is 1. I tell them what I want, 2. They ask if cash or charge, 3. I hand them the card as they get the pump going (I almost never pay cash), 4. They run the card while pumping, or simply swipe it once and give it back to me.  Those that don't give it back right away are generally there pretty quick after with the clipboard and receipt.

There is usually one guy per four cars, here and in New Jersey.  The likely staggering of orders usually works pretty well, unless all four cars show up at once.  In the latter case, we all exercise that most crucial of concepts that holds together society, just a little teeny bit of patience.

The simple fact is this: gas stations are like every other business, and they make more money if they get people through faster.  This is true whether because terrible service drives people away, or more throughput sells more gas.  Any gas station with any competition–self, full, whatever–operates according to these rules.  And having done my time under what's made out to be the oppression of gas-buying in New Jersey, I assure you most of them get this, and do a decent job of getting folks in and out in a reasonable amount of time.

[jeffandnicole]

Interesting paragraph from a article in today's Times:

"But Robert Scott III, a professor of economics at Monmouth University who wrote a 2007 analysis of the self-service bans, found the savings [from allowing self-serve] would be negligible — three or four cents. And self-service did not save drivers much time at the pump: It took just 15 seconds longer to fill up at New Jersey stations than in neighboring Pennsylvania."

Full item:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/23/nyregion/new-jersey-drivers-dont-pump-gas-and-dont-intend-to.html

Interesting paragraph from a article in today's Times:

"But Robert Scott III, a professor of economics at Monmouth University who wrote a 2007 analysis of the self-service bans, found the savings [from allowing self-serve] would be negligible — three or four cents. And self-service did not save drivers much time at the pump: It took just 15 seconds longer to fill up at New Jersey stations than in neighboring Pennsylvania."

Full item:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/23/nyregion/new-jersey-drivers-dont-pump-gas-and-dont-intend-to.html

We love the insight of that study!

For the study to be perfect, one would need to go to a gas station needing the same amount of gas.  One would also have to understand how to work the pump.  If the study used someone from NJ who normally doesn't operate pumps, it would add significant time to the refueling process to figure out how to operate the pump.  And it would also be interesting to note when the 'time' started.  Did the study's stopwatch start when the attendant approached the car, and the study ignored the time waiting at the pump for the attendant? 

Being the study's summary in the paper is just the paragraph Pete quoted above, there's really not much to go on to see how 'scientific' the study was.

[Pete from Boston]

Interesting paragraph from a article in today's Times:

"But Robert Scott III, a professor of economics at Monmouth University who wrote a 2007 analysis of the self-service bans, found the savings [from allowing self-serve] would be negligible — three or four cents. And self-service did not save drivers much time at the pump: It took just 15 seconds longer to fill up at New Jersey stations than in neighboring Pennsylvania."

Full item:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/23/nyregion/new-jersey-drivers-dont-pump-gas-and-dont-intend-to.html

Interesting paragraph from a article in today's Times:

"But Robert Scott III, a professor of economics at Monmouth University who wrote a 2007 analysis of the self-service bans, found the savings [from allowing self-serve] would be negligible — three or four cents. And self-service did not save drivers much time at the pump: It took just 15 seconds longer to fill up at New Jersey stations than in neighboring Pennsylvania."

Full item:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/23/nyregion/new-jersey-drivers-dont-pump-gas-and-dont-intend-to.html

We love the insight of that study!

For the study to be perfect, one would need to go to a gas station needing the same amount of gas.  One would also have to understand how to work the pump.  If the study used someone from NJ who normally doesn't operate pumps, it would add significant time to the refueling process to figure out how to operate the pump.  And it would also be interesting to note when the 'time' started.  Did the study's stopwatch start when the attendant approached the car, and the study ignored the time waiting at the pump for the attendant? 

Being the study's summary in the paper is just the paragraph Pete quoted above, there's really not much to go on to see how 'scientific' the study was.

There's not, but it would be silly to expect a newspaper article to go into the detail you mention, and you can easily track down the study and properly vet their methodologies if you want to.  Let us know what you find out.

[bugo]

There's not, but it would be silly to expect a newspaper article to go into the detail you mention, and you can easily track down the study and properly vet their methodologies if you want to.  Let us know what you find out.

Then it's silly to use this study as a talking point in this thread.

[Pete from Boston]

There's not, but it would be silly to expect a newspaper article to go into the detail you mention, and you can easily track down the study and properly vet their methodologies if you want to.  Let us know what you find out.

Then it's silly to use this study as a talking point in this thread.

Let's be sure to hold every piece of data brought up in these forums to the same standard.

I called it "interesting," not definitive nor even correct.  "Interesting" means it makes for relevant conversation.  But you know this already.

[jeffandnicole]

There's a big difference between what's mentioned in a public newspaper vs. a private forum.

If the study isn't correct, then that's all the more reason not to mention it in said newspaper. But as noted many times, newspapers aren't really striving for accuracy, they're striving to prove their side of the debate.

[Alps]

There's a big difference between what's mentioned in a public newspaper vs. a private forum.

If the study isn't correct, then that's all the more reason not to mention it in said newspaper. But as noted many times, newspapers aren't really striving for accuracy, they're striving to prove their side of the debate.

I agree with you on this matter. I was thinking it over. You have to assume the fuel takes the same amount of time to pump. The difference in time is waiting for the attendant. How long does that take on average? I think 8 seconds is too low.

[Pete from Boston]

If my JSTOR access still works, I'll find the relevant info on the methodologies.

[Duke87]

There's a big difference between what's mentioned in a public newspaper vs. a private forum.

If the study isn't correct, then that's all the more reason not to mention it in said newspaper. But as noted many times, newspapers aren't really striving for accuracy, they're striving to prove their side of the debate.

I agree with you on this matter. I was thinking it over. You have to assume the fuel takes the same amount of time to pump. The difference in time is waiting for the attendant. How long does that take on average? I think 8 seconds is too low.

Also, perception versus reality. Waiting for an attendant may not take very long objectively speaking, but to an impatient driver any nonzero wait can cause annoyance.

Still, I feel like the conclusion of "allowing self serve gas would bring minimal benefit" is showing a blatant normalcy bias, i.e. default to the status quo. Forget what any state does or doesn't allow, let's assume we just colonized a new planet and are drawing up gas station regulations where none currently exist. Based on the pros and cons, should motorists on Mars be allowed to pump their own gas, or not?

[texaskdog]

Note, cell phones have never caused a fire or an explosion at a gasoline filling station.  They may cause distraction, but they cannot cause a fire or explosion.

"cannot"?

The cell phone is an electric device. Electric devices sometimes spark. In the right situation, a badly malfunctioning cell phone could theoretically cause a spark.

No, they cannot.  The Mythbusters did their best to get one to do so, and it was Busted.

The Mythbusters is just a TV show. Who knows if their conclusions are truthful or not because they often do not use the scientific method. If there's electricity, there's a possibility of a spark. Period. Maybe somebody mowing a yard will send a rock flying into the cell phone that is being used. Don't tell me that it's impossible to do something that is very possible. We're not trying to redefine gravity here.

We made people get off their phones while pumping gas, put gas cans on the ground, not leave their pumps unattended, not get back in their cars.  If they weren't going to follow the safety rules they didn't get to pump gas.