Living Car Free - What do you think about gas rationing?

Some pros:


Relatively easy to implement.
Has an immediate effect on fuel consumption.
It hits rich and poor evenly.

Shortages cause prices to rise. Assuming you want price fixing along with rationing, think of the price of any product transported by a fuel vehicle rising. Fuel rationing will delay delivery of goods and create a shortage. That won't hit rich and poor evenly when food prices rise.

I think we ought to see gas "rationing" via a price increase. Tax auto fuel until it covers road costs and the damage done by pollution.

I don't think gas rationing is the right way to try to make things "fair" for poorer people. Better income tax rates, funding education/job training, and housing seem like more sensible solutions to me.

Gas rationing might go a little smoother today than when I had to deal with it in '73, since now most gas stations are open 24 hrs. In order to beat the long lines, I do remember having to be at the nearest gas station at 6 am to get my 10 gallon allotment. I still had to wait several minutes for my turn at the pump though, and it seems that it was always in a pouring rain.(no station canopy)

I ran across some imaginative gas rationing in the Republic of South Africa in the 1970s. From Sunset Friday to sunrise Monday gas could not be sold. You could not use gasoline cans for refueling ; period. Not for your car, your power boat, even your lawn mower. They all had to go to a gas station for refueling. Beats the problem of ration tickets. The government found it simplier to control the stations then to handle ration tickets. All oil had to be sneaked into the country around the trade embargo. Gas cost ~2.40/ gal 30+ years ago. making gas from coal was practical at that level.

Shortages cause prices to rise. Assuming you want price fixing along with rationing, think of the price of any product transported by a fuel vehicle rising. Fuel rationing will delay delivery of goods and create a shortage. That won't hit rich and poor evenly when food prices rise.

Only if it influences heavy diesels too. I'm sure government would allow food transportation to continue it's level of use seeing as how small it is.

Some pros:


Relatively easy to implement.
Has an immediate effect on fuel consumption.
It hits rich and poor evenly.


Sorry, this is a very silly idea.

Rationing is what you do when you have run out of all other options.
Otherwise it makes as much sense as hitting yourself in the head with a baseball bat
repeatedly.

Whenever I heard about rationing, I think about all the money I could make selling my rations.

Whenever I heard about rationing, I think about all the money I could make selling my rations.
+1

Hay they did it during WWII
We are in a world war.


Although I think you would have oil shock. Myself if I want to be that extreme I just prefer extreme price congestion. That way I can live in a place that charges 20 bucks to enter.

Only if it influences heavy diesels too. I'm sure government would allow food transportation to continue it's level of use seeing as how small it is.

When you trust what the government will do you're setting yourself up for disappointment

Whenever I heard about rationing, I think about all the money I could make selling my rations.
Probably the only relevance of topic to car free individuals. Should others, who are directly affected by the issue, consider the thoughts of the car free on this subject?

The U.S. already has a universal rationing system set up. In fact your pocket is already full of gas ration coupons, they're called dollars.

All seriousness aside, gas rationing in the near term will serve mainly to suppress buying panics due to local spot shortages. There won't be time to put a big system in place, it will have to be simple and it will be temporary.

Longer term, rationing will be done by price. Any other way of dividing up the supply will look like the government interfering with easy motoring, and that will be deadly at the next election.

Rationing is what you do when you have run out of all other options.
Otherwise it makes as much sense as hitting yourself in the head with a baseball bat
repeatedly.
What other options do we have at this point?

The U.S. already has a universal rationing system set up. In fact your pocket is already full of gas ration coupons, they're called dollars.

All seriousness aside, gas rationing in the near term will serve mainly to suppress buying panics due to local spot shortages. There won't be time to put a big system in place, it will have to be simple and it will be temporary.

Longer term, rationing will be done by price. Any other way of dividing up the supply will look like the government interfering with easy motoring, and that will be deadly at the next election.

Yes but....
Rationing by price is disastrous to the economy, since people who spend more on gas will buy less of other items. Rationing will not have this effect.
People are against rationing now, but if faced with a need to cut back on petroleum consumption, which alternative would the rational consumer prefer? The alternative of very expensive gas, which will limit his/her driving; or the alternative of rationing--which would also limit driving, but at the same time save her/him some money.
Oil companies, refiners and fuel retailers make obscene profits when gas prices go up. This seems to anger consumers more than the higher prices themselves. Rationing would limit opportunistic pricing, and would tend to drive prices lower, not higher.
As others have mentioned, a legal or illegal market for rationing coupons would be a great financial bonus for us carfree folk. If marketing them was legal, environmental groups would also have the option of buying coupons and putting them out of circulation.

What other options do we have at this point?

As Archie Bunker would say, "Stifle yourself!". Or at least people should use self control.

Why can't adults be expected to do a little thinking and voluntarily plan out their car usage better? We sacrifice so much for convenience.

Look, I have lived through rationing. Let's speak plainly, rationing sucks.
It causes more problems than it cures, and always does damage to the economy.

Secondly, I have seen nothing that justifies it. Why do you think we need
rationing?

Third, research rationing before you jump on such an idea...and then find something that would work.

Seriously, why on Earth do you guys want to do rationing?

Look, I have lived through rationing. Let's speak plainly, rationing sucks.
It causes more problems than it cures, and always does damage to the economy.?
So what problems does it cause, and how does it damage the economy? Is this a problem with rationing per se, or inadequacies in the rationing systems that you're familiar with?




Secondly, I have seen nothing that justifies it. Why do you think we need rationing??
Well, clearly to most of us, some means of reducing gas consumption is justified. Reasons are peak oil and coimate change mainly, and a lot of other secondary reasons.

When it comes to reducing gas consumption, you always hear about gas taxes, natural market forces driving up prices, CAFE standards, and other schemes to influence demand for gas. Rationing is the opposite approach--a supply-side manipulation. Nobody seems to think about it much, and I wonder why it's summarily dismissed.




Third, research rationing before you jump on such an idea...and then find something that would work.
?
Well, I guess you could say that the reason I started this thread was to research rationing. I have a lot of respect for the opinions of people on this forum, so I wanted to discover what they think of the idea, or maybe push them (myself too) to think more about it. I wish that you, late, would take the time to elaborate a little more, since you evidently have some well-formed opinions on the subject.

Screw gas rationing. Ride a bike, walk, take a bus or train, buy an electric scooter or car. The only way to give it to the oil companies is to stop buying their product. People just have to make lifestyle changes and a few sacrifices. If they can't do that, then they'll just be paying more and more and more and I have no sympathy for them.

Screw gas rationing. Ride a bike, walk, take a bus or train, buy an electric scooter or car. The only way to give it to the oil companies is to stop buying their product. People just have to make lifestyle changes and a few sacrifices. If they can't do that, then they'll just be paying more and more and more and I have no sympathy for them.
Wouldn't rationing encourage more people to make those lifestyle changes? Especially if they could sell ration coupons they don't use?

So what problems does it cause, and how does it damage the economy? Is this a problem with rationing per se, or inadequacies in the rationing systems that you're familiar with?

...Try googling it. I googled up this place, but didn't read it.
http://www.ingrimayne.com/econ/AllocatingRationing/Overview6.html




Well, clearly to most of us, some means of reducing gas consumption is justified. Reasons are peak oil and coimate change mainly, and a lot of other secondary reasons.

...I have a list of things I would like to change. The first is an incrementing Carbon Tax. The market is vastly more efficient at allocating resources than rationing...

When it comes to reducing gas consumption, you always hear about gas taxes, natural market forces driving up prices, CAFE standards, and other schemes to influence demand for gas. Rationing is the opposite approach--a supply-side manipulation. Nobody seems to think about it much, and I wonder why it's summarily dismissed.

...Because anyone that knows about it runs away from the idea as fast as they can...




Well, I guess you could say that the reason I started this thread was to research rationing. I have a lot of respect for the opinions of people on this forum, so I wanted to discover what they think of the idea, or maybe push them (myself too) to think more about it. I wish that you, late, would take the time to elaborate a little more, since you evidently have some well-formed opinions on the subject.

... Rationing has the government allocating a resource. This introduces a boatload of new problems that will distract people from actually reducing carbon consumption. As an intellectual problem, this is quite simple. Europe has been doing it for decades. You raise the price and people use less. You get several other benefits free.

An incrementing carbon tax will simply add a fixed amount, say 10 or 20 cents, a year to carbon based fuels. Even at 20 cents it would take a decade or more to catch up to the price of gas in Europe.
It's not that big a deal. But add generous subsidies for the alternatives, and companies will know there will be market for their products in a few years. And in a few years, people will be ready to buy them. It is simple; it will help the economy rather than hurting it, and it will work. That's the other thing, as time goes by, rationing systems get more and more messed up.

Seriously, why on Earth do you guys want to do rationing?
Seriously, I suspect the rationale for gas rationing by some on this list is to stick it to those described by same as fat, stupid and lazy, i.e. everyone who doesn't share the same lifestyle and/or priorities as those on a car-free moral high horse.

I think the only thing that's rationed in the U.S. on a non-economic basis is health care. Here's how it would work if we provided gasoline on the same model.

1 - You make an appointment weeks in advance to see your Gasologist. This highly trained professional will consider your car, your needs, and analyze your environmental impact. He may exort you to make lifestyle changes so you need less gas. The Gasologist can't sell you any gas. He will issue a prescription that you have to fill at a convenience store. The prescription will be good only for 90 days, after that they have to call the Gasologist's assistant to renew it. Also, once your prescription is on file at the convenience store, you can't take it anywhere else to get it filled.

2 - If you can't get in to see the Gasologist, you have a couple of options.

2a - Just show up at a Convenience Store out of gas. By law they will be required to give you a gallon, wish you luck, and absorb the cost. Or they can call a tow truck to take you to a seedier store on the other side of town which will then give you your gallon of gas and wish you luck.

2b - Or you can see a Gasopractor who can't prescribe gasoline but will massage your feet.

2c - Or you can buy Naturopathic Fuel Supplements like ethanol or biodiesel.

3 - Take your prescription to the back of the Convenience Store where they have little tanks of Exxon, Shell, BP, and unlabeled generics. Either drop off your car and pick it up later, or wait for a half hour.

4 - Time to pay.

4a - If you work for the right employer you have Gas Insurance, so you only have to cover the $30 copay (unless you use the generic which is $20). But you only get 7 gallons of gas even though the prescription was for 20. No problem, just come back next week.

4b - Oops, you don't have gas insurance. Or maybe your Convenience Store wasn't a preferred gasoline provider. Pay up, bud. Ouch, $300 for 20 gallons.

5 - Oops, a letter in the mailbox. Your employer changed Gas Insurance companies. You don't qualify for the new plan because you needed gas in the last two years.

6 - Watch the news. Every other commercial is for some new high priced brand of gasoline. Piano music comes up, an earnest voice urges you to ask your Gasologist if Exxon is right for you.

And so it will go.

Wouldn't rationing encourage more people to make those lifestyle changes? Especially if they could sell ration coupons they don't use?

I don't think so. They'll find ways to cheat and cram all their driving into frenzied, panic drives where they combine all their trips just so they don't have to eliminate unnecessary trips like taking kids to school and shopping at the supermarket two blocks away. North Americans are a stubborn lot: they want to cling to their lazy conveniences even if they have to wait in line, but if gas becomes so ridiculously expensive they might have no other choice but to join the ranks of the enlightened and buy a bike or two. I'm pulling for it to rise to $10.00 a gallon...or maybe $20.00. Every dollar more means one less car and one more cyclist.

"...Seriously, I suspect the rationale for gas rationing by some on this list is to stick it to those described by same as fat, stupid and lazy, i.e. everyone who doesn't share the same lifestyle and/or priorities as those on a car-free moral high horse..."/\/\ Absolutely 100% correct. It is very fashionable on a handful of BF subforums to "cheer" for fuel to rise to $10.00/gallon or more. Guess what? That would be an outright DISASTER to our economy and the prices charged for everyday items like food, medicine, clothing, and even bicycle parts would skyrocket. These goods are ultimately delivered by truck and increased costs would be passed to the consumer.

North Americans are a stubborn lot: they want to cling to their lazy conveniences even if they have to wait in line, but if gas becomes so ridiculously expensive they might have no other choice but to join the ranks of the enlightened and buy a bike or two. I'm pulling for it to rise to $10.00 a gallon...or maybe $20.00. Every dollar more means one less car and one more cyclist.
Very enlightening; about you and your enlightened ranks on a high horse.

Seriously, I suspect the rationale for gas rationing by some on this list is to stick it to those described by same as fat, stupid and lazy, i.e. everyone who doesn't share the same lifestyle and/or priorities as those on a car-free moral high horse.


You are absolutely right. About half the threads here are " how can I stick it to the car drivers" threads.

/\/\ Absolutely 100% correct. It is very fashionable on a handful of BF subforums to "cheer" for fuel to rise to $10.00/gallon or more. Guess what? That would be an outright DISASTER to our economy and the prices charged for everyday items like food, medicine, clothing, and even bicycle parts would skyrocket. These goods are ultimately delivered by truck and increased costs would be passed to the consumer.

It would be a disaster, but I view it as an inevitability. We are going to soon reach a point where each year the amount of crude oil that we pull from the ground will decrease every year. And there isn't a thing we can do about it. We can poke holes in the planet like a sewing machine on steroids, and it would merely serve to slow the decline.

At the same time, world demand for oil has been increasing at about 2% a year or so in recent years.

Put these two things together, and what do you get? Higher prices. Economists say that gas is fairly inelastic, which means that a small rise in gas prices has a negligible effect on overall demand, or to put it another way, gas prices have to rise dramatically before demand lessens. The major uncertainties have to do with how quickly world oil supply will decrease - a slow increase we could adapt to far more easily than a rapid decrease.

And the really bad news? Some think that we have *already* passed the point of maximum world oil production in 2005-2006. We won't know with certainty when the peak was until we get a few years past it.

Very enlightening; about you and your enlightened ranks on a high horse.

Consider it what you will, but I'd rather see superior-minded cyclists---who don't contribute to greenhouse gases, dangerously poor air quality and multiple fatal and serious-injury collisions per day on our streets than hard-headed, frustrated, distracted, irresponsible and selfish motorists any day---and every day---of the week. Anything that discourages driving is ok by me. Anything that is prohibitive to unnecessary and destructive car use gets my support. Anything that doesn't encourage folks to find a an alternative means of commuting earns my disapproval. And if I have to endure a little derision from a fellow cyclist who doesn't want to or, perhaps, refuses to acknowledge that consciously making the choices---and sacrifices---that benefit my community and myself is rather enlightened and prefers to perceive my comments as arrogance, that's a small price to pay.

EnigManiac, your method of illustrating your viewpoint to the reader doesn't win friends and influence people to use a popular phrase. It speaks in absolutes and doesn't cut anyone any slack. There are plenty of people who drive cars, trucks, and motorcycles who are simultaneously greatly interested in the environment and help to preserve it in a myriad of ways. Heck, they may commute by bicycle four times a week and drive on the fifth so they can transport all their laundry to and from the worksite, who knows? Letting loose with a string of insults ain't going to get people to embrace cycling as an alternative.

Rationing is an artificial means of allocating resources. What it means in the long run is that precious raw materials do not get into the hands of the entities that can do the most good with the least material. For that reason I am against it except in the absolute most dire circumstances.

...Well, clearly to most of us, some means of reducing gas consumption is justified...

Most of us? You could have fooled me. In this region most of us drive like there is no problem other than higher gas prices. Most of us around here still drive large SUVs and pickups and we drive them with great gusto too. Jackrabbit starts from light to light abound. Most of us here jump in the car to shop a block away.

At this point in time most of us do not care. It is going to take a sudden, dramatic, and catastrophic event to get most of our attentions. The problem with that is it will be too late. Irreversible damage/chain reactions will have occurred.

EnigManiac, your method of illustrating your viewpoint to the reader doesn't win friends and influence people to use a popular phrase. It speaks in absolutes and doesn't cut anyone any slack. There are plenty of people who drive cars, trucks, and motorcycles who are simultaneously greatly interested in the environment and help to preserve it in a myriad of ways. Heck, they may commute by bicycle four times a week and drive on the fifth so they can transport all their laundry to and from the worksite, who knows? Letting loose with a string of insults ain't going to get people to embrace cycling as an alternative.

You clearly miss the point and you include those who DO make significant and substantial effort to reduce their environmental footprint in my description of irresponsible and lazy motorists. It was pretty straight forward that I was not referring to them. I was pretty distinct in describing the irresponsible and selfish types and anyone who commutes by bike four times a week and drives once would obviously not be among those I described. Those who insist on driving all the time for every trip--taking their kids to school or going to the grocery store two blocks away---and never make any effort to commute by an alternate means were clearly my target and it is those people I have little respect or regard for. If THEY got their fat butts out of their SUV's, mini-vans and cars as often as the people YOU illustrated, there would be no need for gas rationing. There would be plenty to go around for those who truly NEED it, for those trips that cannot be reasonably taken any other way---like delivery trucks, for example (as you mentioned earlier), for those who have no other means of traveling except by car---you know, NECESSARY trips. What some of us are frustrated with or condemning is NOT necessary trips, but unnecessary trips that most motorists take. You and a few others keep missing that rather important qualification. You see, the vast majority of cars on the road---at least in urban centres with reliable public transit--don't really NEED to be there. The motorists choose to be there because they're too lazy to bike, take a bus or train or walk to work.

Of course, there really isn't much of a shortage of oil right now anyway so any talk of rationing is fatuous anyway.

Whether I win friends and influence people is of no consequence to me. Those people I insult(?) do not visit this forum. I wish they did. The people I described and who fit that profile deserve every unflattering description (you call it an insult if you want, but if it is accurate then it is merely a description) I can heap upon them. I've been moderate and accomodating in my views, friendly and understanding in my approach (if you've read any of my many previous posts), but some people don't respond to that: sometimes they need to be told point blank in their face that their lazy, selfish lifestyle is destructive and dangerous. The truth hurts sometimes. And when the truth is shoved in their face with the same stubbornness they have about clinging to their self--absorbed lifestyle, maybe it just make make an impact on them. Every cause needs hard-liners and moderates. I don't mind being either. Right now, I'm in a hard line mood and it feels good.

Most of us here are advocating the same thing. We just may have different ways of saying it. How I express my message may turn some people off, but it just might be the kick in the butt others need. Either way, I'm comfortable with it. It gets their attention at least.

And if I have to endure a little derision from a fellow cyclist who doesn't want to or, perhaps, refuses to acknowledge that consciously making the choices---and sacrifices---that benefit my community and myself is rather enlightened and prefers to perceive my comments as arrogance, that's a small price to pay.
The derision is aimed at those whose version of my community includes only themselves and the handful of fellow ideologues who share their arrogance. And choose to exclude/insult all others from their community as fat, lazy, stupid and in this context, too ignorant to determine what is practical for themselves.

The derision is aimed at those whose version of my community includes only themselves and the handful of fellow ideologues who share their arrogance. And choose to exclude/insult all others from their community as fat, lazy, stupid and in this context, too ignorant to determine what is practical for themselves.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said ALL others who don't share my sense of community or my values are fat and lazy. I did target and pointedly take aim at those in my community (and any other community) who insist on always using their vehicles for every trip. As I look across the road right now---a road where a bus travels in either direction every 12 minutes to a subway station 10 minutes away---I see most (not ALL) of my neighbours driving their kids to school (three blocks away), driving to any one of the three grocery stores two blocks away and to their jobs. Many of those jobs could be reached faster and more economically, never mind with less stress on the environment, by public transit or cycling. Some of my neighbours, including the ones I target do need their vehicles for work, but not for everything else). And just as a point of interest, many of them ARE fat (as are their kids).

There are others in my neighbourhood who have not gone car free, but I do see them walk, take a bus and even ride a bike every so often when the occasion warrants.

Sweeping generalizations, presumptions and assumptions are no more attractive than misinterpreted perceptions of arrogance.

EnigManiac, what has been the response from your neighbors when you've casually sat down over an iced tea to discuss these alternative forms of transport available to them? Positive, negative, middle-of-the-road in nature?

Hasn't happened with many of them, unfortunately. Many of them don't speak English and judging by the reaction a number of them have had seeing me conducting my daily business---commuting, shopping, hauling gear, equipment and other bulky items on one or another of my bikes (shaking their head and remarking in broken English 'you have no car? You should buy'), I would likely be wasting my breath. Others are elderly and others still have never seemed all that approachable or friendly with anyone as far as I've seen. And besides, I don't like iced tea. ;)

Other neighbours I have talked to have had mixed reactions. My closest neighbours just wave their hands as if the idea of bot using their SUV for shopping or even to visit nearby family is so ridiculous it couldn't possibly be considered (although the wife asked me for and received help in finding her a trike. She has abandoned the plan, however, saying her husband didn't approve). The neighbour on the other side rides his bike regularly (he got $200.00 in tickets about three weeks ago), but his sister (whom he shares the house with) rides only sparingly.

I know what you're going to say: that I should try to talk to the ones I haven't spoken to. Well, perhaps I should, perhaps it would be pointless. Either way, I do my bit to promote a car-free lifestyle in this city and pushing my views directly on my neighbours and telling them to shape up (hehehe) and change their ways wouldn't endear me to them, I'm afraid. I lead by example. I'm very visible in my neigbourhood and I would suspect they all know I use bikes or public transportation almost entirely exclusively (I rent a car twice a year). If I can arrive at the decision to reduce or eliminate my car use without anyone telling me to, so can they. It's not like the media is not filled with daily warnings of environmental disaster every day.

Seriously, I suspect the rationale for gas rationing by some on this list is to stick it to those described by same as fat, stupid and lazy, i.e. everyone who doesn't share the same lifestyle and/or priorities as those on a car-free moral high horse.
I guess control-C is the favorite function on your computer. You're repeating the post and it doesn't get any smarter or more relevant just because you keep saying it. And for you to claim somebody's riding a high horse is beyond laughable!

/\/\ Absolutely 100% correct. It is very fashionable on a handful of BF subforums to "cheer" for fuel to rise to $10.00/gallon or more. Guess what? That would be an outright DISASTER to our economy and the prices charged for everyday items like food, medicine, clothing, and even bicycle parts would skyrocket. These goods are ultimately delivered by truck and increased costs would be passed to the consumer.
I agree. High gas prices will affect the economy in good ways and more often in bad ways. But it seems inevitable that gas prices WILL rise, whether you think that's a good thing or a bad thing. Demand continues to go up even as supply is starting to go down.

Would rationing be a solution to this? Would strictly enforced CAFE standards? Let's try to advance the discussion from a listing of the problems to a proposal for solutions. Proposals like rationing, which seem outlandish at this time, might begin to look fore practical in the near future.

You are absolutely right. About half the threads here are " how can I stick it to the car drivers" threads.
So? What's wrong with that? They have no problem sticking it to us.

Rationing is an artificial means of allocating resources. What it means in the long run is that precious raw materials do not get into the hands of the entities that can do the most good with the least material. For that reason I am against it except in the absolute most dire circumstances.
Thank you! Finally somebody actually addresses the issue! :) :)

As for rationing being "artificial," true, but that charge goes for the current price rationing, now used all the time to allocate resources, as well as for non-price rationing such as gas coupons.

So consider this. Which pf the following two scenarios show the use of gasoline is a greater "good with the least material"? A wealthy person driving to a beach condo every weekend, or a poor single mother driving her sick child to another city for a weekly doctor's appointment? Clearly, price rationing would give priority to the former, while coupon rationing would give priority to the latter.

Now, in WW II, gas rationing and tire rationing were very strictly enforced. People quit making those pleasure trips, and little runs to the store for a Coke, etc. They saved their gas and rubber for getting to work, occasional visits to family, and other uses they deemed were truly important.

Who, in the 1940s, were "the entities that can do the most good with the least material"? They were people doing essential work for the war effort, farmers, doctors making house calls, veterinarians, clergy, etc. They all got a special classification and extra gas coupons. Freight trucks and delivery vehicles also got extra coupons.

I imagine that if a similar plan were enacted today, people would make similar choices about which car trips are essential, and which are not. And similar dispensations would be granted to those who truly are working for societal good.

So? What's wrong with that? They have no problem sticking it to us.
Because it is silly. Nobody in cars drives around thinking" how can I stick it to bikers" They just want to get where they are going. Meanwhile it seems like alot of bikers sit around and think up wacky leftists ideas that nobody will ever take seriously ( rationing, forced train useage, $5 + gas tax)

Seeing that you have a computer, the time to use it, a safe place to keep it, and a bike, "they" probably haven't stuck it too you.

If you want to force rationing of gas, I suggest you get out and run for public office on that issue.

Thank you! Finally somebody actually addresses the issue! :) :)

As for rationing being "artificial," true, but that charge goes for the current price rationing, now used all the time to allocate resources, as well as for non-price rationing such as gas coupons.

So consider this. Which pf the following two scenarios show the use of gasoline is a greater "good with the least material"? A wealthy person driving to a beach condo every weekend, or a poor single mother driving her sick child to another city for a weekly doctor's appointment? Clearly, price rationing would give priority to the former, while coupon rationing would give priority to the latter.

Now, in WW II, gas rationing and tire rationing were very strictly enforced. People quit making those pleasure trips, and little runs to the store for a Coke, etc. They saved their gas and rubber for getting to work, occasional visits to family, and other uses they deemed were truly important.

Who, in the 1940s, were "the entities that can do the most good with the least material"? They were people doing essential work for the war effort, farmers, doctors making house calls, veterinarians, clergy, etc. They all got a special classification and extra gas coupons. Freight trucks and delivery vehicles also got extra coupons.

I imagine that if a similar plan were enacted today, people would make similar choices about which car trips are essential, and which are not. And similar dispensations would be granted to those who truly are working for societal good.

I personally have no desire to see a repeat of the 1940's economics. Look at the price that is being paid now due to that rationing back then. We have an entire generation of people with an attitiude of "I earned it" whether or not they did. People generally want to improve their lot in life. This improvement is based on what society as a whole deems a better life rather than what you or I deem is a better life.
By instituting rationing, your argument as stated above, you are ignoring this basic point. Look at alcohol. When prohibition was instituted, an entire black market sprung up. People started brewing "hooch" in old radiators and lead pipes. People died trying to avoid the law men and still have their whiskey and moonshine.
I would imagine a similar economic situation would arise if rationing of gas was permanently instituted. People would go around siphoning gas and reselling it illegally. Some places would mix water and or alcohol into the gas without telling the consumer. Carry it far enough and people would shoot/kill others over it. In fact, IIRC, some of that happened in the 70's when there was limited rationing.
And for what its worth, the rich person would be insulated from much of that because they can lock their cars up at night. They can afford high speed internet and don't have to deal the resulting turmoil. The poor person trying to drive their daughter to the doctor would be the victim in all of it. That person would have the gas siphoned out of his/her car. That person would be the one who was car jacked at a light because he/she had to drive to another city.

I still say its a bad idea. Letting a free market sort it out is a much better solution. In fact its really the only solution, and one we don't really have as it is.

I guess control-C is the favorite function on your computer. You're repeating the post and it doesn't get any smarter or more relevant just because you keep saying it.!
Why not post a similar and quite relevant response to the same ole trite and silly issue questions that you and your ideological ilk keep raising on this list? Relevance is not measured with how closely the response matches Roody's political/social agenda.

Political/social/economic rants posing as living car free questions have nothing to do with either car free living or trying to become car free, and even less than nothing about bicycling issues.

I still say its a bad idea. Letting a free market sort it out is a much better solution. In fact its really the only solution, and one we don't really have as it is.
Roody's idea is not just a bad idea. He is proposing a solution without specifying the problem he is in fact trying to solve.That problem being that others do not share his view of the lifestyles he would like to impose on them.

Because it is silly. Nobody in cars drives around thinking" how can I stick it to bikers" They just want to get where they are going. Meanwhile it seems like alot of bikers sit around and think up wacky leftists ideas that nobody will ever take seriously ( rationing, forced train useage, $5 + gas tax)

Seeing that you have a computer, the time to use it, a safe place to keep it, and a bike, "they" probably haven't stuck it too you.

If you want to force rationing of gas, I suggest you get out and run for public office on that issue.

Nobody in cars drives around thinking about anything, never mind 'sticking it to cyclists.' But when they do encounter a cyclist, they don't think about them and their safety either, they just think about where they're going, how fast they can get there and to hell with anyone in their way.

I doubt it was cyclists that came up with gas rationing in the 70's or now. This thread isn't the first such suggestion I've read over the past year or so as prices have gone up. And even if it is wacky leftists that come up with ideas to discourage unnecessary car use or force selfish, lazy motorists to get out of their cars, so what? There's something wrong with getting these people to stop needlessly polluting the air, eroding the o-zone and increasing global warming? That's a bad thing? Sheesh, wacky leftists are the only friends the environment has, it seems.

We don't have to run for public office to promote ecologically-responsible ideas. Some of us are not inherently corrupt liars, cheats and hypocrites, after all, so why become associated with corrupt liars, cheats and hypocrites?

And while I don't think forced gas-rationing would be succesful, I sure like the idea of making gas so expensive to buy that folks will have to voluntarily reduce their own consumption. Maybe then they'll get out on a bike and take their rolly-polly kids with them. We can spread the message, convince the politicians to endorse and act on the message and lead by example. That speaks louder than becoming a politician and just talking the talk. Gotta ride the ride.

In my opinion, people who call for fuel rationing and people who call for the government to take steps to keep fuel artificially cheap are, in both cases, failing to understand the economics of the problem.

Gas rationing would certainly make people take notice of a gas shortage, but it is also just a scheme to keep gas cheap by keeping it from running short.

Allowing people to keep buying gas as long as they can afford it, but also allowing the price to rise, is a more sensible option. Encourage the alternatives and withdraw government suport from programs designed to increase oil production and importation. If gas prices go up gradually, people will gradually start to choose fuel-saving practices such as driving small vehicles, distributing food locally/buying local food, making buildings well-insulated, etc. Nothing boosts the solar and wind power industry more than a rise in the cost of coal/oil electricity, and nothing boosts carless commuting more than a large increase in the cost of car commuting.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e0/Greenhouse_Gas_by_Sector.png
This is from wikipedia, showing all sources of greenhouse emissions. All we keep fussing about falls
under the 14% transportation fuel category. The picture is much bigger than controlling the price
and availability of automotive fuel. I know this is the "car free" forum, but for those bashing car use,
please consider all of the other problem categories.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e0/Greenhouse_Gas_by_Sector.png
This is from wikipedia, showing all sources of greenhouse emissions. All we keep fussing about falls
under the 14% transportation fuel category. The picture is much bigger than controlling the price
and availability of automotive fuel. I know this is the "car free" forum, but for those bashing car use,
please consider all of the other problem categories.

The graph and the percentage are somewhat misleading. In urban areas with high density traffic, motor vehicle emissions account for a much higher proportion of greenhouse gases created in those areas. The fine particulate matter in the smog is also much higher and, therefore, greater health risk of respiratory illnesses exist for urban-centre residents. Canada has become a nation of city dwellers, changing over the past 100 years from rural to urban. Power stations and industrial complexes tend to be located out in suburban and semi-rural regions and, together, they combine to equal 38% of greenhouse gas emissions, according to the graph (and that's if it is accurate---wikipedia isn't exactly known as the authority on any subject), but they aren't in the nearby vicinity of local residents. Cars, on the other hand, spread their noxious fumes all over densely-populated cities and, as a result, condense their damage directly where people live.

It's a common tactic to downplay one segement and point the finger at larger sources of pollution while decrying 'how come nobody's blaming them?' Well, the large polluters are being targeted. Governments already are demanding lower and lower emissions from industrial operations and power plants, so they are not being let off. Individuals like us can't unilaterally affect industrial, waste disposal or power plant emissions, so we have to rely on politicians to enact legislation that forces them to change. And while 14% attributable to cars isn't much, compared to the other sources, it is 14% that can and should be reduced dramatically. Each of us can do our part individually when it comes to that 14% by reducing or eliminating car use in favour of electric or alternative fuel zero-emission vehicles, bicycles and public transportation, particularly electric trains. So, while 14% might not be significant, it is 14% that we can do something about now, immediately and it shouldn't be ignored just because it is not the biggest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.

I agree. High gas prices will affect the economy in good ways and more often in bad ways. But it seems inevitable that gas prices WILL rise, whether you think that's a good thing or a bad thing. Demand continues to go up even as supply is starting to go down.

Would rationing be a solution to this? Would strictly enforced CAFE standards? Let's try to advance the discussion from a listing of the problems to a proposal for solutions. Proposals like rationing, which seem outlandish at this time, might begin to look fore practical in the near future.

There are a few problems with rationing:

First is you need to administer it, which given governments throughout history would be a complex boondoggle that wouldn't work properly, and cost a fortune.

Second, there are always people who have ways around the system, so a rich guy with lots of connections and money, can get as much as he wants, while the average citizen, can't get enough....

Third rationing is like a diet, it's painful, so it's temporary at best, for example, during wartime. However when you have a permanent reduction in supply, so rationng has been happening for 10 or 15 years, and the rations keep getting smaller, well, governments have been overthrown for less.