Would This Change People's Gasoline Buying Habits?

Going off topic here, what is the other maintenance like for the Prius with those low miles?

Driving too little can be worse than too much for many vehicles; grease can dry out, parts seize, and fluids, including fuel, degrade even while just sitting.

 

I drive the Prius about every month or month and a half. The Xebra had space for hauling recyclables to the center, but the Tesla does not. And I drive it to the airport. And if a couple of months go by, I'll drive it just because, as you said, it needs to be driven. When I got the winter tires put on the Tesla, I had to haul the tires to the tire place in the Prius. I get the oil changed once a year now, due to the low mileage.

Admittedly, it does not make financial sense for one person to own two cars. But no luxury car or high-performance car makes financial sense. People buy BMW's or Jaguars or Tesla Roadsters, or keep more cars than they really need, for reasons other than financial sense. I own the Tesla because I wanted to drive electric, I was tired of the underpowered Xebra (as much as I loved it), and I could not get a Leaf due to Nissan's unending string of screw-ups on my order. I kept the Prius because I occasionally need it. And I figure once every 6 weeks is adequate to prevent underuse issues. I get its annual service just before my once-yearly long trip up to Canada.

It costs me next to nothing to maintain: An annual oil change. It will not last as many miles as a Prius driven 20,000 miles a year, but it may last more years.

 

I have been a plain old, quiet observer on this forum for a while now, but when I saw this post, and its invitation to respond, I just had to speak up for the first time.

So since you asked, I think it's a ridiculous idea.

Just what we need... more regulations. How would a regulation like that be enforced? How would you propose it be implemented? Have separate gas stations for commercial vehicles? What would work is if we nationalized all gas stations and let the government decide who gets to use a locking nozzle.

How about people like me that use my Prius for runs into town, but use my F-250 when I need to haul stuff for the farm? Should we small farmers be inconvenienced because of your personal views and mission to save the planet?

Perhaps we should model our society after North Korea. I believe they have a much smaller carbon footprint per capita than we do. We would also have a much easier time disposing of our spent NiMH batteries: just dump them in a landfill.

All sarcasm aside, you say that:

...those exercising their right to buy and use a product of their choice, you're okay with making their life hard? How about if they are using the Tahoe because they are delivering toys to the homeless shelter? How about if they are using the Tahoe because they need to haul grandma's wheelchair around? Should we stop and inspect each and every vehicle to see that it is being used in accordance with your wishes before allowing them to use a locking nozzle?

Anyway, you asked what we thought of your idea. In my opinion, the way to achieve your ultimate goal is through education, not regulations. Unless your goal is to inconvenience people, then you're on the right track.

PS: I notice you have a nice sport bike as your avatar. Must be part of the dichotomy in your life: green car/particulate-spewing bike. Before condemning others, you might think about doing some research on motorcycle emissions, particularly particulates. You could start with this summary of a UC Berkly study: carbonpig.com/article/motorcycles-create-more-greenhouse-gas-emissions-suvs
Don't knock it until you read it!

 

John; don't be so serious: it is a joke!

With respect to your comment yes we don't need a new regulation; probably the best education would be to stop subsidizing gas at gas pump. If we were to pay a real cost estimated at 15$/gal in 2000 before Iraq war, there wouldn't be that many Tahoe on road to worry about.

With respect to greenhouse gasses of the bike, give it a rest. The only way Hammer will win contest if the emissions are measured per pound of weight.

Yes bikes, esp the ones produced before 2006 or the ones with displacement under 286cc pollute more, but they do not produce more CO2 per mile. Avg MPG of the motorcycle is in 40-60 range, only a few performance bikes driven hard will drop down in 30s. Also there aren't that many bikes which see 30K miles or more, check online listings. So over lifetime is a little ambitious. Not sure what the guys at carbonpig and UC Berkly are smoking, but I want it too.
=================================
Edit:
here is some info per EPA regulations m/c with displacement under 279cc are excused from regulations. EPA tier 1 (2006) and tier 2 (2010, 2008 in CA) reduced HC+NOx emissions to 0.8g/km, about x10 times from pre-levels, and only to about x2.5 of SUV.

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/roadbike/1-hmc-regs-pres.pdf

Hammer would still produce x3 more CO2 as it gets 15MPG vs ~50MPG of bike.