# The Car Talk Graduated Gasoline Tax. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 18, 2006, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-car-talk-graduated-gasoline-tax/361129 "2006-06-18T01:29:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Menocchio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de053/32.png) [@Menocchio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Menocchio)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2006, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-car-talk-graduated-gasoline-tax/361129/61 "2006-06-20T03:57:14Z")
[QUOTE=kanicbird] Well I see it as we should encourage healthy activities such as walking and bike riding, and we should encourage other forms of energy and fuel - but the poor is the least likely to be able to afford such technology - give them a break. The filthy rich who will be paying $50/gal tax under my plan will be the ones who can afford to research, implement and perfect alternatives. [/QUOTE] No they won’t, because they make their money selling cars and gas to the poor (well, those poorer than them). Or rather, to the poor via the government in your plan. you’ve actually given those with money to invest in oil a huge disincentive to develop alternatives. Oh, the super-rich may get rid of their SUVs, but if the other 90% of the country is still driving around in gas-guzzlers, what difference does it make? We have to change the driving habits of everyone. And that means putting the pinch on the largest blocs of consumers possible. Oh, and China’s already far ahead of us on this game. We can’t sell our cars there, their fuel economy standards are too high. Plus they’re a bicycling culture. Japan, no slouch in the auto industry itself, has phenomenally high fuel standards. We don’t have to choose between a healthy economy and a healthy environment. We can have both. If we can create economic incetives for fuel alterntaives, people will make them. Then we can sell them to developing nations. Cleaner planet, richer US. More developed third world. Everybody wins. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2006, 9:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-car-talk-graduated-gasoline-tax/361129/62 "2006-06-20T09:46:26Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Ok lets talk enviromentalism, we know that the oil will burn, enviornmentally speaking would you rather that oil be burned in a car in the US or one in China - which one would be most likely to be ‘cleaner’? Probably China, on the whole. As **Menocchio** pointed out, [China’s standards](http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/36777/story.htm) for automobile fuel economy in many cases are stricter than those in the US, and low-emissions vehicles are more favored there: > [@](#): > > Today, pollution, traffic jams and a growing dependence on imported oil have forced a radical rethink that has made China an unlikely pioneer of some of the world’s tightest fuel efficiency standards and stricter emissions limits. […] > > [A] new round of taxes on the most polluting cars, which rise to 20 percent for engines above 4.0 litres and cover sports utility vehicles (SUVs), is shaping consumers’ choices. > > Low-emission cars accounted for half of the 10 best-selling models in the first five months of the year Add in the fact that the majority of China’s car ownership will take place in the future, so on the whole it will have a higher percentage of modern more-efficient and less-polluting cars, and you can make a pretty good case that overall, cars in China are better for the environment than cars in the US. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2006, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-car-talk-graduated-gasoline-tax/361129/63 "2006-06-20T12:45:21Z")
[QUOTE=Kimstu] That’s only part of it, though. The difference in American and European gasoline consumption cannot be explained only by the greater population density of Europe. Europeans on average are not only driving shorter distances, they are also walking more, bicycling more, and taking more public transit. [/QUOTE] All of which are **effects** of the greater population density – you can’t walk more or bicycle more if the places you need to reach are out of walking and bicycing range, and you can’t take public transit if there aren’t enough users to enable it to function in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2006, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-car-talk-graduated-gasoline-tax/361129/64 "2006-06-20T12:51:21Z")
[QUOTE=UncleBeer] Except they don’t. Initial construction of some of that infrastructure was subsidized by grants in long ago days, but nothing was provided for day-to-day operational costs. Once buildout was complete, user fees (your phone & electric bills) paid all the ongoing costs. [/QUOTE] Funny, my phone bill still has this a “universal service fee” tacked on top of it to subsidize the extra charge of running lines out to Backobeyond… ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2006, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-car-talk-graduated-gasoline-tax/361129/65 "2006-06-20T12:59:20Z")
[QUOTE=kanicbird] it is my beleif that making cheap energy for the poor goes towards productivity, while handing them a check goes to beer [/QUOTE] The world has tested the economic model that says that the Teeming Millions can generally get by on their own with a bit of help for truly desperate cases, and the economic model that says that the Teeming Millions need to be directed by a nomenklatura. The latter test was, as they say, “to destruction”. > [@](#): > > I see it far better that the poor be able to drive 50, 100, 120 miles per day to make a decent wage and support their family Why should they do that, if they can do better by finding a job closer to where they are? > [@](#): > > I also don’t accept the peak oil theory, I think oil production will continue to expand for generations, unless another fuel is found to take it’s place. Deep reserves will be found and exploited, people will scream PEAK OIL!!! then we will dig deeper and find more. Yes there is only so much oil on the earth at any given moment, but we have barely scratched the surface and oil is being made today by Mother Earth IMHO. That’s nice. You’ll have to excuse those other folks who decline to gamble the survival of western civilization on your hunches. > [@](#): > > As for public transportation, I would agree with a shift to subdise that where congestion is a issue but realize that it’s not a answer to todays mobile workforce. Mass transit has its limitations, but this isn’t really one of them. The “mobile workforce” for urban jobs would either be moving to other locations within the same transit network or to another city with its own network. (Rural jobs aren’t going to be well served by mass transit in any case.) ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2006, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-car-talk-graduated-gasoline-tax/361129/66 "2006-06-20T13:02:05Z")
[QUOTE=Kimstu] Yes, there are some long commutes in America, but [half of all US car trips are less than six miles](http://autos.msn.com/advice/CRArt.aspx?contentid=4023460), and three-quarters of them less than ten miles. It’s absurd to suggest that there’s no role for increased bicycle use in the US because “well, our country’s just like, too big, dude”. [/QUOTE] In the context of bicycle use (by the Teeming Millions, not by the subset of athletic types who ride for recreation), the use of six-mile and ten-mile cutoff points is rather like using 25-year-olds as the cutoff point for measuring the number of “children” killed by misuse of firearms. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2006, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-car-talk-graduated-gasoline-tax/361129/67 "2006-06-20T13:05:03Z")
[QUOTE=kanicbird] Besides blowing up terrorists and democratizing the middle east I can see no greater use of our tax dollars then to subsidize energy, which increases our productivity and ensures our superpower status. [/QUOTE] Subsidizing power? We already do that. We need to move the energy subsidies into cleaner power. I do not understand why you think helping poor people have longer commutes is good for them or productivity. What would be good is taking some of the money you mentioned using and getting good paying factory work into cities that already have a solid mass transit structure. Make the tax burden low enough on these plants to help companies decide that they should assemble widgets in NYC and not Mexico or China. > [@](#): > > Ok lets talk enviromentalism, we know that the oil will burn, enviornmentally speaking would you rather that oil be burned in a car in the US or one in China - which one would be most likely to be ‘cleaner’? China is investing a huge amount of money into cleaner hybrids; they might beat us on this one. That aside, I am very US centric, so as you asked your question in the form of soliciting an opinion, I would prefer to reduce the burning of oil in the US. I am not basing my opinion on Global warming but the definite local effects that cause the poor living in cites to have abnormally high rates of asthma. Reducing Smog and emissions locally is a worthwhile pursuit. Especially when it reduces our reliance on foreign oil. > [@](#): > > Well I see it as we should encourage healthy activities such as walking and bike riding, and we should encourage other forms of energy and fuel - but the poor is the least likely to be able to afford such technology - give them a break. The filthy rich who will be paying $50/gal tax under my plan will be the ones who can afford to research, implement and perfect alternatives. In every post, you appear to be ignoring the pollution effects and the fact that we import oil. Continuing to import oil is not good for the poor and socking the rich will not help anybody. Socking the rich should be another thread subject in fact. The poor will not be buying Hummers, if you really want to drive a hummer, fine, do so and pay a significant amount more at the pump. Having different tax rates for different tiers of mileage ratings probably makes the most sense. Jim ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2006, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-car-talk-graduated-gasoline-tax/361129/68 "2006-06-20T13:05:22Z")
[QUOTE=kanicbird] Besides blowing up terrorists and democratizing the middle east I can see no greater use of our tax dollars then to subsidize energy, which increases our productivity and ensures our superpower status. [/QUOTE] Wasting energy (one of the closest things to a law of economics that is as inviolate as a law of physics is the one that says SUBSIDIES = WASTE) decreases, not increases, productivity. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2006, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-car-talk-graduated-gasoline-tax/361129/69 "2006-06-20T13:08:02Z")
[QUOTE=kanicbird] Ok lets talk enviromentalism, we know that the oil will burn [/QUOTE] I want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? Plastics. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2006, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-car-talk-graduated-gasoline-tax/361129/70 "2006-06-20T14:35:50Z")
China is likely the worlds worst polluter. They burn scads of very dirty coal in old power plants and railroads. They are now second in Greenhouse gasses (and exempt from the Kyoto treaty). > **[HealthAndEnergy.com is for sale | HugeDomains](https://www.hugedomains.com/domain_profile.cfm?d=healthandenergy.com)** > > Get the premium .com domain you deserve. Seamless and professional transactions. Payment plans available. \*China is the world’s second largest emitter of such gases, after the United States. But China’s per-person energy use and greenhouse gas emissions remain far below levels found in richer countries. The emissions are, for example, roughly one-eighth of those per capita in the United States. As a developing country, China is exempt from the Kyoto Protocol, the pending international agreement to limit emissions of greenhouse gases. When President Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol two years ago, he portrayed China’s exemption as a serious flaw. The protocol has been embraced by most other big nations, however, and only requires ratification by Russia to take effect. Another developing country exempt from the protocol, India, is also showing strong growth in emissions as its economy prospers. General Motors predicts that China will account for 18 percent of the world’s growth in new car sales from 2002 through 2012; the United States will be responsible for 11 percent, and India 9 percent. Official Chinese statistics had shown a decline in coal production and consumption in the late 1990’s, even as the economy was growing 8 percent a year. But many Western and Chinese researchers have become suspicious of that drop over the last several years. They point out that the decline assumed that local governments had followed Beijing’s instructions to close 47,000 small, unsafe mines producing low-grade coal and many heavily polluting small power plants. Yet researchers who visited mines and power plants found that they often remained open, with the output not being reported to Beijing because local administrators feared an outcry if they shut down important employers."\* [http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40C13F739550C728DDDAF0894DE404482](http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40C13F739550C728DDDAF0894DE404482) “_One of China’s lesser-known exports is a dangerous brew of soot, toxic chemicals and climate-changing gases from the smokestacks of coal-burning power plants. In early April, a dense cloud of pollutants over Northern China sailed to nearby Seoul, sweeping along dust and desert sand before wafting across the Pacific…_” > **[New coal plants bury 'Kyoto'](https://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1223/p01s04-sten.html)** > > New greenhouse-gas emissions from China, India, and the US will swamp cuts from the Kyoto treaty. _But China is the key. “The Chinese will surpass the coal-fired generating capacity and the CO2 emissions of the US in the next couple of years,” Mr. McIlvaine says._ And China _currently_ has **NO** real standards for Fuel economy (although they have \*plans \* to make new standards that would make their cars _slightly_ more fuel efficient but with less pollution standards: [http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/envronmt/2003/1118chinafuel.htm](http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/envronmt/2003/1118chinafuel.htm) "\*The Chinese government is preparing to impose minimum fuel economy standards on new cars for the first time, and the rules will be significantly more stringent than those in the United States, according to Chinese experts involved in drafting them. The new standards are intended both to save energy and to force automakers to introduce the latest hybrid engines and other technology in China, in hopes of easing the nation’s swiftly rising dependence on oil imports from volatile countries in the Middle East. They are the latest and most ambitious in a series of steps to regulate China’s rapidly growing auto industry, after moves earlier this year to require that air bags be provided for both front-seat occupants in most new vehicles and that new family vehicles sold in major cities meet air pollution standards nearly as strict as those in Western Europe and the United States. Some popular vehicles now built in China by Western automakers, including the Chevrolet Blazer, do not measure up to the standards the government has drafted, and may have to be modified to get better gas mileage before the first phase of the new rules becomes effective in July 2005. The Chinese initiative comes at a time when Congress is close to completing work on a major energy bill that would make no significant changes in America’s fuel economy rules for vehicles. The Chinese standards, in general, call for new cars, vans and sport utility vehicles to get as much as two miles a gallon of fuel more in 2005 than the average required in the United States, and about five miles more in 2008. \* " But do note that what the announced public policy is and what really is allowed are often far apart in China. [http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13418952/](http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13418952/) \*Pan Yue, vice-minister of SEPA, predicted last summer at an environmental conference in Beijing that “the pollution load of China will quadruple by 2020” if nothing is done. Some 20% of the population lives in “severely polluted” areas, according to SEPA estimates, and 70% of the country’s rivers and lakes are in grim shape, figures the World Bank. Changing all this will require a tremendous amount of political focus by Beijing. It will need to crack down on environmental renegades inside Chinese industry, encourage a move from high-sulfur coal as the mainland’s primary energy source, and push to secure the most environmentally friendly technologies from abroad…Some sort of pressure is desperately needed in China, where 60% of companies violate mainland emission rules, according to data compiled by World Bank senior environmental economist Hua Wang, who wrote a recent paper on the program\* ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2006, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-car-talk-graduated-gasoline-tax/361129/71 "2006-06-20T18:32:59Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > And China currently has NO real standards for Fuel economy (although they have plans to make new standards that would make their cars slightly more fuel efficient but with less pollution standards: > [http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon...18chinafuel.htm](http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon...18chinafuel.htm) Dude, 😉 that cite of yours is from **2003**. **Currently** —as in, right now—China **does** have standards for automotive fuel efficiency (which went into effect last year, as your own quote from that cite noted). > [@Steve MB](#): > > In the context of bicycle use (by the Teeming Millions, not by the subset of athletic types who ride for recreation), the use of six-mile and ten-mile cutoff points is rather like using 25-year-olds as the cutoff point for measuring the number of “children” killed by misuse of firearms. Golly, a six-mile bicycle ride is considered unrealistic nowadays except for “athletic types”? :eek: Well, if you’re looking for an even lower cutoff point, try this: more than one-quarter of all car trips are ONE MILE OR LESS (.doc), and I’ve seen estimates that [40% of all car trips are two miles or less](http://investigate.conservation.org/xp/IB/savingbiodiversity/what_you_can_do/commuters.xml). I think it’s reasonable to expect even the Teeming Millions on average to be able to bike one or two miles, don’t you? And if we could cut back up to a quarter or a third of all car trips that way, ISTM it would definitely be worth the infrastructure investment. And of course, since engine cold starts use the most fuel and emit the most pollutants, short car trips have the worst fuel economy and environmental impact per vehicle mile. So it’s even more desirable to eliminate as many of them as possible. > [@SteveMB](#): > > All of which are effects of the greater population density – you can’t walk more or bicycle more if the places you need to reach are out of walking and bicycing range, and you can’t take public transit if there aren’t enough users to enable it to function in the first place. But as I note above, a lot of the places Americans are driving to **aren’t** out of walking or bicycling range. Sorry, but the massive under-utilization of bicycles in the US can’t be explained solely or even primarily by the “our country’s too big” excuse. AFAICT, most Americans are so reluctant to use a bike even minimally **not** because biking isn’t feasible for them, but rather because (1) they’re concerned (rightly, IMHO) about traffic safety on roads that are badly designed for bike use, and/or (2) they’re lazy-ass slugs. And I’m also skeptical about the “not enough transit users” argument. A lot of Americans don’t use mass transit even when it’s available, simply because they’ve already committed to owning a car, and once you’ve got a car ( **if** fuel taxes are low and parking is abundant) it’s cheaper and more convenient to drive than to take transit. No, sorry, our transportation options are not totally determined by the fact that our country is so big and spread-out. A lot of them are based on deliberate choices we’ve made to favor the private automobile over other forms of transit whenever we can. And now those choices are going to cost us. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2006, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-car-talk-graduated-gasoline-tax/361129/72 "2006-06-20T18:58:35Z")
[QUOTE=Kimstu] Golly, a six-mile bicycle ride is considered unrealistic nowadays except for “athletic types”? :eek: [/quote] Well, no - I’d imagine most Americans (even those slovenly dopers) _could_ bike 6 miles, but consider the inconvenience of it for many errands to make it “impractical.” Car trips in the 6 to 10 mile range take a lot longer than the same trip by car. Further, if you’re going to work, you’re expected (at most jobs) to not be sweaty, smelly, and wearing shorts when you get there. If you’re going shopping, you’ll usually have more than you can carry on a bike. So it’s a subset of 6-10 mile trips where a bike works well. I bike to the bank, library, drug store, and work (we have showers and I bring clothes in on days I don’t bike), but there’s a lot more trips I use the car (groceries, hardware, trips where I’m supposed to deposit or withdraw a child). Also, in the US it’s a lot more dangerous to bike on roads - bike lanes are very rare, and aren’t at a separate grade as they are in many European cities. And plenty of places have nowhere for you to put your bike once you get there. So while Americans could bike more, there are also real obstacles. > [@](#): > > Well, if you’re looking for an even lower cutoff point, try this: more than one-quarter of all car trips are ONE MILE OR LESS (.doc), and I’ve seen estimates that [40% of all car trips are two miles or less](http://investigate.conservation.org/xp/IB/savingbiodiversity/what_you_can_do/commuters.xml). > > I think it’s reasonable to expect even the Teeming Millions on average to be able to bike one or two miles, don’t you? And if we could cut back up to a quarter or a third of all car trips that way, ISTM it would definitely be worth the infrastructure investment. Absolutely. Except when grocery shopping or something. Don’t get me wrong - I’d love to see more bike usage - but lots of realities need to be addressed. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2006, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-car-talk-graduated-gasoline-tax/361129/73 "2006-06-20T19:40:59Z")
[QUOTE=Kimstu] Dude, 😉 that cite of yours is from **2003**. **Currently** —as in, right now—China **does** have standards for automotive fuel efficiency (which went into effect last year, as your own quote from that cite noted). Golly, a six-mile bicycle ride is considered unrealistic nowadays except for “athletic types”? :eek: Well, if you’re looking for an even lower cutoff point, try this: more than one-quarter of all car trips are ONE MILE OR LESS, and I’ve seen estimates that 40% of all car trips are two miles or less. I think it’s reasonable to expect even the Teeming Millions on average to be able to bike one or two miles, don’t you? . [/QUOTE] Damn, I didn’t see that date, you got me. Well, here’s a brand new dated 6-20-06 cite which shows that China’s standards are only slightly more stingent that ours: “\*Overall, the Chinese fuel economy standards are slightly more stringent than the current regulations in the U.S. To meet Chinese standards, the US fleet average fuel economy would need to increase by 5% 2005 standards \* …” and note this only has applied since 2005, and of course, enforcement of any Evironmental laws in China are very problematic. [http://www.greencarcongress.com/2004/11/chinese\_fuel\_ec.html](http://www.greencarcongress.com/2004/11/chinese_fuel_ec.html) My trips under 6 miles are almost entirely to the grocery store, which is about 4 miles away. 4 sacks of heavy groceries don’t do well on a bike. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Dumbguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/2bfe46/32.png) [@Dumbguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dumbguy)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2006, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-car-talk-graduated-gasoline-tax/361129/74 "2006-06-20T21:19:59Z")
Biking doesn’t have to be an all or nothing solution. I’ve cut my driving down from about 10,000 miles a year a few years back to around 6,000 miles a year now, mostly through biking or walking when I’m going a short distance. I could do more, but sometimes I’m just lazy or not in the mood. And still I’ve cut back my gas use by as much as 40%. Not only has it not decreased my quality of life, but I think it’s improved it. I find my mood is a lot better when I’m not locked up in a little fishbowl wishing I could kill all the other people in their little fishbowls. Sure, there are times when biking isn’t feasible, but there are also a lot of times when it is, and people just make dumb excuses because they don’t want to change their lifestyle, whether it’s a significant change or not. I had roommates who used to drive one block to the Laundromat because they thought it was too hard to carry a hamper full of clothes that far. I’m not exaggerating. It was one block, and a short one at that. There were times where we’d all be going to the Laundromat at the same time, and by the time they loaded the car, drove over, and unloaded the car, I had already walked the block, started a load, and was on my way back home. We _do_ have a culture built around cars, and it’s worked pretty well for us for a while. It’s not going to be simple to change that, and apparently a lot of people still don’t think we’ll have to. If we aren’t willing to change the easy stuff, I’m afraid larger, more painful changes will be forced on us. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2006, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-car-talk-graduated-gasoline-tax/361129/75 "2006-06-20T23:16:27Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Well, here’s a brand new dated 6-20-06 cite which shows that China’s standards are only slightly more stingent that ours: True, but remember that the Chinese standards are scheduled to get **more** stringent in 2008. We still have a ways to go if we’re hoping to be able to sell American cars in China any time soon. > [@Dumbguy](#): > > Sure, there are times when biking isn’t feasible, but there are also a lot of times when it is, and people just make dumb excuses because they don’t want to change their lifestyle, whether it’s a significant change or not. Amen, brother, and good for you for saving that 40% of gasoline use. Now, I do definitely acknowledge the validity of the various caveats people have pointed out here: - yup, sometimes it’s just too far to bike; - yup, you can’t carry a lot of groceries on a bicycle (although with a good set of panniers I’ve accomplished some surprising feats in that regard); - yup, in some places the terrain is just too hilly; - yup, sometimes the weather is just too bad; - yup, sometimes you need to show up squeaky neat & clean and can’t run the risk of breaking a sweat; - yup, in some places the roads are just too dangerous; - yup, in some places there isn’t any available bike storage. Yup yup yup, this is all true, but that still leaves a **lot** of short-distance trips in decent conditions where a **lot** of people could be bicycling (or walking) instead of driving. IMO, the single biggest factor discouraging bike use (other than road safety issues) is the fact that we’re just used to being almost exclusively a car culture. Most people don’t even seriously consider using a bike regularly, just because they don’t know anybody else who does. It’s got less to do with genuine preferences or convenience than it does with herd mentality. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-car-talk-graduated-gasoline-tax/361129.md?page=3)