Washington state to spend $450,000 studying 'gasoline superusers'

[wemay]

The story in a vacuum isn't a big deal. It's the adoption of this and other "studies" like it, by other states, and the use of new, passive-aggressive labels (SUPERUSERS) that make people on the fence suspicious of the EV push.

...and I'm one who has no issue with EVs.

Washington state to spend $450,000 studying 'gasoline superusers'

Washington state is launching a study into gasoline 'superusers' who consume more than 1,000 gallons of fuel per year, where they live, why they do it and how to get them to switch to an electric vehicle.

www.autoblog.com

 

[JohnnyG]

I suppose they work for Uber or Door Dash. The state just want to make sure they're getting their cut of the action.

 

[MRC01]

At 25 mpg average, 1,000 gallons is about 25,000 miles per year. Higher than the average for sure but not a crazy high amount of driving. If the potholes are getting fixed and the roads are smooth, you can thank those people. They're paying way more fuel tax than most of us.

 

[Astro14]

1,000 gallons in my Tundra won’t get you very far.

This is an arbitrary, and rather inflammatory, way to label consumers.

 

[wemay]

1,000 gallons in my Tundra won’t get you very far.

This is an arbitrary, and rather inflammatory, way to label consumers.

Exactly!

 

[RooflessVW]

I don't see the term "superuser" as any more inflammatory than "poweruser" in the tech field.

It's someone who uses a lot.

I fall into that category and use ~ 1,000 gallons of diesel and 500 gallons of gasoline annually. I would love if someone would study my use case and design an EV that would work for me.

Because right now, my options are zero.

 

[Zee09]

I'm more upset about wasting 450k smackers.

 

[RooflessVW]

I'm more upset about wasting 450k smackers.

Seems a trivial amount for a governmental study.

You'd think it would be at least 7 figures.

 

[Zee09]

Seems a trivial amount for a governmental study.

You'd think it would be at least 7 figures.

You know we have Russian inflation issues...lol

 

[Jack Watts]

1,000 gallons in my Tundra won’t get you very far.

This is an arbitrary, and rather inflammatory, way to label consumers.

wow...

folks are triggered by the label?

I live in WA, and I'm fine with my tax dollars going to this, for just the reasons stated in the article. It won't stop the hand wringing though...

A small minority use a disportionate amount of resources. What wrong with figured out if there's a way to serve their needs better?

 

[RooflessVW]

You know we have Russian inflation issues...lol

Blyat

 

[Astro14]

wow...

folks are triggered by the label?

I live in WA, and I'm fine with my tax dollars going to this, for just the reasons stated in the article. It won't stop the hand wringing though...

A small minority use a disportionate amount of resources. What wrong with figured out if there's a way to serve their needs better?

“Disproportionate“?

Now who‘s triggered?

The “superusers” are nothing of the kind. An arbitrary line was drawn by lawmakers to say that somebody buying over 1,000 gallons of fuel each year is somehow “abnormal” and that they use a “disproportionate“ amount.

While they are actually paying for that fuel at the pump, just like “normal users”.

And you’ve bought into labeling people with that.

You‘ve bought into stereotyping.

 

[RooflessVW]

“Disproportionate“?

Now who‘s triggered?

The “superusers” are nothing of the kind. An arbitrary line was drawn by lawmakers to say that somebody buying over 1,000 gallons of fuel each year is somehow “abnormal” and that they use a “disproportionate“ amount.

While they are actually paying for that fuel at the pump, just like “normal users”.

And you’ve bought into labeling people with that.

You‘ve bought into stereotyping.

The "line" was drawn in a report by the NHTSA

 

[Zee09]

I doubt big oil has any issues with superusers right now.

 

[Astro14]

The "line" was drawn in a report by the NHTSA

I object to the line.

It’s arbitrary. It’s biased. It has negative connotations and I’m already seeing posts that reflect that negative bias against “super users”.

How about we monitor people for their food consumption?

Anyone consuming over 2,500 calories a day is a “super eater“ and “taking a disproportionate share” of resources.

Let‘s bias public perception against them.

 

[HemiBenny]

A small minority use a disportionate amount of resources. What wrong with figured out if there's a way to serve their needs better?

So Washington state wants to spend $450,000 to do a study that’s already been done and come to the same conclusion as the study that inspired them to do this study? Sounds about right for government.
Infrastructure and affordable EV’s, that’s a start to get people on board with going EV. It’s really that simple.

 

[RooflessVW]

I object to the line.

It’s arbitrary. It’s biased. It has negative connotations and I’m already seeing posts that reflect that negative bias against “super users”.

How about we monitor people for their food consumption?

Anyone consuming over 2,500 calories a day is a “super eater“ and “taking a disproportionate share” of resources.

Let‘s bias public perception against them.

I mean... OK?

I think studies have been done to that effect.

 

[JeffKeryk]

1,000 gallons in my Tundra won’t get you very far.

This is an arbitrary, and rather inflammatory, way to label consumers.

Heck, around here we have sunny days almost every day; wish we had rain!
Say you commute into the Valley from the east, you can easily do 100 to 200 miles per day. Or more...
Husband and wife work in different locations... We can pile up the miles!

 

[Astro14]

The "line" was drawn in a report by the NHTSA

Actually, it was coined by an electric vehicle advocacy group.

Now, there’s no way an electric vehicle advocacy group would ever have anything against people that use lots of gasoline, right?

From the article:

The effort is likely cued off a report called "Gasoline Superusers." Released by Seattle-based EV advocacy non-profit called Coltura last July, it was based on data found in the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) 2017 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS). The NHTS surveyed 130,000 households, the FHWA calling it "the authoritative source on the travel behavior of the American public" because of nationwide data on every mode of non-commercial travel and the people making the journeys. Coltura coined the term "gasoline superuser" based on the fact that, according to the NHTS, 10% of light-duty-vehicle drivers use 32% of the gasoline bought by all light-duty drivers. That 10% sliver of superusers, about 25 million people nationwide, buys least 1,000 gallons per year to drive more than 30,000 miles and consumes more gas than the bottom 60%.

 

[PimTac]

wow...

folks are triggered by the label?

I live in WA, and I'm fine with my tax dollars going to this, for just the reasons stated in the article. It won't stop the hand wringing though...

A small minority use a disportionate amount of resources. What wrong with figured out if there's a way to serve their needs better?

I live in WA as well and it is typical of our government to label people and activities without looking at the whole picture. Some people drive a lot for a living delivering critical supplies as a example.