Hacker News Reader

Comment by Nifty3929 | Hacker News Reader

I'm wondering about how this line works out: "Oregon’s bill crucially prevents stations from charging more for a full-service pump than a self-service, which will effectively eliminate full-service pumps."

I'm not sure the effect of this is so obvious. Clearly full-serve will have higher costs and lower margins - but then again, since it's all the same price customers might prefer full-serve and go to those stations that offer it. Will full-service have lower margins but make it up in volume? Or be some kind of loss-leader for selling snacks at the store?

I don't know - it just seems really strange? Like why not just allow them to charge more for full-service? What's the downside to the public of allowing this to just be another option?

We have both options in CA, and while full-service is somewhat rare, in most areas you can find it if you want it and are willing to pay more for it.

View on HN

The article says the law mandates each station must still staff half its pumps.

So obviously this means full service isn’t going away (it’s still legally required), but if it’s very popular, there might be a line for the full service pumps. Personally, I doubt it.

Not sure how the writer drew such a clearly wrong conclusion.

Edit: text from the bill

> SECTION 2. (1) A filling station, service station, garage or other dispensary where Class 1 flammable liquids are dispensed at retail may not designate more than the same number of fuel dispensing devices for self-service use by customers as are designated for attended service by an owner, operator or employee of the dispensary of Class 1 flammable liquids.

https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023R1/Downloads/Meas...

> A filling station, service station, garage or other dispensary where Class 1 flammable liquids are dispensed at retail

So many words to say "gas stations".

> may not designate more than the same number of fuel dispensing devices for self-service use by customers as are designated for attended service by an owner, operator or employee of the dispensary of Class 1 flammable liquids.

So many words to say "may not have more self-service pumps than full-service pumps".

Dammit, I hate legalese. Unfortunately, it's a requirement because some lawyer would nitpick what a "gas station" is, or what defines a "full-service" pump.

Even the term "fuel dispensing device" is ridiculous, but I know if the law said "pump", then a lawyer would argue that "pump" could refer to the actual device that pumps the fuel from the underground tank, and that one pump could go to multiple dispensers, so a g̶a̶s̶ ̶s̶t̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ filling station, service station, garage or other dispensary where Class 1 flammable liquids are dispensed at retail could have two pumps, but one goes to 8 full-service dispensers, and the other goes to only 4 self-service dispensers, and not be in violation of the law because they have an equal number of pumps.

If they said "pump", you know the gas stations would immediately find a way to put tanks above the level of the cars so that they could operate on gravity instead.

or pressurize the tanks using air cylinders that they later pump back up offsite.

> why not just allow them to charge more for full-service

Because they would, and this is the main reason voters have rejected self-service in the past in Oregon. It's not like they would lower the price for self-service, they'd just raise it for full service. So of course people tend to vote to keep full service prices the same.

This chain of reasoning is crazy. If gas stations had that much pricing power, why would they not charge $20 per gallon?

Believe it or not, gas stations do compete on price. Exceptionally located gas stations might have some ability to set their own price, but otherwise, if you have two gas stations next to each other, and one priced gas lower than the other, then the other will have to match it.

Which means either the gas price will go down by the cost of the labor for gas stations that are no longer needed, or every gas station owner is in collusion to maintain the same price (obviously false).

Maybe. I think the big problem is that people don’t want to tip the gas pumper guy, who usually only accepts cash. Or interact with them really. It’s very dumb and uncomfortable for a lot of people to engage in this kind of social ritual if they’re used to pumping their own gas.

Tipping a gas attendant is definitely not an expectation in Oregon, but people driving through from out-of-state sometimes seem to think so.

Interesting.

I’m curious if anyone from Jersey can weigh in on norms for their area?

Most people do not tip gas station attendants in NJ either.

Dang, guess I’m a dummy then

I wouldn't beat yourself up over it - in states where full service isn't mandated by law it is expected that you tip your attendant when you go to a full service station.

I worked at one in PA growing up and most of my wages were from tips, sort of like being a server.

> We have both options in CA, and while full-service is somewhat rare, in most areas you can find it if you want it and are willing to pay more for it.

I haven't seen a full service lane at a gas station in years.

> Like why not just allow them to charge more for full-service? What's the downside to the public of allowing this to just be another option?

If gas stations charged more for full service, that would lead to an eventual decline in full service availability and use.

You would have a cycle where customers shift to self-service to save money, making full service even more expensive, meaning more shift to self-service, etc, etc

That probably is what would happen. That's certainly the way it's played out in CA - it's a relatively rare (but still findable), meaningfully more expensive service for those who want it.

Why is that a bad outcome though? Few people want/need it, and it's certainly more expensive to provide, so this seems like a pretty reasonable outcome to me.

I interpreted this to mean that stations would stop offering full-service entirely, and thus they are not charging more for it since it doesn't exist.

Business interests I guess? Presumably they wrote the bill.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com