Comments on: Prepaying for gas in B.C.

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 15:55:44 +0000

I had read earlier that the employer held the attendant responsible for any theft himself. Personally. Out of his own meager pay. He wasn’t running after the car for his employer, he was running after the car so he wouldn’t end up taking home squat for his day’s work.

A lot of us think the best approach would be prohibiting companies from holding employees responsible in these cases – it’s like chasing a shoplifter into the parking lot. It might occasionally save a few bucks but at a high risk to employees and bystanders. But this shouldn’t be a blanket case – someone in a jewelry store could reasonably be held to a higher standard than someone in a Target since the merchanise is far more expensive and you always want the assistant in close proximity.

As for doing nothing – see comment about ‘bystanders’ above. It would be one thing if that’s the only car around but that’s rarely the case. Who does the victim seek redress from if they’re hit by somebody punching it out of a gas station to avoid paying $50? The driver is obviously one party, but what about the gas station if its policies made the driver more aggressive than usual?

P.S., as others have pointed out in this case there’s another and much simpler solution. Require video cameras on the gas pumps that capture both vehicle license and the driver’s face and treat gas-and-dash like photo radar. Your car, your responsibility (including prosecution for theft) unless you can show that the person on the video isn’t you.

By: John Burgess

John Burgess — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 20:33:02 +0000

Where I drive–in FL and up and down I-95–pre-pay via credit/debit card is standard, but at some stations you get a few cents off the price/gallon if you pay cash. Most of the stations along I-95 have signs warning that the pumps are under video surveillance and that cops will be called to go after bolters. In fact, many of the signs are issued by the local or state police.

By: Bill Poser

Bill Poser — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 20:07:20 +0000

I agree that it wasn’t the government’s initiative. The justification is bizarre, but it really came from the campaign initiated by the parents of the attendant who was killed.

By: gumby

gumby — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 18:16:51 +0000

I’m not sure “bizarre justification” is fair. I don’t think the government was eager to regulate this sort of thing at all. I see it more as the government’s reflexive pandering to an electorate who expects government to have prevented this tragic, but very rare, occurence. As far as the appearance “doing something” to retroactively prevent a singular tragedy goes, it was about as unintrusive as it was going to get.

… and I have encountered non-compliant stations outside of urban areas. I don’t think anyone is actively enforcing the law.

By: Don

Don — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 18:09:35 +0000

I know that we have prepay in the US. But it is the owners of the gas stations who made the decision to go Pre-pay.

Slightly different situation than a Provincial Government requiring all gas stations to go Prepay.

But for weird gas station laws in the US, look no further than Oregon and New Jersey with the no Self-Service option. Attendants at every gas station are required to pump your gas for you. It’s a safety issue after all.

By: Tom T.

Tom T. — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 18:00:53 +0000

Interesting cultural difference. Down here in the Washington DC area, I can’t remember the last time I saw a pump that was not prepay. I wonder why some places changed over and some did not.

By: Bill Poser

Bill Poser — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 17:26:02 +0000

My main point is not the inconvenience but rather the bizarre justification for the law. The inconvenience is modest, but present. If you don’t have a credit or debit card (and many poorer people don’t), it means not only having to go inside to pay first but not being able to fill up since you need to guess at an amount that will be smaller than what it takes to fill your tank. If you do have a credit or debit card, it often means having to pay twice. First you pay at the pump for gas, then you go inside, get your coffee and sandwich, windshield fluid, or whatever, and pay for that inside.

By: kat

kat — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:56:03 +0000

In my state, almost all gas stations require the use of a card at the pump or prepayment at a cashier. As I recall, the change happened gradually as more stations adopted the policy to ensure gas was paid for, not to ensure attendant safety.

By: gumby

gumby — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:46:26 +0000

I live in BC. This caused a bit of a ruckus at first, as any change does, but is no big deal now. Most people pay by credit card anyway, so “prepay” pumps were becoming the industry standard in any event.

The legislation I think came as a result of a very vocal lobby from the victim’s family, and an outcry from the public to “do something”. I don’t think the government was chomping at the bit to do this, but was on the defensive with the electorate.

By: Frank

Frank — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 15:04:06 +0000

“a less obnoxious way”

I don’t see that it is less obnoxious to add another level of surveillance and video recording of portions of our lives as opposed to having to pre-pay for gas (or any other product).

No drive thrus in Canada? Pay here, pick up at next window…

Besides the fact that these sorts of video investigations turn topsy-turvy the notion of “Innocent until proven guilty”. The State has a picture of your license tag, you have to prove that it wasn’t you who committed some infraction.