Buying E10 fuel (a mixture that contains 10 percent ethanol) from a hose that also supplies E15 fuel (a mixture that contains 15 percent ethanol) must buy at least four gallons to protect customers following behind. Ethanol is hard on engines and less efficient than regular gasoline. E15 can even cause engine failure in smaller or older engines. So if you’re using a blender pump to buy E10 that sells both E15 and E10, the residual amount of E15 left in the hose from the previous customer could cause significant damage to those smaller and older engines—unless you purchase at least 4 gallons.
Customer B buys 1 gallon of E10 from the same pump.
Customer C buys 1 gallon of E10 from the same pump and puts it in his chainsaw. If that gallon ruins Customer C’s chainsaw, it’s legally Customer B’s fault? What the fuck?
Forcing B to buy more gas than he might want, to protect the customer after him, because of the customer that came before him, is some horseshit.
In the given example, is the gas station not forcing Customer B to purchase more gas than they may want or need? What if I have a chainsaw with a 1 gallon fuel tank? Now I need to not only buy more gas than I can use, but a container to safely store it in. (It’s also illegal to dispense gasoline to/from an unauthorized container!) Now if I use my chainsaw once or twice a year, I also get to dump out that extra gasoline because it’s gone bad by the time I need to use it again.
This seems like it’s flipped around backwards. The picture says you have to pump more than 4 gallons if you are getting E15, but the explanation seems to explain why someone pumping E10 would want to pump more than 4 gallons.
I bet the real reason is that someone could pump a couple of gallons of cheaper E15, knowing they’d actually receive E10, leaving the next person to actually get that gas.
Why force companies to buy pumps that blend when you can force all liability onto the customer?
Gas stations can get away buying cheap blending pumps and if it breaks someone’s older car just shrug and say it must have been the previous customer’s fault, we’re not liable.
It’s probably administrative law associated with DOT regulations. So yes it is a law but not quite in the same way you think of when Congress passes a law. Instead Congress passed a law that said DOT we give this agency the power to regulate these specific things. Go create a working committee and create some regulation. Administrative law is a bit more like civil law than criminal law. In general violation is just fine and they are handled by administrative law courts. Part of what makes them so different is they do not fall under the justice department they are contained within whichever agency has jurisdiction over that area of regulation. They’ve been affirmed to be functionally the same as federal courts, but can only sanction the guilty party in the exact manner the regulation says. Otherwise when the case is concluded and a party is found guilty is then referred to a federal court for sanctions.
Source
Hold the fuck up.
Customer A buys 10 gallons of E15.
Customer B buys 1 gallon of E10 from the same pump.
Customer C buys 1 gallon of E10 from the same pump and puts it in his chainsaw. If that gallon ruins Customer C’s chainsaw, it’s legally Customer B’s fault? What the fuck?
Forcing B to buy more gas than he might want, to protect the customer after him, because of the customer that came before him, is some horseshit.
The gas companies bought a law to exempt themselves from liability.
What, again?
Story of everything…
Maybe these climate change purveyors should be forced to separate E10 and E15 dispensers.
Source?
This fucking law right here.
Legally customers C fault. He needed to buy 4 gallons and fucked himself.
Why is it bad to have rules which prevent harm to everyone?
Nobody is forcing anyone to buy anything. You ever see a 2oz bottle of Coke?
That doesn’t prevent harm to everyone it just allows gas stations to use a single pump and shift the liability onto consumers.
If you can’t see the practicality, that’s on you.
Boo. If you’re gonna troll, at least make it interesting.
In the given example, is the gas station not forcing Customer B to purchase more gas than they may want or need? What if I have a chainsaw with a 1 gallon fuel tank? Now I need to not only buy more gas than I can use, but a container to safely store it in. (It’s also illegal to dispense gasoline to/from an unauthorized container!) Now if I use my chainsaw once or twice a year, I also get to dump out that extra gasoline because it’s gone bad by the time I need to use it again.
Do you have an ethanol chainsaw? Maybe an ethanol weed whacker? Got some links to these small ethanol motors?
E10 and E15 mostly aren’t ethanol. They’re 90% and 85%, respectively, gasoline, with the rest being ethanol.
Go on.
That’s a pretty stupid comparison. These aren’t prepackaged containers, and that’s a pretty key part of the terrible point you were trying to make.
Ok then, try to book an attorney for 10 minutes only.
This seems like it’s flipped around backwards. The picture says you have to pump more than 4 gallons if you are getting E15, but the explanation seems to explain why someone pumping E10 would want to pump more than 4 gallons.
I bet the real reason is that someone could pump a couple of gallons of cheaper E15, knowing they’d actually receive E10, leaving the next person to actually get that gas.
Ok, that makes sense, but why a federal law?
Why force companies to buy pumps that blend when you can force all liability onto the customer?
Gas stations can get away buying cheap blending pumps and if it breaks someone’s older car just shrug and say it must have been the previous customer’s fault, we’re not liable.
“We don’t care about service and quality. Oh, and we make it be your problem.”
It’s probably administrative law associated with DOT regulations. So yes it is a law but not quite in the same way you think of when Congress passes a law. Instead Congress passed a law that said DOT we give this agency the power to regulate these specific things. Go create a working committee and create some regulation. Administrative law is a bit more like civil law than criminal law. In general violation is just fine and they are handled by administrative law courts. Part of what makes them so different is they do not fall under the justice department they are contained within whichever agency has jurisdiction over that area of regulation. They’ve been affirmed to be functionally the same as federal courts, but can only sanction the guilty party in the exact manner the regulation says. Otherwise when the case is concluded and a party is found guilty is then referred to a federal court for sanctions.