That's kinda neat, actually. That's 53.2 billion fewer miles of car pollution!

Makes you wonder how more efficienct people could be in doing what they must do.

For example, i try to do all my errands on one day to prevent driving 10 miles 3 seperate times. Plus our work (finally) allowed a 4x10 schedule to eliminate one day of work commute.

How do they measure how much driving occurred?

thats like 200-300 fewer miles per person... good job everyone, keep it up and the gas price will continue to drop without the drilling McCain thinks is "required".

@Rectilinear Propagation: Probably just made it up to justify the billion spent on global warming. It's weird, I did the same study, and my numbers came out 53.1 million. Something is off.

It's pretty sad actually. Our Fathers, Grandfathers and Great Grandfathers fought to guarantee our freedom. Now we are changing our way of life for the worse, because enviro-Nazis refuse to allow us access to the resources available within our own country. I don't consider having to change my life and give up my freedoms progress.

Perhaps they looked at the amount of federal tax collected on fuel and used an average price per gallon of gas?
@Rectilinear Propagation:

Nice to see people finally putting their money where there mouth is. I've been hearing for the past ten years: "Once gas goes to $2, it'll be too much. I'll drive less." Then $2 became $3 and $3.50 and nothing seemed to happen. Surprise, people are now actually following through with what they say.

Nice lame troll attempt whydidnt

@Rectilinear Propagation: From the US Dept. of Transportation website ([www.dot.gov]): The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) collects vehicle-miles-traveled data for all motor vehicles through more than 4,000 automatic traffic recorders operated round-the-clock by state highway agencies. To review the FHWA's "Traffic Volume Trends" reports, including that of June 2008, visit [www.fhwa.dot.gov]

@whydidnt: It's the 21st century and they want to revert us back to the 19th. In my humble opinion, this is embarrassing.

Couldn't be happier.

Does anyone really think that "progress" is driving 150 Miles a day in order to do your daily errands?

Hmm, lets see, pharmacy is 15 miles east, then I have to take the interstate 30 miles west to drop off my clothes, then I have to drive 50 miles east again to pick up a pack of cigarettes.

Nope, I do not envy people who live in rural areas.

America has the most poorly engineered infrastructure in the developed world -- we essentially have only one form of transportation, and it is completely dependent on a steady stream of cheap petroleum.
And we have a massive sprawling highway system that encourages poor development practices and wastes energy.

There is a part of me that would get a morbid satisfaction from seeing gas go up to $12/gallon, just to see people regret moving 75 miles away from where they work, and being isolated from anything.

@dequeued: I heartily agree.

Less driving (and less pollution) is definitely one of the perks of higher gas prices. It's about time that US prices started to keep pace with prices in other parts of the world. It's only going to get worse too.

@whydidnt: Joke post? I certainly hope my grandfather didn't fight in WWII to protect my right to be a wasteful idiot. You still have the freedom to be as wasteful as you like . . . it's just going to cost you a bunch more.

@MonkeyMonk: Your Grandfather didn't find in WWII so that government could reap profits on its citizens, to make it harder for them to afford to do business.

Your grandfather didn't fight in WWII so that an apple would cost 4 bux because the shipping to get it there was $12 a gallon.

Please, take a moment and think about what high fuel prices really means to do you. Unless you live in Walden Pond, higher gas prices mean you can't afford diddly.

@whydidnt: Those same "eco-nazis" have wanted us to stop driving since the 70s (because of pollution initially, before global warming was the buzzword.) No one did. None of those "eco-nazis" has had much of an effect this time, either. Americans are driving less because their Beloved Leader hasn't done a good thing for the economy (at least not for anyone worth less than a few million) and economics eventually drives decisions. Now that their credit cards are maxed and they're as upside down in their mortgages as they are their car payments, Americans are thinking about whether or not they need to drive around quite as much at $3.50/gallon.

The drop-in-the-bucket quantities of oil beneath ANWR aren't going to return us to the halcyon days of the '50s. They'll just delay the inevitable shift to other forms of energy. We're a nation that innovates and improves under pressure, it's taken this "energy crisis" and a bunch of conservative bobbleheads screaming "DRILL EVERYWHERE NOW!" in the midst of economic chaos to get more people seriously thinking about both our energy use and our energy sources.

@whydidnt:
Actually, the freedom our grandfathers fought for was for citizens of the U.S., not the oil companies who stand to benefit far more than you or I will from drilling in some of the most beautiful places in the country (what some people consider to be the true natural resource). Causing long-term damage to solve short-term problems is exactly not what is needed if we wish to remain a world power.

People are driving less because gas costs more, not because the 'enviro-nazis' want to steal your freedom, and to be perfectly honest, I'm OK with high prices because it creates demand for more efficient and cheaper (in many ways) technology.

Being ignorant and loud is your right as an American, and I'm fine with you having an opinion. Bladefist may have different opinions than myself, but at least his opinions have reason behind them and he doesn't throw Libaugh rhetoric around and expect anyone to be impressed.

whydidnt, you sir, are in idiot.

@Bladefist: When our fathers and grandfathers were fighting in WWII, Americans were scrimping and saving and CONSERVING. At the behest of the government, for the war effort. Our government at the time, mindful of the concept of finite resources, encouraged the American people to conserve. Our so-called conservative so-called government now tells us to go to the mall and spend (on credit, of course, just like they do) while they send our sons and brothers and cousins and friends to die in Iraq.

@GearheadGeek: That was pretty sensationalist man. During the big wars, we were conserving, to send the surplus over to our troops.

That was a noble cause. Today is nothing like then. Todays cause is global warming. Not noble. Not caused by humans, and right now not even warming.

Also now, people seem to like the idea of our Government, taking in more revenue. This theory confuses me.

As for the war (which is way off topic), America will decide in this election how they proceed with the war. If Obama wins, we'll be pulling out, if McCain wins, we'll finish it then go take care of Iran. Let the majority decide.

I don't remember where I read it exactly, but, basically, the cost of building a high speed rail trunk comes out to be something like 1M/mile, where a four-lane interstate is something like 4M/mile.

No major city is less more than 500 miles from another major American city, we could have a Japanese quality high speed rail network in this country for the cost of expanding our traffic trap highway system.

And of course, the trains would be powered by overhead electrical wires, which means that you could plug any energy source into that you wanted.

What does that mean?
Well, if I hop on a passenger train or subway here in the Northeast, it is probably electric, all of the major lines are electric.
Further more, where is the electricity that powers the trains coming from?
Well, almost certainly from Hydroelectric power, or nuclear power, but NOT from burning petroleum.

With some simple changes to our basic infrastructure, we can ween ourselves off of oil.
It would be expensive, but worth it, and would take a decade or two, but it's dooable.
I think rising gas prices would help.

@Bladefist: I don't think that Global Warming is the only reason for our shift toward conservation. Sure, it is a factor (which some people believe and others do not), but I think it's more about energy itself than the byproducts of any particular form of energy.

The laws of thermodynamics state that energy use is a negative-sum game. There is always an associated energetic and entropic efficiency, and chemical combustion has particularly low efficiencies. No more available energy means no more life. It's not hard to conclude that we should maybe look into more efficient (and, if possible, extra-terrestrially obtained) forms of energy, even if one does not consider pollution or global warming.

@Rhayader: And any logical person is fine w/ that. But in the meantime, don't screw the country over by making oil impossible to afford.

The energy we need doesn't even exist yet. A semi-truck cant be hybrid. People get ahead of themselves. They want to get rid of oil asif we already have our new technology. When the new technology comes, if it's a good technology, it'll be widely available, and extremely efficient. The market will obviously go to that. You wont have to convince me to save money.

Just goes to show what we could have been doing for years. Kind of makes me think gas prices should stay this way if thats what its gonna take for people to change. An incentive for people who dont drive their car from one year to the next would be nice though too.

Too little too late? I hope not...

@caveman1428: should have said an incentive for people who dont drive their cars AS MUCH from one year to the next

@Rhayader:
The laws of thermodynamics state that energy use is a negative-sum game. There is always an associated energetic and entropic efficiency, and chemical combustion has particularly low efficiencies. No more available energy means no more life. It's not hard to conclude that we should maybe look into more efficient (and, if possible, extra-terrestrially obtained) forms of energy, even if one does not consider pollution or global warming.

You're looking way too deep into this. People are driving less because we're cheap.

@Bladefist: I don't think my comment was significantly more sensationalist than your conflation of restricting drilling in ANWR and $12/gallon fuel, over 2.5x the recently-observed peak price. If T. Boone Pickens thinks the odds are better with alternative energy, we'd probably do well to pay some attention. If there's anything that old bird knows, it's how to make money in the energy game.

And I DO honestly think that W's "policies" have had a negative effect on the whole situation. Personally, I think we never should have invaded Iraq in the first place, CERTAINLY not while the situation in Afghanistan was still unresolved. I certainly can't change the past (though I can proudly say I've never cast a vote for the dolt, including when he was campaigning to help Tom bloody scumbag Craddick gerrymander Texas away from any reasonable representation of her actual population.)

Among all the stupid, offensive, destructive things the current administration has done while they've been leeching away our privacy and legal and constitutional protections was the egregious, offensive statement that while we were sending our soldiers into battle, we should just live our lives as usual and go SHOPPING. That alone should be grounds for impeachment, it's certainly more damaging and offensive than some randy lecher getting blown in his office.

@HIV 2 Elway Resurrected: Yeah, I get that. The economic factors are what drive the average consumer.

But looking at the energy situation from a thermodynamic perspective is not 'looking too deep into it'. I think there are plenty of people who are concerned about the eventual loss of petroleum, and worry about where we will turn. Energy is the ultimate currency, and to properly consider how we should use it we need to think about the laws that govern it.

Asimov had a great short story called "The Last Question" (you can Google it and find a version to read online, it's not long). He considers a future in which entropic losses begin to catch up with human society, despite incredible advances in technology.

Here in my little slice of paradise, I was dreading the start of the school year. CalTrans, in their infinite wisdom, decided the 101 needs umpteen years of work and such work includes closing lanes, ripping out trees & bushes, and all other manner of road construction that's sure to stress out even the most valium-saturated.

And yet... the gas prices have wondrously encouraged many folks from Ventura (and points further south!) to either find other ways to work & school or other employment and education.

Even though the road construction is moving ahead as planned, I'm actually getting my kid to school faster.

So, I suppose in one teeny tiny way, I'm sort of grateful for the increased gas costs.

@GearheadGeek: T Boone Pickens is heavily invested in alternative fuel. You could read that as he believes in it. I read it as he is a good investor and is trying to make a quick buck. Of all the alternative fuels out there, he picked wind. Guess what he invests in? Wind is the worst. I can understand the sun, water. Wind? No where on earth, besides the top of a mountain, does wind blow more then 30% of the time. And, to boot, it takes those generators a hour or two to even get up to speed. He is a fraud.

As for the rest of your comment. I told you, America will get to decide this election. America isn't always right, but the majority gets what they want. I believe in that.

@Bladefist: Making oil more expensive (obviously, prohibitively expensive is a Bad Thing) pushes private R&D into developing that new technology via market forces (and makes domestic production from sources such as oil shale feasible). Surely you wouldn't prefer government grants?

Even if you disbelieve global warming, needing to import (or completely exhaust the easily-tapped subset of the domestic supply of) an increasingly scarce resource is a Bad Thing; doing such R&D domestically is very much in our interests.

@Rhayader: Yeah, I've read Slapstick.

The reason I've started running my errands on my bike? Chicks dig it.

@Charles Duffy: I don't want the government pushing anything. You think I want to give them more of my income, so someone will do more R&D? Who is doing this R&D? The oil companies are right now. Some think they are doing it for show. I think they are greedy and if anyone finds an alternative fuel, they want it to be them. So R&D is being done. You trust the government way too much.

I'll say it again. If they push prices up. It'll cost more for food (yes poor people will no longer be able to afford food, yay for welfare), it'll push up electronics, it'll push up the cost of kids going to school (buses), it will cost everything that is shipped. So your deodorant at wal-mart. It'll give Ben 900 more stories about the shrink ray gun. Think about it in terms of economics. You think our economy now is bad? Remember all the horror stories when oil was 140 a barrel? You want that again?

@HIV 2 Elway Resurrected: I haven't actually. The only Vonnegut I have read was "The Breakfast of Champions", and while I liked it, it was years ago. Worth picking up?

On the other hand, I am not so sure from the summary on Amazon how it relates to 'The Last Question', or really any of Asimov's fantastic science fiction.

@Rhayader: If you've only read Breakfast of Champs you're better off getting through Cat's Cradle and Slaughterhouse Five before Slapstick.

Relates, albeit loosely, because all resources have been used up and things are in shambles.

@GearheadGeek: Partisan political rants are not allowed. Keep the conversation on topic; bashing the current administration is likely to only cause people to divide among party lines and start yelling.

Bladefist, keep it on topic.

@Rectilinear Propagation: They take factors such as gasoline purchases, tollway use, and mass transit use into account to figure out how many people are or are not driving and how many miles they're traveling. The figure is a rough estimate - but probably pretty close give or take 500K miles - of the distances traveled.

Every time I look at a highway mixmaster in Dallas or a 10 lane interstate in L.A. I always wonder what wonderful things could be done with that land if we weren't using it for big roadways. Wonder if we'll ever get to the point where we aren't using some of that highway and can transform it into agricultural land, parks, housing, and what not.

@bladefist-

Any consumption of a natural resource in vast excess to the domestic capacity to produce it is threat to sovereignty.

Any government policy that does not address such threats threats is flawed.

Since as you stated oil is such an important resource to the domestic economy, and more importantly to military function, our national consumption should be cut to an amount very near our national production. Laws should be set into effect to protect and reserve national petrol reserves for future national emergencies such as war.

Any policies to the contrary are placing short term comfort and corporate profit over the future continuation of a free and sovereign republic.

In short, I'm really happy that driving has been reduced but, as a nation we have a lot farther to go to ensure our freedom and continued prosperity.

Let me clarify for those who
a) think I'm trolling
b) minds are closed and REFUSE to consider any side but their own

One of the great things about the US, is that its citizens have historically had the freedom to come and go at their own convenience, be it by foot, boat, horseback, or even car. We have ARTIFICIALLY limited that ability today by refusing to utilize the resources available to us, including those in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado Shoal, and off of both our coasts. For those who cry about "pristine resources" - please do some research for yourself and quit believing everything your environmentalist friend tells you. The proposed drilling area in ANWR is a tiny percentage of the actual area, nobody is proposing digging up the entire refuge. The proposed area is anything but pristine, it's actually quite barren and not highly populated by wildlife. The arguments against tapping into this resource are identical to those heard 30-40 years ago regarding the Alaskan Oil Pipeline - yet in areas the pipeline has been installed, we actually see wildlife thriving, not destroyed.

Nearly every other industrialized nation drills for oil closer to its shores than the US does, including many supposed "green" European countries (been to the North Sea lately?)

I grow tired of the Oil Company making huge profit bit. These are huge companies selling a product that is in demand around the globe. Of course they are going to make huge profit. What I don't understand is why you get so pissed about an Oil company with an 8.7% profit margin, but are happy to pay $10.00 to see the latest movie, when entertainment companies earn on average 12.3 profit margin. Nobody seems to bitch when Brad Pitt gets 20 Million big ones for making one movie. But heaven forbid a company providing a product we actually need makes a reasonable profit.

Being able to go where you want, when you want, is indeed freedom. I'm not advocating folks purposely waste resources, but I don't think we should have to change our way of life when there are resources available in our own country, under our own control, that could be utilized to maintain our standard of living. Of course nothing lasts forever, but guess what, we Americans have been pretty good at adapting over the last 230+ years, and I have every confidence we'll find solutions that will enhance our freedom and standard of living in the next millennium. Not utilizing the current available resources is like cutting off your nose to spite your face. There isn't enough tangible benefit to justify our current policies.

It seems to me we have politicians on both side of the spectrum that enjoy telling us where we should live, how we should live, how we should commute, etc, and that my friends is just plain wrong. Your government does NOT know better, is not your mother and is NOT always looking out for your best interests.

Stop being a sheep and following the latest fad, think for yourselves for once.

@Techguy1138:
If you believe what you say Techguy, then you should also support a policy that allows said country to extract as much of those needed resources from it's own soil. You can't have it both ways.

Couldn't be happier. Would like to see a infrastructure tax (ONLY going to repair the $3 TRILLION deficit we have) kick in that keeps the current average at around $4.25 (sliding up or down as needed) to prevent more bridges collapsing, levees failing, etc.
Keeps more dollars in the US and improves our competitiveness. And keeps the polar bear cubs frolicking in the Arctic. And lets me continue to LOL every time I see a Hummer refueling at the pump.
Win/win/win/WIN!

@dequeued:

What I like is people who insist that any public transportation should have to stand on its own with no government support. (Like my dad.) You know, like cars + roads. OH, WAIT...

@Trai_Dep: That would result in the before-tax price staying as close to $4.25 as the oil companies could manage without kicking in higher taxes, because they'd blame the infrastructure tax on the price being $4.25, no matter what the real price would be.

@TechnoDestructo: I think the operation of public transit should at least try to be selfsustaining but there is no way you could install it without government funds. Here in KC we have an upcoming vote on light rail, AGAIN, and we're banking on getting federal funds in addition to a local tax.

@Techguy1138: Oil is a natural, renewable, resource. And there is PLENTY of it. It is virtually limitless by our needs.

Public transportation sucks! Who anyone want to ride a smelly train or bus with a bunch of other shmo's is beyond me. I like to go where I want, when I want. Besides, I love to drive. I won't curtail my habits of driving my big 13 mpg SUV 400-500 miles a week even if gas goes to $10 a gallon.

I was sure you'd be on foot, because you always say public transportation is for losers.

You know what? Add the fact that there was probably a huge factor of reduction in idling (less traffic obviously helps) and in people sitting in idling cars in general and we'll all probably breathe a little easier this year.

I wonder how fewer flying miles were logged as well?

@TechnoDestructo: Good call including the highway system as a taxpayer-funded gift to these companies. Not to mention the $3B or so Big Oil gets in direct subsidies, plus the billions the car companies get for the same, and the multiples of these amounts that they receive in tax writeoffs.
Plus, if we're feeling liberal, 1/2 our military budget and/or the total cost of the Iraq war since if we weren't so reliant on oil, would we have spent the trillions there for their... Sand?!
There are a lot of hidden costs benefiting Big Oil and the Big Three that don't show up on their balance sheets, but that US taxpayers foot the bill for.
I'd like to see a tenth, even a hundredth of that amount applied to renewable energy and mass transit. Prime the pump, create viable industries that would make us economic leaders across the globe and help the world.
Green is good and profitable. Just ask Toyota.

@GearheadGeek: That would be monopolistic collusion and result in ruinous fines and damages, probably enough to bankrupt (or at least split asunder) any violators.
The nice thing about commodities is that they trade on international markets and any arbitrage would make itself evident. I would love to see Oil companies to try it, since it'd be exposed fairly quickly. Momma - they'd pay and they'd pay dearly.

@Bladefist: "Oil is renewable". Tee hee. In geologic terms, sure. So let's simply wait a few hundred million years for the new stuff? Virtually limitless indeed (err, once we beat that whole "mortality" thing).