Despite the media focus on gas prices this year, it’s apparent that many consumers still don’t understand the root cause of skyrocketing oil prices. That is to say, they don’t comprehend the dynamics driving energy supply and demand.
NPR recently had a segment in which it interviewed drivers at a gas station. Comments gathered reveal the misconceptions:

Until people band together and cry ‘foul,’ prices will just continue to go up. And I guess the government says how much are people going to take and who cares.

If protests were an effective means to stop price increases, it wouldn’t be hard to get one started. Unfortunately they aren’t. The market is driving the price increase–not, as this comment suggests, the government. The only thing the government can do to lower prices is to increase subsidies–which would only exacerbate the problem by leading to shortages.

Everybody should just not drive for a week and see what happens, all around the country. . . . We got to be smart, we got to beat ’em at this.

What would happen? Well, the economy would crash; but if it’s any consolation I’m sure gas prices would temporarily dip with due to the resulting inventory buildup (assuming oil industry workers still went to work). It’s unclear to me who would get “beat” by this cunning plan.
I suppose consumers can be forgiven for their misconceptions when you consider the signals coming from the top. Consider the energy “solutions” being offered by Congress. The Democratic party just tried to sell a tax increase as a magic wand to right the supply/demand imbalance. Most Republicans are acting as if increasing global supply by one million barrels/day in eight years (ANWR) will be the answer for 10 million more barrels of demand (at current growth rates).
Even the “experts” who are paid to analyze oil markets can’t seem to figure out what is happening:

Two of the world’s most closely watched energy forecasters on Tuesday slashed predictions for output from oil fields outside the OPEC cartel in 2008 — more bad news for a global economy struggling with record high oil prices and tight supply.
. . .
The International Energy Agency, adviser to 27 industrial economies, cut its expectations for supply growth from countries outside OPEC to 460,000 barrels per day above 2007 levels, down from 680,000 bpd a month ago.
The U.S Energy Information Administration, the statistical arm of the Energy Department, cut its forecast for non-OPEC output growth nearly in half to 310,000 bpd from 600,000 bpd.

For several years these organizations have continued to over-estimate production and thus have missed badly on their price targets:

Partly due to the dearth of supplies outside the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, the EIA raised its projections for 2008 oil prices by nearly 12 percent. Benchmark West Texas Intermediate oil prices will average $122.15 a barrel, up from its previous forecast of $109.53 a barrel, the EIA predicted.

This is but the latest upward revision. One would think that after getting burned enough times, they would be more conservative on their production estimates. But it’s a slow learning curve.
The fact is that oil production has barely increased since 2005, while demand for oil continues to grow. And there’s really no way out of this jam. New oil fields being brought online are barely keeping production ahead of the depletion rate in older fields. Protests aren’t going to create more oil. Government policies aren’t going to generate more oil.
The only way to ease the pain of the global oil crisis is to drastically reduce our need for the product, through conservation and development of alternative fuels. As the NPR segment illustrates, many people don’t yet understand this. The sooner they do, the better. Government, media, and energy industry leaders all share the responsibility of educating the public regarding the limits of our energy resources. Thus far they have failed miserably.

Here’s a story on a group’s intention to erect a giant Confederate flag near the intersection of Interstates 75 and 4:

The Sons of Confederate Veterans wants drivers in the Tampa area to see the massive flag — 30 feet high and 50 feet long — atop a 139-foot pole, the highest the Federal Aviation Authority would allow. It would be lit at night.
With the pole already in the ground and building permits in hand, the group is on its way to having what it calls the “world’s largest” Confederate flag in place by mid 2009. The group just needs about $30,000 more, said Douglas Dawson, Florida division commander.

John W. Adams, a spokesperson for the group wishing to fly the flag, says this project is all about remembrance:

“It’s about honoring our ancestors and about celebrating our heritage,” he said. “It’s a historical thing to us.”
He hopes people who are offended by the flag will drive to the memorial and view the plaques honoring Confederate soldiers. They plan to have one dedicated to black Confederate veterans, he said.

The second paragraph gets at the real intent. If your objective is simply to honor your ancestors, you build a nice monument. But if your objective is to make a public statement and rile people up, you erect a giant flag.
This revives the long-standing flag debate: Is the Confederate flag merely a historical relic representing Southern heritage? Or is a darker symbol of racial division and suppression?
Obviously, many people who have rallied for the stars and bars–both today and in the 1860s–do not necessarily believe that the black race should be suppressed or enslaved. But the fact is that the Confederate States of America were fundamentally intertwined with the institution of slavery. Southern apologists can make arguments about “states rights” until they are blue in the face. But they can’t escape the fact that without slavery, there would have been no Civil War.
And so to the extent that the Confederate flag represents that era in the South, African Americans are justified in being upset when it’s used in this kind of a in-your-face-type display. Being of a libertarian/First Amendment bent, I’m somewhat conflicted over whether or not the government should step in and stop this flag. But clearly it doesn’t advance the interests of society.
UPDATE: A segment on this controversy was broadcast on “Fox and Friends” on June 5.

For reasons that are not entirely clear to me, I’ve opened an account at Twitter. Apparently, I have an inner need to try to keep up with the cool techno widgets.
You can catch the tweeting action at http://twitter.com/barner.

Via No Silence Here, Patrick Beeson offers Knoxville drivers suggestions on how to pass cyclists.
I ride a fair amount with traffic, and to build on Patrick’s post, here’s four things that annoy me most about passing vehicles:

• Fast-moving vehicles that buzz by as if you aren’t even there. This is an innate response–if you have what feels like a near-miss with an object weighing many hundreds of pounds while you are in a defenseless position, it’s going to be scary. Remember that Tennessee law requires motorists to allow a minimum of three feet clearance when passing a cyclist. Err on the safe side and allow even more.
• Drivers who tailgate instead of passing. The opposite of driver type (1). Instead of going around the cyclist, this driver continues to trail closely behind even when the road is open to pass.
  I’m not sure why some motorists do this. Perhaps they are not used to passing cyclists and are exercising an abundance of caution? Although I appreciate this sentiment, it gets annoying having a strange vehicle lingering on your tail. So if you have five or more feet of clearance available, slowly ease by and continue on your way.
• Drivers who pass at inopportune times. A good place to pass is on a straight stretch of road that has good visibility. A bad place to pass is going around a corner. A cyclist needs extra space when cornering. And if you run into on-coming traffic while attempting to pass, you may have no choice but to force the cyclist off the road!
  Another annoying situation is when a driver passes the cyclist and then breaks. It takes a lot more effort to stop and regain your speed on a bike than it does in a vehicle. Be considerate of this.
• Honking and yelling. Some motorists like to honk to alert cyclists that they are passing. A light tap on the horn as you are approaching is generally OK (though typically unnecessary). But loud, prolonged honks or yelling out the window as you pass is almost always distracting and irritating. Don’t do it.

I noticed the Knoxville News-Sentinel had at least three cycling-related stories over the past few days. That’s pretty good publicity.

• “Bicycle museum’s curator wheels and deals for history“

  A judge in Cumberland Gap, TN, has turned his bicycle collection into the Little Congress Bicycle Museum. If I ever get to Cumberland Gap again (it’s been many years since I’ve been there) this stop would be interesting to see.

• “Cyclist gears up to improve status from ‘chick on a bike’“

  KNS reporter describes her quest to become a cyclist and complete the English Mountain Challenge.

  Bicycles bring out the best in people.

  I like to think so.

• “East Tennessee picks up speed as a ‘cycling Mecca’“

  Details a Detroit, MI, cycling club’s training foray into East Tennessee.

  “Blount County and the surrounding foothills of the Smokies offers some of the best cycling in the country,” Alexander said. “It’s a wonderful combination of rural roads, little traffic and beautiful scenery – although experiencing the scenery from a bicycle is a lot different from experiencing it from a car.”

  From what I’ve seen, Western North Carolina is probably a better cycling tourism destination than this side of the mountains–they’ve got more rural roads and more mountains. But as a whole this region offers great and challenging terrain for cycling.
  On Saturday, when I was on the Blue Ridge Parkway, I met briefly with a few other cyclists who were vacationing from Ontario, Canada. It reminded me how lucky I am to have this scenery in my back yard.