Comment by mothballed

Comment by mothballed 4 hours ago

41 replies

I'll always catch hate for saying this, but the quickest way to get people into small more efficient vehicles is to eliminate public roads and make the fuckers pay whatever the market rate is for their super-sized diesel coal rolling environmental destruction machine to be on a road.

They'd quickly find out when they're not being subsidized by the general public and people actually have to pay their way to use their vehicles through tolls to people amortizing their road maintenance costs, that the smaller more pedestrian safe cars are the ones that make sense to operate.

trollbridge 7 minutes ago

Where I presently live in the U.S., the fuel taxes and registration fees pay both for the roads and produce excess revenue used to pay for public transit.

Larger vehicles use more fuel; they’re more often diesels which attract a higher tax; and they pay increased registration fees and tolls.

Total tax on diesel fuel is about 71¢ a gallon (about .16€/L). When they fill up their F-350s, which get around 12mpg (20L/100km), they’re paying $21 in road tax, or about 6¢ per mile (.3€/km).

In larger cities, there are often even more tolls/fees like in NYC which are raised whenever they need more money to pay for public transit.

isqueiros 3 hours ago

Vehicle tax in the Netherlands is already weight-based. This is why the tax rate for EVs is higher than gas cars. The thing is that if you live in Hilversum and are able to import a car from the US, you don't mind the higher tax to begin with

  • lukan 2 hours ago

    "The thing is that if you live in Hilversum and are able to import a car from the US, you don't mind the higher tax to begin with"

    That can be fixed. Starting with removing business tax exemptions for such cars.

    • [removed] an hour ago
      [deleted]
  • CalRobert 3 hours ago

    This is why they’re registered as business vehicles. Also the roads aren’t tolled, oddly.

  • mothballed 3 hours ago

    No tax I've seen is anywhere remotely close to following "fourth power law" on axle weight[]. And especially so for gas taxes, as the gas/diesel cost tends to be closer to linear with weight.

    Usually what happens is smaller cars subsidize everyone else due to paying a disproportionate tax vs axle weight^~(2-4 depending on fatigue pathway). Depending on tax structure possibly pedestrians/cyclists too but they are usually parasitic on tax basis.

    [] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law

    • mjlee 2 hours ago

      I don't disagree that large cars create externalities, but what proportion of costs scale with axle weight?

      In the UK the most recent budget allocates £1.6 billion for maintenance. According to statista £13 billion was spent on roads last year.

      https://www.statista.com/statistics/298675/united-kingdom-uk...

      • michaelt an hour ago

        Basically, it’s well known that fully laden 44 tonne articulated lorries making sharp turns do a lot of damage to roads.

        That’s who in industrial estates you’ll often find concrete roads, instead of tarmac, for lorries making 90 degree turns.

        American style trucks might be big, but presumably they’re nowhere near 44 tonnes.

        Of course, articulated lorries only drive on major roads; your average residential road gets no lorries, so all the wear is from smaller vehicles.

    • mavhc 2 hours ago

      Agreed, tax based on damage to road, and then tax fuel the amount it costs to clean up the pollution the fuel causes, and then use the money to clean up the pollution it causes. Then who cares if you fly your private jet, or giant car, you just pay for it.

      Side effects include: reduced pollution, and cheaper ways to clean up pollution

  • expedition32 an hour ago

    I think those Dodge Rams are on a different tax rate for commercial vehicles.

    Why on earth you would want a pickup truck instead of a van is beyond me. This ain't Oklahoma.

Merovius 34 minutes ago

1. I'm not a driver, much less in a country with toll roads. But is it common to have per-vehicle customized toll prices? I would expect to pay a fixed per-car, per-use fee.

2. How is this dependent on privatization? Every car is registered. So it seems pretty easy to enforce taxes on cars. And to do so based on model, weight, whatever you want.

In other words, from what I can tell, making people pay their fair share seems simpler in a public system, if anything. It certainly doesn't require privatization.

FWIW I have little skin in the game, as I said, not a driver, so I would probably benefit both by having to pay less tax and by reducing overall car usage.

stagg 2 hours ago

Would be great if that was the case in the UK. Currently road tax, or Vehicle Excise Duty is related to CO2 emissions. Road upkeep is from general taxation. Road tax was abolished in 1937, I like to remind motorists of this fact when they say "cyclist should pay road tax". Although EVs now have to pay 3p per mile from 2028, which is a big change. Yeah the super-sized vehicles might pay more in fuel tax and have a higher VED rate, but nowhere near enough.

  • tomxor 30 minutes ago

    > Road upkeep is from general taxation. Road tax was abolished in 1937

    I was skeptical of this being true since fuel duty is notoriously high in the UK, so I did a quick fact check.

    Based on the change in 1937 you are "technically" correct, in that none of the motoring taxes are ring fenced for road funds since 1937.

    However the opposite is true of what you are implying... income from fuel duty alone is generally around 3 times larger than all road maintenance spending (a fairly steady +25bn/yr [0] Vs -8bn/yr [1] over the last decade).

    In other words, although it's officially one big tax pot, motoring taxes pay for road network expenditure more than 3 times over.

    This is why they are introducing the per mile EV tax, because fuel duty provided a proportional tax to road use, but EVs skip that and electricity can't be so easily taxed for road use specifically.

    TLDR, UK road users pay for far more than the road network.

    [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/284323/united-kingdom-hm...

    [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/533171/annual-road-trans...

  • jabl 39 minutes ago

    > Although EVs now have to pay 3p per mile from 2028, which is a big change.

    This is interesting, how is this accomplished?

    Over here there was some proposal some years ago to move to a per-mile taxation, with higher tax in congested areas. All managed by some kind of GPS device in each car. There was much opposition as people didn't want the government spying on them via this GPS device, so the plan was eventually dropped.

    A simpler approach would be to just record the mileage during annual inspections, but hey why make it simple when you can have some public-private grift making zillions on selling these GPS devices and running the infrastructure for them..

kalleboo 3 hours ago

Part of me has also been thinking "let people drive their imported huge trucks but with the understanding that if they kill someone in an accident its not just an accident, its a murder charge for willingly driving such a dangerous vehicle on public roads".

  • wasmitnetzen 3 hours ago

    I'm not sure the type of person who imports such a vehicle would have the appropriate amount of foresight to let such a law affect their behaviour.

    • lan321 11 minutes ago

      You'd be surprised to see people can't be classified meaningfully based on how much their car weighs.

    • [removed] 2 hours ago
      [deleted]
  • 2muchcoffeeman 2 hours ago

    That’s putting unnecessary burden on the victim.

    If you want a silly huge car you should pay silly huge fees for it. You must compensate the public for your nuisance vehicle.

  • master-lincoln 3 hours ago

    You could argue this for any car as moving such a heavy object at such speeds close to people is inherently high risk.

    • kalleboo 3 hours ago

      Yeah there are always levels of risk we as a society have chosen to allow. My thinking was along the lines of how to self-regulate these imports of cars that do not follow the common safety standards our society has chosen if they are forced upon us by trade agreements or well-intentioned loopholes.

      ("murder" is a bit an extreme reaction but the more realistic idea may be to make harsher judgements the more pointlessly large and dangerous the vehicle is)

      • Asmod4n 5 minutes ago

        You can get charged for murder in Germany when killing someone with a car.

      • dmurray 2 hours ago

        Presumably there's some level at which this can be solved in a purely monetary way.

        If the average Dodge Ram causes X millimorts of deaths per year (per km? per km on suburban roads?) and every dollar spent on public healthcare (drug interventions? road safety? Fire departments?) saves Y lives, you can increase the tax by X/Y, trust the government to spend the extra revenue in the most effective way, and everyone comes out better off.

      • lukan 2 hours ago

        Easier might be to just not give exemptions when public safety is the tradeoff?

  • potato3732842 21 minutes ago

    Do you wonder why the world is drifting toward populism?

    Because I read comments like that and I don't.

    A murder charge for a crime without intent? In the rich west? There just isn't the political will for that. A policy like that is about as serious as luxury space communism.

sdeframond 2 hours ago

I share your feeling. However

> pay whatever the market rate

would only work if there is a market. And infrastructures like roads are a natural monopoly[0], so there could be no market.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly

  • dbdr 2 hours ago

    I don't think the idea is to have a market of roads to chose from. It is to make the existing car market more efficient by fixing the externality of other people paying for the damage you do to the roads by your choice of (heavy) vehicule.

    • citrin_ru 2 hours ago

      Heavy semi-trailer trucks disproportionally damage the roads, if they'll pay a fair share groceries could become unaffordable.

      • ninalanyon an hour ago

        Then switch to subsidizing groceries instead of the the delivery method.

        • trollbridge 3 minutes ago

          Virtually everything is delivered by freight and freight is responsible for almost all road wear and tear.

          You would have to basically subsidise everything.

    • hopelite 39 minutes ago

      Even though it may change with technological developments, are you aware that EVs are the heaviest vehicles on the market, by somewhere around 140% the weight of ICE vehicle equivalents?

  • mothballed 2 hours ago

    That's weird because there's no public road near me for miles and I can get 90% of the way to "town" without them.

    I've also connected my private roads to a couple other private roads so no one has a monopoly on my way to town.

    As for the "barriers to entry" mentioned in that article, is absolutely wild. My road and most the ones in our grid network were made with little more than a dude and a tractor (I think you can get suitable one for $10k off craigslist). I initially made mine with an axe, a light truck, and a rope (to rip out small trees) and there's nothing stopping anyone adjacent from doing the same if I'd block the road.

    • dmurray 2 hours ago

      Do you understand why this isn't a workable solution for everyone, and likely not even for the last 10% of your journey?

      • mothballed 2 hours ago

        It would work beautifully for the last 10% of my journey. The only reason why there are no private roads for the las 10% is the county tax funds that road, and only a complete and utter moron would build a road when their "competitor" has a price of zero at the point of use. People commonly ask why the public road has a monopoly; it's not that they are a natural monopoly but rather that it's literally impossible to compete with someone with zero costs (tax costs already sunk) so places with public roads have ~no competition.

        The second that road gets defunded by the public coffers, guy with tractor would show back up.

rcxdude 3 hours ago

Doesn't work in France with its huge number of toll roads, and in the UK where fuel duty is the largest single part of the price of fuel, it more than covers the cost of public roads, yet people still drive everywhere in increasingly large vehicles. It's not gonna reduce driving, though I do agree it should not be subsidized.

  • citrin_ru 3 hours ago

    Public transport (especially trains) is very expensive in the UK. If you already have a car it's cheaper to use car even if you're traveling alone. For two it will be more than 2x cheaper than a train. If trains will be affordable I'm sure more people would use them. As to the size - during relatively good pre-COVID times SUV become popular but not many Brits can afford large vehicles today and on average cars in the UK are much smaller than in the US, I would not say it's a big problem.

  • Retric 2 hours ago

    Road damage is exponential with weight, so heavy vehicles are still heavily subsidized in France even if the total revenue is correct.

    There was an interesting court case where only giving tolls to 18 wheeler was problematic but the equivalent fee for cars would have literally worked out to under 1 cent.

potato3732842 35 minutes ago

You're getting downvoted because good enough quality roads are so cheap that market rate wouldn't really do anything. The government needs to be in the road business so it can stick its thumb on the scale.

vineyardmike 3 hours ago

There are many easier ways to effect this social change, if you’re willing to do basic legislation around the vehicle itself.

The easiest way to decrease unnecessary oversized vehicles, frankly, is to require them be painted pink and flowery. Many men in America pick big vehicles as they're perceived as masculine, and a basic paint job to attack this psychological would probably work.

Less jokingly, add mechanical speed limits to them. Big heavy vehicles are extremely dangerous, but that danger is closely related to speed.

Other options include adding excessive cameras and radar equipment, so the front of the vehicle isn’t a blind spot. Cars have plenty of cameras and mirrors already, so it’s not novel to drivers. It’s a missed opportunity already since this could really be implemented by major manufacturers within a year.

  • oldestofsports an hour ago

    The danger is not just related to speed, it’s about them being sp large that you can’t physically see the old lady or child walking right in front of it