3 ms·

Road damage isn't the only issue with weight though. There's safety, exhaust emissions, tyre and brake particles, noise, etc. I'm sure some of them don't have

Road damage isn't the only issue with weight though. There's safety, exhaust emissions, tyre and brake particles, noise, etc. I'm sure some of them don't have a linear relationship either. One of the biggest upsides to taxing vehicle weight could be to counter purchasing decisions that have shifted to larger vehicles that no longer comfortably fit in parking spaces but ride better over ridiculous speed bumps and give drivers literally the opportunity to look down on others. Taxing vehicle weight also doesn't have the privacy implications that taxing miles driven beyond fuel consumption does. It's always struck me as one of the more sensible aspects to tax. Add lightness, as I believe Colin Chapman put it.

jb775 6y ago
This entire thread is flawed in two fundamental ways: 1) The primary concern here is per capita road damage. If that's agreed, why is the conversation not about improving the resiliency of roads? 2) Why would the adoption of new technology automatically subject you to draconian taxes that have nothing to do with that new technology? I understand infrastructure needs to be paid for, but this is simply a cash-grab by politicians. If people started jogging to destinations rather than use cars, would it be acceptable for the government to charge a "jogging transportation tax"?