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 abou

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"?