4 ms·

If someone wants to spend the money to buy one and pay the $200 to fill it up, so be it. If they think it’s somehow less money to buy a $80K truck than to rent

If someone wants to spend the money to buy one and pay the $200 to fill it up, so be it. If they think it’s somehow less money to buy a $80K truck than to rent a truck once a year, cool. But to say it should somehow not be allowed on the road is absurd.

Gigachad 4y ago
How exactly should they be paying for the increased risk to peoples safety and the extra air pollution they create. Should we be calculating the number of years they took off people lives due to the particulate pollution? If they have an accident and kill someone, should that be punished more harshly than regular since they chose to pick a more dangerous form of transport?
- gort19 4y ago
  > If they have an accident and kill someone, should that be punished more harshly than regular since they chose to pick a more dangerous form of transport? By this logic, every vehicle would have a different punishment associated with it.
- JoshuaDavid 4y ago
  In terms of paying for increased risks to safety, the usual answer is to require drivers to be insured, and higher risk drivers or vehicles will result in higher insurance premiums. For pollution, I am not aware of anything currently, but it'd be reasonable to treat that similarly (probably as a tax that funds treatment of pollution-caused health issues rather than insurance, since the harms are more distributed). > If they have an accident and kill someone, should that be punished more harshly than regular since they chose to pick a more dangerous form of transport? If the vehicle is not street legal, yes. If the vehicle is street legal, and the driver was insured, and otherwise not negligent, then no. Perhaps the vehicle should't be street legal, and in that case the laws should be changed moving forward (but penalties should not be applied retroactively). Incidentally, in the US, the Department of Transportation seems better than usual for government agencies in actually doing a cost-benefit analysis where they show their work with actual numbers: see https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/2016%20Revised%20Value%20of%20a%20Statistical%20Life%20Guidance.pdf https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/2016...
iancmceachern 4y ago
Replying to the other sibling comment here about paying for its cost. Vehicles in the US are taxed mainly by taking the gas that goes into them, the more gas (diesel) they use the more taxes they're paying, so it works out as the commenter hoped, if you have a bigger more thirsty vehicle you pay more taxes to maintain things like roads and infrastructure.
- 0xfaded 4y ago
  A) gas taxes only cover about 30% of the cost of the roads. B) the wear on the road is a fourth order funtion of weight. It would be fantastic if taxes were also proportional.

Gigachad 4y ago

How exactly should they be paying for the increased risk to peoples safety and the extra air pollution they create. Should we be calculating the number of years they took off people lives due to the particulate pollution? If they have an accident and kill someone, should that be punished more harshly than regular since they chose to pick a more dangerous form of transport?

gort19 4y ago
> If they have an accident and kill someone, should that be punished more harshly than regular since they chose to pick a more dangerous form of transport? By this logic, every vehicle would have a different punishment associated with it.
JoshuaDavid 4y ago
In terms of paying for increased risks to safety, the usual answer is to require drivers to be insured, and higher risk drivers or vehicles will result in higher insurance premiums. For pollution, I am not aware of anything currently, but it'd be reasonable to treat that similarly (probably as a tax that funds treatment of pollution-caused health issues rather than insurance, since the harms are more distributed). > If they have an accident and kill someone, should that be punished more harshly than regular since they chose to pick a more dangerous form of transport? If the vehicle is not street legal, yes. If the vehicle is street legal, and the driver was insured, and otherwise not negligent, then no. Perhaps the vehicle should't be street legal, and in that case the laws should be changed moving forward (but penalties should not be applied retroactively). Incidentally, in the US, the Department of Transportation seems better than usual for government agencies in actually doing a cost-benefit analysis where they show their work with actual numbers: see https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/2016%20Revised%20Value%20of%20a%20Statistical%20Life%20Guidance.pdf https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/2016...

iancmceachern 4y ago

Replying to the other sibling comment here about paying for its cost. Vehicles in the US are taxed mainly by taking the gas that goes into them, the more gas (diesel) they use the more taxes they're paying, so it works out as the commenter hoped, if you have a bigger more thirsty vehicle you pay more taxes to maintain things like roads and infrastructure.

0xfaded 4y ago
A) gas taxes only cover about 30% of the cost of the roads. B) the wear on the road is a fourth order funtion of weight. It would be fantastic if taxes were also proportional.