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 highe

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...