4 ms·

In the U.S. the reason is the Republican party. If we pay an amount to register a vehicle based on weight due to the increased damage it does to the roads then

In the U.S. the reason is the Republican party. If we pay an amount to register a vehicle based on weight due to the increased damage it does to the roads then it will be portrayed as a radical environmentalist plot to get rid of SUVs and trucks. Republicans as love the idea of pay-as-you-use government services except when it comes to infrastructure. For example, it’s OK for a $25 traffic fine to include $100 in court costs but don’t under any circumstance expect one to pay more for gasoline to pay for road maintenance.

dsfyu404ed 3y ago
Your average techie/doctor/lawyer/manager who thinks he needs a 4Runner for his 2-kid household is not going to be dissuaded by hundreds of dollars here or their when their mortgage is thousands a month. You need a huge tax. That huge tax would be punitive on all sorts of "legitimate" activity. If it was a politics thing and not a "everybody who looks into it with any depth decides it's dumb" thing then some state like MD, RI, CT, or MA would have taxed it already. Furthermore, we're talking about "damage" (in sarcasm quotes because expected and normal wear isn't damage in any normal sense of the word) power equation here[1]. So basically everything that isn't a class 6/7/8 truck is inconsequential for a road that has any portion of its traffic made up by those vehicles. Since those trucks basically run the economy someone has to pay for it. There's really little political will to engage in an obvious exercise of "picking who to screw" like that vs an imperfect but fairly fair fuel tax. [1] https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-much-damage-do-heavy-trucks-do-our-roads https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-much-damage-do-heavy-...
- syzarian 3y ago
  You are correct that the desire to subsidize commercial activity plays a role. Republicans may not have power in a state like CT but there is still a desire not to be beat up on an issue that will play well to the masses. For instance, Michelle Obama advocated for better nutrition for school lunch programs. No reasonable person could possibly have seen fault with this but after Fox News attacked her over this it became a dead issue. EDIT: It is definitely not a dumb idea as you suggest. Many counties have sensible policies on this issue and yet they manage to trudge along without much trouble. As I said it is OK to advocate for pay-as-you-use government so long as people like you don’t pay for your negative externalities too often.
Kon-Peki 3y ago
Various places have been doing exactly this for decades and while I'm sure there are plenty of complaints, it's not exactly something you hear about on FOX news. For example: https://ezbuy.chicityclerk.com/faq-vehicle-sticker https://ezbuy.chicityclerk.com/faq-vehicle-sticker Motorbike $50.52 Vehicle with curb weight of 4,500 lbs or less with a payload capacity of 2,499 lbs or less. $95.42 Vehicle with curb weight of 4,501 lbs or more with a payload capacity of 2,499 lbs or less. $151.55 Vehicle, Truck, pickup truck with ... a gross weight of 16,000 lbs or less or with a payload capacity of 2,500 lbs or more. $224.51 Truck or vehicle with a gross weight of 16,001 lbs or more with a payload capacity of 2,500 lbs or more. $505.16 Interestingly, minivans are most commonly the thing that surprise people. The lower trim levels usually qualify for the $95 annual sticker but the upper trim levels just barely cross the threshold and must pay the $151 annual sticker.
- syzarian 3y ago
  I don’t think anywhere in the U.S. taxes for registering vehicles and gas are enough to pay for roads. These charges do not pay the “true” costs of vehicles’ damage to the roads.
  - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
    It's a tricky thing to implement as the road damage is typically quoted as being proportional to the fourth power of axle weight. That means that either the heaviest vehicles would become economically unviable due to the taxation (which I think should be the case) or most consumer vehicles would be too light to make a meaningful taxation contribution.
    - syzarian 3y ago
      A 2000 pound vehicle driven an average of 15000 miles per year does $x of damage to the roads. X is a calculable figure. Tax the vehicle to at least pay $x. If it is in the pennies then tax that amount. That a heavier vehicle does more damage just means calculating the appropriate amount to tax it.
outside1234 3y ago
This is because their campaigns are paid for in large part for by oil and gas companies. These positions they take are sadly rational given this. The solution is campaign finance reform.
__derek__ 3y ago
As a Seattleite, I don't think it's fair to blame Republicans in this case: my city, county, and state are dominated by Democrats who promote Vision Zero[1] yet refuse to do anything about these obscenely large (and growing) vehicles. [1]: https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/safety-first/vision-zero https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs...
- xhkkffbf 3y ago
  Michigan is the home of the US auto industry and that state is filled with politicians from the Democratic party. Ford and GM are making some mighty big vehicles and I'm sure their elected representatives (Democrats) are doing their best to encourage it.
  - __derek__ 3y ago
    Eh, I'm a Michigan native, and I don't think the two situations are similar.
    - xhkkffbf 3y ago
      Where's the disconnect? The OP claimed it was purely a republican move. The reality is that the powerful people in Michigan are Democrats and the state's top tier companies make some of the heaviest cars on the market. If the Democrats wanted to do something about it, they could make the cars illegal and also put some of their citizens out of work.
- syzarian 3y ago
  It’s an issue that Republicans can attack Democrats on. Change is difficult for many people. Political calculations have been made to: 1. Not give an opponent an easy way to attack you that requires the masses to employ nuanced reasoning to understand why that attack is wrong. 2. Say things to your base to keep them voting for you even though you have no intention of implementing those policies.
  - 3y ago

dsfyu404ed 3y ago

Your average techie/doctor/lawyer/manager who thinks he needs a 4Runner for his 2-kid household is not going to be dissuaded by hundreds of dollars here or their when their mortgage is thousands a month. You need a huge tax. That huge tax would be punitive on all sorts of "legitimate" activity. If it was a politics thing and not a "everybody who looks into it with any depth decides it's dumb" thing then some state like MD, RI, CT, or MA would have taxed it already. Furthermore, we're talking about "damage" (in sarcasm quotes because expected and normal wear isn't damage in any normal sense of the word) power equation here[1]. So basically everything that isn't a class 6/7/8 truck is inconsequential for a road that has any portion of its traffic made up by those vehicles. Since those trucks basically run the economy someone has to pay for it. There's really little political will to engage in an obvious exercise of "picking who to screw" like that vs an imperfect but fairly fair fuel tax. [1] https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-much-damage-do-heavy-trucks-do-our-roads https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-much-damage-do-heavy-...

syzarian 3y ago
You are correct that the desire to subsidize commercial activity plays a role. Republicans may not have power in a state like CT but there is still a desire not to be beat up on an issue that will play well to the masses. For instance, Michelle Obama advocated for better nutrition for school lunch programs. No reasonable person could possibly have seen fault with this but after Fox News attacked her over this it became a dead issue. EDIT: It is definitely not a dumb idea as you suggest. Many counties have sensible policies on this issue and yet they manage to trudge along without much trouble. As I said it is OK to advocate for pay-as-you-use government so long as people like you don’t pay for your negative externalities too often.

Kon-Peki 3y ago

Various places have been doing exactly this for decades and while I'm sure there are plenty of complaints, it's not exactly something you hear about on FOX news. For example: https://ezbuy.chicityclerk.com/faq-vehicle-sticker https://ezbuy.chicityclerk.com/faq-vehicle-sticker Motorbike $50.52 Vehicle with curb weight of 4,500 lbs or less with a payload capacity of 2,499 lbs or less. $95.42 Vehicle with curb weight of 4,501 lbs or more with a payload capacity of 2,499 lbs or less. $151.55 Vehicle, Truck, pickup truck with ... a gross weight of 16,000 lbs or less or with a payload capacity of 2,500 lbs or more. $224.51 Truck or vehicle with a gross weight of 16,001 lbs or more with a payload capacity of 2,500 lbs or more. $505.16 Interestingly, minivans are most commonly the thing that surprise people. The lower trim levels usually qualify for the $95 annual sticker but the upper trim levels just barely cross the threshold and must pay the $151 annual sticker.

syzarian 3y ago
I don’t think anywhere in the U.S. taxes for registering vehicles and gas are enough to pay for roads. These charges do not pay the “true” costs of vehicles’ damage to the roads.
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
  It's a tricky thing to implement as the road damage is typically quoted as being proportional to the fourth power of axle weight. That means that either the heaviest vehicles would become economically unviable due to the taxation (which I think should be the case) or most consumer vehicles would be too light to make a meaningful taxation contribution.
  - syzarian 3y ago
    A 2000 pound vehicle driven an average of 15000 miles per year does $x of damage to the roads. X is a calculable figure. Tax the vehicle to at least pay $x. If it is in the pennies then tax that amount. That a heavier vehicle does more damage just means calculating the appropriate amount to tax it.

outside1234 3y ago

This is because their campaigns are paid for in large part for by oil and gas companies. These positions they take are sadly rational given this. The solution is campaign finance reform.

__derek__ 3y ago

As a Seattleite, I don't think it's fair to blame Republicans in this case: my city, county, and state are dominated by Democrats who promote Vision Zero[1] yet refuse to do anything about these obscenely large (and growing) vehicles. [1]: https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/safety-first/vision-zero https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs...

xhkkffbf 3y ago
Michigan is the home of the US auto industry and that state is filled with politicians from the Democratic party. Ford and GM are making some mighty big vehicles and I'm sure their elected representatives (Democrats) are doing their best to encourage it.
- __derek__ 3y ago
  Eh, I'm a Michigan native, and I don't think the two situations are similar.
  - xhkkffbf 3y ago
    Where's the disconnect? The OP claimed it was purely a republican move. The reality is that the powerful people in Michigan are Democrats and the state's top tier companies make some of the heaviest cars on the market. If the Democrats wanted to do something about it, they could make the cars illegal and also put some of their citizens out of work.
syzarian 3y ago
It’s an issue that Republicans can attack Democrats on. Change is difficult for many people. Political calculations have been made to: 1. Not give an opponent an easy way to attack you that requires the masses to employ nuanced reasoning to understand why that attack is wrong. 2. Say things to your base to keep them voting for you even though you have no intention of implementing those policies.
- 3y ago