4 ms·
We need a pigouvian tax based on vehicle weight to address the increased deaths due to noise pollution, collisions, and increased wear to roads.
by oatmeal1 2mo ago
We need a pigouvian tax based on vehicle weight to address the increased deaths due to noise pollution, collisions, and increased wear to roads.
- kiddico 2mo agoDeaths from noise pollution?
- inigyou 2mo agoStress, and so on. No individual death would be attributable, only a statistical increase.
- astrospective 2mo agoAir pollution would be easier to quantify brake and tire dust are big urban air pollutants.
- trgn 2mo agoweight is the easiest measure. wear&tear on road, mpg, damage in accident all scale with weight
- avidiax 2mo ago> scale with weight Road damage scales with axle weight to the fourth power (w^4). So if a 500lbs motorcycle is the unit of damage, a 4,000 lbs sedan does 4,096 units of damage (4096x as much), a 6,000 lbs SUV/pickup does 20,736x, a 14,000 lbs delivery van does 614,000x, and the 80,000 lbs US federal limit 5 axle semi-trailer does 90,800,000x the damage of the motorcycle. So probably shipping stuff in trucks doesn't cost enough, and SUVs/pickups should cost 5x for road tax what sedans do.
- TacticalCoder 2mo ago> So probably shipping stuff in trucks doesn't cost enough, and SUVs/pickups should cost 5x for road tax what sedans do. Nope because the numbers you just posted exemplify what every knows: road cars don't even register on the radar compared to semi-trailers. The tax for "road damage" should be approximately zero for cars, any cars, and way more expensive for semis. But people who hate on cars don't want to hear the truth: they're all too happy to take their bicycle to go buy the milk the semis brought to their city.
- oatmeal1 2mo ago> But people who hate on cars don't want to hear the truth A tad heavy on the rhetoric, wouldn't you say?
- inigyou 2mo agoCheck their comment history. With showdead on. Normal talk interspersed with crazy political rants.
- avidiax 2mo agoIt's a bit more complicated than that. There are fixed or per-vehicle costs: * signage, lighting, snow removal, etc. * weather-related wear and tear from freeze/thaw, thermal expansion, etc. * capacity (more lanes needed, driven by passenger vehicles, not trucks) So yeah, semi's should probably be paying $100k/year in road tax based on wear, but that doesn't meant that your car's road tax should be $1/year. There's also a great argument that all the suburbs are not paying enough in property taxes. Those paved roads have high costs to maintain over time, and service just the traffic to/from some large houses. Some have gone so far as to call suburbia a scam, on the basis that it has to perpetually grow to pay for maintenance.
- wolvoleo 2mo ago> But people who hate on cars don't want to hear the truth: they're all too happy to take their bicycle to go buy the milk the semis brought to their city. The truth is it's not all about road damage. In fact I couldn't care less about that because I don't really use those roads anyway. Tax is more about driving behaviour than anything.
- flir 2mo agoWeight and number of miles travelled aren't correlated though. If you go with a fuel tax (more difficult with EVs but not impossible) you get fuel efficiency, weight and miles travelled in one neat bundle.
- fakedang 2mo agoIf you want to encourage EV use and make it the mainstream majority, the last thing you need is to put further obstacles to its use such as an EV miles tax.
- flir 2mo agoYou apply a fuel tax to all vehicles, and an additional sin tax to ICE vehicles. They can still both be applied at the point of refuelling.
- j13n 2mo agoAnd credits or rebates for vehicles with improved safety features? I assume the 18-tonne lorries that move most of the world’s goods would be exempt, too, or would you pass that cost on to consumers? Just make everything a bit more expensive for everyone.
- wolvoleo 2mo agoIn most countries in the EU weight is already a major factor in road tax though some have changed it to emissions. And yes lorries are billed lower for road tax otherwise they couldn't exist.
- oatmeal1 2mo agoSubsidies for using non-car transit would make more sense (health benefits in addition to safety and savings). >I assume the 18-tonne lorries that move most of the world’s goods would be exempt, too, or would you pass that cost on to consumers? Just make everything a bit more expensive for everyone. The demand for large vehicles is inelastic in the short term, but over the long term, more alternatives would be found and the share of the burden to consumers would reduce. Remember also the savings on road maintenance that consumers that pay taxes must pay for.
- aaron695 2mo ago[dead]