|
| ▲ | isqueiros an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| Vehicle tax in the Netherlands is already weight-based. This is why the tax rate for EVs is higher than gas cars. The thing is that if you live in Hilversum and are able to import a car from the US, you don't mind the higher tax to begin with |
| |
| ▲ | lukan 22 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | "The thing is that if you live in Hilversum and are able to import a car from the US, you don't mind the higher tax to begin with" That can be fixed. Starting with removing business tax exemptions for such cars. | |
| ▲ | CalRobert an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is why they’re registered as business vehicles. Also the roads aren’t tolled, oddly. | |
| ▲ | mothballed an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | No tax I've seen is anywhere remotely close to following "fourth power law" on axle weight[]. And especially so for gas taxes, as the gas/diesel cost tends to be closer to linear with weight. Usually what happens is smaller cars subsidize everyone else due to paying a disproportionate tax vs axle weight^~(2-4 depending on fatigue pathway). Depending on tax structure possibly pedestrians/cyclists too but they are usually parasitic on tax basis. [] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law | | |
| ▲ | mavhc 10 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Agreed, tax based on damage to road, and then tax fuel the amount it costs to clean up the pollution the fuel causes, and then use the money to clean up the pollution it causes. Then who cares if you fly your private jet, or giant car, you just pay for it. Side effects include: reduced pollution, and cheaper ways to clean up pollution |
|
|
|
| ▲ | sdeframond 5 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I share your feeling. However > pay whatever the market rate would only work if there is a market. And infrastructures like roads are a natural monopoly[0], so there could be no market. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly |
|
| ▲ | kalleboo an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Part of me has also been thinking "let people drive their imported huge trucks but with the understanding that if they kill someone in an accident its not just an accident, its a murder charge for willingly driving such a dangerous vehicle on public roads". |
| |
| ▲ | wasmitnetzen an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm not sure the type of person who imports such a vehicle would have the appropriate amount of foresight to let such a law affect their behaviour. | | |
| ▲ | mothballed 14 minutes ago | parent [-] | | What amount of foresight allows one to endanger their own children more for some completely hypothetical 3rd party? Driving around a big SUV/truck is usually safer for your own children travelling inside. Since the public has basically gifted me a gigantic subsidy, society invited me to play prisoner's dillema and protect my own kids at the cost of everyone else. Until I had kids I rode a motorcycle full-time as I had no one under me and I could take additional risks for environmental concerns. After I had a children I bought a McTank because basically my kid will be protected and the loss is socialized to everyone else. However, if public stops subsidizing me I would go back to a small efficient car. Because then I would save so much money it would go back to my kids being better off as it would be enough difference to be made up for in better education, healthcare, etc. |
| |
| ▲ | 2muchcoffeeman 7 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That’s putting unnecessary burden on the victim. If you want a silly huge car you should pay silly huge fees for it. You must compensate the public for your nuisance vehicle. | |
| ▲ | master-lincoln an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | You could argue this for any car as moving such a heavy object at such speeds close to people is inherently high risk. | | |
| ▲ | kalleboo an hour ago | parent [-] | | Yeah there are always levels of risk we as a society have chosen to allow. My thinking was along the lines of how to self-regulate these imports of cars that do not follow the common safety standards our society has chosen if they are forced upon us by trade agreements or well-intentioned loopholes. ("murder" is a bit an extreme reaction but the more realistic idea may be to make harsher judgements the more pointlessly large and dangerous the vehicle is) | | |
| ▲ | lukan 20 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Easier might be to just not give exemptions when public safety is the tradeoff? |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | rcxdude an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Doesn't work in France with its huge number of toll roads, and in the UK where fuel duty is the largest single part of the price of fuel, it more than covers the cost of public roads, yet people still drive everywhere in increasingly large vehicles. It's not gonna reduce driving, though I do agree it should not be subsidized. |
| |
| ▲ | Retric 18 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Road damage is exponential with weight, so heavy vehicles are still heavily subsidized in France even if the total revenue is correct. There was an interesting court case where only giving tolls to 18 wheeler was problematic but the equivalent fee for cars would have literally worked out to under 1 cent. | |
| ▲ | citrin_ru an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Public transport (especially trains) is very expensive in the UK. If you already have a car it's cheaper to use car even if you're traveling alone. For two it will be more than 2x cheaper than a train. If trains will be affordable I'm sure more people would use them. As to the size - during relatively good pre-COVID times SUV become popular but not many Brits can afford large vehicles today and on average cars in the UK are much smaller than in the US, I would not say it's a big problem. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | vineyardmike an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| There are many easier ways to effect this social change, if you’re willing to do basic legislation around the vehicle itself. The easiest way to decrease unnecessary oversized vehicles, frankly, is to require them be painted pink and flowery. Many men in America pick big vehicles as they're perceived as masculine, and a basic paint job to attack this psychological would probably work. Less jokingly, add mechanical speed limits to them. Big heavy vehicles are extremely dangerous, but that danger is closely related to speed. Other options include adding excessive cameras and radar equipment, so the front of the vehicle isn’t a blind spot. Cars have plenty of cameras and mirrors already, so it’s not novel to drivers. It’s a missed opportunity already since this could really be implemented by major manufacturers within a year. |
