That can be fixed. Starting with removing business tax exemptions for such cars.
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.
In the UK the most recent budget allocates £1.6 billion for maintenance. According to statista £13 billion was spent on roads last year.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/298675/united-kingdom-uk...
That’s who in industrial estates you’ll often find concrete roads, instead of tarmac, for lorries making 90 degree turns.
American style trucks might be big, but presumably they’re nowhere near 44 tonnes.
Of course, articulated lorries only drive on major roads; your average residential road gets no lorries, so all the wear is from smaller vehicles.
I believe the typical limit is 40 tons. I don't know if our tons are the same as your tonnes.
The EU countries have limits of 40 Mg or higher (except Albania). Netherlands allows vehicles up to 50 Mg.
Of course this is all for 5+ axle vehicles. A 5-axle 40 Mg big rig is putting a 8 Mg of load on each axle (if it was perfectly distributed).
A Dodge RAM 1500 loaded up has a gross vehicle weight of about 3.27 Mg - about 1.64 Mg/axle. Fourth power law means about 566 loaded RAMs would equal one about 40 Mg 5-axle big rig in terms of road damage.
Side effects include: reduced pollution, and cheaper ways to clean up pollution
Why on earth you would want a pickup truck instead of a van is beyond me. This ain't Oklahoma.
I was skeptical of this being true since fuel duty is notoriously high in the UK, so I did a quick fact check.
Based on the change in 1937 you are "technically" correct, in that none of the motoring taxes are ring fenced for road funds since 1937.
However the opposite is true of what you are implying... income from fuel duty alone is generally around 3 times larger than all road maintenance spending (a fairly steady +25bn/yr [0] Vs -8bn/yr [1] over the last decade).
In other words, although it's officially one big tax pot, motoring taxes pay for road network expenditure more than 3 times over.
This is why they are introducing the per mile EV tax, because fuel duty provided a proportional tax to road use, but EVs skip that and electricity can't be so easily taxed for road use specifically.
TLDR, UK road users pay for far more than the road network.
[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/284323/united-kingdom-hm...
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/533171/annual-road-trans...
Right, but driving has far more externalities than just the cost of the roads. For example:
> Results suggest that each kilometer driven by car incurs an external cost of €0.11, while cycling and walking represent benefits of €0.18 and €0.37 per kilometer. Extrapolated to the total number of passenger kilometers driven, cycled or walked in the European Union, the cost of automobility is about €500 billion per year. Due to positive health effects, cycling is an external benefit worth €24 billion per year and walking €66 billion per year.
From "The Social Cost of Automobility, Cycling and Walking in the European Union", https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09218... (which I heard about from a CityNerd video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp75-46PnMY )
This is interesting, how is this accomplished?
Over here there was some proposal some years ago to move to a per-mile taxation, with higher tax in congested areas. All managed by some kind of GPS device in each car. There was much opposition as people didn't want the government spying on them via this GPS device, so the plan was eventually dropped.
A simpler approach would be to just record the mileage during annual inspections, but hey why make it simple when you can have some public-private grift making zillions on selling these GPS devices and running the infrastructure for them..
Larger vehicles use more fuel; they’re more often diesels which attract a higher tax; and they pay increased registration fees and tolls.
Total tax on diesel fuel is about 71¢ a gallon (about .16€/L). When they fill up their F-350s, which get around 12mpg (20L/100km), they’re paying $21 in road tax, or about 6¢ per mile (.3€/km).
In larger cities, there are often even more tolls/fees like in NYC which are raised whenever they need more money to pay for public transit.
If you want a silly huge car you should pay silly huge fees for it. You must compensate the public for your nuisance vehicle.
("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)
If the average Dodge Ram causes X millimorts of deaths per year (per km? per km on suburban roads?) and every dollar spent on public healthcare (drug interventions? road safety? Fire departments?) saves Y lives, you can increase the tax by X/Y, trust the government to spend the extra revenue in the most effective way, and everyone comes out better off.
It sounds so enlightened to shuffle micromorts around. What good is it to the parents of a child killed by an unsafe vehicle that increased taxes going to healthcare will ensure that 320 elderly people can live 3 months longer?
Because I read comments like that and I don't.
A murder charge for a crime without intent? In the rich west? There just isn't the political will for that. A policy like that is about as serious as luxury space communism.
One of the principles of Libertarianism is equivalent compensation for damages. What is a fair compensation if someone causes death? A life for a life? Code of Hammurabi? Such laws have existed before, but there is indeed no apatite for that in modern times.
So if the government is going to be arbiter of fair compensation, the best it can do is to prevent harm from happening as much as possible. Claim that as a society we did our best to prevent the death, and assign victims and token amount of money. But this also means that not doing everything you can to prevent deaths goes against Liberatarian principles, because you allow for more unfair compensation.
Also, it's very rarely an "accident" with a road traffic collision - that implies that there was no fault involved with the collision and "just one of those things that happens". (I would consider an accident more like a tree suddenly falling or an undiagnosed medical condition).
2. How is this dependent on privatization? Every car is registered. So it seems pretty easy to enforce taxes on cars. And to do so based on model, weight, whatever you want.
In other words, from what I can tell, making people pay their fair share seems simpler in a public system, if anything. It certainly doesn't require privatization.
FWIW I have little skin in the game, as I said, not a driver, so I would probably benefit both by having to pay less tax and by reducing overall car usage.
> 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.
What’s the total cost of all road maintenance vs amount spent on groceries? How about vs all groceries plus all home goods?
You would have to basically subsidise everything.
Which is another reason why freight should be delivered by rail. Yet haulage companies have no incentive to maintain an efficient rail network, when they could exploit a subsidised road network instead.
I've also connected my private roads to a couple other private roads so no one has a monopoly on my way to town.
As for the "barriers to entry" mentioned in that article, is absolutely wild. My road and most the ones in our grid network were made with little more than a dude and a tractor (I think you can get suitable one for $10k off craigslist). I initially made mine with an axe, a light truck, and a rope (to rip out small trees) and there's nothing stopping anyone adjacent from doing the same if I'd block the road.
The second that road gets defunded by the public coffers, guy with tractor would show back up.
They are unpopular since they effectively require a very small private association to maintain them. They really hurt property values (one reason I bought my place at a bargain price). Most jurisdictions try to prevent creating them because they lead to disputes between neighbours, or poorly maintained private roads become a problem when an emergency vehicle needs to get down one.
The budget for local roads is also quite small, since they don’t carry much truck traffic. My township of 5,000 people or so has 3 part time guys who maintain the roads and a few pickup trucks and a dump truck for hauling the asphalt. That’s it.
The most expensive part of road maintenance is replacing bridges.
[1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6781339100e3d...
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.
The state also sends a certain amount of fuel taxes to local governments in accordance with how many miles are travelled in an area.
New construction must privately pay to build the roads and then transfer ownership to the government. So the cost really is private. By far the most expensive part of maintaining roads is replacing bridges. Hence why so many bridges have rules about weight limits for trucks.
I suppose if you really wanted a user fee on roads you could have a system of tolls on bridges, intersections and interchanges, but that would be really unpopular.
If there is only one thing you take away from this discussion I hope it is:
Roadbuilding is fantastically, stupefyinlgy expensive. One can hardly believe just how expensive a safe, standards-based, high quality, durable stretch of asphalt is.
You know how you drive somewhere and then there are some cones set up and a lane of traffic is blocked off while two or three machines and a handful of guys repave a short section and then 20 seconds later the cones end and you're back up to full speed ? You just drove past millions of dollars of budget.
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.
As far as a speed limit… what governed speed are you proposing? Being in a pickup pulling a trailer already makes you a cop magnet, and I never go even 1 MPH over the limit. It’s already expensive enough fuel economy wise and they aren’t exactly vehicles with fast acceleration.
Incidentally of people I know who have died in vehicle accidents recently (last 5 years) all of them were because they got hit by a large commercial truck (typically 35 tonnes). One died when he crashed his motorcycle. That’s it.
They'd quickly find out when they're not being subsidized by the general public and people actually have to pay their way to use their vehicles through tolls to people amortizing their road maintenance costs, that the smaller more pedestrian safe cars are the ones that make sense to operate.