Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

If You Want a Car This Heavy, You Should Pay Through the Nose

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 158 posts

Re: If You Want a Car This Heavy, You Should Pay Through the Nose

#111

Post by landemva »

darkteflon wrote: post #100
landemva wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in a town where the "roads" are private property and everyone has an easement to travel on everyone else's piece of what look like roads. Most of town budget goes to "road maintenance". Everyone understands their role, roads are maintained, and if government misbehaves we will chop our taxes and do the roads ourselves. By not owning the "road" property, government is kept in check and are our servants. There a…

Love it - an excellent solution for a local problem. Sounds far more optimal for you guys than having government involvement. I consider that fine evidence that we over-regulate in some areas. I reckon there’s also a lot of evidence that we under-regulate in others. By contrast, I don’t think it’s evidence for a general proposition that any reduction in regulation is a priori a good thing - despite what the Murdoch p…

Yes, it is not so much about government regulation and more about people owning the property and infrastructure. Government ownership of property leads to lack of accountability to the people.

Re: If You Want a Car This Heavy, You Should Pay Through the Nose

#112

Post by mesarvagya »

mmmeff wrote: post #29

F=mv^2 The problem is moreso speed, not mass, when discussing pedestrian fatalities. Better yet, protect pedestrians from getting hit in the first place with better street design for more walkable cities. There are tons of examples of protected bike lanes, pedestrian islands, and more frequent crosswalks with stiffer penalties for blowing through them, regardless of what the vehicle is.

F = m * a

Keeping constant acceleration, compare hummer against corolla. Hummer is going to squash pedestrians.

Re: If You Want a Car This Heavy, You Should Pay Through the Nose

#113

Post by neilv »

sokoloff wrote: post #60
neilv wrote: post #12

Taxes and fees just let the wealthy do whatever they want, while putting the less-wealthy at even further disadvantage. Regulations that say a normal household passenger vehicle can't weigh over X can be made to apply to everyone.

Beware of unintended consequences. Such a policy would tend to work against EVs and PHEVs, which have their own benefits to society.

The exact regulations can be crafted to reduce that risk.

Re: If You Want a Car This Heavy, You Should Pay Through the Nose

#114

Post by bjourne »

margalabargala wrote: post #22
metadat wrote: post #5

At a hefty 3.5T / 7,000 lbs, the Rivians* aren't much lighter than an E-Hummer (4.5T / 9,000 lbs). Isn't road wear non-linear, with heavy vehicles doing disproportionate damage compared to lighter ones? Ever noticed how the trucker lanes on the highway are the first to get potholes? The taxpayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize luxury toys. Let the owners pay a fair amount relative to the strain they're adding to th…

> Isn't road wear non-linear, with heavy vehicles doing disproportionate damage compared to lighter ones? This is correct, and it's why your conclusion is nonsensical. No one is subsidizing luxury toys. The amount of damage done to roads by an e-Hummer or Rivian is mildly above that of, say, a Camry. Both do hundreds of times less damage than an 18-wheeler. The amount of damage done to a road by a passenger sedan is…

Isn't most road damage caused by climate and weather and not vehicles?

Re: If You Want a Car This Heavy, You Should Pay Through the Nose

#115

Post by blamazon »

sokoloff wrote: post #67
blamazon wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, under this political hypothesis, how do you explain the many (popular) toll roads currently in the USA that charge higher prices for heavier vehicles? Does that not constitute acceptance of a similar type of taxation?

The tolls that I’ve seen have usually been by size/vehicle categories, not by weight. In particular, an empty flatbed 18-wheeler (~25k lbs) is usually tolled the same as an 80K lbs 18-wheeler.

Fair enough - by the same token a Miata and a Hummer EV almost always pay same price due to having same number of axles. But I think this is a technological limitation rather than a social one, it's a lot less expensive to count axles than to weigh in motion.

Re: If You Want a Car This Heavy, You Should Pay Through the Nose

#116

Post by c0nducktr »

psunavy03 wrote: post #43
dcan wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the truckers will all go bankrupt I still think the alternative to pay per weight*distance is good - trucks should be last-mile delivery, not the primary source of transportation for goods in North America. Cargo trains are much better in many different dimensions, even more-so if they're electrified (Though, that's an impossibility in this market)

Tell me you've never worked in logistics without telling me you've never worked in logistics.

For all of us who haven't worked in logistics, why not explain what you're talking about instead of being snarky?

Re: If You Want a Car This Heavy, You Should Pay Through the Nose

#118

Post by PM_me_your_math »

crazygringo wrote: post #6
paulpauper wrote: post #3

this is America. any attempt at this sort of taxation is doa, even as far backs as the 70s. It's like " it worked in Norway (or other small, liberal, or collectivist or highly authoritarian country), it can work America too" um un no.

America has income taxes, sales taxes, gasoline taxes, property taxes, corporate taxes, I could go on. And clearly taxes that fund roads are soon going to need to be completely revised, since they can't all come from gas anymore. Whatever the gas tax is replaced/supplemented with, I would be surprised if it doesn't take into account vehicle weight, since the whole point is to fund road maintenance. And remember that…

Yes, the USA has far too many taxes feeding a bloated, corrupt, and wasteful government apparatus that is ever-expanding and insatiable.

Re: If You Want a Car This Heavy, You Should Pay Through the Nose

#119

Post by PM_me_your_math »

darkteflon wrote: post #56
10g1k wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government, at best, and excluding any other criticisms, is a middle man. At the very least, it absorbs money and decreases efficiency. 1) Government taxation model. Tax payer X makes $100. The government takes $40 (excluding for now the additional taxation on every purchase, sale, savings, etc). The government spends $20 of that just to fund itself. The government spends the other $20 on whatever. X has $60, and…

Yep, totally agree that government is both expensive and wasteful. Absolutely no disagreement there. Let’s say we do away with government and regulating companies then, in the interests of efficiency and liberty. What’s the state of play a few years into that experiment, do you reckon?

Bad actors don't make money because you can only rip off people once and never at scale. Ironically, the only actor that can do the aforementioned is the state. It would be funny if it weren't so tragic.

Re: If You Want a Car This Heavy, You Should Pay Through the Nose

#120

Post by magicalhippo »

ghostpepper wrote: post #105
magicalhippo wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here in Norway we do have a weight tax. It's linear for normal cars[1] and paid once, for heavier vehicles it's yearly and quite non-linear[2]. edit: doing a quick fit, it seems to just be quadratic with weight though, while damage goes more like the fourth power as noted in sibling comment. As for miles driven, AFAIK there's nothing direct non-linear there, just some duty and taxes on the fuel. [1]: https://www.skat…

Not sure how far you got in the article but Norway is specifically called out as the country with the best policy the US should mimic to address the problem.

It doesn't seem to mention the non-linear tax on trucks though, from what I could see.

Makes sense given it's an article about regular cars.

Post reply on HN