I'll always catch hate for saying this, but the quickest way to get people into small more efficient vehicles is to eliminate public roads and make the fuckers pay whatever the market rate is for their super-sized diesel coal rolling environmental destruction machine to be on a road.
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.
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
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.
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
44 tonnes is not that big. Sweden allows for the insane limit of 64 or 74 tonnes, depending on the road. American trucks are typically smaller than European.
The US limit is typically 80,000 lbs, so 36.29 megagrams (aka "metric" tons).
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.
Would be great if that was the case in the UK. Currently road tax, or Vehicle Excise Duty is related to CO2 emissions. Road upkeep is from general taxation. Road tax was abolished in 1937, I like to remind motorists of this fact when they say "cyclist should pay road tax". Although EVs now have to pay 3p per mile from 2028, which is a big change. Yeah the super-sized vehicles might pay more in fuel tax and have a higher VED rate, but nowhere near enough.
> Road upkeep is from general taxation. Road tax was abolished in 1937
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.
> TLDR, UK road users pay for far more than the road network.
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.
> Although EVs now have to pay 3p per mile from 2028, which is a big change.
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..
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".
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)
Presumably there's some level at which this can be solved in a purely monetary way.
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.
A skilled surgeon can generate millions of negative micromorts per year. Should they get a pass if once a year they push a child off the roof of the hospital? What of the classic example of killing a healthy patient and saving several lives with their organs?
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?
Manslaughter would be more relevant than murder, but it's very rarely used as juries are very forgiving of drivers. Personally, I'd like any careless/dangerous driving charge to make use of a driving test examiner as an expert opinion and to declare whether the driving would be an instant fail on a driving test. Rather than the driving test being used as the minimum required competence for drivers, it often seems to be used as the pinnacle of most drivers' expertise.
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).
Do you wonder why the world is drifting toward populism?
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.
Of course such laws are ridiculous, but it does lead to an interesting thought experiment.
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.
I don't think the idea is to have a market of roads to chose from. It is to make the existing car market more efficient by fixing the externality of other people paying for the damage you do to the roads by your choice of (heavy) vehicule.
Is it true? We, the people, currently pay for roads, we would pay for them in the alternative system - so the total amount of the money we need to pay would not change, only some prices (or taxes) would go down and others would go up. Either we care about having food and we would pay high prices for them (with money we saved elsewhere) or we don't care and we wouldn't pay.
> Heavy semi-trailer trucks disproportionally damage the roads
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.
OK, unaffordable is overstatement but increase in transportation costs will translate to some increase in prices and given that food is already around 25% higher (with some items 50% higher) than before COVID this increase will not be welcomed.
Even though it may change with technological developments, are you aware that EVs are the heaviest vehicles on the market, by somewhere around 140% the weight of ICE vehicle equivalents?
That's weird because there's no public road near me for miles and I can get 90% of the way to "town" without them.
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.
It would work beautifully for the last 10% of my journey. The only reason why there are no private roads for the las 10% is the county tax funds that road, and only a complete and utter moron would build a road when their "competitor" has a price of zero at the point of use. People commonly ask why the public road has a monopoly; it's not that they are a natural monopoly but rather that it's literally impossible to compete with someone with zero costs (tax costs already sunk) so places with public roads have ~no competition.
The second that road gets defunded by the public coffers, guy with tractor would show back up.
Private roads are actually pretty common, found in older suburban development and in rural areas. I live off of one that is about 300m long.
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.
Where I presently live in the U.S., the fuel taxes and registration fees pay both for the roads and produce excess revenue used to pay for public transit.
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.
1. I'm not a driver, much less in a country with toll roads. But is it common to have per-vehicle customized toll prices? I would expect to pay a fixed per-car, per-use fee.
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.
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.
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.
The reason why British people are able to afford large and expensive vehicles is the heavy reliance on credit. 84% of new cars were bought on finance in 2024[1]
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.
You're getting downvoted because good enough quality roads are so cheap that market rate wouldn't really do anything. The government needs to be in the road business so it can stick its thumb on the scale.
"... because good enough quality roads are so cheap ..."
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 roads where I live are paid for with a plate fee of $10 a year for cars and a higher one for trucks.
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.
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.
The danger is not just related to speed, it’s about them being sp large that you can’t physically see the old lady or child walking right in front of it
When I drive a pickup it’s typically for work purposes. I would not care one whit if it had pink flowers and neither would anyone else. If anything it would make it higher visibility.
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.