this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2023
571 points (98.3% liked)

Europe

8484 readers
3 users here now

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe πŸ‡ͺπŸ‡Ί

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, πŸ‡©πŸ‡ͺ ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

  1. Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
  2. No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
  3. No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml 167 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Cars should be taxed based on their potential for road wear, which is calculated approximately by their weight to the fourth power.

Adding such a tax, where every vehicle paya relative to what they do to the road surface they roll on, would instantly make all SUVs unviable. It would also increase the incentives for shipping freight by rail by an incredible amount.

[–] Spzi@lemm.ee 66 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yes please, apply the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polluter_pays_principle

The absence of it's application means you make others pay for the costly decisions of a few, incentivizing and subsidizing damaging behaviour.

The absence also often means wealth transfer from poor to rich, as you need to have some wealth to be able to cause significant 'pollution'.

It makes so much sense. "You want this? Ok, then pay for what it entails, all the consequences." Only then people make informed decisions.

[–] Kage520@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Dude, we are still stuck with half of America thinking more CO2 is good because it's "extra plant food". This policy you suggest would have them countering saying they should pay less for helping to feed the forests with their vehicle's emissions.

It's a great solution, but I don't know how we could get it passed.

[–] Lifebandit666 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Great idea, I hear Aramco is the world's biggest polluter, let's start there.

[–] Llewellyn@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

You can start from several points in parallel.
There's no need to wait for Aramco.

[–] Anekdoteles@feddit.de 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Cars should be taxed based on their potential for road wear, which is calculated approximately by their weight to the fourth power.

Road wear comes from weight and power, so does pollution. Add size to the equation and you can estimate a cars dangerousness. Look only at size and you can see a cars damage to urban spaces. Hence, private vehicles should be taxed based on their size, weight and power. Bonus points for tire width, because tires are a non-recycable environmental problem and super-wide tires add nothing to the world but damage.

[–] Squizzy@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Tyre width relates to grip and handling does it not?

[–] Jaccident@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

That’s relevant to certain rural communities, but I see a lot more wide tyres on suspension lowered BMW with bad chrome jobs.

Feels like the kind of thing that shouldn’t be encouraged for Inner City vehicles, I wonder what the correlation is between these vehicles and the kinds of arsehole tearing up a 20mph at 60mph at 4am.

[–] Anekdoteles@feddit.de 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Ceteris paribus, it mostly does. But that also means, that they can be used to driver faster holding the probability of an accident constant, while raising the severity of damage in case of an accident. Incidents where they would have prevented an accident are likely to be insignificant, while at the same time, more grip is likely to induce more risk-seeking driving, hence resulting in a net-negative to overall safety.

However, keep in mind that super wide tires are never installed for safety reasons anyway, but mostly for cosmetic purposes and the drivers couldn't care less for the risks and damages that come with wider tires. Therefore society has to prohibit it in self-defence.

[–] leaf@feddit.nl 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Dutch cars are taxed on weight, with temporary exceptions for EVs.

[–] GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Does it scale to the fourth power? If yes, colour me impressed.

[–] Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Tesla model S is heavier than my diesel truck. Many EVs probably are

[–] GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

I think it's probably likely that EVs are inherently a little heavier than ICEs, but I don't think it explains all of the weight growth trend of EVs. If we want to make sure that EVs do not become uncompetitive in relation to ICEs under this type of scheme, you could simply give them the first N kilograms off. This makes sure that the property of road wear still gets priced in for relatively heavier EVs, without making them directly uncompetitive.

[–] SquashyO@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You'd need some carve out for electric vehicles, they are super heavy compared to a gas car of the same size. (Assuming you want to encourage electric over gas)

[–] Trihilis@feddit.nl 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

As someone who lives in a country that actually has this system. No. It's a shitty system. It results in old shitty cars that pollute like insanity. Some cars are more economical and safer than some badly built cars with less safety features and those safer cars are actually punished with this system.

You are literally better off buying an old banger that is falling apart and a road hazard than a new car because of our stupid tax system. And the people who drive SUVs here are usually rich and don't care about higher road tax.