HalfEarthMedicAug 17, 2025

Stop the free ride: all motorists should pay their way, whatever vehicle they drive

https://slrpnk.net/post/26189396

Stop the free ride: all motorists should pay their way, whatever vehicle they drive - SLRPNK

A specific road use tax on EVs and hybrids makes no sense. >Given the harms caused by traditional vehicles, society should welcome the decline in fuel excise revenue caused by the transition to EVs – in the same way we should welcome declining revenue from cigarette taxes. >Vehicle registration fees make only a modest contribution to road costs. That’s why all motorists should pay a road-user charge. The payment should be based on a combination of vehicle mass and distance travelled

Show threadHalfEarthMedicAug 17, 2025
Relevant to our recent exchange, @Zagorath, this helped clarify my thoughts on the topic.
@Zagorath - Aussie Zone

Formerly /u/Zagorath on the alien site.

Show threadZagorathAug 17, 2025

Thanks for sharing!

I thought this line from the conclusion was particularly interesting:

Vehicle registration fees make only a modest contribution to road costs. That’s why all motorists should pay a road-user charge.

I’m torn. I do like the idea, in principle. Add a road-use charge to both EVs and ICE vehicles. That helps keep EVs at an economic leg-up over ICE, while also helping address the broader societal costs of cars.

The thing that makes me nervous is that even today, when there’s no such thing as a road use charge and roads are paid for out of general revenue, we frequently see drivers say things like “I have a right to be on the road because I’m paying to use it, and you need to get out of my way” to cyclists. This is both factually and morally wrong, and my concern is that if the factual side of it were made correct, it might be a little harder to immediately shut them down for the bad morals. Not that I think some people arguing in bad faith should be a reason to avoid doing a good thing. It just needs to be accompanied by strong PR around the idea that it’s to help offset the damage cars do to roads, and perhaps also the effects of pollution caused by tyres. And not merely framed purely as a toll for the right to use the roads.

Show threadNot a replicantAug 18, 2025

So tax cyclists a nominal amount. $10/year.

Hang on , though. Tell me - because I don’t know - who pays for cyclist injury compensation? e.g. Car and cyclist collide, cyclist is taken off to hospital where they <sadly> lose a foot. Those who pay the third-party personal injury component of vehicle registration are covered for compensation for that sort of injury. Where would a cyclist’s compensation come from?

And if it comes from the same insurance pool as motorists, why aren’t cyclists contributing?

FWIW I’m the most polite and respectful motorist when it comes to cyclists, but if they’re using the road, they should share the cost. Even a nominal amount would be good. Right now they get to use the road without contributing like other road users.

Show threadZagorath

For clarity: your idea of $10/year as a “nominal” amount is itself patently absurd. That’s an enormous cost, many hundreds of times more than the amount that would be proportional to how much damage they do to the infrastructure, compared to other vehicles.

If you wanted a truly “fair” price, it would be measured in cents, if that. And at that point, the cost to administer the system would far outweigh the revenue brought in.

Aug 18, 2025 at 10:22amWeb
Show threadNot a replicantAug 20, 2025
Okay, make it $50/year to cover the cost of administration, you get a registration plate like every other road user, and you are bound by the rules the rest of us have to follow. Break the rules - and many cyclists break the rules - you can be traced and fined, just like the rest of us. Why should cyclists be exempt? Your other comment still doesn’t cover the cost of compensation when the cyclist is at fault. Cyclist breezes through an intersection and injures a pedestrian - who pays then?
Show threadZagorathAug 20, 2025

Statistically, cyclists break the rules at roughly the same rate as drivers, in even the most unfavourable studies.

But there’s a key difference. When cyclists break the law, it is generally done in the interest of their own safety, because the law is often set up in such a way that following it, for cyclists, actually puts you at more risk. Drivers tend to break the law merely for convenience. And when a cyclist does hit someone, the impacts are much, much less bad than when a car does.

You’re proposing a solution to a problem that does not exist. And which would have far more intense negative side effects, because it would decrease the number of cyclists. That is precisely the opposite of what good policy does.

Not to mention, having plates doesn’t actually work to stop cars breaking the law and deliberately endangering people’s lives all the time. You can send clear video footage to the police and you’ve got maybe a 1 in 10 shot at best that the police actually fine the driver.