• GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • taladar@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You could always tax by emissions and weight. EVs are not really the solution to the general car problem anyway. Mass transit is, at least in cities and other densely populated areas.

        • tormeh@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think we agree but I still need to point out: Individual transport will always be a requirement for living in rural areas. The “fuck cars” sentiment only makes sense in cities with more than ~3 million inhabitants.

          • Arbic@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            While I agree with the sentiment on cars in the city, I’d say that it is already viable in much smaller cities. I live in a city with 350k inhabitants and I’m doing quite well without a car.

            • tormeh@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              For sure. But forbidding cars doesn’t make sense until you have several millions of people in a single city.

          • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            What are you smoking lmao, do you seriously think anything below 3 million people is rural?

            rural is when it takes you an hour to reach the nearest grocery store by car.

            • andrai@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s not rural, that’s ultra remote wilderness. Like what place doesn’t have a grocery store in a 100km radius? Some place deep in the Australian outback?

              • 𝒍𝒆𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒏@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Village of ~10k, nearest grocery store is 25min walk, 10min bike, 5min car.

                There are also three smaller stores a 2 min walk away. Europe for reference

                • andrai@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I sincerely doubt there is a a place in Europe outside of maybe remote Scandinavia or Russia where you can’t get to a grocery store after driving for an hour.

    • Anekdoteles@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • ciferecaNinjo@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    “The trend of “autobesity” is forcing car park providers to think of new ways to accommodate larger cars, such as introducing wider bays.”

    That’s the most disgusting part of this. They are adapting the infrastructure to accommodate the child killers when the sensible approach is #fuckBigCars.

    #fuckCars in general.