Comment on Stop the free ride: all motorists should pay their way, whatever vehicle they drive
HalfEarthMedic@slrpnk.net 1 week ago
Relevant to our recent exchange, @Zagorath, this helped clarify my thoughts on the topic.
Comment on Stop the free ride: all motorists should pay their way, whatever vehicle they drive
HalfEarthMedic@slrpnk.net 1 week ago
Relevant to our recent exchange, @Zagorath, this helped clarify my thoughts on the topic.
Zagorath@aussie.zone 6 days ago
Thanks for sharing!
I thought this line from the conclusion was particularly interesting:
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.
r_deckard@lemmy.world 6 days ago
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.
Zagorath@aussie.zone 5 days ago
Absolutely fucking terrible idea.
From the driver. When bikes and cars collide, the driver is basically always responsible, so they’re the ones who pay.
Cyclists don’t create a cost. More cyclists is literally a net positive economically, the exact opposite of car drivers. Cyclists cause negligible wear and tear on the roads, even once you account for the risk of crashes (which is actually a car’s fault anyway), they’re a lower burden on public healthcare, and they’re more likely to be spending money at local businesses.
Literally everything about encouraging more people to ride rather than drive is positive. And by extension, putting up any barriers is a terrible idea. Even a “nominal amount” would deter huge numbers of people from cycling. And that’s not the effect we want.
r_deckard@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Found the cyclist.
Why shouldn’t every road user pay a share of the cost? Even the perception of some people not paying a share creates bad feeling and negative attitudes. Wear and tear aren’t the only costs to maintenance. There’s running costs like street lighting, traffic lights - and don’t cyclists always pay attention to those? I see just as many cyclists breaking road rules as car drivers. Breeze through a stop sign? Sure, I’m a cyclist, it doesn’t apply to me. Ride single file? Fuck off, we’ll ride three abreast and screw traffic flow. Get off your high horse. If cyclists stood to lose their registration through fines, they might behave a bit better.
Fault in accidents is not based on “the driver is basically always responsible”, but by established principles of evidence and wtinesses. Thank fuck. I’m aware of this principle thank you very much, I ride a motorcycle and I’m well aware of the selective vision of car drivers.
Zagorath@aussie.zone 5 days ago
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.
r_deckard@lemmy.world 3 days ago
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?