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
This would incentivise cycling and public transport
Well, we’ll just have to tax bicycles, buses and trains etc!
And anyone/anything who has legs. I’m awake to your ‘walking’ and ‘riding a horse’ schemes.
It is funny when revenue raising and incentivising behaviour get mixed. Like when governments become dependent on speeding fine revenue.
Governments have never been dependent on speeding fine revenue. This is a myth perpetuated by people who are indignant that they can’t drive recklessly without consequence.
Do you have a source for that? I don’t mean dependent like the government would collapse without it, but that they have included it in their budget expectations and would very much like to keep it.
Its absurd to think that traffic fines are any substantial part of the budget but here you go, I did 2-3 minutes of research for you.
In the 2023-24 financial year, fines issued from road safety cameras amounted to $473 million. This figure represents a fraction of the overall cost of speed and distracted driving and seatbelt-related crashes. Link
The total state budget is 111.7 billion. Link
ie. Around half of 1%
I used victoria just because when i typed “traffic camera revenue” into DDG it was the second result.
Thanks
I ask this as a non-hoon. I hate reckless driving and have never got a speeding ticket in 25 years of driving.
It would be logical to base road tax also on vehicle weight and the use of studded tires (in addition to CO2 like it is now). However, the weight classes should be devised so that the change only affects the needlessly massive cars. This would be a win-win.
The fuel excise obviously taxed larger vehicles more over the same distance. It totally makes sense to have weight classes.
Oh, and Australia needs a “kei” class, dammit. Nobody’s second car has any business being bigger than that.
The problem with Kei class cars isn’t a problem with the Kei class cars, it is a problem with other vehicles (and Drivers) on the road.
The reason Kei cars are failing ADRs on vehicle collision testing is because the ADRs (and ANCAP) takes into account the GVM 3495kg inadequacy light trucks that are being driven by unprofessional drivers who think that Driver Assistance means self-driving.
A Jimny in a collision with a Commodore or Falcon would have been non-fatal but when a day-drinking soccer mum in a Silverado drives over a Suzuki Swift or cyclist because it didn’t register on her ADAS system, there is carnage.
Fun fact: ANCAP tests to a 1600kg impact. A Silverado doesn’t even have to punch its own weight. Kei cars need to punch double.
For pedestrian safety, they measure impact the knees and head. A Camry would knock you in the knees and you go head-first into the windscreen.
A Silverado? You get slammed in the chest and it passes becuase the whole car is lifted above your knees and your head only touched the ground. Ribs aren’t in the criteria.
2x the weight causes 16x the damage (2⁴)
Yep. This is why I think my 900kg hatchback should cost less to register than a 2500kg roadblimp ute.
I don’t think a quartic tax will scale too well because the impact of a vehicle isn’t just its wear on the road.
However larger cars burn more fuel and release more particulates such as brake dust and microplastics from tyre wear. Backstreets that once could park on both sides without impeding flow are now reduced to a single lane. Turning lanes will now only hold 4 cars instead of 6, and less cars get through per green. They bring more kinetic energy into a collision, and are not as manouverable. They’re less safe to have around by every measure.
If the TAC processed their road stats properly, they’d realise that a kei car won’t kill anyone. People in kei cars will still get killed, but that’s a misattributed stat that should go towards the vehicle that brought the most weight into the collision.
A fair tax would need to be based on size, weight and emissions. They all matter independently.
Isn’t the EV tax effectively just a fuel excise tax for cars that don’t use fuel? I mean, regardless of what this article thinks the fuel excise is described as “a sales tax on fuel that is reinvested into roads”.
As the article points out, the fuel excise tax does not pay for roads, it goes into general revenue and does not collect enough to pay for the damage done by air pollution. The argument is that roads should be paid for by a tax on vehicle weight and distance travelled whether ICE or EV in addition to the fuel excise tax.
That’s what it is presented as. It functions as a disincentive against EVs
Though vehicles overall should be paying enough to pay for their infrastructure, I’d like that to be entirely borne by fossil fuel vehicles to move the balance of vehicles towards the quieter and less polluting
Don’t discriminate against the poor.
The environment is better off with improved public transport rather than EV’s anyhow.
The original vehicle that you don’t need to drive is Mass Transit.
There is no such thing as a safe Self Driving Car.
That make sense.
Also, an hybrid vehicle may pollute more if it’s never recharged and only use gas. Or less if it’s frequently recharged.
So an added benefit of that change would be to get rid of an automatic insentive for hybrid. Taxing gas and fossil fuel is a more direct and efficient insentive. If gas cost more, hybrid owners will recharge more often.
Fuel excise makes sense, the more fuel you use the more you’ve probably driven, the more damage you’ve contributed to the road. How to make it fair for EV users with out invading individual privacy is harder. Like what should a commuter pay compared to a courier who would do far more kms and relies on the road for the business?
It’s going to be unpopular, but as a car lover, I’m happy to pay a carbon tax to keep driving gas guzzlers and have that reinvested into carbon neutrality, whether that’s EV subsidies or something else work a better carbon return
If a commuter and or courrier drive the same distance on the same road with a similar car, they should contribute the same road toll for maintenance.
A courier should be able to deduct the toll from his income, counting it as a business expense. So it’s a bit less of a burden for profesionnals who depend on their vehicle.
There already are mechanisms for this. No need to complicate further.
How do you calculate the road toll?
The article has some suggestions
The payment should be based on a combination of vehicle mass and distance travelled. That’s because damage to roads is overwhelmingly caused by heavy vehicles.
My biggest problem with that is the distance; either the licencing authority has access to our cars position or we self report it. Neither are great options in my opinion
I wondered about this also, FWIW my solution would be self reporting verified at the time of vehicle sale or end of vehicle life. I believe some states require periodic roadworthy checks which would also be an opportunity for verification.
Real time vehicle tracking is obviously unacceptable.
It could be reported each time the car is serviced or at registration time. Seems to happen in the US like that sometimes.
If people misreport it, it would be caught when they try to sell the vehicle. Eg, if I report 5K per year, but actually do 20K, then if I try to sell it in 5 years time, and it shows 25K on the Registration info, but 100K on the odo, then I’m not buying that car lol
But, of course, they’ll go for the “track your car at all times” option. An app that you must operate and sends real time GPS info would be their wet dream. Or they could just take the Maps data you send directly from Apple and Google lol
As an aside, insurance companies would love this too. You were speeding by 3km/h? Your insurance premium has just jumped by 20%.
Good point, I hadn’t thought of a car rego declaration. Servicing seems like not the best idea as it would make life harder for poor people, who might stretch out servicing and would probably do it more if there was an additional cost at that point.
I’m scared that continually tracking your car will be the default option though. Best argument against it is to argue that it would put victims of domestic violence at further risk
Have you heard of toolbooths?
There are variations that require neither self reporting nor tracking cars. Grab a ticket uppon entering the highway. Feed the ticket in the exit booth and pay with cash or credit card. The machine uses the ticket to compute the distance.
Well yeah, but most of my driving is around the suburbs or the small country roads near my house, no complaints I guess, but i wouldn’t be paying my fair share of road use.
Plus to cover the full road network seems like a huge expense. I mean you could fund it using a carbon tax, but I feel like paying for tollboths is not good bang for buck in carbon abatement
Relevant to our recent exchange, @Zagorath, this helped clarify my thoughts on the topic.
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.
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.
So tax cyclists a nominal amount. $10/year.
Absolutely fucking terrible idea.
Where would a cyclist’s compensation come from
From the driver. When bikes and cars collide, the driver is basically always responsible, so they’re the ones who pay.
if they’re using the road, they should share the cost
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.
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.
Ride single file?
Oh, you’re one of those arseholes.
Here’s a suggestion, before making suggestions about road rules, read up on what the rules are currently, and teach yourself about what safe road use looks like.
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.
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?
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.
