A new road charge mooted for electric vehicle drivers is based on a fundamental misconception.

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

  • Kenny2999@lemmy.worldEnglish
    11·
    3 days ago

    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.

    • pHr34kY@lemmy.worldEnglish
      13·
      3 days ago

      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.

      • Salvo@aussie.zoneEnglish
        3·
        1 day ago

        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.

        • pHr34kY@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          19 hours ago

          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.

        • pHr34kY@lemmy.worldEnglish
          8·
          3 days ago

          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.