The Automobile Subsidy
in [Drive]
|
From: rshersh on 16 Nov 2009 19:00 On Nov 14, 11:01 pm, hanco...(a)bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > On Nov 14, 5:53 pm, gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote: > > > Perhaps motorists like being employed and do not share your disdain > > for the contributions of trucking to the economy on which those jobs > > depend. Maybe they don't like waiting for trains at crossings, > > especially at switchyards. Maybe they don't like being stuck behind > > buses. > > What about those motorists and pedestrians who are forced to wait > behind huge trucks blocking streets as they make turns? > > What about those motorists who have to pay for the damage trucks do to > the highways? what you ought to mention is this: what about the one vehicle accident with the idiot truck driver flipping his rig over by driving too fast for a curve or ramp who pays the vehicle drivers for their time delayed when the road is blocked because of the idiot truck driver?
From: Bernd Felsche on 16 Nov 2009 21:46 "rshersh(a)gmail.com" <rshersh(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Nov 14, 11:01=A0pm, hanco...(a)bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >> On Nov 14, 5:53=A0pm, gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote: >> > Perhaps motorists like being employed and do not share your >> > disdain for the contributions of trucking to the economy on >> > which those jobs depend. ... >> What about those motorists and pedestrians who are forced to wait >> behind huge trucks blocking streets as they make turns? >> What about those motorists who have to pay for the damage trucks >> do to the highways? Losing sight of the big picture can be a problem when attributing "who pays". Goods vehicles carry goods. Stuff that is bought and sold. If the vehicles have to pay more to use the roads, then they will pass that increase on in the form of (higher) transport charges. The new bureaucracy that collects the fees from truck operators also needs to be fed. So the charges for the use of the roads will have to be higher than for simply maintaining the roads. It's simply a matter of accepting that the greater good is served by providing the roads for the use of trucks, so that everything doesn't get more expensive; largely due to the creation of a new bureaucracy. A bureaucracy that sucks wealth. >what you ought to mention is this: >what about the one vehicle accident with the idiot truck driver >flipping his rig over by driving too fast for a curve or ramp >who pays the vehicle drivers for their time delayed when the road is >blocked because of the idiot truck driver? In e.g. Germany, the idiot truck driver, should others choose to claim damages. I'm sure that you could do so in other countries where there is still a rule of law. -- /"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Politics is the art of looking for trouble, X against HTML mail | finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly / \ and postings | and applying the wrong remedies - Groucho Marx
From: gpsman on 17 Nov 2009 01:33 On Nov 17, 1:13 am, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Bernd Felsche > <ber...(a)innovative.iinet.net.au> said: > > >>> What about those motorists who have to pay for the damage trucks > >>> do to the highways? > > >Losing sight of the big picture can be a problem when attributing > >"who pays". > > >Goods vehicles carry goods. Stuff that is bought and sold. > >If the vehicles have to pay more to use the roads, then they will > >pass that increase on in the form of (higher) transport charges. > > Or shippers of goods will find more cost-effective shipping methods. I don't think Bernd has yet detected the depth and breadth of your engineering expertise, and I doubt this post of yours is going to help. ----- - gpsman
From: hancock4 on 17 Nov 2009 10:36 On Nov 16, 9:46 pm, Bernd Felsche <ber...(a)innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote: > Goods vehicles carry goods. Stuff that is bought and sold. > If the vehicles have to pay more to use the roads, then they will > pass that increase on in the form of (higher) transport charges. Exactly how much more? Will that 25c piece of candy now cost $5? Or maybe only 26c? > The > new bureaucracy that collects the fees from truck operators also > needs to be fed. So the charges for the use of the roads will have > to be higher than for simply maintaining the roads. NO NEW bureaucracy is needed. Simply raise the existing truck taxes. > It's simply a matter of accepting that the greater good is served by > providing the roads for the use of trucks, so that everything doesn't > get more expensive; largely due to the creation of a new > bureaucracy. A bureaucracy that sucks wealth. That is NOT the "big picture". The big picture would include that other motorists would save money because trucks would be paying their fair share. Now, motorists are subsidizing trucks. So sure, we might have to pay a few cents more for groceries, but would save money on our fuel taxes.
From: Stephen Sprunk on 17 Nov 2009 10:56
Bernd Felsche wrote: > "rshersh(a)gmail.com" <rshersh(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Nov 14, 11:01=A0pm, hanco...(a)bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>> On Nov 14, 5:53=A0pm, gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote: >>>> Perhaps motorists like being employed and do not share your >>>> disdain for the contributions of trucking to the economy on >>>> which those jobs depend. ... > >>> What about those motorists and pedestrians who are forced to wait >>> behind huge trucks blocking streets as they make turns? > >>> What about those motorists who have to pay for the damage trucks >>> do to the highways? > > Losing sight of the big picture can be a problem when attributing > "who pays". > > Goods vehicles carry goods. Stuff that is bought and sold. > If the vehicles have to pay more to use the roads, then they will > pass that increase on in the form of (higher) transport charges. .... or the goods will shift to more efficient forms of transport, or alternate goods will be found that don't need to be transported as far. > The new bureaucracy that collects the fees from truck operators also > needs to be fed. That bureaucracy already exists; raising the existing fees will not meaningfully affect how much it needs to be "fed", except that legal fees for prosecuting evaders might increase a bit. > So the charges for the use of the roads will have to be higher than > for simply maintaining the roads. It already is today, as with anything else government or private industry does. That's not news. The issue is the division of the charges, not how much is collected. >> what about the one vehicle accident with the idiot truck driver >> flipping his rig over by driving too fast for a curve or ramp > >> who pays the vehicle drivers for their time delayed when the road is >> blocked because of the idiot truck driver? > > In e.g. Germany, the idiot truck driver, should others choose to > claim damages. In the US, if there were a civil judgment against the idiot truck driver, he'd either (a) have his insurance pay for it, which will indirectly raise the cost of truck transportation for all goods, or (b) declare bankruptcy. Most truckers are independent contractors, so it's not like they have much in the way of attachable assets to pay off a civil judgment. This is little different from the typical US driver who maintains minimum liability insurance coverage (usually $25k/50k); if he causes an accident that costs someone else a million dollars in medical treatment, he simply declares bankruptcy and it's up to the victim (or the taxpayers) to cover the remainder. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking |