The Automobile Subsidy
in [Drive]
|
From: hancock4 on 17 Nov 2009 11:12 On Nov 17, 10:56 am, Stephen Sprunk <step...(a)sprunk.org> wrote: > >> 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. In the U.S., I strongly doubt motorists not directly involved in a crash are able to collect damages because of their inconvenience and lost time. In other words, if you're stuck in a jammup for two hours because of a crash up ahead, you have no recourse, you can not go after whoever caused the crash to make up for your lost time. And if you're stuck on a jam on a toll road, you still must pay the full toll.
From: Stephen Sprunk on 17 Nov 2009 12:05 hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > On Nov 17, 10:56 am, Stephen Sprunk <step...(a)sprunk.org> wrote: Please don't remove attribution lines if you're not also removing the related quotes. >>>> 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. > > In the U.S., I strongly doubt motorists not directly involved in a > crash are able to collect damages because of their inconvenience and > lost time. > > In other words, if you're stuck in a jammup for two hours because of a > crash up ahead, you have no recourse, you can not go after whoever > caused the crash to make up for your lost time. AIUI, he was proposing that be possible in the US. > And if you're stuck on a jam on a toll road, you still must pay the > full toll. Yep. You still used the road, regardless of how fast you were going. It's not the _toll authority's_ fault that some idiot lost control of his vehicle, so why should they lose revenue? FWIW, NTTA investigated switching to congestion-based tolls (i.e. the slower you go, the higher the toll), but found that it would be infeasible due to technical difficulties and public resistance, despite the projected improvements in average speed. However, when doing the study they found that the vast majority of congestion was caused by suboptimal ramp designs, merge lanes, etc. and they've been working to fix those problems--paid for with a toll increase. Unfortunately, off-peak drivers (like me) also have to pay more now, even though we get no benefit from the improvements (which only matter at peak). 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
From: gpsman on 17 Nov 2009 12:11 On Nov 17, 10:36 am, hanco...(a)bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > 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 $5? Or > maybe only 26c? Perhaps -you- might estimate that number by examining the disparity of highway costs borne by the different classes of vehicles. That you apparently haven't investigated those figures suggests you are comfortable forming conclusions from ignorance. > NO NEW bureaucracy is needed. Simply raise the existing truck taxes. Which... by what amount... by what measure...? > The big picture would include that other motorists would save money > because trucks would be paying their fair share. Now, motorists are > subsidizing trucks. Non sequitur. Requires taxes on other motorists be reduced. > So sure, we might have to pay a few cents more for groceries, but > would save money on our fuel taxes. Try to get a grip and inject some rationality into your argument. Will you raise taxes on trucks hauling road building materials... cement; cars; gasoline and other petroleum products used to manufacture common goods (like monitor cleaning fluid dispensers), produce and meat, loggers (and paper and furniture)...? Will your tax be proportional to distance and/or weight? ----- - gpsman
From: Jim Yanik on 17 Nov 2009 13:43 Stephen Sprunk <stephen(a)sprunk.org> wrote in news:hduh47$mbq$1(a)news.eternal-september.org: > 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? There aren't that many pedestrians anymore;it's not safe to walk the streets these days.... "forced to wait",OH HEAVENS,that they should be inconvenienced for a short while! How TERRIBLE. >> >>>> 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. maybe,maybe not. Maybe,the current form of transpo IS the most efficient form. (Of course,socialists can always MAKE it less "efficient"...) More likely is that the seller will RAISE prices. Most of the time,those "alternate goods" will not be available closer; not much is manufactured in the US anymore. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com
From: Jim Yanik on 17 Nov 2009 13:46
Stephen Sprunk <stephen(a)sprunk.org> wrote in news:hdul5f$8mn$1(a)news.eternal-september.org: > FWIW, NTTA investigated switching to congestion-based tolls (i.e. the > slower you go, the higher the toll), but found that it would be > infeasible due to technical difficulties and public resistance, despite > the projected improvements in average speed. However, when doing the > study they found that the vast majority of congestion was caused by > suboptimal ramp designs, merge lanes, etc. and they've been working to > fix those problems--paid for with a toll increase. Unfortunately, > off-peak drivers (like me) also have to pay more now, even though we get > no benefit from the improvements (which only matter at peak). > > S > Has this "congestion-based tolls" been implemented anywhere? Any real-world evidence that it actually improves things other than revenue? -- Jim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com |