this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2025
55 points (96.6% liked)

Australia

4450 readers
230 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
lodion@aussie.zone
Fluid@aussie.zone
bestusername@aussie.zone
eatham@aussie.zone
Nath@aussie.zone
55
Stop the free ride: all motorists should pay their way, whatever vehicle they drive (theconversation.com)
submitted 1 day ago by HalfEarthMedic@slrpnk.net to c/australia@aussie.zone
27 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] HalfEarthMedic@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Relevant to our recent exchange, @Zagorath, this helped clarify my thoughts on the topic.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] r_deckard@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

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 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 1 points 8 hours 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.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 points 8 hours ago

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.