Car taxes should be raised...

[DanS]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You mean billion.

I see. You consider children deveolping life long diseases, and premature deaths for adults to be 'monopoly money'.

If it ain't a greenback, it ain't money.

C'mon, a guy has to pre-screen for lame jokes now?

While at the same time, you want to tax people for willingly partaking in your nation's highways.
Very curious.

I would be sympathetic to that view if I didn't believe that the problem could be reduced greatly or eliminated entirely. However, I think the technology is there to reduce or eliminate this enormous cost to society. It's just not that exotic of technology. Computers with the computing power of a couple of desktops. Radar array, laser array, some video cameras, GPS receivers, wi-fi local communications. Maybe some satellite communications in a pinch. 20 years ago, all that stuff was exotic. Now it's not. Nowadays, even economy cars are chock full of computers and sensors that record everything that happens.

[KrazyHorse]

Re: Car taxes should be raised...

Originally posted by DanS
40,000 Americans die and 3 million Americans are injured each year in car crashes. Over the last couple of months, it has occured to me that there is no good reason for this happening. Cars should be taxed in proportion to the death and injury that their use causes to their passengers and others on the road.

Earlier this month, the DARPA Grand Challenge showed that we have technology available now that -- with a lot of integration and development -- makes the prospect of cars driving themselves very believable and short term. It would please me if the taxes were raised and spent in such a way as to encourage development of such cars. If an American's life is worth $200,000, then it would be worth it to spend $8 billion a year in eliminating these deaths and billions more for the injuries.

Discuss.

Negative externalities from driving causing injury and death are already taken care of by mandatory insurance requirements.

[Kuciwalker]

Which is what I said above

[KrazyHorse]

I'm not going to bother reading the rest of the thread when the opening post is so obviously flawed.

[DanS]

Mandatory insurance requirements are not that robust, at least here in the States. Something like $50,000 property/$50,000 life and limb. Depends on the state. Also, sometimes people don't follow the law, although I think that at least some states have really clamped down hard on that.

In any event, I think the power to reduce or eliminate this problem lies with the car manufacturers and specifically with autodriving technology. I would be willing to hear alternatives to a tax scheme.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


According to wiki Ontario has a population of 12 million, which is one twenty-fifth of 300 million.

Made a mistake and factored by beer.

[DanS]

If it offers any consolation, NYE, I believe autodriving would reduce fuel consumption and therefore pollution.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by DanS
I would be sympathetic to that view if I didn't believe that the problem could be reduced greatly or eliminated entirely. However, I think the technology is there to reduce or eliminate this enormous cost to society. It's just not that exotic of technology. Computers with the computing power of a couple of desktops. Radar array, laser array, some video cameras, GPS receivers, wi-fi local communications. Maybe some satellite communications in a pinch. 20 years ago, all that stuff was exotic. Now it's not. Nowadays, even economy cars are chock full of computers and sensors that record everything that happens.

I think the technology for smaller, less polluting autos is readily available today as well. In fact, it is in the show rooms of most major manufacturers.

[KrazyHorse]

Making more fuel-efficient cars would do that better.

The auto-drive car's day will come. Pouring money into the problem right now seems premature.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Made a mistake and factored by beer.

:beer:

[DanS]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Making more fuel-efficient cars would do that better.

The auto-drive car's day will come. Pouring money into the problem right now seems premature.

How do we know when is the right time? The Grand Challenge was a real eye opener to me. It's a small billions solution to a huge billions problem. I guess I imagined there to be a lot of exotic technology required.

Regarding fuel efficiency, I never suggested that it was the primary justification for autodrive, although it is an obvious secondary justification. The other primary justification is the cost of traffic congestion and driving time, which can also be calculated on a napkin with sufficient precision and is truly enormous in our major cities, especially Washington.

[KrazyHorse]

Traffic congestion is indeed a significant draw for autodrive cars.

Another solution for that would be teaching people to ****ing merge properly.

[DanS]

Human nature is human nature. Can't do anything about that.

[KrazyHorse]

If autodrive cars existed and would drive 90+mph on the highway then I would drive home every two weeks.

[DanS]

Pollution.