Leaked Draft Shows What Could Be Coming Down The Line For Auto Safety

[William Maley]

Leaked Draft Shows What Could Be Coming Down The Line For Auto Safety

William Maley - Editor/Reporter - CheersandGears.com

May 6, 2011

Congress is looking at whether to reauthorize the highway bill, which will bring with it a wave of changes . A 500 page draft of a bill was leaked this week on capitol hill and gives some indication of what the Obama Administration and Congress are looking at. One of ideas the bill listed was to form a Surface Transportation Revenue Alternatives Office. The office would "study framework that defines the functionality of a mileage-based user fee system and other systems." This would help provide funding to fix roads. An official from the Obama Administration disowned the proposal.

"This was an early working draft proposal that was never formally circulated within the administration. This is not a bill supported by the administration," said Transportation Department spokeswoman Olivia Alair.

Other ideas in the draft include an increase of the maximum penalties for automakers that fail to recall vehicles (from $15 million to $300 million), giving regulators the ability to require more than two recall notices if the rate of repairs wasn't high enough, and automakers footing the bill for government expenses with the the New Car Assessment Program.

Source: The Detroit News

[loki]

a per mile tax is just like tolls, except it's federal and not local...yes it's simplified, but now who says the private sector couldn't do that, being- maintain roads and charge a toll?

edit: this is also a toll for all non interstate roads, effectively meaning that if you have to pay the feds to drive on those, they are federal roads.

Yay centralization! /sarcasm ...the proposed continued destruction of federalism.

Edited May 7, 2011 by loki

[Croc]

a per mile tax is just like tolls, except it's federal and not local...yes it's simplified, but now who says the private sector couldn't do that, being- maintain roads and charge a toll?

edit: this is also a toll for all non interstate roads, effectively meaning that if you have to pay the feds to drive on those, they are federal roads.

Yay centralization! /sarcasm ...the proposed continued destruction of federalism.

You already have to pay the feds to drive anywhere...including private roads since there's a gas tax and part of it is federal.

[balthazar]

Electric cars pay little to almost zero gas tax, and there's (supposedly) going to be more & more of those...

[SAmadei]

Electric cars pay little to almost zero gas tax, and there's (supposedly) going to be more & more of those...

Which is I'm sure why this is coming up. You already have people being building alternative fueled vehicles getting caught in a web of road tax evasion red tape and trouble.

I'm fine with a usage tax... assuming the gas tax goes away. Have to pay for the roads somehow, but I don't want double taxation for conventional cars.

Problems I foresee here are the Draconian rules that are going to come about in order to ensure these miles are tracked. We already have tons of laws to fight odometer tampering, but odo tampering is not a seriously rampant problem at the present. For many people, its not worth going to jail to save themselves a little depreciation. But in a world where your odometer becomes what is costing you 5 or 10 thousand dollars a year or more? I can see that being a problem.

Are we going to anti-tamper devices everywhere on the car where an odo could be compromised? Are cops going to test your odo on a roadside dyno? Will you be able to use a aftermarket speedo anymore? What if you have a hot rod without such provisions? To my knowledge, its not actually universally illegal to have a broken speedo/odo. What if you put bigger tires on your car? 5% of $10K is $500... maybe the donk guys are ahead of the curve here.

[Camino LS6]

Ugh.

I'm very tired of having my life watched, regulated, reported, managed, classified, etc. by others.

Piss-off and leave me alone!

[Croc]

...and the article clearly said the idea was put out there early on, but is not being pursued. The idea of a mileage-based tax is NOTHING NEW and has been proposed again and again over the last few decades. But hey, why let reason and logic get in the way of a good old-fashioned freakout??

[Drew Dowdell]

Then don't drive on public roads Camino

[Camino LS6]

Not a freakout, just a staking-out of position.

And no, my use of public roads does not justify the government keeping track of my travels.

Far too intrusive.

[loki]

You already have to pay the feds to drive anywhere...including private roads since there's a gas tax and part of it is federal.

not if you run on biodiesel made in your "garage". and actually this would include non-roads. no the gas tax is the power source just like electricity is for almost everything else. you can have a house that doesn't have electricy, and you can have vehicles that don't use roads or gasoline, so it' snot the same.

Electric cars pay little to almost zero gas tax, and there's (supposedly) going to be more & more of those...

indeed

...and the article clearly said the idea was put out there early on, but is not being pursued. The idea of a mileage-based tax is NOTHING NEW and has been proposed again and again over the last few decades. But hey, why let reason and logic get in the way of a good old-fashioned freakout??

and the patriot act was put together long before 9/11... and what did it take to get it into law? this might be alittle harder to justify, but we do have a huge problem on our hands that lots in this country thinks can be solved by more taxes. it's the same mentality/philosophy, which only requires a few things to become law. Camino is right about this, if it has no chance of getting passed, why is it even being talked about? and travel is what this is about, remember the >$600 buys requiring paperwork sent to the gov that was in "obamacare". truly crappy legislation has it's doors to enter through, don't pass this off like it's a non-threat.

[Croc]

[Camino LS6]

Taking a page from the Left, wouldn't such a plan be considered "regressive"?

[Croc]

Taking a page from the Left, wouldn't such a plan be considered "regressive"?

How so?

[Camino LS6]

Taking a page from the Left, wouldn't such a plan be considered "regressive"?

How so?

It would disproportionately affect lower income drivers. Imagine the pizza-delivery guy, or the girl that delivers the morning paper, or the guy with a uniform rental business...

[loki]

If this was going to be done effectively and in a way that does not screw the poor, it would have to indexed based on vehicle weight and miles traveled

Based on this graph, those of us with passenger cars are actually causing a negligible amount of damage and those with heavy trucks are causing the most. Anyone who has lived on a road that has gone from minimal semi tractor traffic to heavy semi tractor traffic knows how much those things beat up roads.

so this would create a DOT/IRS like merger? doesn't that alone frighten everyone? hahah

[Croc]

Taking a page from the Left, wouldn't such a plan be considered "regressive"?

How so?

It would disproportionately affect lower income drivers. Imagine the pizza-delivery guy, or the girl that delivers the morning paper, or the guy with a uniform rental business...

So drive less, carpool more and/or take public transit...things lower income earners already do. You don't have to drive everywhere in a car by yourself. This kind of a user fee system affects drivers, based on how much they "consume" regardless of income.

[Camino LS6]

Taking a page from the Left, wouldn't such a plan be considered "regressive"?

How so?

It would disproportionately affect lower income drivers. Imagine the pizza-delivery guy, or the girl that delivers the morning paper, or the guy with a uniform rental business...

So drive less, carpool more and/or take public transit...things lower income earners already do. You don't have to drive everywhere in a car by yourself. This kind of a user fee system affects drivers, based on how much they "consume" regardless of income.

And does that not confirm the idea's status as "regressive"?

[loki]

So drive less, carpool more and/or take public transit...things lower income earners already do. You don't have to drive everywhere in a car by yourself. This kind of a user fee system affects drivers, based on how much they "consume" regardless of income.

Croc, he gave you examples of people/jobs that can't replace their vehicle with other modes of travel,carpool, or use public transit.

[regfootball]

Taking a page from the Left, wouldn't such a plan be considered "regressive"?

How so?

It would disproportionately affect lower income drivers. Imagine the pizza-delivery guy, or the girl that delivers the morning paper, or the guy with a uniform rental business...

well, pizza places would go out of business. newspapers would continue to go out of business, and people would go naked to work.

[loki]

And does that not confirm the idea's status as "regressive"?

dont' forget that this doesn't include jets, the rich fly everywhere!!!

[Camino LS6]

Olds has been notably quiet on this... I think he knows what I'm up to.

[Intrepidation]

I don't see what the problem is so long as A.) we had this instead of gas taxes and B.) the funding actually went to road maintenance and repairs.

[balthazar]

Sure as hell would hit me hard...

[loki]

I don't see what the problem is so long as A.) we had this instead of gas taxes and B.) the funding actually went to road maintenance and repairs.

but like i stated earlier, this would ....well, actually wouldn't this mean the gov owned your car? use tax...imagine this for anything else....this isn't naivety, this is further destruction of private production ownership.

[Intrepidation]

By that logic the government already owns your car because you pay taxes on gas whenever you fill up, which is required to go anywhere.

[loki]

By that logic the government already owns your car because you pay taxes on gas whenever you fill up, which is required to go anywhere.

no, you pay that for the fuel, not for driving, because otherwise the tax should be for mileage and not the amount of gas bought. this is like the difference between the income tax and a consumption tax. because you earn it, you should pay tax on it compared to because you buy it you should pay tax on it. one is a tax because you drive, the other is a tax because you buy fuel. if the income tax was 100% you'd not keep any income. if the consumption tax(sales tax) was 100% you'd just cut back on consumption, still have means to buy things, where as the income tax would mean you're a slave, because you get no rewards from your production to keep.

the car is a tool. rental companies charge you per mile, or used to, because they owned the car. if the gov does the same thing, it means they own the car, not you. if you pay a toll you're paying for use of the road, not the vehicle you're using to use the road.

too many examples?

property taxes, you can't own the land/house unless you keep up your payments to the state if it has property taxes. paying taxes on the power you use in your house doesn't mean the gov owns your house.

Edited May 8, 2011 by loki

[Croc]

It would disproportionately affect lower income drivers. Imagine the pizza-delivery guy, or the girl that delivers the morning paper, or the guy with a uniform rental business...

So drive less, carpool more and/or take public transit...things lower income earners already do. You don't have to drive everywhere in a car by yourself. This kind of a user fee system affects drivers, based on how much they "consume" regardless of income.

And does that not confirm the idea's status as "regressive"?

It does not.

The regressivity of a particular tax often depends on the propensity of the tax payers to engage in the taxed activity relative to their income. In other words, if the activity being taxed is more likely to be carried out by the poor and less likely to be carried out by the rich, then the tax may be considered regressive.

Edited May 8, 2011 by Croc

[Camino LS6]

It would disproportionately affect lower income drivers. Imagine the pizza-delivery guy, or the girl that delivers the morning paper, or the guy with a uniform rental business...

So drive less, carpool more and/or take public transit...things lower income earners already do. You don't have to drive everywhere in a car by yourself. This kind of a user fee system affects drivers, based on how much they "consume" regardless of income.

And does that not confirm the idea's status as "regressive"?

It does not.

The regressivity of a particular tax often depends on the propensity of the tax payers to engage in the taxed activity relative to their income. In other words, if the activity being taxed is more likely to be carried out by the poor and less likely to be carried out by the rich, then the tax may be considered regressive.

It is my understanding that a disproportionate impact on the poor makes it regressive, this qualifies in that regard.

[Croc]

It does not.

The regressivity of a particular tax often depends on the propensity of the tax payers to engage in the taxed activity relative to their income. In other words, if the activity being taxed is more likely to be carried out by the poor and less likely to be carried out by the rich, then the tax may be considered regressive.

It is my understanding that a disproportionate impact on the poor makes it regressive, this qualifies in that regard.

That's really stretching it, then. By your definition, any tax that does not increase according to income is "regressive." Sorry, but I don't really consider usage taxes to be regressive, especially when there are alternatives to driving. There is nothing in life that says you HAVE to drive, let alone drive by yourself in your own private vehicle. In fact, there isn't even anything that says you have to drive X miles per week! Live closer to work, walk to the grocery store, take transit. There are plenty of options, anyway.

In this case, anyway, since poor people have lower rates of auto ownership, it would appear that this would not be regressive.

Edited May 8, 2011 by Croc

[Camino LS6]

That sounds like a stretch to me.

And, I suspect that the regressive aspect of this proposal is the very reason that the administration was so quick to disavow it.

[smk4565]

Hover cars. Where we're going, we don't need roads.

[Croc]

That sounds like a stretch to me.

And, I suspect that the regressive aspect of this proposal is the very reason that the administration was so quick to disavow it.

Why let facts get in the way of emotions? No, it was likely dropped because of how much of an overhaul it would be, and how complicated all the information-gathering would be. It's a lot easier and more convenient to just tax at the pump instead of trying to track odometers.

[balthazar]

>>"There is nothing in life that says you HAVE to drive, let alone drive by yourself in your own private vehicle. In fact, there isn't even anything that says you have to drive X miles per week! Live closer to work, walk to the grocery store, take transit. There are plenty of options, anyway."<<

There's a monstrous difference between being single & living in someone else's housing... and being in your own house with a family.

The scenarios are far more varied than you appear to be considering.

[Croc]

>>"There is nothing in life that says you HAVE to drive, let alone drive by yourself in your own private vehicle. In fact, there isn't even anything that says you have to drive X miles per week! Live closer to work, walk to the grocery store, take transit. There are plenty of options, anyway."<<

There's a monstrous difference between being single & living in someone else's housing... and being in your own house with a family.

The scenarios are far more varied than you appear to be considering.

No kidding. The thing is, though, that you and Camino seem unable to think of the other perspective...you know, how people get through life without driving. I grew up with a family where one parent was blind and the other was legally blind. No car. Somehow they managed to survive, and their kids thrived.

Ever think of the disabled? Many of them physically cannot drive. Horror of horrors, they must be complete shut-ins, right? No, they find alternative ways of travel.

It really isn't that hard and awful, people.

[loki]

It really isn't that hard and awful, people.

well, then according the supremecy clause some people like to quote, if it's national, every vehicle would have to be taxed, state, federal, local. think of all the money coming out of cities/states for important services like police, firetrucks, ambulances(so hospitals), community "taxis". if they are excluded, that only creates a market for getting a vehicle that will be exempt from this tax...people rushing to get a gov job.

and for people that volunteer to help those in areas where taxis and other options aren't readily available, puts more hardship on them over paying for the gas and regular maintenance costs. this would hurt "charitable" rides for these people, yes?

[Camino LS6]

>>"There is nothing in life that says you HAVE to drive, let alone drive by yourself in your own private vehicle. In fact, there isn't even anything that says you have to drive X miles per week! Live closer to work, walk to the grocery store, take transit. There are plenty of options, anyway."<<

There's a monstrous difference between being single & living in someone else's housing... and being in your own house with a family.

The scenarios are far more varied than you appear to be considering.

No kidding. The thing is, though, that you and Camino seem unable to think of the other perspective...you know, how people get through life without driving. I grew up with a family where one parent was blind and the other was legally blind. No car. Somehow they managed to survive, and their kids thrived.

Ever think of the disabled? Many of them physically cannot drive. Horror of horrors, they must be complete shut-ins, right? No, they find alternative ways of travel.

It really isn't that hard and awful, people.

You are talking tiny numbers here.

America is still a nation on wheels.

[Drew Dowdell]

>>"There is nothing in life that says you HAVE to drive, let alone drive by yourself in your own private vehicle. In fact, there isn't even anything that says you have to drive X miles per week! Live closer to work, walk to the grocery store, take transit. There are plenty of options, anyway."<<

There's a monstrous difference between being single & living in someone else's housing... and being in your own house with a family.

The scenarios are far more varied than you appear to be considering.

No kidding. The thing is, though, that you and Camino seem unable to think of the other perspective...you know, how people get through life without driving. I grew up with a family where one parent was blind and the other was legally blind. No car. Somehow they managed to survive, and their kids thrived.

Ever think of the disabled? Many of them physically cannot drive. Horror of horrors, they must be complete shut-ins, right? No, they find alternative ways of travel.

It really isn't that hard and awful, people.

You are talking tiny numbers here.

America is still a nation on wheels.

there is ZERO reason those wheels can't be steel for more people going forward..... except F.U.D.

[Camino LS6]

That's a whole new topic, Olds...

[Croc]

>>"There is nothing in life that says you HAVE to drive, let alone drive by yourself in your own private vehicle. In fact, there isn't even anything that says you have to drive X miles per week! Live closer to work, walk to the grocery store, take transit. There are plenty of options, anyway."<<

There's a monstrous difference between being single & living in someone else's housing... and being in your own house with a family.

The scenarios are far more varied than you appear to be considering.

No kidding. The thing is, though, that you and Camino seem unable to think of the other perspective...you know, how people get through life without driving. I grew up with a family where one parent was blind and the other was legally blind. No car. Somehow they managed to survive, and their kids thrived.

Ever think of the disabled? Many of them physically cannot drive. Horror of horrors, they must be complete shut-ins, right? No, they find alternative ways of travel.

It really isn't that hard and awful, people.

You are talking tiny numbers here.

America is still a nation on wheels.

Only in your limited, closed mind.

[Robert Hall]

It really isn't that hard and awful, people.

You are talking tiny numbers here.

America is still a nation on wheels.

And there are the millions in large cities that ride light rail, underground, trains, taxis, all with wheels...

And there are the business people w/ multimodal commutes--car to the airport, plane, taxi or rental car from the airport to a hotel...repeat every week...

Edited May 10, 2011 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[Drew Dowdell]

Olds has been notably quiet on this... I think he knows what I'm up to.

I'm just not paying that much attention to a proposal that 1.) The republicans would never in any way allow and 2.) The Whitehouse said wasn't even included in the debate. It doesn't get much deader than that.

[Camino LS6]

>>"There is nothing in life that says you HAVE to drive, let alone drive by yourself in your own private vehicle. In fact, there isn't even anything that says you have to drive X miles per week! Live closer to work, walk to the grocery store, take transit. There are plenty of options, anyway."<<

There's a monstrous difference between being single & living in someone else's housing... and being in your own house with a family.

The scenarios are far more varied than you appear to be considering.

No kidding. The thing is, though, that you and Camino seem unable to think of the other perspective...you know, how people get through life without driving. I grew up with a family where one parent was blind and the other was legally blind. No car. Somehow they managed to survive, and their kids thrived.

Ever think of the disabled? Many of them physically cannot drive. Horror of horrors, they must be complete shut-ins, right? No, they find alternative ways of travel.

It really isn't that hard and awful, people.

You are talking tiny numbers here.

America is still a nation on wheels.

Only in your limited, closed mind.

My limited ,closed mind?

Really Croc, that's just not called for - nor accurate.

The reality is that this country is built for, and still depends upon, the private automobile.

To say otherwise is to deny reality.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Camino LS6

[Camino LS6]

Olds has been notably quiet on this... I think he knows what I'm up to.

I'm just not paying that much attention to a proposal that 1.) The republicans would never in any way allow and 2.) The Whitehouse said wasn't even included in the debate. It doesn't get much deader than that.

I was just being cryptic, Drew. It was the "regressive" debate that I was referring to in that post.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Camino LS6

[SAmadei]

there is ZERO reason those wheels can't be steel for more people going forward..... except F.U.D.

All fine and dandy... but they aren't going to ever plant all that rail in a place like Jersey without pissing off everybody (NIMBY)... It takes NYC 40 years to get a new subway line put in... and its buried 20-50+ feet below the street.

In South Jersey there are two kinds of people... normal driving ones and unfortunate ones that spend 1/4 of their day waiting for bus transfers to travel the 20 minutes the normal people drive.

[Drew Dowdell]

Olds has been notably quiet on this... I think he knows what I'm up to.

I'm just not paying that much attention to a proposal that 1.) The republicans would never in any way allow and 2.) The Whitehouse said wasn't even included in the debate. It doesn't get much deader than that.

I was just being cryptic, Drew. It was the "regressive" debate that I was referring to in that post.

For that, I direct you towards the Politics forum. It's down the hall on your... uhm.... left.

there is ZERO reason those wheels can't be steel for more people going forward..... except F.U.D.

All fine and dandy... but they aren't going to ever plant all that rail in a place like Jersey without pissing off everybody (NIMBY)... It takes NYC 40 years to get a new subway line put in... and its buried 20-50+ feet below the street.

In South Jersey there are two kinds of people... normal driving ones and unfortunate ones that spend 1/4 of their day waiting for bus transfers to travel the 20 minutes the normal people drive.

it's really a testament to the desolate places Detroit, Philly, and many other industrial cities have become.

[Camino LS6]

Got a laugh out of that one...

[SAmadei]

it's really a testament to the desolate places Detroit, Philly, and many other industrial cities have become.

I wouldn't compare Philly to Detroit... Philly is hardly desolate.

You could have rail, bus... and limos for free in Philly and Detroit and people would continue to flee... the taxes are too high, the winters are too cold, too many jobs have fled and much of the available, affordable properties are albatrosses.

[Drew Dowdell]

much of Philly, outside of the central core, is desolate. It needs a fleet of bulldozers... or an Allied bombing campaign.

My trouble is that I've seen what a walkable city with great housing and efficient public transit can be like... and how people can live in such a place and be car free not because they have to, but because they see no point in owning a car.

and how vibrant, diverse, and most of all free that city is.

[Robert Hall]

much of Philly, outside of the central core, is desolate. It needs a fleet of bulldozers... or an Allied bombing campaign.

My trouble is that I've seen what a walkable city with great housing and efficient public transit can be like... and how people can live in such a place and be car free not because they have to, but because they see no point in owning a car.

and how vibrant, diverse, and most of all free that city is.

And that city is... a European city? Or are you thinking of someplace in the US?

[SAmadei]

much of Philly, outside of the central core, is desolate. It needs a fleet of bulldozers... or an Allied bombing campaign.

Remember, I grew up in the immediate Philly area. While I don't visit Philly much since 2007 or so, there have been points in my life where driving to Phila was a daily event.

Detroit is rotten for 10s of miles and pretty rotten in the core, too.

I can think of a few desolate areas in Phila, southwest/west of the Schuylkill or the northeast... but I don't consider them to be that big... and there is thriving suburbia pushed up pretty close to some of those areas. I wouldn't want to walk the nasty areas, but thats for other reasons. Same reason I don't walk around Camden.

I'd only recommend bulldozing the northeast. I see worse in the Bronx, Queens and Brooklyn.

I think your Pittsburgh bias is showing. ;-) So we'll have to agree to disagree.