GPS Tracking & Taxing of Automobiles

[Joe]

Inspired by the Lojack thread in SLAM.

I read somewhere that England is considering using a Global Positioning Satellite System to track motorists, and tax them according to how much they use the roads (and get rid of gas taxes and such). It sounds like a good idea to me, essentially; you can be taxed by how much you drive, and there will be no gas taxes that discriminate against individuals who use automobiles that get less miles per gallon.

Thoughts? Good idea, bad idea?

[Darth Wong]

Inspired by the Lojack thread in SLAM.

I read somewhere that England is considering using a Global Positioning Satellite System to track motorists, and tax them according to how much they use the roads (and get rid of gas taxes and such). It sounds like a good idea to me, essentially; you can be taxed by how much you drive, and there will be no gas taxes that discriminate against individuals who use automobiles that get less miles per gallon.

Thoughts? Good idea, bad idea?

It would also be theoretically quite easy to nab speeders, since it's a simple matter of dividing the distance travelled by the time elapsed.

However, I don't see what's wrong with a gas tax; it's much simpler to administrate, and there is merit to the notion of penalizing people who burn up a huge amount of gas, since they are conspicuous consumers. I should note that my own car has a big V-8 engine in it, and qualifies as a gas guzzler, so I'm not saying this out of self-interest.

[Joe]

However, I don't see what's wrong with a gas tax; it's much simpler to administrate, and there is merit to the notion of penalizing people who burn up a huge amount of gas, since they are conspicuous consumers. I should note that my own car has a big V-8 engine in it, and qualifies as a gas guzzler, so I'm not saying this out of self-interest.

The thing is, there are a lot of people who have to use gas guzzling automobiles to make a living, and they kind of get the shaft in this regard. A gas tax is probably easier to implement with current technology, but if the GPS tech were to become advanced enough that might be different.

[Sea Skimmer]

How about cutting the gas tax and ignoring the GPS idea? It was introduced in the US to pay for highway construction and highway maintenance. However it now funds bus museums so clearly there is a surplus. Or we could just throw that money back into highway upgrades.

Anyway, as Wong pointed out it’s a new way to do something that’s already happening with an added reduced privacy side effect. I'm not seeing the improvement.

[TheDarkling]

It would also be theoretically quite easy to nab speeders, since it's a simple matter of dividing the distance travelled by the time elapsed.

I prefer the current system of speeding along seeing a camera, hitting the brakes and then speeding up again once you are past the camera and if the road markings weren't enough they now have to put yellow strips on the camera to make sure you can see them .

I also imagine the system you are proposing would require a lot of computing power unless done over long stretches, it would only really be practical for motor ways I think.

[MKSheppard]

Thoughts? Good idea, bad idea?

Wow, sounds like something out of a Stalinist system...I cannot wait until
some cute kid gets kidnapped and killed 15 years from now, when implantable
transmitters are cheep. Then we'll all be forced by law to be lojacked
at birth

[TheDarkling]

Thoughts? Good idea, bad idea?

Wow, sounds like something out of a Stalinist system...I cannot wait until
some cute kid gets kidnapped and killed 15 years from now, when implantable
transmitters are cheep. Then we'll all be forced by law to be lojacked
at birth

Go register you displeasure Shep http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=22369

I'm not surprised you think such a system would be evil though you think CCTV cameras in public places means the UK is two steps shy of having thought police.

[Joe]

There is potential for abuse (as there always is), but such a system would not have to be Stalinesque if carried out properly.

[Rubberanvil]

It sounds like a good idea to me, essentially; you can be taxed by how much you drive, and there will be no gas taxes that discriminate against individuals who use automobiles that get less miles per gallon.

Commuters, truckers, taxi drivers, bus drivers, a lot of other people who travel a lot for work and company business, are going to have to bite it hard if that tax is passed.

Slightly off-topic orbiting mass-drivers or lasers set to kill gawkers, rubber-neckers and offending road subjects is worthy project to pay for.

[Wicked Pilot]

The thing is, there are a lot of people who have to use gas guzzling automobiles to make a living, and they kind of get the shaft in this regard.

I wouldn't say that. Heavier gas guzzling trucks and such probably cause more overall damage to highways then lighter cars. Every time I'm passing along side a weight station on the interstate, the road quality suddenly improves. It of course decreases again at the on ramp.

However it now funds bus museums so clearly there is a surplus.

You need not have surplus to have pork.

[Perinquus]

I gather I'm more alarmed than most people at the civil liberties issue of this proposal.

Here's a link to the story about this:

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_pag ... 62,00.html

Note the following quote from the article:

Satellites and computers would track motorists in order to bill them for the specific route they take, Minister of Transport Alistair Darling said to the British weekly.

Would you really want the government keeping track of your every move whenever you go anywhere by car? This is not the same as surveillance cameras in public places - which bothers me not at all - this is tracking the movements of specific individuals who have not committed any sort of offense. I grant you, it is not being done for criminal enforcement issues, but is there really any doubt that it can and eventually will be utilized for that purpose.

I don't wish to engage in slippery slope fallacies here, but there is a well attested historical trend of governments to acrue more and more powers to themselves over time, and these increased powers can only come at the expense of the citizenry. Think of the Roman Republic as just a single example. After the overthrow of the monarchy, Rome became a republic with some representative government, and the rights of the citizens jealously guarded (slaves and non-citizens had it rather harder), and a republic int remained for centuries. Then, during the first century BC (or BCE if you prefer), it became an empire after several decades of crises and civil wars. But the Empire still had a senate with some, albeit little, power, and the rights of citizens were still protected. This was the principate phase, where emperors were careful to maintain at least the appearance of republican institutions, and were careful not to encroach too far on most of the rights of the citizenry, or wield their power too openly. Even the title they wore - princeps (first citizen) - was meant to imply a senator who was "first among equals", rather than what he actually was: a monarch. Despite the fact that this was now a monarchy, Roman citizens still enjoyed a fairly high degree of civil liberties, certainly when compared to other ancient and medieval societies. Then, at the end of the third century, after almost hundred years of constant civil wars and crises, Diocletian brought the Empire into the dominate phase. The emperor was now treated like an oriental monarch. All pretense at this "first among equals" fiction was history. The emperor made no attempt whatever to hide the fact that he was an absolute ruler. It was necessary literally to go down before him on one's belly to have an audience. This was called a "proskynesis" and was maintained as a tradition until the fall of Constantinople in 1453. The powers of the senate were drastically curtailed. The economy was partly under state control, with several industries being Imperial monopolies, and even occupations became hereditary; Imperial permission was required (and seldom given) if you wished to change your career from that of your father's. Imperial control extended into almost every aspect of daily life.

And so, over a period of centuries, the Roman state evolved from one where citizens enjoyed a degree of freedom, not too much less than ours today, into a repressive and totalitarian police state, which, if it was less controlled than Stalin's Russia or Hitler's Germany, is only because they lacked the technological means in ancient times to bring it under that degree of control.

This is, as I said, just a single example. There are plenty of others. I am not aware of even a single example of the reverse being true. Governments do not gradually become less intrusive and people gradually more free. When individual freedom is increased, it is usually (I'm tempted to say always) because the people take strong action to secure their freedoms, most often in response to perceived abuses by their rulers.

This is because it is human nature for those in power to seek to acquire more. But people will seldom stand for having all their rights taken away at once. They can, however, be encroached upon little by little. It's just like the hoary old analogy of the frog and boiling water. Drop the creature in a pot of already boiling water and it will leap out straightaway. Put it in cold water and gradually bring it to the boil, and the unfortunate amphibian will let itself be cooked alive. Numerous measures can be taken that encroach upon our civil liberies, and each time politicians can come up with the most reasonable sounding justifications for doing it. And each time people can be persuaded that it's for the greater good. Such encroachments are often made in the form of emergency powers to answer some crisis or emergency, but when the danger is past, somehow things are never allowed to revert to the status quo ante. But each one can chip away a little more at individual freedom, until one day you find yourself a lot less free than your grandparents were, and forced to abide things that they never would have tolerated.

A plan to put all motorists under constant surveillance is one more chip away at the block, whether it is intended to be or not.

[HemlockGrey]

I wholeheartedly agree with Perinquus. On principle I do not trust the government with more domestic powers than it absolutely needs. The current system works; there is no need to install GPS satillities recording our every movement.