More on Oregon and GPS-tracked Gas Taxes 773
An anonymous reader writes "Wired has an update on Oregon's proposed replacement for their gas tax. Currently two candidates are in development, the first a GPS based system that tracks where a car goes to determine the number of miles driven. The other is a odometer-like device. Both would transmit the data to base stations periodically to determine the tax on a vehicle. There was a previous slashdot article."
Doesn't make sense to me (Score:5, Interesting)
A more important reason is that GPS, which can monitor exactly where a car goes within the state and at what times, eventually could be used to implement different tax rates, according to Whitty.
Followed by:
Whitty said there will be no privacy issues because the machines are being designed to store only the number of miles traveled, not the exact locations visited.
The whole thing sound ludicrous to me. I think people would complain more about getting another bill every month more than raising the gas tax a few cents. I understand that voters have turned down an increase in the tax over the past few years, but this seems like a very stupid way to get around it. Every gas station is going to have to have one of these devices installed. Then the pump will have to be changed so that it will give the user a different price depending on if he has a device or not.
Seems like a high cost plan with lower voter approval to me.
Re:Doesn't make sense to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Doesn't make sense to me (Score:4, Insightful)
Gas guzzlers indeed.
Also, more cars on the road = more gas burned, but not enough to counter inflation combined with better fuel economy for the other classes of vehicles.
Re:Doesn't make sense to me (Score:4, Insightful)
I understand that someone (Kia? Daewoo? Hyundai? One of those) has a V8 SUV which is around $25k. This can only make things worse but it illustrates the stupidity of paying $45k for a truck with a permanent camper shell.
In any case, SUVs get bad gas mileage, worse than modern sports cars. The only vehicles which get worse mileage than SUVs these days are sports trucks like the Lightning. I dunno about the new one but a couple years back the F150 Lightning was THE vehicle with the worst mileage in the US. The second? Ferrari 355. (The Ferrari is a supercar, not just a sports car, and as such is exempt from my statement about efficiency.)
Re:Doesn't make sense to me (Score:3, Insightful)
Plus a gas tax would be paid by visitors driving through Oregon. The GPS mileage tax would not be paid by visitors because their cars won't have the silly GPS trackers. Sounds like they are spending money in order to receive less tax revenue. smart!
Of course, Oregon is the state where it is ILLEGAL to pump your own gas. Their make-work laws require a professional gas station attendant to pump your gas for you.
Re:Doesn't make sense to me (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Doesn't make sense to me (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Doesn't make sense to me (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Doesn't make sense to me (Score:5, Insightful)
That is almost certainly the point. Voters won't raise existing taxes so the way to get them to do that is to propose something they are going to like even less.
This tax makes no sense at all, the cost of retrofitting cars with the GPS systems will be horrendous, remember that they will have to be fraud proofed GPS systems that have yet to be invented, using expensive wireless data connections that probably don't exist in much of the state. Oregon is not California, it is not big enough for state adoption to drive economies of scale.
They will be lucky to get the meters for less than $400 per vehicle. So how long does it take to get that back in taxes? I spend about $35 buying a tank of gas every other week, or about $900 a year. That is for the state, federal tax and the cost of delivering the gas. Say the state tax is $200, that means it will be two years before I pay them the cost of the stupid meter.
When politicians propose something that does not add up they have a hidden agenda. The trick is you give them a choice between your preferred policy and eating broken glass. So Clinton gave the country a choice between tax cuts and 'saving social security' guess who won? The Bush plan is to give the country a choice between continuing deficits and eliminating social security.
People don't like paying taxes, but see what happens if they are told the consequences. We keep being told that the voters are not going to allow the Bush tax cuts to be repealled, lets see what happens when the Baby Boomers are living off social security. The inheritance taxes will be back sooner than you can say 'Enron' - BTW isn't it nice to see Martha Stewart taking the rap for the Enron mess?
So tell your SUV driver that they have a choice of a new tax plus a spy in the cab reporting their movements to John Ashcroft and slightly higher rates for an existing tax and you will get the answer higher taxes. Ask them the question higher taxes or crappy roads and they will say 'oh I'll take the crappy roads so I can use my four wheel drive'.
Re:Doesn't make sense to me (Score:2)
I think the point deals with the inaccuracy of GPS. I guess he's saying if you drive around in a small circle the GPS may not register as many miles whereas if you drive in a straight line it might register more accurately.
Re:Doesn't make sense to me (Score:4, Insightful)
Do they tag gas cans ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Doesn't make sense to me (Score:3, Insightful)
But that could cause head injuries. Fortunately, they aren't attaching them to the top of your head, but to your car.
Re:Doesn't make sense to me (Score:2)
Getting back to #1 though, my point was, if its a small town (Like 1 mile radius) is the system (the GPS one) even going to pick up millage driven. For instance, my wife drives from our driveway to work, and its a mile at most. Will this GPS system be sensitive enough to pick that up? Because if its not, then she could drive around the block day and night, put on 200 miles, and not have ANY tax. That was my point. Or is this new system
Re:Doesn't make sense to me (Score:3, Interesting)
That's just a handheld, inside my car. With an external antenna it could probably be even better.
Re:Doesn't make sense to me (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Doesn't make sense to me (Score:4, Interesting)
Wonder what the new laws and penalties will be that will have to be put in place to 'prevent' this?
That and as another poster mentioned, all the cars will have to have these devices installed, the pumps at the stations will have to be severely modified/replaced....and a whole new section of the government (a new dept?) will have to be formed and paid for to monitor this...and pursure those suspected of hacking their systems...
And finally...sure enough, if there can be potential for abuse in this system...eventually there will be. Privacy could easily be infringed upon in the future as new government gets into power there years from now, that might not be as sensistive to privacy concerns as the ones in power now claim to be. Once everyone has these...not much of a step to require the units to be 'upgraded' to where they can track you better...
Yes (Score:4, Informative)
As the other poster said, you can see which lane you used on the highway. I can tell if I'm in my front or back yard.
Re:Doesn't make sense to me (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Doesn't make sense to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. (Score:5, Insightful)
This needs to be defeated, soundly.
Re:Exactly. (Score:4, Insightful)
Even though I drive a full-sized Chevy pickup that (unfortunately) drinks pretty heavily at the pump, I'd vote for a higher gas tax if its needed. I think that people who drive heavy, inefficient vehicles, which are most detrimental to roads, should pay a higher tax. Those who drive compact, fuel-efficient cars should be rewarded, not only for their lessened impact on the environment but their reduced impact on the road infrastructure.
Truly Dumb Idea - Techno-Overkill. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Doesn't make sense to me (Score:5, Insightful)
point is, if they go with a milage based system, the darn well better take vehicle weight into consideration.
Re:Doesn't make sense to me (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, let's see. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) [apao.org], New Zealand [transit.govt.nz], South Africa [tips.org.za] and the United Kingdom [the-statio...fice.co.uk], for starters.
What does more damage, 167 Volvos or 1 Expedition? Hmm, going to have to say the Volvos...
And according to experts around the world, you'd be wrong.
Re:Doesn't make sense to me (Score:4, Informative)
And according to experts around the world, you'd be wrong.
Actually, when designing a roadway, both of these vehicles would be neglected, as their axle weights will cause an insignificant amout of roadway damage when compared to heavy trucks.
But, if we really wanted to take these vehicles into account...
Ford Expedition - Axle weight: 2634 lbs
Volvo S40/V40 - Axle weight: 1615 lbs
For simplicity, let's round these numbers to make the Expedition heavier (r 3000lbs), and the Volvo lighter (r 1000lbs).
Using the Asphalt Institute's (AASHTO uses AI EALFs) Equivalent Axle Load Factors (EALF, damage caused to an asphalt roadway, compared to that caused by a single 18,000lb axle), we can determine the Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESALs).
1000 lbs - 0.00002 EALF
3000 lbs - 0.00018 EALF
Thus, 167 Volvos would cause 0.00668 ESALs worth of damage (167 Volvos * 2 Axles each * 0.00002 EALF), while the one Expedition would cause 0.00036 ESALs worth (1 Expedition * 2 Axles * 0.00018 EALF).
Thus the age old question is answered, even while skewing the problem against the Expedition, 167 Volvos are more damaging to roadways then a single Expedition. (Concrete roadways will reflect similar, but not the same, damge trends.)
BTW, IAATE (Transportation Engineer).
Re:Doesn't make sense to me (Score:3, Insightful)
However, IANATE.
Re:Doesn't make sense to me (Score:5, Informative)
That's a bit easier in Oregon than you might think. Oregon gas stations are all full service. You do not pump your own gas there. Anywhere in the whole State.
Re:Doesn't make sense to me (Score:4, Funny)
There's an old joke that when a baby is born in Oregon the doctor whispers "no sales tax, no self serve gas" in the newborn's ear before handing the child to the mother.
Re:Doesn't make sense to me (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the whole idea is still insane too. First off to enforce something like that, you'd have to manufacture those devices for what, a million cars? Then you'd have to make sure they were included in all new cars, not to mention tamper proofing, etc. THEN they'd have to have the reading devices installed into all of the gas stations.
I'd also like to know what they plan to do on non-state roads? Yes they do exist, if I own a 20 acre farm, and I drive my truck around it all day, I'm not driving on state roads, but I'd still be taxed for it. Sure, I would have still paid a tax for the gas itself, but who's to say it's not more than before?
It just, I don't know I'm not city planner or anything, but the whole idea just doesn't seem like it's going to make a difference in the amount of tax revenue the state will get. When you consider the cost of putting the system in place, the cost of enforcing it, the public outcry when everyone and their mother has to take their car in to get a device installed. Then you weigh in they'd either have to allow people from outside of the state purchase non-taxed gas, or have two different rates for gas at the gas station, you end up confusing the consumer and causing even more public outcry about the system.
Okay, so sure, maybe after 20 years the system would actually pay off. Let me ask you this, in 20 years do we still want to having gasoline cars as the primary mode of transportation? What about these hydrogen cars GM is promising, and electric cars and hybrid cars. What if in 4 years I can actually drive a car powered completely off of hydrogen I make in my garage? How are they going to tax me then? And enforce it?
Then as they point out, what if the system is wrong? What if it breaks and suddenly I get a 5,000 dollar charge? Granted, that's probably more rare, it's the smaller inconsistancies that scare me the most. What if charges incorrectly every 3rd time, by 20 cents. I wouldn't realize that. Even if it did tell me how many miles it was taxing me for. I'd have to stop and think "Did I really drive that much?" instead of just looking at how much gas I purchased.
Then yes, the whole privacy issues. Sure, their intentions seem pretty good right now, but the path to hell is paved in Gold, or whatever that saying is. I'm sure if a system like that was in place, after 5, maybe 10 years, someone decides, "let's flip a switch so we can start tracking people." What if I live on the border, and device to go to the next state over to fill my gas all the time. Does the state really know down to the meter where it's border is around the entire state using GPS?
This really sounds like a nightmare to me and I'm pretty sure that the test run will fail misteribly, and if it doesn't, the production run of it most definitely will. And whoever attempts to promote, or sign that into law, can kiss their political career goodbye.
This is Crap (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Ticket System Relies on Selective Enforcement (Score:5, Insightful)
So to review: Traffic Tickets are a selectively enforced tax which will die if they're enforced uniformly against the entire population.
Re:Ticket System Relies on Selective Enforcement (Score:3, Interesting)
If 10 people break the law, they goto jail...
If a million people break the law, they change the law.
On a side note, I agree about the low speed limits. They should up the speed limit to 70-75.
Re:This is Crap (Score:3, Informative)
Except GPS is far too inaccurate for this. Say I'm driving on a stacked road (surface street underneath an expressway) how will it know where I am so it can know which speed limit I should be observing. I'd hate to get a ticket for driving 55 on a different plane above a 25.
Oh, that's just the beginning... (Score:5, Funny)
The look on driver's face when whacked with insurance surcharges for all of the above: Priceless
annual inspections (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:annual inspections (Score:2)
Not all states have mandatory annual inspections. I'm not sure of Oregon has them, but I know that Idaho didn't when I was living there.
Re:annual inspections (Score:5, Insightful)
Too easy to cheat (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Too easy to cheat (Score:4, Informative)
The do not. On the Taurus, for example, pulling the whole unit out is no big job. And most chrysler vehicles can have the odometer set to any value you want with a laptop, a DOS program, and a conector.
There's a place 5 blocks from where I live, that's all they do all day. Strange thing, in Canada, it's a weights-and-measures act offense ($50.00 fine, no criminal record), not a criminal code offense. Fucking stooopid uf you ask me.
Re:annual inspections (Score:2)
Won't work because there's no way of verifying how many of the miles were driven on Oregon roads and are thus taxable miles.
And, of course, the solutions proposed in the article don't cover out-of-state drivers.
All in all, I'd say the folks in Oregon need to go back to the drawing board and try to find a plan that works.
Re:annual inspections (Score:2)
You can tell we don't have emissions inspections; just ride a bike a few km down the road and see how you like breathing what's coming out the back of some of these vehicles. GAAHH!
Re:annual inspections (Score:2)
What if I live in Portland, Oregon and spend most of my time driving around Vancouver, Washington?(or any part of Washington, for that matter!)
Should I pay Oregon gas tax on the miles I drive in my car, when I didn't drive the car in Oregon?!
Re:annual inspections (Score:2)
Because it's relatively simple to disconnect the odometer without any evidence of tampering. This usually has the side-effect of not having a speedometer either, but I wouldn't put it past the real offenders to do it.
I'm more in line with most of the other posts. Tax the gasoline consumption only. It provides incentive to purchase more fuel-efficient cars, makes the "hungri
Re:annual inspections (Score:2)
If we say yes to this we say yes to Stalinism.
If this happened in my state... (Score:5, Funny)
What about out of state driving??? (Score:2, Insightful)
Environment (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Environment (Score:2)
Out of state drivers (Score:5, Interesting)
I got an idea ... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's already expensive enough and this will do nothing more than just piss off state residents. Every state is in financial dire straits right now and every state is trying to come up with lame brain ideas on how to keep the beloved status-quo safe.
Time to tighten the belts and do what everyone else on the face of the earth does when the money is less than the year before. Time for cuts in either pay or in the entire employment pool itself. No one is garunteed job security, so why does uncle sam try so damned hard to never fire anyone? Ohhh yeah I forgot ... uncle sam is the only stupid employer to still over pention plans.
Lay um off, change hiring practices, or whatever just quit trying to raise my damned taxes.
Re:I got an idea ... (Score:3, Insightful)
-j
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I got an idea ... (Score:4, Funny)
Not quite. The adolescent tends to stop when he wraps his first two or three cars around trees.
Re:I got an idea ... (Score:3, Funny)
Lay um [sic] off, change hiring practices, or whatever just quit trying to raise my damned taxes.
I think your post proves that we need to raise taxes so we can afford better education...
Re:I got an idea ... (Score:2)
Resulting in corrosive deflation....
No one is garunteed job security, so why does uncle sam try so damned hard to never fire anyone?
Most likely because they'll still be paying them if they lay them off -- via the unemployment line.
uncle sam is the only stupid employer to still over pention plans.
Bear in mind that we're talking state taxes and not federal. We should see, instead, if Oregon has an employee pension plan.
Re:I got an idea ... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm honestly having to think hard to post a response that doesn't sound offensive, but your post really angers me.
Don't like taxes? Fine. Then you should be active in the political arena, and make it happen. Prepare a budget plan where you cut employment and public services...no road maintenance, except for the interstate, the federal goverment pays those. No public schools, because no one will want to become a teacher with the salary you're willing to pay. Increased crime with the cutting o
Rube Goldberg (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Rube Goldberg (Score:2)
A more interesting question is, "How stupid are the taxpayers?" It'll be interesting to see if this gets approved.
What will REALLY happen (Score:5, Insightful)
You WILL face severe jail time for tampering with such devices.
There WILL be mischarges. Some people will be charged for fewer miles than they drove, some for more.
Challenging the "system" will result in being charged with Odometer tampering, as it will be your only evidence against the charges.
Of course, all this assumes they can manage to get all the cars in the state fitted with these devices.
Something tells me the voters of Oregon will be less than happy, and anyone running on a "Stop tracking where I drive" platform will get elected in a landslide.
This whole thing is either political suicide for the people responsible, or a bait and switch so the voters swallow a tax hike without complaining.
Life and Art merge (Score:3, Insightful)
To which the population replies "Thank God."
My question is, if the whole planet now sounds like Ford Prefect is somewhere in the area, where's my electric thumb and my copy of that book with the "Don't Panic" cover?
Here we go again (Score:2)
Besides, getting taxed on gasoline usage is as fair as it gets. Why would anyone then want to change that up for something that's gonna cost us dearly in terms of dollars and privacy?
This plan is akin to promoting ship travel when there are cheaper, fa
Follow the money- plan sponsored by drug companies (Score:2)
Stupid. (Score:3, Insightful)
Why? (Score:2)
What's even crazier is that they don't want to tax gas anymore because efficent vehicles end up paying less tax. Don't those little Toyota Priuses tend to tear up the roads less tha
What is this supposed to accomplish? (Score:5, Interesting)
If you want to reduce emissions and raise tax income, you're simply going to have to raise gas taxes. Tracking drivers like this is not only a potential invasion of privacy (there are other situations in which an odometer reading is significant) but also not infallible, especially if you use the odometer method. It's not like someone isn't going to figure out how to cheat the damn odometer.
Weird (Score:2, Interesting)
The good thing about gas taxes.. (Score:2)
Brilliant! (Score:3, Interesting)
Redundant but... (Score:2)
It's amazing what states do for money nowadays (Score:2)
And have they ever considered the obvious unpopularity of this proposal? People don't want to increase the gas tax for a reason. They're not going to be any more generous about accepting this.
The people who do this are not going to be re-elected -- and deservedly so.
D
Shield yourself from harmful radiation AND save! (Score:3, Interesting)
"This super-absorbant shielding will shield you from those harmful radiowaves, emitted by the super-GPS tracker in your new Oregonian car! Easy to install and saves you gas money! Easy to remove for the state inspection."
If they would just ... (Score:2)
Sounds unecessarially complicated (Score:2)
Exploitation... (Score:2)
I don't know. The taxpayers? The terrorists? The CHILDREN?
Overly complex systems allow people who are willing to properly milk them to do just that, and the more complex they are, the harder the milking is to catch/prevent. Consider the US income tax system an a prime example.
As an Oregonian... (Score:2)
Hah (Score:2)
2. Frequency of sinning goes down due to cost of sin tax.
3. Sin tax revenue thereby goes down.
4. Gov't decides it liked the sin-money.
5. Gov't thinks of new, crazy ways to tax us.
6. Gov't profits.
Moral? Keep on sinning. Protect yourself. If you quit smoking cigarettes, then they'll want to tax your water to make up for the lost tobacco-tax revenue.
Totally ridiculous and stupid (Score:2)
Big Brother (Score:2)
A more important reason is that GPS, which can monitor exactly where a car goes within the state and at what times, eventually could be used to implement different tax rates, according to Whitty.
Just what we all need... Big Brother monitoring our precise movements, day and night, in order to determine how much tax we should pay. Gee, do you think that the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, et al. would access that information? Naw... those guys wouldn't violate our privacy unless it was absolute
Why not just tax gas??? (Score:4, Redundant)
The traditional solution has simply been to raise the [gas] tax rate, but that approach is always unpopular with voters.
Well, and do they suppose voters are going to be overjoyed by not only being charged lots of taxes for driving, but also to have their every move tracked by GPS? The money comes out of their wallet either way.
It's a crying shame (Score:2)
(and I thought not being allowed to pump my own gas was bad...)
Why get rid of gas tax? (Score:2)
It's a great idea. Those with more fuel-efficient cars, which pollute less and damage the roads less pay less. Those that want to live the "high on the hog" life style, using large, inefficient engines in huge, heavy vehicles pay more.
The more you abuse the roads and the ecosystem, the more you pay. I really don't see anything wrong with it. In fact, I'd rather see the gasoline tax raised to at least $2 per gallon. THEN we'd see American car companies bring their motors out of the 1960's, techno
Ooh, conflicting emotions... (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand: heavier vehicles tend to both use more gas and cause more wear and tear on roads than lighter vehicles. Thus, a by-mile tax unfairly charges lighter/more efficient vehicles for usage. It can also be argued that programs to counter the collateral effects of burning gas (for example, clean-air initiatives) need a source of funding, for which the gas tax is a good model.
The cynic in me thinks this is popular because of SUVs, and while the plan has it's merits, it is an irresponsible step towards reversing years of progress made in encouraging people to buy less polluting, more efficient vehicles.
Similiar system for trucks in Switzerland (Score:2, Informative)
Hrshgn
A note about Oregon's voters (Score:2)
Still, this plan is prohibitively expensive in a state that can't feed & school itself. Not to mention how easy it would to hack those boxes or just turn them off. I would have thought they'd start up toll roads instead of some contrived tracking scheme.
Could be interesting, or a disaster (Score:5, Interesting)
To make any sense at all, they'll have to acknowledge that Portland Transportation is VASTLY different than the rest of the state, particularly outside the Willamette Valley. Portland is a city, and has public transportation (not a great system, but it's at least there.) People have alternatives. And it's got a complex city road system.
The rest of the state is mostly rural, with long highway stretches that aren't nearly as expensive to maintain. There aren't bus alternatives most places. Driving 10 miles a day in Baker City is incomparable to driving 10 miles a day in Portland, in terms of impact on the roads.
They allude in the article of having the ability to tell where you are, so charge more for being part of the downtown rush hour vs. on a logging road that sees 10 cars per day. If they use it, they can possibly have the semblance of a fair system. If not, it's business as usual, where the rest of the state pays for things that mostly benefit Portland.
(I grew up in Corvallis. There's real traffic during home OSU games, for the 4th of July fireworks, and when the Jehovah's Witness convention is in town. That's it. And that's the 4th largest city in the State.)
Oregon's in such a financial free-fall right now, though, that anyone that can come through with a way to generate revenue, quickly, will get seriously listened to. So, I wouldn't be surprised to see a badly written new tax fly through without being scrutinzed.
They're taxing the wrong comodity!! (Score:4, Insightful)
GPS Mileage would only tax residents of the State (Score:2, Insightful)
GPS Sheild (Score:5, Funny)
Wrong idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Tracking miles driven by cars is really a solution to figure out road maintenance taxes. For an overall taxe rate per car, the standard odometer can be logged by mechanics at the yearly car checkup and reported to the authorities. No need for exensive computer equipment to do that, just a law to force mechanics to report their findings. If the state wants a better granularity, like who uses the best roads and how much (to know which roads require more maintaining, and to tax users of good roads more), then I guess an onboard GPS would be useful. Otherwise, I reckon it'd be overkill.
The Most Important Issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's put it another way. The people have decided the government already has enough money and refuse to give them more. The government thinking up new and innovative ways to screw citizens out of their hard earned money ignores the basic fact that they were already told no.
No means no, damn it!
Make sure taxes collected for a specific reason are spent for that reason and not put into the general fund. I bet the gasoline tax was implemented to provide the funds to maintain the roads and highways. How much is collected? How much is actually spent on road maintanence? Ask your elected officials to account for the missing money.
Re:The Most Important Issue (Score:5, Insightful)
The government of Oregon has told people that they need more money to pay for public services such as upkeep on roads. They repeatedly offered a fair and balanced gas tax to help make up the difference, but the greedy, short-sighted, freeloading citizens rejected it and yet continued to complain about the state of the roads and other services. This forced the government to come up with crazy, lame-brained schemes that would serve the same purpose in an obfuscated way.
Taxes are what we pay for public service. Don't complain about the lack of services and cheer the tax cuts. (Unless you sincerely believe the money is being spent inefficiently, in which case you have a whole other problem.)
Fuel Economy has Dropped, Not Risen! (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore, removing the gas tax will lower the price of gas, which will encourage more consumption. Which means more trucks and further reductions in average efficiency of vehicles purchased each year. Trucks are heavier, and create more wear per mile driven on the roads when compared to lighter, more fuel-efficient cars.
Why would you create an incentive for people to drive more in heavier vehicles if you are having problems keeping roads repaired? It just makes no sense.
The idea cannot work. So why do they propose it? (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems to me that the GPS idea is part of Oregon government corruption. The idea cannot work for the reasons mentioned at the end of this article: Airplanes are safe, but laws often crash. [hevanet.com] Why are they proposing something that cannot work? Probably someone is using the idea to make money.
For more about problems in the government of Oregon, see this: Complicated methods corrupt Oregon government. [hevanet.com] Basically, people who want to use government to make money have found the perfect way to prevent negative court judgements: The Judiciary in Oregon is not allowed enough money to do its job. Try calling the Oregon Court of Appeals in Oregon on any Friday and you will find that they are closed because they don't have enough money to stay open 5 days a week. With a limited Judiciary, those who want corruption can accomplish almost anything.
The corruption uses other methods, some of which are mentioned in the articles.
You have to realize this about Oregon (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes it is illegal in Oregon for the average consumer to pump their own gas, because they might spill a little as opposed to the highly trained pumping engineer that you meet at your gas station every fillup (who loves spilling gas down the side of my car)
Lets see, adding custom hardware into my car (500 dollars) adding a reading mechanism to each pump (500 dollars). Ammount that I pay in gas taxes every year (10K miles, 50/MPG, 200 gallons) probably about $70. So it will take about 10 years for them to even break even (or maybe worse, make me pay for the upfront costs through higher car/gas prices)
Re:Give me the gas tax (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Me no Likey... (Score:2)
Maybe you should find out how GPS works and what the article says before saying things like that.
Re:Love it (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The system isn't broken (Score:3, Insightful)