Slashdot Mirror
China Car-Tracking Scheme Could Allow Higher Fuel Prices For Gas-Guzzling Cars (thestack.com)
An anonymous reader writes: In the southern Chinese city of Shenzhen, traditionally a test-bed for nationwide infrastructure and technology schemes, 200,000 vehicles have been experimentally hooked into a real-time traffic-monitoring system based on RFID and roadside monitoring stations. China's state-owned Aerospace Science and Industry Corp (CASC) claims that such intense monitoring will be necessary for the driverless cars of the future, and to foil license-plate forgeries. On Monday the general manager of Chinese auto manufacturer Great Wall Motor suggested that a monitoring scheme of such scope could also be used to introduce a wide range of usage-based levies, and to easily ensure that less efficient cars could be charged more for fuel at gas stations.
why not use the car's odometer and charge them more at license renewal time?
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
They already pay more for gas. They use more of it.
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
Wouldn't this just end up punishing the poor more than people with big cars? People who do not have a lot of money might not be able to get the most efficient/clean cars, and those who can afford more efficient cars would just pay the fees and keep their nice big car anyway.
For those that aren't aware: the license plate can cost more than the car itself; hence the forgeries.
Life is not for the lazy.
Because driving a gas-guzzler (usually older as the only thing poor folk can afford) isn't punishment enough. It's like winning the lottery: you beat the stratospheric odds and you end up having to pay ridiculously high tax rates on the winnings even for a state-based game. I'm far from a libertarian, but that has always struck me as total bullshit^.
And yes, I'm also terrified of this coming to the US (Oregon is seriously considering real-time monitored mileage-based taxation).
^ - Back when they were first considering the national lotteries, David Brinkley observed: "The mob used to have something similar called the Numbers game. But the odds were better, and you didn't have to pay any taxes on the winnings."
I hope so. This is good for the planet.
Perhaps it should be noted that the Chinese are not actually doing it, or even planning to do so. The proposal to charge inefficient cars more did not come from the government. It came from the boss of a manufacturer of small cars. Basically, he is proposing that his competitors should be taxed more. Chance of this actually being implemented: ~0%.
...there is no constitutionally protected right to possess vehicles in the good US of A.
Yes, there is. It's implied. The constitution doesn't grant rights, it limits the government's power to restrict rights that citizens already have by default. The bill of rights, which include the second amendment's right to keep and bear arms (for example) was originally controversial because it was argued, is it really necessary to explicitly state that the government can't infringe on those rights when it has already been implied elsewhere in the document that the government has no authority to exercise authority in ways not already granted to it (when it comes to restricting rights that citizens have by default)? Also notice that the language used doesn't grant any rights to the people, but confirms that, no, we really mean it, the government has no power to infringe on a right that is inherently possessed by the citizens.
Bullshit. Private ownership of property is a constitutional right. See the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Vehicles are private property in exactly the same way as clothing, electronics, furniture, and everything else.
What isn't a right is driving an automobile on public roads -- but you have the right to drive it on your own private property all you want, license or not.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Yes but the second amendment is total bullshit, it's to keep slaves from escaping. The first is bullshit as well, its only purpose is to enable hate speech. I think you were raised in an earlier age in which Go Go America bullshit was fed to you and you uncritically believed it. You need to get back to university, Grandpa, and get a modern education.
You are scary.
Really, really scary.
Because it's fools like you that enable authoritarianism to exist.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "HATE SPEECH"!!! IF WHAT SOMEONE SAYS HURTS YOUR PRECIOUS FEELINGS, TOUGH FUCKING SHIT. GET OVER IT