If Self-Driving Cars Become Effective, Should We Tax Driving?

Death is already taxed, through the imposition of Death Duty [DD] on large estates. If the number of road deaths is to be reduced by introducing autonomous road vehicles, then the revenue stream will reduce, which means that either DD tax rates will rise or the taxation burden will shift onto something else. Like the use of autonomous vehicles...

<...ban on driving...>

Logic error: the whole point of autonomous road vehicles is that individuals can use them without the need for a skills assessment beforehand and a licence to do so on public roads.

Complicated question. My dog bites you, whose responsibility is it for the damage? My robot car hits your dog, whose responsibility is it....depends on the warranty whether it's the manufacturer's or the owners. Can the functioning of the robot car be taxed? By the mile or time like a cab?

The matrix will be in control, you are no longer allowed to smoke, drink beer, screw, have a dog, have termites, have fleas, or drive. We have snowflakes to protect from geniuses that can eat, smoke, drive, and text, all while talking on the police radio on the way to the scene of the accident.

Furthermore, you are no longer allowed to comment back on this because nanny-state will control everything, including your television screen. Now go wipe that mustard off the corner of your lip.

Self-driving vehicles are a MAJOR paradigm shift for everyone and, as such, it is not going to be easy. In the end, we may very well see an additional road tax to help with the transition and to pay for additions to the transportation network to help facilitate the self-driving vehicles.

Conversion of existing roads to toll roads and dedicated self driving lanes will likely be the first thing we will see to help ease road users into self-driving vehicles, reducing anxiety and making it gradually more and more expensive and inconvenient for those with non self-driving vehicles.

In the end self-driving vehicles WILL result in deaths, but they will be a lot, lot safer than driving manually. We as a people will just have to adapt, and as with computers it will likely be easier for the next generation who will grow up with them (making it not such a big leap).

I predict that the benefits to road transport speed increases (which in many congested areas should be massive, as they should greatly reduce gridlock - a primarily human-caused phenomenon) will be one of the major driving forces for public adoption. Convenience and speed will win out over our perceived safety and control issues.

They will be safer as long as they work properly. In other ways much more vulnerable. Enter hackers, taking out a million or more cars at a time via zero-day attacks. It'll happen.

"but they will be a lot, lot safer than driving manually"

On a conventional road in traffic, during commuter hours, with illegals driving who drive like they do in Nigeria or Congo? I seriously doubt it. Road hazards abound, how will the robot react to a cyclist, skateboarder, etc.? Pothole sensors working?

Perhaps we should focus on overhead people movers that hold one or two people.

Engineers love challenges, but sometimes you have to scrutinize the failures.

Obviously these places will be some of the last to adopt a mass self-driving vehicle market (if ever) for obvious reasons. Self-driving vehicles just wouldn't make much economic sense.

No one ever said all vehicles would change over, there will always be some manual drive vehicles in the future.

Perhaps we should focus on overhead people movers that hold one or two people.

Light rail has been investigated but it doesn't make much economic sense unless you are talking about getting around in big cities, and they already have underground trains for that.

I think the roads could be made safer for the sane by installing fore and aft 50 cal machine guns, and maybe one turret 20 mm Hispano cannon for anti-idiot defense driving.

If we could just blow the morons off the highway, kill off a few snowflakes, get rid of the drunks (by firing squad with alcohol flame throwers), or all get much bigger pickup trucks that are totally tricked out (and fully armed for combat), then we could make the world safe for that trip to the convenience store. No more zombies.

I predict autonomous transportation will be limited to buses. I would hate to be a bus driver for a living. Then buses will be on captive tracks (roads), where other vehicles are not allowed.

Autonomous vehicles are already used on the farm (at least until Farmer John gets to the end of the row, then he pushes a couple of buttons, the tractor raises implement, and executes a perfect 180 degree turn, aligned with the next path through the field.

It will not work on Farm to Market roads, as these are never maintained to the high level of uniformity in width and smoothness required for autobots.

Well I would think saving lives would translate to saving money....Less motor vehicle accidents, less repair costs, less hospital bills, less traffic interruption, less car sales, lower insurance premiums (ha like that could ever happen)....If you lower losses you increase revenue by efficiency gains.....so no new taxes!

Simple. If self driving cars are safer, then those leaving their cars/trucks/Hummers at home should see a commensurate REDUCTION in their auto insurance rates.

If you choose to drive, like many of us older soldiers will, we should pay more for increasing risks of causing accidents than those who let HAL do the driving. Our rates will go up, or at least not go down, even though insurance companies, police departments, hospital ERs, etc. will be saving money.

But our roads, highways, and related infrastructure will see an increased use/wear/depreciation that is caused by driverless cars.

So the reduction in insurance rates for those owning driverless cars should go to a road TAX to offset the increased, relative "road load."

In reality, what will happen is that lobbyists (who write the laws for Congress) will enact legislation to increase driverless car passenger rates to cover the added taxes they will pay.

So, at the end of the day, insurance rates for car owners will never drop to a point that will make it less expensive to leave our cars at home and call HAL to pick us up. We will just have to sell the car and be at the mercy of HAL.

The American consumer will lose either way and our highways and bridges will still continue to deteriorate until the taxpayer picks up the tab (again).

In theory, they are 'safer'. But we won't know until they are on the road in substantial numbers. There are plenty of car free campuses where they can be deployed, retirement colonies and colleges.....so both retiree's and students can get drunk/stoned and still get home safely. Ah, what a wonderful world it will be!

As much as it pains me to agree with you, I believe you have zeroed in on human nature on this one. Lyn - 1, James - 1.

If my home computers are any indicator, I would rather tell my dog Billy drive. Or maybe Thomas the cat that can navigate Windows 10.

Oh what a bag of worms we are about to open.

The government stands to lose money from a number of issues here. Driving license revenue gone, less gasoline taxes, as the self drivers will be more fuel efficient than a human, business taxes as towing companies become greatly reduced in numbers, business taxes as body repair shops also diminish in count, and many I haven't even thought of, I'm sure. The government won't stand for that loss - they'll find ways to tax both the self driver and the standard automobile - count on it.

I think an even bigger issue is what will become of NASCAR and the Indy Car series? Can the country stand to lose those mega-millions businesses? I ask you, will you pay to see robot cars competing? If we have no one who is trained to driver, there will be no drivers. I just found another huge loss of taxation for the government.

We will be taxed either way we choose to go.

Why do people take things so literally, there will always be some non self-driving vehicles on the road (at least in the near future).

It makes sense to NOT make all vehicles driverless. Last time I checked most race cars weren't road legal anyway only used as track cars, hence no problem to be exempt in future and have a driver.

Self-driving vehicles are designed to work WITH other driver-controlled vehicles on the road, and for example you are NOT going to destroy the classic car market by making these vehicles illegal to drive on the roads.

hence no problem to be exempt in future and have a driver.

The problem is there aren't going to be any where near as many skilled drivers, when most younger people will be forced into autonomous cars. How many parents are going to run their insurance up to get their offspring into a standard car? You can bet there will be a huge penalty in insurance rates on under 20 and not in an autonomous car. So, without driving skills, where are the race car drivers coming from? Perhaps we import skilled drivers from third world countries? (this assumes Europe and Brazil follow the lead into autonomous cars and that source of skilled drivers ends as well) Don't think that will go too well in the heart of NASCAR country.

But before that happens, there will be a general reduction in interest in a sport when few understand the challenges of driving anymore. The racing era is coming to an end. The majority of drivers in non-autonomous cars will be my generation, which is on the way out of here. Race car drivers tend to be a bit on the younger side.

As far as the "literal" goes, you have to understand I am most always a bit on the facetious / sarcastic side. Don't take things so literally.

Cars and guns are just tools, it is the tools driving them I object to. Cars with guns?

That is almost as good as a smooth gin drink, a good Cuban cigar (or Nicaraguan with Connecticut wrapper), and something wrapped in bacon.

You forgot DWIs. Never made sense to me about driving intoxicated i mean why do bars have parking lots?

Parking lots - well, maybe not in a city, but in a rural location....There are more reasons than getting drunk to go to a bar, at least a good one. The one 1/2 mile up the road has the best food in the county. Now this is in a remote town of 250 people, so most customers come from at least 10 miles away. A bit far to walk. Not sure I'd want to ride 10 miles on my bicycle if intoxicated either. I wouldn't even want to go the 1/2 mile to my house. Of course, I realize my technical riding skills are lacking. Some of the 30 year younger folks I ride with would probably try it. That's also considered DWI, at least in this state.

Yep - DWI's collect a lot of revenue for governments. However, serious enough and they cost governments - prisons don't make money.

Well where else are you gong to leave the horse and wagon? Pubs don't have fields you know. Do you think when the publican says. 'Park out back' he means Australia?

It gives the barflies and lot lizards a place to hang out while waiting for customers?

The correct term is 'Autonomous Vehicles', or AVs.

The fuel is already taxed, no matter whether it's gasoline or diesel pumped by a human or robot, or electricity squirted down the wires.

There are already too many taxes, and too many things in our lives that are double-taxed. I pay gas tax which is supposed to help maintain roads, property taxes that help pay for roads, state and federal income taxes that pay for roads, 'special local option sales taxes' (splost) that pay for roads; I paid a sales tax on my car, a fee for my driver's license, and auto tag fees. I pay disposal fees and recycling fees whenever I get the tires or fluids in my car changed. I pay tolls on some roads I take. There are probably a bunch of other expenses I haven't thought of.

How the h3ll many more taxes should I pay? None, dammit. None.

Don't be too sure!

Donald Trump's plan to privatize America's roads and bridges. - Slate

Donald Trump's infrastructure plan wouldn't actually fix America's ... - Vox

I know I will be flamed, but I'm used to it.

He's "sittin' on top of the swamp".

Gas tax? That is nothing. I have tax gas....just sayin'

I think technology spoiled us to extremes actually. In a matter of million years, man will be back to become fishes again.

Well, at least in the ocean you can float without flicking a limb and drift away so easily.

I've seen that model before on CR4, or at least a dead ringer.

"dead ringer" - no that was a beached sperm whale.

I have to give you a good answer. Some people already are a different kettle of fish entirely.

The merman image is priceless. Probably Bayes secret fantasy.

They'll take my steering wheel from me only when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.

Now why is Joe Public deemed to be an ATM for companies and governments these days. If one uses a horse is it taxable, required to be licensed and does one need a license to operate the horse, or even for that matter a wagon drawn by a horse or horses? Far too much imposed on drivers these days to get into their pockets.

However, the self driving cars just moves the big boys into other areas to dip ones pocket. I don't see driving as being any privilege but a requirement and a right by anyone but self driving cars, trucks will change much for everyone and of course insurance companies will score big time.

Self driving cars may be suitable for large cities in western countries who have a very good transport infrastructure, but by hypothetically speaking, banning vehicles will only over load transport systems, so productivity will suffer as people will spend more time travelling on overcrowded systems.

As for reducing pollution, over the very long term it may help, but considering shipping, aircraft are the major causes of pollution, and far more so than vehicles on roads, then there would be little help

As for potential to reduce road deaths, accidents, pollution, it is just that, potential, but unproven and of course, like water bans, they are utilised by many people, but another scores on what you save as any saving is never uniform across all persons and companies. Personally, I believe all this is a con to benefit the big boys and in all honesty, people these days are gullible and too busy being wrapped up in their own survival.

Reality check: consider how many cars are on roads, 253 million vehicles on the American roads. 33000 Possible deaths. 0.00013%. Pretty good odds. 31.7 Million cars in the UK.

Stats can be adjusted to suit anything, but they should be taken with a pinch of salt. Try driving across Australia with a self driving car. You will be a metal case by the time your reach the Nullabor. No, ban self driving cars and levies and taxes. Get a horse

and wagon and a bicycle and a segeway

I agree statistics can be manipulated, but I suggest that annual deaths per 100,000 population is a better measure of the problem, since road traffic-associated fatalities involve passengers and pedestrians as well as drivers. On this measure the US (10.6 deaths/100,000 per year) is better than the world average (17.4), but far worse than the UK (2.9). If you save lives you keep more people paying taxes.

As yet the safety stats for driverless cars are not available for such large numbers, so we should reserve judgement, but if they prove to be safer then taxing drivers and their cars seems a very reasonable option.

Hey silly doctor! If no one has an accident how are you going to get customers for those bone pins you picked up on Ebay last week for $4.99?

If that is meant to be funny then ha-ha. If that is meant to be serious then I can assure you that the profession of medicine would much rather be healing man of nature's unkindnesses than dealing with the consequences of man's stupidities.

How about teaching man some responsibility for his actions? How about you stop moralizing, and go back to practicing, it seems you are getting rusty, because you sound like a squeaky gate. A lot of doctors seem to be too busy boinking the nurses to practice actual medicine and see patients. Talking about a need for morality -- sheesh. Oh, and that attitude of superiority that a lot of doctors have, that has got to go too. Actually you are all just fortunate people, pampered in your lush lifestyles in this present milieu.

I agree that nature's "unkindnesses" (even though nature has no emotion or intent other than to kill all of us), should be what doctors focus on, and have done to a large extent. I don't want a doctor to preach his version of morality to me, any more than I would want my minister or psychologist to perform open heart surgery on me.

Man's inhumanity to man far outreaches man's stupidity to himself as a leading cause of death in many countries. I don't hear you saying much about that.

BTW - the poke was in jest, until you apparently took it seriously, so now the sheite has hit the fan.

Who's WE, got a Democrat in your pocket? In the case of cigarettes, they taxed because death rates went up. Why would you want to tax driverless cars when they reduce death? The whole question does not make sense.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I wasn't describing a tax on self-driving cars, I was describing a tax on people who wanted to still drive their own cars since that would increase the overall risk on the roads.

Myself, i drive sports cars and motorcycles. I find it fun to handle a machine and would not turn over the driving duty to a computer.

Comes down to paying a tax for the fun of getting somewhere then FINE (<get it) i will pay up.

I too have have had fun with fast cars and motorcycles but one cannot argue that just because we two have been acting in a responsible fashion on the roads then everybody else does. The road accident statistics speak against that. If the statistics for driverless cars indicate they are safer then the government should act to protect its citizens. Either ban human drivers or tax them.

Oh yes, I agree, ban human drivers, in fact, they could ban humans completely and just have robots and robotic cars. It will save so much hassle, and pollution and over population and they can grow and harvest electrons in the open spaces. What a wonderful saving to the world. Cool! But who will make the iDiot, iRon, iCecream,iBeam and iWant? iMac or uPHP001.

You are a sad, bitter old man. I have now replaced any contempt I may have once felt toward you with pity!

That large L on your forehead is not your first initial, really is it?

Lyn, I am roflmao, at your characterizations of me, and your intense phobia of Cheetos. I might eat another bag of them today in your honor.

I'm not in favor of the tax nor the ban. As I said in my OP, I have a hard time trusting a computer to do a better job than me driving. If anything, I agree with what Phys says in this post:

http://cr4.globalspec.com/comment/1190891/Re-If-Self-Driving-Cars-Become-Effective-Should-We-Tax-Driving

Yes, but in this case, it is more fun to shoot at the messenger, and watch him dance!

Don't come to Texas because we see, smell, and can navigate around bull crap without any outside agency required.

Lets hear an AMEN!

Driving is a liberty and in Texas if you attempt to violate a liberty there are enough rednecks with pickups and guns to protect our liberties. My two favorite states are Washington state and Texas. In both you have a right to protect yourself. And both are state free income tax. I wonder if there is a connection?

In reviewing the average perception of Joe Public, it is a great idea to tax driverless cars and stop people driving or owning vehicles. It should really be the reserve of certain privileged few persons and all companies and of course governments to own, operate any moving vehicle that may be propelled on any street anywhere in the world.

Joe Public should really have no rights at all, in fact, he does not need nor deserve any rights, again, reserved for certain few.

The up side is you can convert your garage into a spare room, or workshop. You wont need a drive way so that could be put to use for growing your Monsanto vegetables or additional space for your solar panel array. You would save water as you don't need to was a vehicle, save time as you don't need to polish the vehicle, a cost saving on all the silly fuel you would have used, no road taxes, license fees, government taxes etc. All in all it is a great cost saving, so I have decided to go with the alternative and support driverless vehicles and taxing drivers to death.

Of course the knock on affect to funeral homes, accident investigators, 911 folks, ambulance drivers, fire services, hospitals, doctors, councils, road builders, road maintainers, tarmac suppliers, traffic sign manufacturers, road marking painters, governments etc, etc will not be a problem.

Just bought myself a 4 leg drive horse. Unfortunately I cannot lift share as it is only a single seater, not much boot space either, body work is fine, all seems to be in working order and the mileage is great. And I don't need insurance or license fees. It runs on 2pts of beer. It is a draft horse. Of course I will never starve to death as I can always eat my transport if need be ad have lots of glue.

Toasted Tesla and bacon with salad, to go, please.

Have you ever actually eaten horse meat? I hear it resembles human flesh. It does not at all sound appealing to me. It would be like eating my friend.