The People's Republic of California: GPS tracking on all cars.

[wacki]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/14/eveningnews/main674120.shtml

HTS Member writes "California has a new excuse for more taxes. Claiming losses due to fuel-efficient cars, such as Gasoline/Electric Hybrids, California is cooking-up a new system to punish people who aren't using enough gasoline. They want to tax commuters by the mile. How would this be accomplished? By requiring everyone to install a GPS device in their vehicle, and charge them their "taxes" every time they fuel-up. From the article: 'Drivers will get charged for how many miles they use the roads, and it's as simple as that.. [a] team at Oregon State University equipped a test car with a global positioning device to keep track of its mileage. Eventually, every car would need one.'"

Of course, all sorts of privacy/eco issues are raised with this measure.

[Il_Mostro]

/images/graemlins/shocked.gif
land of the free, indeed.

This is some scary stuff.

[jaxmike]

California needs to scrap their Constitution and write a new one. Theirs simply does not work.

[sam h]

Probability of this passing = 0%

Still, a pretty frightening and idiotic proposal.

[natedogg]

Proposed by a democrat, the party that supposedly promotes personal liberty compared to the evil republicans.

natedogg

[BCPVP]

Did you need additional proof that California is a screwed up state?

[MMMMMM]

Something similar was proposed in the UK for London (and perhaps a greater region?)--perhaps a year ago--I posted on it at the time--don't know anything more about it at present.

[nicky g]

I understand the privacy concerns with this, but otherwise what's the problem? Charging you by how much you use something, if technoligically feasible, is a much better idea than charging everyone the same flat rate for unlimited access. Someone who uses the raod 5 times as much as someone else should pay more for its upkeep.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand the privacy concerns with this, but otherwise what's the problem?

[/ QUOTE ]
Apart from the privacy problems it's not really bad, no. But the idea to have a gps in every car so that some sort of agency can check exactly where you are at all times is scary.

[nicky g]

Yes. If it could be guaranteed that such information would only be used for road pricing purposes it would be OK, but such guarantees are often circumvented in practice. There are probably better ways to run road pricing schemes.

[CCass]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand the privacy concerns with this, but otherwise what's the problem? Charging you by how much you use something, if technoligically feasible, is a much better idea than charging everyone the same flat rate for unlimited access. Someone who uses the raod 5 times as much as someone else should pay more for its upkeep.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you to some degree. Paying for usage isn't necessarily a bad idea. However, in this particular instance, I see a couple of problems.

First of all, gasoline is taxed in California, so the more you drive (and therefore the more gas you use) the more tax you pay. But wait, California is a very "progressive" state, and they are very worried about emissions so they offer incentives for driving hybrid vehicles (also find ways to "punish" gas guzzlers). Ok, we (Cal.) convinced a lot of the lemmings to drive Hybrids, and now we don't get as much of their money. WE MUST CORRECT THIS PROBLEM IMMEDIATELY!!!! Lets tax them on a per mile basis. California is one big contradiction.

Secondly, as you and others have stated, I would be very concerned about privacy issues.

[adios]

Basically it's another example of government's unquentiable demand for continuous growth in tax $ received. Interested in cleaner air my ass. There's a concept that someone needs to introduce to the governments in California and Oregon and that is the concept of toll roads.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
There's a concept that someone needs to introduce to the governments in California and Oregon and that is the concept of toll roads.

[/ QUOTE ]

Toll roads seem to accomplish the same goal (of charging people a fee to use the roads) at least on major roads and has far less potential for abuse. That seems like the way to go to me.

[nicky g]

Toll roads are probably better; on the other hand they're not feasible on smaller, non highway type roads, and they're probably in the long run less efficient. But yeah.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
they're not feasible on smaller, non highway type roads

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed --- so what the legislature can do is adjust the highway toll charges to reflect the inability to charge tolls for smaller roads.

[CORed]

If you're going to tax by the mile driven, why do you need a GPS unit? The last time I checked, all cars were equipped with odometers.

[elwoodblues]

Because they don't have jurisdiction to tax miles driven in another state.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
they're not feasible on smaller, non highway type roads

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed --- so what the legislature can do is adjust the highway toll charges to reflect the inability to charge tolls for smaller roads.

[/ QUOTE ]
Doesn't this just mean people will avoid the highways in order to avoid paying the extra?

Here's a novel idea, California: STOP SPENDING SO DAMN MUCH!!!!

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't this just mean people will avoid the highways in order to avoid paying the extra?


[/ QUOTE ]

Some will. Most won't.

[jaxmike]

they cant, their wise liberal population has voted on ref. that require the govt to fund all sorts of nonsense. the govt has to pay for it by law, thanks to the people.

[CORed]

If this passes, I predict that there will be an unprecedented number of malfunctioning GPS units. I know the one in my care would never work for more than two or three days before it mysteriously failed (if I lived in California, God forbid).

[CORed]

This does look like the camel's nose in the tent. If they succeed in getting this passed, how long before the GPS records from a car get used in a criminal case (or in a divorce case). If they aren't collecting enough taxes due to more fuel efficient cars, they could raise the gas tax. This would provide more incentive to buy fuel efficient cars. I think there is a lot more going on with this proposal than raising revenue.

[HDPM]

And they will make it a felony to tamper with it. And have a civil proceeding where the burden is on you to prove you didn't tamper with it if they can't prove the crime. And statutes saying you have to reimburse the state for prosecuting you. Etc......

[CORed]

Or they will only allow you to purchase it from one state-sanctioned vendor, make it illegal to drive without a functioning unit, and that vendor will charge about $500-$1000 to replace it whan it fails.

[HDPM]

yeah, that would work too. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[Voltorb]

I'm sure when gasoline taxes were last raised, some legislator probably insisted that the taxes would doubly benefit the state of California by simultaneously decreasing gasoline consumption (thereby reducing air pollution, traffic congestion, etc.) and increasing state revenue. This all looks good at first, and I can understand why the state legislators would be all for it.
Now look at what happens. After the tax is passed, a surge of revenue begins flowing into the state treasury. The average Californian motorist takes a while to adapt to the new price of gasoline, but resolves that they need to start driving less and that the next car they buy will be a hybrid. As more motorists begin to change their gas guzzling ways, California begins to lose revenue that it had become somewhat dependent on. In order to make up for lost revenue they have to tax more and more ad infinitum. It's a viscous cycle that is somewhat similar to the ever increasing taxation of smokers.
Ultimately taxation is nothing more than legalized theft. Citizens should and must tolerate it to a certain extent for the good of the country and more importantly for the good of the state. However, I think our forefathers would have initiated another revolution decades ago, around the time income tax was initiated. Face it people, it will only get worse.

[CORed]

What I dislike about this proposal more than the tax increase is the use of GPS. I certainly don't want a record kept of every place I have driven my car. The potential for abuse here is scary. If the GPS is used only to track in state or out of state to know which miles to count (and no permanent record of anything else is kept, either by the in-car unit or any central database, I could live with it, but it looks like a lot more information could be gathered than is necessary or desirable.

[Voltorb]

The GPS thing is totally insane. But it doesn't surprise me much. State government have usurped rights over individuals in their cars as long as I've been alive. Consider the cameras I'm beginning to see at more and more intersections, unreasonable searches and seizures via drugg sniffing dogs. A buddy of mine was once ordered to piss in a cup during a routine traffic stop. Granted, the GPS thing is considerably more nefarious, but is highly indicative of the growing police state we find ourselves living in today.

[CORed]

For that matter, I don't like DUI checkpoints. Usually they use some pretext, such as checking drivers licences, but they basicly blockade the street or highway and check everyone for signs of alcohol use. The courts let them get away with this crap, which IMO is a clear violation of the 4th ammendment. They should have probable cause to stop you. You hear a lot of complaints about civil rights violations by the federal government, with justification, but, IMO, a lot of the worst violations are by state and local jurisdictions.

[Voltorb]

Don't get me started on the whole DUI nonsense. It makes sense to me if someone is driving dangerously and they get stopped and are slobbering drunk. Fine 'em, lock 'em up for a while. But these days you can have a couple of beers, get caught in a checkpoint, and the next thing you know your public enemy number one. Thanks alot MADD.