Because fuel tax basically never covers the externalities (pollution from burning it, plus the cost of the road infrastructure), car travel is heavily subsidized by everyone who isn't driving a car, and this fact is very rarely talked about in the mainstream.
@uint8_t also here in UK the tax you pay for owning certain smaller cars got reduced to as little as £20 (23,14€) for a whole year when it used to be about £150 (its gone back up again, but those with slightly older cars still only pay the £20).
the cost of (legally) owning and running a car is *less* than it was in the 1990s (I didn't start driving until quite recently myself as I previously lived in London/SE England with better public transport and cycling facilities)
@uint8_t while roads are subsidised by everyone without cars, they are actually a public benefit. Lorries take goods to shops, this would be impossible without roads etc
@TinBee Except roads costs gets higher with more cars. More cars → faster deterioration → more costs.
And too many lazy people use cars for ridiculously short "travels" for which public transportation or bicycles¹, or even sometimes a walk, is sufficient…
1. Provided decent cycling facilities. But most public authorities, in most rich countries, would rather build even more fucking parkings, and give even more public space to cars, than build cycling facilities…
@devnull @uint8_t yes, I agree about unnecessary car trips and worrying about cars in cities, when bikes and walking or busses would be a much better thing to encourage. We have an “interesting” shared bike, electric bike and electric scooter scheme, which could help. Cars are terrible and need to be taxed more to minimise their damage. But roads for deliveries etc are a necessity.
chaos.social – a Fediverse instance for & by the Chaos community