It already is based on weight and distance for diesel vehicles, which is all heavy trucks. Whether the current system costs all vehicles properly according to their road maintenance contribution is not something I can answer, but the heavier your vehicle is the more your road users cost for the same distance.

Simplest option for non-gps vehicles would be to have a monthly/weekly subscription for an estimated number of kms, then verification tied in with WoF checks.

This seems like a reasonable move to me, not something they come out with often.

Road maintenace costs scale by weight and distance, not by fuel usage, so streamlining the purchase of RUC and shifting the point-of-tax entirely to a separate system rather than building it into petrol prices makes sense.

My only concern is that rather than keeping the shift fiscally neutral, they may use the restructuring as an opportunity to reduce the road-maintenace tax burden on vehicles and pull more from the general tax pool instead, thus incentivising greater private vehicle usage.

I guess the difference is that a “jury” would not be worrying about the optics WRT their their election cycle. I would prefer that a panel of impartial experts be involved rather than random citizens though.

Counter-proposal: All law enforcement measures and punishments must be assessed and approved by an independent board of psychologists.

We’re not talking about fraud, tax evasion, or burglary where people sit down and plan a crime, making a cost-benefit analysis, and saying “you know what, good idea, but the cross product of likelihood that we get caught and penalty if we do is too high, I’m gonna sit this one out”.

How about you take the extra 180K per person that you’re proposing we flush down the prison system, and direct it into better mental health services, and improved welfare systems, which will actually reduce the instances of such spur-of-the-moment crimes.

Fuck this noise.

Outsourcing to private providers should be a short-term stopgap to allow for the necessary investment in public infrastructure. Why would any sensible person commit to a scheme where we utilise a more expensive service as a long term solution?