Cell Phones and Driving

The following article originally was published February 16, 2009, by Grand Junction's Free Press.

We're from the government, and we're here to help you drive

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

Recently we had a flat tire and found that the spare was also flat, so we hitched a ride to the gas station. We sat in the back seat while the driver held the following conversation with the other passenger.

"I was driving south on 30 Road the other day when a young woman with a cell phone stuck to her ear cut me off just before I was turning onto D Road!

"I've never given the one-finger salute, but, boy, let me tell you, if I were inclined this would have been the perfect time. But I guess I learned the fine art of profanity while driving around with my father, so I really let loose. The EPA could have closed commercial air space above the Valley because of that rant! I probably made Al Gore's global-warming ticker speed up.

"I'm so glad the legislature is finally looking to put an end to holding cell phones while driving.

"Anyway, this young 'lady' had no idea how much danger she had placed us in. I was looking at the newspaper ads for yard sales, and I was eager to beat everyone else to the best buys. I had to step on the gas to make up time.

"The week before, I had arrived late to the best yard sale in town, and the earlier risers had grabbed up all of the best buys! Not only did they take the best stuff, but they took all the best parking. So I just pulled in real close to another parked car for a spell so I could get in on the bargaining. Some guy driving by sneered at me, but it's not like he didn't have plenty of room to drive around. Sheesh!

"But I didn't make the next yard sale on time, either. When the lady with the cell phone cut me off, I spilled my coffee all over the paper! That was some hot coffee, boy, and it turned my classifieds, along with the world's news, to mush.

"The little *&%@ didn't realize that I was having a heck of time getting one of those little creamers open and into my coffee. But I have the problem licked, now; I get the lids with the drinking hole so I can poor my cream into that, along with the sugar. And I rip the cream open with my teeth.

"I hope the lady who cut me off was making a hot date or something. I hope it was worth it, because Spot's poor little doggie feet got burned by the coffee. He started dancing all over the dash.

"Poor Spot still won't get in my lap anymore, and he used to look so cute with his little paws on the wheel. All the kids used to love watching him help me drive! But my insurance company said it won't pay for Spot's counseling.

"Not only that, but I had little Suzie for the day, and she was a mess after that, let me tell you. She was in her car seat right behind me, so I couldn't find her pacifier till I got to a stop light.

"I don't know what the lady's cell phone cost her, but she cost me plenty. With Spot jumping around with burned little paws, he knocked my brand new electric razor right out the window. I had just bought that razor, too, on sale for 89 bucks. If the little twit had cut me off just a couple days earlier, all I would have lost is a cheap blade shaver.

"You would have laughed yourself silly -- I upgraded after I reached for the shaving rinse cup instead of the coffee mug. Yuck.

"Look here for a sec -- did I just smudge this eye-liner?

"They ought to pass a law. They just don't have enough laws. Let's pass a law to stop people from using cell phones in the car. Let's really get tough on the young teenagers. They're terrible drivers, and they can't vote, anyway.

"Hold on a minute -- I want to find that country-western station on the radio... There it is. I had it on the classical station because it really relaxes Spot. Sometimes he likes to climb up in the back window and take a little snooze. His little chew-blankie is in the back seat; I like to tuck him in with it.

"Getting back to the law. I'm just sick and tired of people driving around chatting on cell phones, paying no attention to their driving. The police need to be spending their time looking for people using cell phones!"

The driver let us off at the gas station, where we breathed a sigh of relief, knowing that our safety rests in the hands of our state legislature.

Highway Mileage Tax

Politicians own most roads. I don't think they should, but now political roads are so entrenched that it would be a difficult thing to transition to a free market in roads. (Certainly I don't regard such a move as a priority.) So long as politicians own the roads, they must fund them with some sort of taxes or fees. How should they do that?

Ideally, roads should be funded as closely as possible by use. That's the idea behind the gasoline tax. If you drive more, you pay more. If you drive larger vehicles that cause more wear on the roads, you pay more. If you don't drive at all, you pay nothing. So, as far as taxes go, the gasoline tax is among the least offensive. Certainly they are better than general taxes collected for roads that bear no relation to use.

What about toll roads? For new highways, a toll makes a lot of sense. Notably, a toll road need not be owned or operated by politicians; they can and should be owned and operated by market companies. I'm not a huge fan of charging tolls for politically-owned roads that are also funded with gasoline (and other) taxes. I'm more open to the idea of charging tolls on such roads for new lanes.

This brings us to today's news:

Provisions for tolls on existing public roads and a fee based on miles driven must be removed from a major transportation funding bill if it is to get bipartisan support, Republican leaders say. ... [Two legislators] have gotten mixed reaction on the proposed vehicle-registration-fee increase at the heart of the plan, which would cost drivers of most cars and trucks $41 a year. ... Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry and House Minority Leader Mike May say they are willing to increase the fee if other changes are made... [including the] elimination of a study to determine if there is a funding source, such as a vehicle-miles-traveled fee, that would be better than the 75- year-old gas tax.

Obviously I'm against raising registration fees, which have nothing to do with use.

What about a per-mileage fee? I was surprised to learn from Vincent Carroll that Robert Poole of the Reason Foundation is among those "intrigued with billing for miles." Carroll is sensible to the implications:

[W]ith an electronic gadget in your car that notes when and where you drive, bureaucrats will enjoy much more power. They'll be able to adjust driving fees according to the time of day or type of car. They'll be able to create zones in which the tax per mile is higher than it is in others.

Yes, they'd be able to do all of that, and perhaps eventually much more. Eventually somebody will get the bright idea of using the tax for more far-reaching social-engineering (beyond driving politically-correct cars). What about tax "incentives" for politically-correct driving, such as government-approved "volunteer" work? "Incentives" for driving in economically depressed areas? "Incentives" for driving to politically-favored jobs or health activities?

Carroll summarizes the argument against the gasoline tax:

State Rep. Joe Rice, D-Littleton, has got the right idea when he says "we've got to figure out something besides the gas tax" to pay for roads. Hybrid vehicles and, later, a growing fleet of fully electric autos are going to destroy the link between the miles you drive and the amount of fuel tax you pay.

The argument about hybrids is unconvincing. Many hybrids get worse gas mileage than my family's two traditional vehicles. If hybrids actually manage to catch on, that would imply only that the gasoline tax might have to be increased per gallon.

I don't see "fully electric autos" rising in the market anytime in the near future. Nobody has solved the battery problem, so far as I'm aware. (They're expensive, large, heavy, and toxic.) So until somebody creates an electric car that actually works at a reasonable cost, I see little point in changing the type of tax. If that happens, surely there are alternatives to a mileage tax.

I for one have no interest in telling Big Brother where and when I'm driving.

TaxTracks Blows Budget -- Surprise, Surprise

Kevin Flynn of the Rocky Mountain News reports:

RTD conceded Friday that it cannot deliver the FasTracks program as promised to voters four years ago.

The program, originally budgeted at $4.7 billion when voters approved a sales tax to support it, rose to $6.1 billion last year and is poised for a substantial increase next month during budget talks with the elected board. ...

The program has been clobbered from two sides, with huge increases in the cost of construction materials and fuel, and a slowdown in the economy that has cut into the revenue RTD expected from the sales tax that underpins the financing.

Let's go back to basics. There is absolutely no reason for rail to be tax-subsidized at all. If rail lines offer a real economic benefit, then people will gladly pay sufficient fares to keep them in business. Rail lines easily can exclude non-payers, so that objection is gone. If the concern is the small fraction of poor riders, then a market rail service is perfectly free to price discriminate, say by offering discounted passes to the poor. Especially for non-peak travel, such price discrimination would add to the rail's revenues, as most costs are fixed. Alternately, those who wish to voluntarily subsidize transportation for the poor are perfectly free to do so. By relying on a sales tax, rail forcibly transfers money away from some poor people to some rich people, and that's wrong even according to egalitarianism.

Atop those economic reasons rests the simple fact that it is morally wrong to force people who don't use rail to subsidize those who do. People have the moral right to control their own income, to decide for themselves whether to fund rail, whether to use it, whether to invest in it, and whether to subsidize other people's transportation.

Now TaxTracks has run into the problem that the sales tax, set as a percentage of sales in the region, is subject to economic downturns. Notably, a real loan is not. A real loan is what a marketized RTD should have obtained. A real loan is what RTD could have paid off with paying users, if its services actually are demanded. RTD is complaining also about increased costs, but at the same time, presumably, more people are riding rail to avoid the gas pump.

On a free market, perhaps RTD still would have had to cut back or restructure with changing economic conditions. But, on a free market, RTD would not have made promises to taxpayers that it cannot keep.