Hacker News Reader

Comment by listenallyall | Hacker News Reader

Why does the slippery slope concept surprise you? It actually happens often - banning smoking indoors, for example - started in just one city, once they tweaked the model and overcame the legal challenges, it spread rather quickly. Legalized casinos, same thing. Uber, drinking age, pot legalization, more. Why would toll roads or congestion pricing be different? (Idaho's Sun Valley probably already implements something similar). And ICE vehicles are definitely in many politicians' crosshairs, if you don't already see that coming in the next decade, you aren't really looking.

View on HN

These would be examples of normalization, not a slippery slope. The OP's example makes this clear (from "congestion pricing in NYC" to "they're going to take my car," not "congestion pricing in NYC" to "congestion pricing elsewhere").

(Regardless, I think the answer is simple: congestion pricing is only economically viable when an area is simultaneously congested and has alternative transportation methods that would prevent the local economy from collapsing. NYC is one of a very small handful of cities in the US where this is true, although that's largely a function of 80 years of car-centric design. Maybe it will change.)

Numerous politicians and advocates have suggested exempting electric vehicles from the NYC congestion pricing. Such vehicles are exempt in London. It isnt unusual for governments to start a program with one goal or purpose, then expand it (or use as a launching point) to achieve further goals, such as banning ICE vehicles.

This is currently happening with cigarettes. Banning them at workplaces and other public places is one thing. But we live in a capitalist country that celebrates individual freedom. Or do we? Beverly Hills CA and Manhattan Beach CA have both banned the sale of cigarettes entirely. Massachusetts banned all flavored cigarettes and is trying to permanently ban the sale of cigarettes to anyone a born after a certain date.

These go beyond "normalization", it is exactly slippery slope... get a small foothold then keep expanding the position.

Note that from 2026, electric vehicles will no longer be exempt from the London congestion charge.

People suggest all kinds of things. Just about every special interest group in the city wanted a congestion exemption; most did not get it. I don’t think this itself makes for good evidence of a slippery slope.

New York's congestion pricing was just implemented. It's far too early to know whether it will, or to claim it won't, lead to further restrictions, such as banning some vehicles altogether.

Over 300 recreationally used molecules have been banned outright by UN conventions alone. Not saying this is good, but cigarettes are very much an exception to the norm.

"normalization, not a slippery slope"

Sounds like an arbitrary distinction, but in any event, it was the OP who used "slippery slope" to refer to going from "congestion pricing in NYC" to "they're going to take my car."

The distinction is important: a change in a law isn’t always a slippery slope towards other things. Implementing congestion pricing isn’t a slippery slope towards seizing peoples’ cars, which was GP’s point (which I agree with).

To make it obvious: universal suffrage is a change that happened, but it wasn’t a slippery slope towards giving dogs the right to vote. Some changes result in new stases.

But nobody was claiming congestion pricing would absolutely lead to seizing cars. The OP was talking about the fear that more things may happen, which is perfectly logical. Today, nobody (including you) can say whether 10 or 20 years from now, ICE cars will be banned. But observing steps that appear to lead in that direction, and being concerned or fearful, is rational and logical.

I think the slippery slope has long happened and also gone away.

There are a ton of roads with "turnpike" or "pike" in their name. Some cost money [1] others are free. What's the big difference between NYC's congestion pricing and the Florida Pike?

I guess you can fight congestion pricing in order to slow the spread of toll roads but it's not the beginning of a slipper slope. Usage fees are a very old concept (price discrimination by time is pretty old as well).

[1]: https://floridasturnpike.com/system-maps/

New York State already has a major toll road (NY Thruway) and tolls to enter New York City. So do New Jersey and Connecticut, the other states you must drive through to enter New York City. The congestion pricing is a new charge on top of longstanding toll roads and bridge/tunnel tolls, so it feels like a new category and the start of something new, rather than being equated to "usage fees" as you state, at least in the minds of many drivers.

It's new yes, but the comment you are replying to asked how it is different. It's simply another toll.

The people's intense response - from supporters to opponents - plus the media coverage and political posturing, demonstrates that it's not "simply another toll"

With regular toll roads, if you don't want to pay the toll, you can drive on a different road instead and still get to the same place at the same time.

The same time? Why does anyone use the toll road?

With regular toll roads, you can choose to leave sooner and take a slower way to avoid the toll. With this, the toll is mandatory no matter which way you go.

This is the same thing, except the different road is "the subway", or even the same road and "walking".

Well, yes. Once you demonstrate that a good idea works and the doom doesn't come to pass, it gets copied. It's easy to claim that something doesn't work when nobody's doing it. Making the same claims when someone nearby is doing it and it works requires a higher level of reality-denial. Now, there's a lot of reality-denial to go round in politics these days, but occasionally a good policy slips through.

The EU ICE phaseout is set for 2035.

The argument that because a few things have spread, things in general are likely to spread is itself a slippery slope argument.

> Why would toll roads or congestion pricing be different?

The answer is actually quite simple: It won't be different. Prove to me it won't spread, because almost every new tax spreads.

When is the last time a tax has existed in one state, and not spread to other states within 5 years?

You and I are in agreement

I'm generally sympathetic to arguments that are "we will fall down the slippery slope." But as someone who has spent too much time stuck in traffic, I WANT congestion pricing to spread. It's just basic economics that people end up paying for a "free" resource with time - grossly inefficient.

Dunno, but NH hasn’t had sales tax for much more than 5 years, despite all the states around it having it

Reply on news.ycombinator.com