Talk:Vignette (road tax)

Disputed

Slovenia:

Due to exorbitant costs of vignettes aimed at people going to vacation to Croatia and Montenegro and others only passing through Slovenia, the highways are avoided by a large percentage of travellers.

Exorbitant? Large? Any source (beside forums and blogs)?--AndrejJ (talk) 05:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

---

I don't think words such as 'exorbitant' should be used in Wikipedia except where exactly attributed to a specific OPINION.

As for the matter at hand, I just returned again from Slovenia and there is a case in the court now asking that Slovenia introduce a 10 day vignette which would be cheaper. As it is now - a visitor from the north driving thru Slovenia from Jesenice (Austrian border) to eg Koper in the south would have paid about 20 Euro return via old toll system and now pay 35 for a 6 month pass. They may save the 15 in gas and time - as the waits for tolls were often terrible at rush times :-). In any case 35 instead of 20 cannot really be called exorbitant - especially if you should use the pass for more than a one-time visit. Going on local roads is an alternative but not a sensible one if time is of any essence. They are more than pleasant if you do want to catch some flavor of Slovenia though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robfwoods (talk • contribs) 10:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It should be noted that the above has a reference reference to http://www.wieninternational.at/en/node/8938.

This URL has a statement that the 35€ 6 month pass is 23 times the previous toll of 1.50€ for 22 km. This is completely erroneous as the motorway in Slovenia runs for probably 200+ km from Austria to southern Slovenia (as well as east to Maribor) and the round trip toll would have been some 20€ on the old system for a one-time round trip.

Most non-Slovenes using Slovenian highways (not counting trucks, the situation didn't change for them) drive during the summer to the Croatian and Montenegrin coast and back (passing through Slovenia 2 times). This is why Slovenian government is able to profit from the vignettes, while the regular Slovenian highway users pay several times less. The most impacted routes are Trieste-Istria, Trieste-Rijeka and Spielfeld-Macelj. When going north to e.g. Paris it is also better and way faster to use the old road to Dravograd than the Bregana-Ljubljana-Karawanken highway which is not only awful to drive and built in many unconnected stretches, but also takes a sharp curve through Ljubljana. The long parts of Slovenian highways are built for Slovenes only, because they are too impractical to be used by drivers in transit. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 17:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Bregana-Ljubljana-Karawanken highway which is not only awful to drive and built in many unconnected stretches.

There are (July 2008) exactly two (2) unconnected pieces: Novo mesto-Trebnje (cca 15km) and part Vrba-Podtabor (cca 20km). Awful to drive??

Paris through Dravograd? You must be joking?

For example, take a common route Zagreb-Munich, ViaMichelin says:

Quickest 104€ / 5h48m / 555km (500km motorways)

Shortest 111€ / 7h34m / 549 km (312km motorways)

Economical 100€ / 11h7m / 716 km (240km motorways)

See also interesting voting: http://www.hak.hr/rezultati-ankete.aspx.

--AndrejJ (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Slovenian highways are indeed awful to drive. You know, bumping into a big pothole at 160 km/h is no pleasant experience. The road through Dravograd has better pavement and you don't have to pay €35 for a trip you would usually pay €0.75 in each direction. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 09:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Had the dubious pleasure of encountering Slovenian bandits last Friday (04/09/08), checked by a posse of five "Scrambled Egg" uniforms, none of whom mentioned vignettes, didn't see a sign asking for one either. Stayed on the minor road to well past Maribor and took the 5km road to the Austrian frontier (no mention of vignettes), the only interest at the frontier was to shout "criminals", just like the old Commies did. Cost? 35€ for the vignette,150€ "fine" for breaking the law.

Nobody minds the EU helping your economy, just remember that when you help yourselves this way you remind us all about the other defects in the EU. When you do this to friendly innocents you lose friends just like they lose their innocence.

Bad luck to Slovenia and sour grapes in your harvest --Damorbel (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted paragraph with rumors only. This is encyclopedia and must be given only validate information, not blogs... Be professional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.212.187.207 (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I updated the "Slovenia" section to reflect current facts.Somebody might check my grammar. I don't see anything disputable in it, so can the flag be removed ? --Xerces8 (talk) 09:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

merge into Toll roads in Europe?

Is there any real reason for this article not to be merged into Toll roads in Europe? Unless anyone's using the stickers outside of Europe, I see no point in having two different lists, we just get duplication or partial information in each article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Adding it to Toll roads in Europe would likely make that article too large. There is enough said about a vignette to warrant its own article, it seems. Guffydrawers (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Ton or tonne

It is self evident that the unit referred to in this article (vehicle mass) is the (metric) tonne rather than the imperial long or short ton. RashersTierney (talk) 09:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Long standing issue, but a new IP seems to be under the impression that ton and tonne are WP:ENGVAR variants of the same mass value. They are not. Rather than engage in edit warring I have asked for outside views. It should be noted that this article has been a target of determined sock puppets in the past. RashersTierney (talk) 23:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I hate it too when everything isn't specified to the letter, so I have added the word "metric" to refer to the correct definition of metric ton (1000 kilograms). I hope this will put your struggle that has lasted over the past 3 years finally to rest. 190.213.15.141 (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Hardly a three year struggle, but it does appear to address the issue per the usage outlined at the article Tonne. RashersTierney (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Removal of images

Why has this article been butchered with many images being removed without explanation? JG Murphy (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

vignettes / car tax

The vignettes described in the France section have nothing to do with toll stickers. It was just the way to prove that you paid your car tax. As a tourist you never had to pay a vignette. France always used toll booths on their motorways. I think the same is true for the vignettes in Montenegro. --93.130.151.77 (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, 93.130.151.77. I think you're absolutely right that in France many autoroutes have had a péage (toll) for some decades, and that a vignette to a French speaker is merely proof that the car owner has paid their road tax (see Vignette automobile in French WP). Guffydrawers (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vignette (road tax). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131001115038/http://portal.moldpres.md:80/default.asp?Lang=en to http://portal.moldpres.md/default.asp?Lang=en&ID=181315

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

OR

IP's added claim "Only offering a CHF 40 yearly option, Switzerland's vignette is the most expensive in Europe for transiting passenger car drivers" is WP:OR and not sourced by the given source (WP:VER failed). -- ZH8000 (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

First off, I would have appreciated if you added a link here on my talk page instead of giving me a whole three minutes to respond to your post before you linked me to an edit warring report.

On to the dispute: Looking at the revision of content I added here, one can clearly see the quotation of the source:

"It was introduced in 1985 at a cost of CHF30 and this was increased to CHF40 in 1995, a level where it has remained ever since. (...) Other countries which have a motorway tax sticker allow people to buy a cheaper, short-term vignette if they only use their motorways for a short time."

The first bold part establishes the CHF 40 price of the vignette. The second part establishes that other countries have short-term vignettes and that those vignettes are cheaper. In the article, I wrote this:

"Only offering a CHF 40 yearly option, Switzerland's vignette is the most expensive in Europe for transiting passenger car drivers."

You'll see that the bold part here shows that the comparison is done in the context of a tourist or transiting visitor, hence the findings of the above quotation apply. Now where is the OR here?

Or maybe you want to point out a country using vignettes whose shortest term vignette for passenger cars (the tourists' motor vehicle of choice) is more expensive than Switzerland's? 93.142.87.187 (talk) 00:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

At the present time anyone using the Swiss motorways is obliged to pay for an annual vignette. This is what the article states and is correct. ZH8000 is trying to claim that there is a cheaper CHF40 for a yearly vignette for short term visitors and gave a cite. Unfortunately he has either misunderstood the cite or deliberately misstated it. The cite says that it is part of a proposal to increase the annual cost of a vignette to offer a lower cost vignette valid for two months (not the year as claimed). In any event (per WP:CRYSTAL we do not document the changes until such time as they actually happen. 86.153.135.111 (talk) 10:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

86.153.135.111 (talk · contribs): Please, learn how to use talk pages WP:TALK. And please, please, learn to read, this (your text) is just simply awful! -- ZH8000 (talk) 13:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@ZH8000: I know how to use talk pages. If You regard my post as awful, then maybe you ought to learn English. If you cannot understand English then you should not be editing the English Wikipedia. You have also made four reverts to this article and are therefore Edit Warring. That they have not been made in 24 hours makes no difference. It counts as a slow motion edit war. 86.153.135.111 (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

If that would be the case, and if you would re-read your own statements, you would learn how odd your statements are, since I did not say the slightest comparable of that what you claim. You are simply very unattentive and therefore thoroughly inconsistent (I don't need to be a native English speaker to easily percieve this, well, it's actually very obvious). -- ZH8000 (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

93.142.87.187 (talk · contribs): I would thoroughly advice that you check your own statement more seriously.

Despite the facts that there is a Swiss vignette for fourty francs and that it is indeed also valid for 14 months, these facts do not make your statement more true - it still stays wrong. Full stop. Besides that the sentence is logically incomplete (it is not quite clear what your message is, but probably because you don't even understand what the main message of your own statement ought to be).

The incomplete main message, "is the most expensive in Europe", does not say of what. The reader must assume what the author possibly meant.

But facts are:

1. The Swiss vignette is by far not the most expensive yearly toll road in Europe. Very easy examples are the Austrian one, it is more than double as expensive, or even the Czech one is more expensive! There are probably more examples, but it simply needs just one example to falsify your statement.

2. The Swiss vignette is by far not the most expensive toll road in Europe for traversing a country; easily verifiable.

3. And, and this will propably surprise you, since you never did check it by yourself, the Swiss vignette is not the most expensive toll road in Europe even according a price-per-km rate, even for traversing the most direct, north-south axis through Switzerland (Chiasso-Basel, 300km), namely 13.3 Rappen. – For notabene traversing the Alps in totally seemless two and a half hours on 94% motorways with a hundred of bridges and more than 40 km of tunnels!!! Even this would justify a much more expensive price.

I would urgently advice you to learn about how to make more serious (i.e. e.g. verifiable WP:VER) statements before you try to write incomplete, incoherent, unclear, constructed (WP:OR) statements in a encyclopedia. -- ZH8000 (talk) 13:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@ZH8000:Your English comprehension leaves much to be desired here as well. We are not discussing the relative costs of a year's travel, but the cost of transiting across the country in a day or so. As such, you are about as wrong as it possible to get with your examples. The cost of a Swiss vignette is €35.75 (there is no option to get a shorter validity than whatever is left out of the calendar year plus one month) . The cost for Austria is €9 (as a 10 day vignette is available). And for the Czech Republic the cost is €13 (again a 10 day vignette). Clue: €35.75 is larger than both €13 and €9. You have thus failed to demonstrate that the Swiss vignette is not the "most most expensive in Europe for transiting passenger car drivers", and the disputed sentence is entirely accurate as written. That you claim that that the point is incomplete and not understandable only underlines your inability to comprehend a sentence that is both complete and accurate. 86.153.135.111 (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. If you drove through Austria once a year, would you buy the €87 yearly vignette? Of course not, you'd get the €9 one. In Switzerland, however, you must pay CHF 40 even if you're just going from Bregenz to St. Gallen, or use country roads. That's the whole point. 78.0.246.100 (talk) 21:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC) (I am 93.142...)

Pardon, but this gets very stupid. I do not have to proof anything, since I do not claim anything at all. That's just your imaginery. But the disputed statement is still not verified and poor OR. Full stop. -- ZH8000 (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The fact that you don't want to verify it doesn't mean that it's not verifiable. In general, it would do you well to read the policies you're linking as well as WP:3RR. 78.0.246.100 (talk) 00:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@ZH8000: On the contrary, you do need to verify your refutation because I added the claim back, copy edited to make it the meaning to those who can't comprehend English (i.e. YOU) clearer and explained why Switzerland is the most expensive to transit a car. I even provided a citation that actually backed the claim up, along with the figures that refuted your wrongly interpreted interpretation. Thus the ball is your (or anyone else who wishes to disprove the claim) court to disprove the claim.

Further you have made a claim at WP:ANEW that I was had exceed 3RR when I was only at 2RR. This is especially abusive as you are now at 5RR (why you didn't get a block is a mystery). Had you bothered to check, you might have discovered that I and the other IPs opposing you are not even on the same continent. 86.149.136.154 (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

That the following text be reinserted as an extra paragraph at vignette (road tax)#Switzerland.

"As Switzerland only offers a CHF 40 (€35.75) yearly option, Their vignette is the most expensive in Europe for [[wikt:transit|transit]]ing [[passenger car]] drivers. <ref name="cartolleu" /> Other countries offer a vignette valid for much shorter periods, which cost less than the Swiss version.<ref name="cartolleu" />"

This claim is fully backed by the linked reference which expands to [1], which carries vignette pricing for the whole of Europe and fully confirms that because Switzerland is the only country not to offer vignettes valid for shorter periods than a year, then it is the most expensive country in Europe to transit across in one or two days.

Note User:ZH8000 refutes this claim but has not produced any evidence that the provided reference is wrong but has reverted the claim 5 times against multiple editors. This should therefore be considered by a neutral user. 86.149.136.154 (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This is advocacy for a position on a road tax and therefore violates the WP:NPOV policy. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

Reposting this with minor changes from the dispute resolution noticeboard, where Robert McClenon has decided to close the discussion:

After ZH8000's request to have this talk page protected so that my "disruption of serious reasoning" with "unsane (sic) nonsense" can be stopped, and the fact that the current state of the page is in his/her favor - it was probably too much to expect him/her to be willing to discuss at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Nevertheless I'm glad that other people are willing to see eye to eye and contribute new sources! So, how about this for the change:

As Switzerland only offers a CHF 40 (€35.75) yearly option, their vignette is the highest priced one in Europe for transiting and visiting passenger car drivers; other countries offer vignettes valid for shorter periods, which cost less than the Swiss version.

I've added the "cartolleu" reference (in the article defined elsewhere ) last as, although it's obviously most up-to-date, it has been accused of synthesis. As TheVicarsCat pointed out on the dispute resolution page, there is criticism of the Swiss vignette practice, for example on this site that he/she linked, so I think that not including anything at all about this is a mistake. (78.0.246.100) 93.136.66.22 (talk) 02:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support as the proposer. (78.0.246.100) 93.136.66.22 (talk) 02:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: Sounds good; suggesting wording changes: ...their vignette is the highest priced one in Europe... >> ...its vignette is the most expensive in Europe. and ...offer vignettes valid for shorter periods, which cost less than the Swiss version. >> offer a short-term vignette that makes a transit less expensive than in Switzerland. previous unsigned comment by Eric 03:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevant commentary. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment Robert McClenon's closure for the reason stated is cobblers considering that we were told to take it from the talk page to DRN in the first place. Perhaps the Wikipedia bureaucracy should sort its policies and procedures out before telling people to use them and wasting everyone's time. Unsigned comment by 86.149.136.154 (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support As the editor who came up with that proposed wording, but I have to admit that I do prefer the alternate suggested version. However, I disagree including reference 1 re the proposed price hike per WP:CRYSTAL as it has not yet happened, if it happens at all. 86.149.136.154 (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL because we're not talking about the hike in the article. (The hike was apparently voted down in a public referendum soon after that article.) Any way, I think it's more damning that this apparently pro-hike article still goes out to mention that Switzerland has the most expensive vignette. That serves to magnify the importance of this fact.

I'm personally OK with not including that tax puff piece, but I think as this specifically compares in words Swiss vignette with other vignettes, it will be the hardest to challenge for people who claim this is synthesis or OR. I'd rather have it put as the last reference in line (people usually just click on the first one) or something similar. Maybe we don't even need it in the article as long as we've established it's importance here on the talk page? (78.0.246.100) 93.136.99.31 (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support Because it is correct and fully supported by references. May I suggest a slightly reworded version (I don't like starting a paragraph with 'as' or 'because' for the reason that the cause of the 'as' or 'because' has not yet been introduced to the reader).

Switzerland only offers a vignette valid for a year at CHF 40 (€35.75). Because of this, its vignette is the most expensive in Europe for transiting and visiting passenger cars. Other countries offer short-term vignettes that make a transit or visit less expensive than in Switzerland.

A German translation of an English reference is unhelpful on the :en Wikipedia. Normally, I would not approve of multiple references for the same point, but in this case, as the validity of one was questioned (incorrectly in my view) there is a case for it. I removed the word 'drivers' because the tax applies to the vehicle and not the driver. My reference http://www.dalnicni-znamky.com/en/ specifically states that the Swiss vignette is yearly only without having to wade through the proposals to increase the cost (which as noted, none of the proposed wording has mentioned it and hit as not yet happened.)

Having said all that, the essential point is that this information is very notable indeed and given that it can be reliably (and multiply) sourced, is worthy of inclusion regardless of the finer points of wording (this can (and probably will be) polished afterwards). The article is currently semi-protected but I am prepared to apply the edit to the article once wording and references can be agreed upon here, because there is certainly a clear consensus for the claim's inclusion. TheVicarsCat (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I added the German translation only because it uses slightly stronger wording: "all other" vs "other". It drives the point closer to home for those claiming synthesis and OR, that's all. (78.0.246.100) 93.136.99.31 (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• I support the changes you guys proposed. (78.0.246.100) 93.136.99.31 (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• I am happy to go with TVC's wording if everyone else is. 86.149.136.154 (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done I kept the German reference in because no one else agreed to its removal. TheVicarsCat (talk) 12:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. (78.0.246.100) 78.0.198.148 (talk) 02:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done since it is still the same statement violating WP:VER and WP:OR. There are no new arguments given supporting the claim, nor any reference supporting the statement – probably by the people as before. Check the reasoning for the block! -- ZH8000 (talk) 06:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, this has gone on long enough. There is a consensus for this, so ZH8000 is just being disruptive. It is clear that ZH8000 is determined to be pig headed about this. As he (currently) made seven (7) reverts to the article without providing one shred of evidence for his intransigence, I have raised an edit warring complaint. It can be found here. TheVicarsCat (talk) 12:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Update: ZH8000 has been warned that he risks a block if he keeps this up (here) though at 7RR, I'm surprised this hasn't happened already. TheVicarsCat, you can probably safely restore the edit which is referenced and has consensus. 86.149.136.154 (talk) 13:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It can wait a day or two. After all, I don't want to be accused of violating 3RR for making a single revert, do I? I will wait for the dust to settle on the AN3 complaint. However, it does look like the admins are on our side and are queuing up to comment on his talk page. TheVicarsCat (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I restored the agreed-upon material. Eric ^talk 15:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Eric:. Thanks. You might want to tweak your edit summary, "rv restoration that goes counter to discussion findings". It wasn't a restoration but a removal. You make sound as though the re-addition of the material is counter to this consensus. 86.149.136.154 (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to convey that. Hasty wording due to the perils of jumping between the real world and the Wikiverse. I was reverting ZH's revert, which itself was a restoration of his deletion of the material he objects to. Alas, I hope this explanation isn't harder to parse than my edit summary! Eric ^talk 18:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Why treat Switzerland differently?

This article explains the basics of the vignette system in each country, and documents the costs of fines for not complying. However, only for Switzerland is the price of the vignette mentioned, plus an opinion of their system being unfair compared to others because they do not offer short-term options for tourists. If editors want to make an informative comparison, they should list prices and conditions for every country. Saying that Switzerland is the most expensive country for a single transit is evidently false, as several countries charge much higher prices via highway tolls. In fact, one year of driving in Switzerland costs about as much as a one-way trip from Paris to Lyon. The phrase added via the above discussion should be amended to only mention that visitors to Switzerland must pay the yearly tax, but refrain from attempting to compare this situation with other countries. — JFG ^talk 11:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree. But I'm really surprised to hear that the French autoroute has become that expensive. I remember that segment being about 8 euros. But that could be an old memory. Eric ^talk 14:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Paris–Lyon is about 35 € for a standard vehicle. France is broke, they are milking drivers with tolls and radars. — JFG ^talk 16:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry fellas. We have to go with what the sources say. Reference 2 documents the costs for all the countries in the Europe area (and there are many other sources available). Working out the most expensive is a matter of simple subtraction. That you recall paying about €35 is original research as is any unsupported claim that France is broke. Now if you can provide a source, that is a different matter. TheVicarsCat (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Re: €35 for Paris–Lyon, I don't "recall paying"; I looked it up before posting. €34.80 exactly per official site.[2] Re: France is broke, that was a joke. — JFG ^talk 03:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not a valid claim anyway. You can cross France in any direction you like with out paying a single cent. Just don't use the toll motorways (not all of them are toll anyway). But you cannot cross the border into Switzerland without a vignette. All border crossings are staffed. Not to check your passport of luggage (Switzerland is a Schengen country), but to check that you have a valid vignette displayed (and they will insist on selling you one if you don't). 86.149.136.154 (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Remember, gang, this is just a talkpage. Re OR: In a strict view , one might say I led JFG a tad off the topic into a side conversation; however I don't see any attempt by JFG to make an encyclopedic assertion about France's finances. Some more "OR" re crossing into Switzerland: Unless things have changed in the past couple years, you don't need a vignette to travel on anything but the limited-access highways (autoroutes/Autobahnen). Eric ^talk 23:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@IP86, you are incorrect: there are hundreds of border crossings into Switzerland that do not require buying the vignette. Only border crossings on motorways make this mandatory. You can also cross the country without paying, by using regular roads. They are nice roads. — JFG ^talk 03:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@IP86, one more detail: the Schengen zone has enacted free movement of people, so indeed your passport will not in general be checked, however your baggage may be checked because Switzerland is not part of the EEA customs union: there is no free movement of goods. — JFG ^talk 03:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The statements made by the IP-hopper (here 86.149.136.154) are simply undereducated nonsense. One gets the impression that he only intends to release his own frustration. Of course you can traverse Switzerland without any vignette. Of course you can not drive on the motoways then. As a consequence, the traverse from Chiasso to Basel takes more than 8 hours instead of 2.5 on motoways only. And of course you can cross into Switzerland wirthout any vignette. E.g. tens of thousands of cross-border commuters do this on a daily basis. Besides there is also a customs check going on Swiss borders. -- ZH8000 (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you @JFG, that's very much my idea. -- ZH8000 (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Switzerland is the only vignette country that issues only a yearly vignette, and its roads are the most expensive out of that bunch to boot. The methodology has been proved and agreed on above. I posit that that's interesting and article-worthy, and besides it's corroborated by reliable sources. What you're indulging in here is completely and utterly irrelevant WP:OR and WP:SYN. Who is to say that the Chiasso-Basel route in any way interesting? Not even Swiss taxpayers (who aren't the most NPOV of sources) seem interested in discussing that online. I'd also like to remind ZH8000 to be WP:CIVIL. (78.0) 93.136.1.250 (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)