Car crash tax

[Tonington]

Have any of you heard about this?

NY City has plans to introduce fees in the face of looming budget cuts:

Francis X. Gribbon, the Fire Department’s chief spokesman, said the plan — a draft rule of which was published Thursday in the City Record — would include a range of fees. The highest fee, $490, would apply when fire units respond to the locations of crashes or car fires that include injuries. For car fires with no injuries, the fee would be $415, Mr. Gribbon said. And for crashes in which no one is hurt, the fee would be $365, he said.
​

Crazy, crazy world....I can see the number of hit and runs going way up.

 

[YukonJack]

Have any of you heard about this?

NY City has plans to introduce fees in the face of looming budget cuts:

Francis X. Gribbon, the Fire Department’s chief spokesman, said the plan — a draft rule of which was published Thursday in the City Record — would include a range of fees. The highest fee, $490, would apply when fire units respond to the locations of crashes or car fires that include injuries. For car fires with no injuries, the fee would be $415, Mr. Gribbon said. And for crashes in which no one is hurt, the fee would be $365, he said.
​

Crazy, crazy world....I can see the number of hit and runs going way up.

If it will prompt and encourage people to drive more carefully, it is worth it.

 

[karrie]

I'd have no issue with the tax so long as I don't get charged because someone ELSE calls the fire department to my fender bender.

 

[Tonington]

If it will prompt and encourage people to drive more carefully, it is worth it.

You can drive as careful as you like, if someone T-bones you running a red light, do you want to pay the Fire Department for responding? But if the other driver doesn't want to pay both fees, you'll likely have to go to court. And then of course there are those accidents where both parties think the other was in the wrong...

 

[JLM]

If it will prompt and encourage people to drive more carefully, it is worth it.

Right on Y.J.- if a guy is stupid enough to smash up his car he should pay a tax- what do they figure? these rescue vehicles can drive out there for peanuts? :smile:

 

[Unforgiven]

Do they run a credit check first?

 

[JLM]

You can drive as careful as you like, if someone T-bones you running a red light, do you want to pay the Fire Department for responding?

In that case the smashee would collect from the smasher, No?

 

[lone wolf]

In that case the smashee would collect from the smasher, No?

...all the more incentive for the uninsured guy to hit and run

 

[JLM]

...all the more incentive for the uninsured guy to hit and run

That would be one downside.

 

[Tonington]

That would be one downside.

Or people who don't call it in but should. Maybe they cracked a rib and have internal bleeding, but don't feel that bad. But they also don't have $490 to give up. Medical attention right away can save that person...this could be a disincentive to seek medical attention.

 

[YukonJack]

You can drive as careful as you like, if someone T-bones you running a red light, do you want to pay the Fire Department for responding? But if the other driver doesn't want to pay both fees, you'll likely have to go to court. And then of course there are those accidents where both parties think the other was in the wrong...

If I read the article correctly, the proposed law would require the party at fault to pay.

 

[JLM]

If I read the article correctly, the proposed law would require the party at fault to pay.

On second thought Y.J. maybe a guy should go over all the ramifications with a fine tooth comb. So the guy at fault has a ruptured spleen, some broken ribs and some other subtle internal injuries, says f**k it and drives away, an hour later to die from one of his broken ribs impaling his heart.:lol: Nah, maybe they should forgo that little levy. :lol:

 

[Tonington]

On second thought Y.J. maybe a guy should go over all the ramifications with a fine tooth comb. So the guy at fault has a ruptured spleen, some broken ribs and some other subtle internal injuries, says f**k it and drives away, an hour later to die from one of his broken ribs impaling his heart.:lol: Nah, maybe they should forgo that little levy. :lol:

That's nice that you're only focusing on "the one at fault"...the real world has a funny way of being grey instead of black and white. Maybe you and Jack are glossing over the fact that both drivers will be getting the bill. A fire fighter isn't going to decide on the scene who was in the wrong. They're just going to give both a bill.

I had to take someone to small claims court for a car accident. I haven't seen a nickel yet. The bill still had to be paid...

 

[TenPenny]

Do you guys realize that in some cases, Medicare goes after your car insurance if you are at fault in a car accident and people are injured?

 

[JLM]

That's nice that you're only focusing on "the one at fault"...the real world has a funny way of being grey instead of black and white. Maybe you and Jack are glossing over the fact that both drivers will be getting the bill. A fire fighter isn't going to decide on the scene who was in the wrong. They're just going to give both a bill.

I had to take someone to small claims court for a car accident. I haven't seen a nickel yet. The bill still had to be paid...

Whoa, hold on back up Ton- I was only focusing on one possible scenario, I never pretended to study the whole picture. :smile:

 

[Tonington]

Whoa, hold on back up Ton- I was only focusing on one possible scenario,

I'm aware that you're focusing on one scenario, kind of my point. Most knee-jerk reactions take that form.

 

[JLM]

I'm aware that you're focusing on one scenario, kind of my point. Most knee-jerk reactions take that form.

You're full of B.S. Ton (which is not uncharacteristic of you). For one thing I don't do knee jerk reactions over scenarios that haven't yet transpired. Secondly you only have to put forth one scenario to confirm the plan needs more study. :smile:

Thirdly a driver not at fault wouldn't be likely to leave an accident where he received injuries.

 

[taxslave]

This is what we pay outrageous taxes for. To provide emergency services when required without a credit check first to see if you can pay for help. Next they will want 500 bucks in cash to put out your house fire. If the city is that broke that they have to charge for emergency services they should consider firing a few thousand worthless bureaucrats to cut spending. Sounds like a plan from some third world banana republic.
Oh right I forgot where we were talking about.

 

[JLM]

This is what we pay outrageous taxes for. To provide emergency services when required without a credit check first to see if you can pay for help. Next they will want 500 bucks in cash to put out your house fire. If the city is that broke that they have to charge for emergency services they should consider firing a few thousand worthless bureaucrats to cut spending. Sounds like a plan from some third world banana republic.
Oh right I forgot where we were talking about.

I'm afraid bureaucrats are part and parcel of Gov't. and probably here to stay. Perhaps if we were in a dictatorship there wouldn't be so many bureaucrats. :lol:

 

[Tonington]

You're full of B.S. Ton (which is not uncharacteristic of you).

Touch a nerve? Maybe it's more than just your knee, jerk. You should get that checked out.

For one thing I don't do knee jerk reactions over scenarios that haven't yet transpired.

So you say, yet here you are, knee jerk and all.

Secondly you only have to put forth one scenario to confirm the plan needs more study. :smile:

Yeah, I think we've covered that already. This plan needs more study, but it doesn't even require a vote from city council. So, if the Mayor doesn't want it studied, then it won't get a second or third look.

Thirdly a driver not at fault wouldn't be likely to leave an accident where he received injuries.

That's your speculative opinion. I think this tax is more likely to be a disincentive to call in an accident, rather than a disincentive to get in an accident. There are already disincentives to avoid accidents...like injury and cost.