California Insurers Oppose ‘Crash Tax’

January 25, 2011

  • January 26, 2011 at 8:06 am
    wudchuck says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    “The fee would be imposed on non-resident drivers, regardless of fault.”

    so you would want to hinder anyone from outside the city to travel into the city? or anyone from another state? if the resident of the city caused the accident whether it involved other folks or not, the emergency service would have to respond anyways. so you are not going to bill him, if it were the only vehicle involved. remind you now, that if your city driver goes to another town and gets involved in an accident, is he/she going to be billed regardless if he’s involved in an accident? don’t think so. i can see this going to court and tossed out as a valid law.

  • January 26, 2011 at 2:25 pm
    Cheetoh Mulligan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It sucks that the solutions that cities and states are coming to in order to save money is to cut the services of police and fire departments and emergency response services. What each state needs to do is elect a Governor that will take a business-like view of the operations and start cutting the waste from the government. Let’s get rid of all the special retirement plans and medical plans and subject the politicians to what the rest of America gets! Let’s reduce the perks like private airplanes and staffs of 10 for a congress person. Sacremento could save a bundle if they got rid of the political waste and still provide emergency services.

  • January 27, 2011 at 12:04 am
    wm says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Keep hammering the little guy. The crash tax is just a last gasp of preserving the status quo. The public pension time bomb continues to tick away. Government emergency responders are pricing themselves out of business. In a few short years, private ambulance companies will provide emergency services for a fraction of the cost. The crash tax and other “revenue generating fees” will only anger the public and force privatization of these services.

  • January 31, 2011 at 8:54 am
    David B says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Unfortunately guys, there is precedence for this kind of fee. The city of McKinney, Tx has a similar proposal on the book. Dallas, TX already sends bills for ambulance rides, damage to guardrails etc. This will pass in court if taken to court.

  • April 1, 2011 at 8:08 pm
    Antman says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I honestly feel that if we held individual state leaders to take responsibility for the sad state of things by making their wages increase or decrease depending on how the state is doing. Then ultimately they would have to try a little harder and that loss in pay would be incentive to get the damn job done. Sadly this is just a hypothetical ideal, plus they would just take more out from the cuts they have already made thinking the larger the quantity the faster it can go back to normal. I mean after all Jerry Brown has been doing that for years. As a personal loss I have an increase in the amount I have to pay per unit of college to 66 smackers. If getting California back on its feet is worth costing a future than whats the point?



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*