News, California cities implementing "Crash Tax"

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by revelated, Dec 31, 2010.

  1. revelated macrumors 6502a

    revelated

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    #1
    'bout time.

    http://articles.latimes.com/2010/dec/30/business/la-fi-crash-tax-20101231

    All for it. Nail the at-fault to the wall. I can only hope that they let this slide and get it in place in San Diego - we'll make a mint in extra revenue and the net effect can only be the decrease in accidents. We have way too many accidents every day and people not paying for any of it.
     
  2. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #2
    Are the medics not getting paid when they go to traffic accidents? They should be on a salary.
     
  3. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #3
    LOL what kind of twisted logic led you to this?

    First, its called an accident for a reason.

    Second, who gets in an accident on purpose (as in, how to you deter an accident)?
     
  4. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #4
    I recall a story where the city came after a man for emergency services and he was not the at fault person
     
  5. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #5
    Responding to accidents is part of the public service of the fire department that you pay taxes for. I don't understand how or why they can then give you a bill after the fact.
     
  6. Liquorpuki macrumors 68020

    Liquorpuki

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2009
    Location:
    City of Angels
    #6
    Very very few people crash their car on purpose so I doubt there'd be a decrease in accidents. I wonder if it would cause insurance premiums to rise though.

    It looks like a double tax to me. The departments that provide services to respond to accidents and clean up the mess (PD, Fire, Sanitation, Transportation) are already budgeted out of a city's General Fund. I don't get it.
     
  7. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #7
    Very few accidents are unavoidable — there are in fact some who consider "accident" to be an inappropriate term. A policy such as this will encourage people to be more alert and duly cautious. It could also result in some lesser collisions going unreported, which would have good and/or bad effects, depending on the situation.

    Your insurance rates will go up anyway, this will just make it a tiny bit worse, probably for everyone.
     
  8. revelated thread starter macrumors 6502a

    revelated

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    #8
    • Soccer moms who don't put the cellphone down.
    • People who drive drunk.
    • People who drive half sleep.
    • Soccer moms yelling at their bad kids and not paying attention to the road.
    • "Hummers"
    • Brats out of high school who want to be cool and show off for their friends.
    • Street ricers who want to play Russian Roulette in traffic.
    • Illegal immigrants.
    • Morons who drive faster on wet, slick roads.
    • People who drift lanes without signaling.

    Yes, I want all of those charged.

    The thing with the idea that the public service guys are paid out of our tax dollars - they're paid base salary. They're not paid, nor should they be, to get things back in order. It's a domino effect: one small "accident" can turn into a traffic pileup that can cause more accidents, delay businesses, who then can't pay people, who then can't consume, etc etc. It's an ongoing problem out here. Base salaries can't help with the cleanup task, that costs the city hundreds of thousands of dollars for towing, street sweeping, fire neutralizing, chemicals, etc. There has to be something to compensate the effort and get people actually driving safely.
     
  9. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #9
    Illegal immigrants get into accidents on purpose?
     
  10. dmr727 macrumors G3

    dmr727

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2007
    Location:
    Southern California
    #10
    He's probably speaking of the old insurance fraud tactic where someone will intentionally swerve into your lane and slam on the brakes to make you rear end them.

    Of course, only illegal immigrants do this.
     
  11. revelated thread starter macrumors 6502a

    revelated

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    #11
    True story.

    Back when DivX was a disc rental format in the late 90's pushed by Circuit City, I had a 1990 Ford Tempo, silver. I took a friend down to pick up a DivX player and some discs right around when they first came out. Driving back we went down some side streets that I've taken many times before, four-lane street. A long brown Cadillac made a U-Turn right in front of my car. Didn't see where it came from, it happened so fast, but I'm guessing he was driving the wrong way on the opposite side of the street. Guy jumps out of the car and takes off running. My friend, who was wearing his seat belt, complained of chest pains from the impact. I was fine as my seat was quite far back.

    Police arrive, they find a small sack of cocaine under my car. It either got thrown from the guy's car or he threw it there to attempt to frame me. Given the fact that I impacted his driver's side, it's extremely unlikely that it ejected from the vehicle. Police think he put it there to attempt to frame me.

    People from the adjacent complexes noticed the guy taking off on foot at top speed towards the freeway. There was no doubt in anyone's minds that he was not legal. The car was stolen, the registration wasn't present, insurance wasn't present, and nobody knew the guy.

    IN other words, what I consider "on purpose" is equivalent to a total disregard of other people. In that definition, yes, illegal immigrants will not hesitate to cause accidents if it means they're at risk of getting deported.
     
  12. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #12
    It is called teaching people to drive safely. Putting more taxes on it won't make people drive better. You need to show them how to drive better.
     
  13. Liquorpuki macrumors 68020

    Liquorpuki

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2009
    Location:
    City of Angels
    #13


    • They're paid for work done. For PD, that could either be patrolling the streets or closing a freeway after an accident. I don't see what a public servant's base salary has to do with it. This is not overtime or working out of class. It's part of their job.

      It's also the job of local and state governments to budget tax money into funding these services and the contingencies that warrant them, which is done through existing taxes that go into a General Fund. To me this looks like a desperation double tax because cities are going broke, not an attempt to encourage better driving.

      It seems like you're angry at reckless drivers and think this is going to deter them. I really doubt it. And since you brought up illegal immigrants, they're the ones that don't have drivers licenses or insurance to begin with so they're not going to be paying for any of this.
     
  14. revelated thread starter macrumors 6502a

    revelated

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    #14
    Doesn't work because our state is too afraid to implement mandatory behind-the-wheel retests every 5 years which would go a long way towards what you suggest. We just take their DL renewal fee and smile.

    You're joking. You (the voters) refuse to allow the governments to budget money into funding these services. You keep voting down initiatives that would allow them to properly fund public services, because you don't want your income/sales/property taxes to increase. Well guess what? All they have to do is call it a fine, not a tax, and it's exempt from the voters. I wholeheartedly support it - not because I'm against reckless driving (though I am), but because I'm against letting people get off scott free that cause accidents. It's appalling so many people support letting accident instigators off the hook with no punishment.
     
  15. Liquorpuki macrumors 68020

    Liquorpuki

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2009
    Location:
    City of Angels
    #15
    No, you must joking because you think everyone who crashes their car deserves to be punished. Meanwhile, I work in local government and I've seen how short-sighted local politicians can be, especially with budgeting. And unlike you I also know how a General Fund is used and know that city councils, not voters, are the gatekeepers for how that money is spent.

    Sounds like you got a stick up your ass from your last accident.
     
  16. CorvusCamenarum macrumors 65816

    CorvusCamenarum

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    #16
    Sounds like they're going to be billing the insurance company. So, expect insurance rates in CA to rise since the insurance companies would have to recover the added costs from somewhere.
     
  17. FrankieTDouglas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    #17
    Given your broad assumption here with pigeonholing the driver as illegal, aren't you glad the police made the assumption that the cocaine wasn't yours, rather than swinging their assumption the other way?
     
  18. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #18
    Actually, the simplest solution is to restructure the taxes and subsidies so that we are paying the proper price for gasoline, which would be around 2.5~3 times what it is now. Just reducing casual motor vehicle use would go a long way to reducing collisions, fatalities and other various types of harm associated with them.
     
  19. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #19
    And their insurance company will be paying the tax, so what good is it going to do to prevent what you listed?

    They either don't have insurance and obviously don't care about the law and wouldn't bother paying this stupid tax, or they have insurance, and the threat of paying a deductible and premium increase if they have an accident hasn't changed their driving habits so another fee, paid for by their insurance company isn't going to change their habits either.

    I'm also not sure what the hell illegal immigrants have to do with it. You think this tax is going to keep them off the roads? Or do you think they commit insurance fraud? Because you're wrong. The last thing an illegal immigrant wants is to be in an accident, whether or not it's their fault. Even if it's legitimately not their fault, as soon as the police arrive at the scene and check to make sure everyone's a licensed driver, they'll be caught and deported. They're not committing insurance fraud.

    If states implement this tax, you and everyone else will be paying this tax, even if we don't have accidents, because insurance companies will increase premiums on everyone to cover the cost.
     
  20. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #20
    I agree 100%.

    I think I read recently that the Motor Vehicle death rate for 2010 was ~34,000 whereas for 2007 it was ~44,000. So obviously fewer people on the road means fewer traffic accidents.

    It's also tragic that Americans have come to see this number as a necessary cost of car ownership.

    We start wars on the deaths of 1/10th of the above numbers, yet we won't take the necessary steps to ensure safe driving.
     
  21. CorvusCamenarum macrumors 65816

    CorvusCamenarum

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    #21
    Except that horribly screws those of us who don't live in an area with decent public transportation, which is pretty much everyone who doesn't live in a major city. I know I can't afford $9 a gallon for gas, and I'm reasonably sure I'm not alone in that.
     
  22. likemyorbs macrumors 68000

    likemyorbs

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Location:
    NJ
    #22
    That's the stupidest idea I've ever heard in my entire life. Rethink it, and if you still come to the same conclusion, then you're wrong
     
  23. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #23
    A legitimate point. I wonder why public transportation is so poorly represented in the US. Perhaps, if the specter of unaffordable motor fuel were to rise up before us, that good old American Ingenuity that got sixteen men to the moon and back with a decade's effort would kick in and help us fix the situation. Might even help the economy.
     
  24. Eraserhead, Jan 1, 2011
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2011

    Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #24
    Maybe the US should ask for advice from other parts of the world. Plenty of other countries manage it.

    Other than illegal immigrants I agree with you.
     
  25. likemyorbs macrumors 68000

    likemyorbs

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Location:
    NJ
    #25
    Maybe you've never been to the US. European countries for example may be able to manage it because they don't rely on cars the way we do. European countries are small and have robust public transportation systems. If you live a half an hour outside of a city here, you need a car. We have a lot of rural areas with wide open space where you have to drive a half hour or even more just to go to buy groceries. My town has no sidewalks to walk somewhere, it's all roads and highways. Even if it did have sidewalks, everything is miles apart so you wouldn't use them anyway. $9/gallon gas would absolutely destroy us. So other parts of the world can do whatever they want with their gas prices, but that wouldn't work here.
     

Share This Page