"Crash Tax"

Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.

NoCaDiver

FRF Addict
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Posts
1,274
Reaction score
13
Found this a bit interesting over on AutoBlog.

If you are involved in or are a witness to an accident, what's the first thing you should do? Call #911, right? While we're certainly not advising against using the emergency service, making that call may wind up being rather costly to either yourself or the victim. Proof of such can be seen in the case of Cary Feldman, who was traveling through Chicago Heights, IL on his motor scooter when he was stuck from behind.

As CBS 2 Chicago tells it, a witness to Feldman's accident called #911, as you might hope and expect them to do. "There was no fire, there was no explosion, there was no debris," according to Feldman. "From what I saw, they came, they saw, and they left."

Still, the Chicago Heights Fire Department responded and examined the scene before they left. Shortly thereafter, Feldman received a bill for $200 while the person who hit him, who lives in Chicago Heights, got a bill for $100.
"Crash taxes" are an alarming trend in the 41 states that have not banned the practice.

Don't think you can just avoid the issue by not paying. Feldman reports that officials were "sending me letters and they even turned it over to collections without sending a final notice... So this is what I call extortion. This is how they get you to pay it."

Such so-called "crash taxes" are an alarming trend in the 41 states that have not banned the practice. Illinois lawmakers are even considering legislation that would allow municipalities to bill up to $250-per-hour for emergency services that are already funded in part by taxes.

Not everyone with a vote in Illinois thinks the would-be law is a good idea. Representative Karen Yarbrough (D – 7th District) calls it a "very bad bill," adding, "This is just another way to reach into a consumer's pocket." Chicago Heights Fire Chief Thomas Martello suggests that such methods are necessary in response to tight budget constraints and says that house fires won't incur an added bill.

Feldman remains unconvinced that the tactic is appropriate. "I'm going to call it a scam," said Feldman. "Just a way to make money instead of helping people." So, we ask you: Good, creative way to ease tight budget constraints for emergency services, or just another blatant money grab? Consider the topic officially up for debate. Feel free to voice your own opinion in our Comments section below.

[Source: CBS 2 Chicago]
 

SVTRay

FRF Addict
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Posts
1,780
Reaction score
134

Such so-called "crash taxes" are an alarming trend in the 41 states that have not banned the practice. Illinois lawmakers are even considering legislation that would allow municipalities to bill up to $250-per-hour for emergency services that are already funded in part by taxes.
[Source: CBS 2 Chicago]


Well I can't really respond to this thread without violating the site's policy on politics. So I'll just say this suck but it doesn't surprise me, especially from these people.
 

MagicMtnDan

FRF Addict
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Posts
7,661
Reaction score
1,796
Location
Magic Mountain
Fact: Instead of cutting spending they're finding new ways for society to pay. Keep your eyes open there are more coming our way from every direction.

Imagine if we had OnStar in our Raptors! It would make a call automatically and then we'd be billed for the services all thanks to OnStar. It's a nice idea in concept but the more I hear about it the worse it seems to be. And don't get XJRguy started on OnStar - suffice to say he's not a fan.
 

SVTRay

FRF Addict
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Posts
1,780
Reaction score
134
Fact: Instead of cutting spending they're finding new ways for society to pay. Keep your eyes open there are more coming our way from every direction.

Imagine if we had OnStar in our Raptors! It would make a call automatically and then we'd be billed for the services all thanks to OnStar. It's a nice idea in concept but the more I hear about it the worse it seems to be. And don't get XJRguy started on OnStar - suffice to say he's not a fan.

I guess Texas isn't part of that deal (cross fingers) because my wife got in a wreck with Onstar and we never got a "crash tax" bill.
 
OP
OP
N

NoCaDiver

FRF Addict
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Posts
1,274
Reaction score
13
Yeah...sorry people, my focus was not on the politics but the "crash tax" itself. Bad Scott.
 

bstoner59

does it come in shmedium?
Joined
Jul 13, 2010
Posts
6,104
Reaction score
4,754
Location
Orange, CA
that's terrrible...with the added 'revenue' they will add a customer service line for us to call to determine if the emergency is indeed an emergency thus eliminating the excess 'revenue' and will start a new 'revenue generating program'....ugh
 

Raptor1

Full Access Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Posts
117
Reaction score
1
Is extortion considered politics or criminal actions?
If he did not request the emergency vehicles himself how can he be held liable?
 

frogslinger

Full Access Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Posts
1,072
Reaction score
4
I can think of a bunch of scenarios where you are liable for emergency services you do not request, though they almost all involve your own negligence or stupidity...

I think this is a poor extension of that line of thinking... The charges for your helicopter ride because you got caught in an avalanche in a no ski zone is to discourage people from skiing in a no ski zone... this is just stupid.
 
Top