Cities charging extra for 911 calls resulting from accidents

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Minor-fenderbender-Thatll-be-a...

Minor fender-bender? That'll be $700, please.

-----------------------------------------
Don't get into an accident! It could be a very very costly event, even with insurance!

--
http://www.poi-factory.com/node/21626 - red light cameras do not work

I wonder

nuvic320 wrote:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Minor-fenderbender-Thatll-be-a...

Minor fender-bender? That'll be $700, please.

-----------------------------------------
Don't get into an accident! It could be a very very costly event, even with insurance!

I wonder if those same county leaders would complain if they were involved in an accident in another county and the bill came? Just how loud would the cries of "Unfair - That's what I pay taxes for!" would be?

As minor point on this thread though, you are not charged for the 9-1-1 call, it is the response dispatched by someone outside your control. For a minor accident without injury is a fire department or medical response even needed? Who decides what will be dispatched - definitely not the caller, they didn't ask for those services, they only reported an accident to comply with their insurance requirements. No wonder so many insurance companies are refusing to pay these "dispatch fees."

Just my opinion though.

--
ɐ‾nsǝɹ Just one click away from the end of the Internet

Another Scheme for Municipalities to Generate Revenue

We pay taxes in order to get police and fire fighting services. Also on many phones bills there is a charge for 911 service. It appears that municipalities are doing what they can to generate additional revenue. This is double taxation. As noted above it is a good point about who decides what services are dispatched. At a wreck you could say, I did not request a fire truck or an ambulance because there was no fire and no one was injured in the wreck. So what happens if you call the police department directly after an accident? They will probably tell you to call 911. Since they told you to call 911, then should they not be responsible for the extra charges since they told you to make the 911 call? This policy of charging for 911 services is unfair and should be banned in all states.

in my opinion

1. they should install redlight/speed cameras to collect funding for emergency responding agencies.

2. this is pay per use. good news for safe driver. Accident does happen, people just need to drive carefully.

3. consider not to request fire engine for minor fender-bender collision, which can reduce use fee. Make your best determination.

I could not dissagree more....

abin wrote:

1. they should install redlight/speed cameras to collect funding for emergency responding agencies.

2. this is pay per use. good news for safe driver. Accident does happen, people just need to drive carefully.

3. consider not to request fire engine for minor fender-bender collision, which can reduce use fee. Make your best determination.

The bottom line here is that these towns and counties are passing the buck for services they must provide to those that use the services, instead of establishing a stable tax base and cutting non-value added services.

By your example, everything should be a pay as you go. From the libarary to emergency medical services. I am all for charging for abuse, but normal services no. It would be better to cut the saervice to everyone than go to this type of system.

sounds free service to residents

Not really... residents are waived from the fee.

From the article...
>>Since 2007, the county has billed drivers more than $235,000, but collected only $19,000, whether because insurers refuse to pay or because many of the at-fault drivers are residents. Escambia County waives the fee if a resident's insurance doesn't cover it.

Now, consider to avoid this town, strangers.

That is just nuts!

That is just nuts!

more questions

abin wrote:

1. they should install redlight/speed cameras to collect funding for emergency responding agencies.

2. this is pay per use. good news for safe driver. Accident does happen, people just need to drive carefully.

3. consider not to request fire engine for minor fender-bender collision, which can reduce use fee. Make your best determination.

1. where is the redlight/speed camera money going now-- does anyone know?
2. Safe drivers can be the victims of unsafe drivers and have an accident so they are not exempt.
3. would they honor your request? and if you didn't request it, can you refuse to pay?

Just not fair

nuvic320 wrote:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Minor-fenderbender-Thatll-be-a...

Minor fender-bender? That'll be $700, please.

-----------------------------------------
Don't get into an accident! It could be a very very costly event, even with insurance!

We get charged $100 years ago for an ambulance run one town over from where we live. I shudder to think what the charge would be now.

These charges are fundamentally unfair. And it starts at this level, and pretty soon it spreads to hometowns charging their own residents, and the charges get higher and higher.

--
JMoo On

answer

bsp131 wrote:
abin wrote:

1. they should install redlight/speed cameras to collect funding for emergency responding agencies.

2. this is pay per use. good news for safe driver. Accident does happen, people just need to drive carefully.

3. consider not to request fire engine for minor fender-bender collision, which can reduce use fee. Make your best determination.

1. where is the redlight/speed camera money going now-- does anyone know?
2. Safe drivers can be the victims of unsafe drivers and have an accident so they are not exempt.
3. would they honor your request? and if you didn't request it, can you refuse to pay?

1. it depends on which jurisdiction is concerned. Seems to me, a portion of it goes to operational cost (may include insurance for operator in van)
Maryland law requires the County and local jurisdictons to designate money from speed camera fines for public safety programs.
2. Agree. If we are not careful enough, we may as well affect other safe drivers.
3. If you do not request, you will not get what you want.

Not free to residents

abin wrote:

Not really... residents are waived from the fee.

From the article...
>>Since 2007, the county has billed drivers more than $235,000, but collected only $19,000, whether because insurers refuse to pay or because many of the at-fault drivers are residents. Escambia County waives the fee if a resident's insurance doesn't cover it.

Now, consider to avoid this town, strangers.

But it is not free to residents:
Escambia County waives the fee if a resident's insurance doesn't cover it.

If your insurance won't pay for it, then it is waived - but if your insurance pays, then everyone's premiuns are increased to cover the additional costs.

--
ɐ‾nsǝɹ Just one click away from the end of the Internet

which insurance carriers cover this fee

a_user wrote:
abin wrote:

Not really... residents are waived from the fee.

From the article...
>>Since 2007, the county has billed drivers more than $235,000, but collected only $19,000, whether because insurers refuse to pay or because many of the at-fault drivers are residents. Escambia County waives the fee if a resident's insurance doesn't cover it.

Now, consider to avoid this town, strangers.

But it is not free to residents:
Escambia County waives the fee if a resident's insurance doesn't cover it.

If your insurance won't pay for it, then it is waived - but if your insurance pays, then everyone's premiuns are increased to cover the additional costs.

Escambia County waives the fee if a resident's insurance doesn't cover it.

Someone lives there may wish his/her insurance carrier does not cover these fees, so they can be waived.

Weird enough.

I live close to there

I live in Florida and we usually never hear of these charges because most of the major insurance companies pay it... it is the small barely known insurance companies that may refuse to pay some of these charges.

I do agree that our tax money is there to pay for these emergency services... so by forcing extra fees on us, we are paying twice for a service whether we use it or not.

If they decide to go this route, rather than pay for emergency services from taxes, just have it on a per-use basis to be paid by either the person or insurance at the time or shortly after the event. This way the bad drivers pay each time they get in an accident, people who do not take care of their homes pay when a windstorm tears their house apart, people who refuse to evacuate from low lying areas pay for not listening and leaving...

we need one or the other, NOT BOTH... but thats just my 2 pennies

--
Garmin c330 w/ 2011 maps