FDNY auto accident fees

But I would not do it for every accident - only in instances where roads are closed due to weather, and people go out anyway and get themselves in trouble. Those people deserve to be billed for their wanton stupidity.

All of this is just out of control.

I hope the bill goes to whomever calls them even if they weren't directly involved.

I'm very surprised that they actually use the term 'accident'. In my area it was purposely changed years ago to 'incident' so as to be politically neutral. Or more in line with today's logic, meaning that it was probably someone's fault.

So, now in addition to taxes paid to the Feds, State & City, you will ALSO have to pay for basic services. Hmm, why would one want to pay anything to the State & City if they're providing nothing.

Fred

Not a done deal yet but this is crazy. Does this mean that I should get a tax rebate or cash back every year depending on whether or not I needed the NYFD? Doubt that will happen - just another way to get our money.

Since my town doesn't charge NYC residents involved in an "incident", can we expect reimbursement from the NYFD?

On a cold, windy, rainy night, a live chicken truck turned on its side on I-495 in Queens, New York City. I was a firefighter of FDNY Ladder Company XXX, the first unit to arrive at the accident. The driver was trapped in the cab, and it was obvious that at the moment of impact that every chicken had s**t simultaneously! There is an expression in the Fire Department that when things go wrong (in a life-threatening manner) "the s**t hits the fan." In my career, this was the first time that this literally happened! Between the rain and the chicken s**t, we couldn't even stand up straight! All the fire and police units had four "Jaws of Life" tools working to release the driver. These hydraulic tools operate at 3,000 PSI, and one of them burst a hose, and a fine mist of hydraulic fluid was sprayed all over everyone. So if we were worried about salmonella, we now had bigger problems to worry about. The driver was rescued in good condition, and the chickens all got away.

dobs108

I don't know if this type of incident will be covered under any car insurance policy.
Also, a homeowner falls asleep with a cigarette in his hand and burns his house down. The FD extinguishes the fire and charges him $5000.00 for their services. Will his home fire insurance reimburse him?
Seems to me another round of endless court cases. The attorneys must be moist....

Gee...
It seems socialism is running out of other people's money...

Who gets the bill when you are hit by an uninsured driver with no license? I think I know!

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/12/nyregion/12fire.html?partn...

"On the insurance question, James J. Wrynn, the superintendent of the New York State Insurance Department said, “Our understanding of the current status of automobile insurance policies is that this would not be a cost that they would pick up, under the physical damage coverage portion of a standard policy.”

Mr. Ritea said that both drivers involved in an accident would receive a bill, but that it would “indicate it can be forwarded to responsible party and their insurer,” which he said would pay the city. He said people without automobile insurance “would still be receiving that bill.” "

Assuming that there was no real need for them on site and If I wasn't the one who called them, then I wouldn't pay their bill.

Let them send the invoice to the person requesting their services.

Cleveland, Ohio, had the same issue: for EVERY vehicle accident that the police responded to, so did the fire department, whether they were needed or not. Finally, someone with half a brain figured out that if the accident didn't really require the FD's presence, why send 'em. So now, the FD only responds if there's a fire threat or spill of some sort. Saves a ton 'o money.

Phil

Maybe fines from Red Light Running would make it possible NOT to charge fot the police coming to the scene of an accident.

However, so many people have complained that Automated Traffic Enforcement is just for revenue (not safety) that many cities have gotten that message from the citizens whipped up by ATE opponents (unconstitutional, invasion of privacy, taking away rights, etc) and removed the cameras.

But, cities have to have funds from somewhere. If ATE opponents don't want cities to get revenue from people who were obviously breaking the law, they may find themselves really upset when they are involved in an accident and have to pay for the police being called to the scene. Won't be any question about who was the driver, will there?

Be careful what you ask for - you just might get it!

Knowing how government works, the cost to administer this new billing system will probably be more than the fees collected!

the taxes that goes to the fire department.

Actually, it said the Fire Department, not the police.

And, if the red light cams, and yellow lights were not 'massaged' for maximum revenue, people would not have a problem with it at all. People aren't stupid, and from what I've read on this forum, many have the opinion and experience to say it's just a money-maker.

When you throw in 3rd parties that SELL the equipment, and get a share of the revenue collected, well, that's not at arms-length, IMO.

I'm all for nailing the bozo's that run lights. But, keep it above board, and ethical.

This is a quote from a report produced in 1999.

"Overall, there is an average of 2,472 fire trucks involved in police-reported accidents per
year in the United States."

Source: http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/1292/2/92640...

So if this law is passed will they pay for these accidents as well? Since it states BOTH vehicles will be charged.

Who's 'they'? Oh right, the taxpayer... As the old saying goes, "Heads I win, tails you lose".

BOHICA (bend over, here it comes again). Don't forget to grab your ankles!

Phil, You need to have Mentor's fire dept contact Shaker Heights' fire dept, because they still send both plus the ems vehicle, Go figure;
What if there was a real incident that needed the services urgently

that's why most FD charge to cover all cost plus.

Just a bad idea.

In Alberta, the fire department responds to all accidents where police are called because rescue and clean up services will likely be needed. The fire department has the equipment and training to handle extraction, leaking fuel, and other HazMat issues.

We were involved in a serious accident almot 20 years ago that resulted in the highway beng closed for a couple of hours. I was told that the responsible party's insurance company (not us) would be charged a standard fee for first responder costs. You are required to carry a minimum amount of insurance in Alberta. If you don't have insurance and are involved in an accident, you pay the fees out of your own pocket AND a fine for driving without insurance.

I am not surprised the NYC is picking up on this. Personally I feel if they want to charge for the service then they should go 100% fee for service and stop being paid by the taxpayers. It reminds me in some ways of the old joke where you want to buy a car and are told the price. You agree and then are asked if you want an engine, wheels, windshield and all the other parts that one would assume are part of the car but are told cost extra.

Here in Nassau County we pay for county EMS services through our property taxes BUT Nassau County will bill you (your insurance company in theory) if you use their ambulance. Still, most of our emergency services though are provided through our various volunteer fire companies. However, county EMS is having to handle more calls during the day due to lack of volunteer turnout. So in essence we also pay for emergency service through or fire district taxes as well yet if the County is forced to respond we will get billed on top of all that.

Welcome to New York. It will only get worse.

It's so easy to pay to have someone do things for you. Easy to get used to, & then overlook when they get sloppy and waste your cash though, I've found.

I take it as a given that Automated Traffic enforcement creates "net" revenues for a municipality - just the same as hiring additional officers to run down and ticket offenders would increase gross revenue (but not likely result in net revenue).

That said, I do not find this to be unethical. Rather it seems to offend people because it is not safety ONLY driven. At various times I have responded to reports - usually from thenewspaper.com - that imply that cities are "massaging" the traffic lights to increase revenues. My analysis of the underlying reports selectively quoted by opponents has been that there was usually no evidence of manipulation. Out of 10 such cited reports, only one seemed to me to be credible (and of course has since been rectified).

I assume that most people would agree that yellow light timings that were at least that recommended by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways in Section 4D.10, Yellow Change and Red Clearance Intervals guidelines and applicable state and local agency policies and procedures would be considered ethical. If they are below such guidelines then I would agree they were being massaged.

As the great philosopher, Pogo, said:
"We have met the enemy and he is us."

As others have said this is a bad idea. Raleigh, NC's police department started billing people who had police respond to their home alarm system. This was in response to a lot of false alarms that they were responding to. But billing people for an accident, is just bad.