NYC Introduces "Crash Tax"

Edward Niedermeyer
by Edward Niedermeyer

The last time we discussed the idea of “crash taxes,” it kicked off quite the debate. After all, it’s a question that cuts to the core of political philosophy: to what extent should individuals take responsibility for using public resources? As motorists, would we rather know that we’ll be taken care of in case of a crash, or would we rather have financial incentives to take care to not crash? Well, New York City has decided that, philosophy aside, it simply doesn’t have the money to send emergency responders to car crashes without charging some kind of fee. The WSJ reports

The FDNY plans to start sending out bills July 1. A vehicle fire or any other incident with injuries will cost $490. A vehicle fire without injuries will cost $415. And incidents without fire or injuries will cost $365. These charges apply to every vehicle involved in the incident.

Except, of course, when they don’t…

One of the major criticisms of “crash taxes” is that sometimes nobody is at fault for an accident. Why charge a taxpayer for an accident that he or she didn’t cause but couldn’t avoid? A FDNY spokesman clarifies

If we’re talking about an act of God situation, a tree falls on car, then we have discretion, obviously not to bill in those cases. If the accident is exceedingly minor, we show up on scene and nobody needs medical assistance and there’s no fire or anything like that, then, we have discretion.

But how much discretion? How will first responders be able to judge whether a motorist is at-fault or not? If city employees are found to be unevenly enforcing these fees, there will be lawsuits. And that’s not the only issue:

New York City officials project this policy will generate $1 million in annual revenue. Insurance officials said many auto insurance policies don’t cover these types of charges, and if companies are mandated to cover the charges, premiums will increase.

If you’re going to charge fees for first responders, the last thing you should do is force insurers to pay them: you lose the added incentive to not crash, and simply transfer the cost to every motorist by increasing the rates for mandatory car insurance. In any case, we’ll be watching NYC’s experiment with crash taxation with interest…

Edward Niedermeyer
Edward Niedermeyer

More by Edward Niedermeyer

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 43 comments
  • AaronH AaronH on Dec 10, 2010

    Taxpayers are the worlds greatest fools...They are too stupid to be free.

  • Speedlaw Speedlaw on Mar 10, 2011

    I already paid for the station house. I already paid for the training and salary. I'm paying for the pensions and health insurance (and let us not get sidetracked..it is only that corporate America has managed to kill these things for private workers that people suddenly get all jealous that a few still have them) Now I have to pay again ? How about I opt out of speed enforcement costs and traffic violations prosecution. I don't need those services, thank you :)

  • Dave Holzman A design award for the Prius?!!! Yes, the Prius is a great looking car, but the visibility is terrible from what I've read, notably Consumer Reports. Bad visibility is a dangerous, and very annoying design flaw.
  • Wjtinfwb I've owned multiple Mustang's, none perfect, all an absolute riot. My '85 GT with a big Holley 4 barrel and factory tube header manifolds was a screaming deal in its day and loved to rev. I replaced it with an '88 5.0 Convertible and added a Supercharger. Speed for days, handling... present. Brakes, ummm. But I couldn't kill it and it embarrassed a lot of much more expensive machinery. A '13 Boss 302 in Gotta Have It Green was a subtle as a sledgehammer, open up the exhaust cut outs and every day was Days of Thunder. I miss them all. They've gotten too expensive and too plush, I think, wish they'd go back to a LX version, ditch all the digital crap, cloth interior and just the Handling package as an add on. Keep it under 40k and give todays kids an alternative to a Civic or WRX.
  • Jpolicke In a communist dictatorship, there isn't much export activity that the government isn't aware of. That being the case, if the PRC wanted to, they could cut the flow of fentanyl down to a trickle. Since that isn't happening, I therefore assume Xi Jinping doesn't want it cut. China needs to feel the consequences for knowingly poisoning other countries' citizens.
  • El scotto Oh, ye nattering nabobs of negativism! Think of countries like restaurants. Our neighbors to the north and south are almost as good and the service is fantastic. They're awfully close to being as good as the US. Oh the Europeans are interesting and quaint but you really only go there a few times a year. Gents, the US is simply the hottest restaurant in town. Have to stand in line to get in? Of course. Can you hand out bribes to get in quicker? Of course. Suppliers and employees? Only the best on a constant basis.Did I mention there is a dress code? We strictly enforce it. Don't like it? Suck it.
  • 1995 SC At least you can still get one. There isn't much for Ford folks to be happy about nowadays, but the existence of the Mustang and the fact that the lessons from back in the 90s when Ford tried to kill it and replace it with the then flavor of the day seem to have been learned (the only lessons they seem to remember) are a win not only for Ford folks but for car people in general. One day my Super Coupe will pop its headgaskets (I know it will...I read it on the Internet). I hope I will still be physically up to dropping the supercharged Terminator Cobra motor into it. in all seriousness, The Mustang is a.win for car guys.
Next