What do you think of this?

[dakcp2001]

A city in Massachusetts is trying to avoid Fire Department layoffs and in order to cut costs they have decided to start billing insurance companies for the Fire Departments cost of the response in cases where the driver is "at fault" for the accident. They said for "gross negligence and careless driving" and gave examples of bad drivers with bad records, drunk driving etc.

So basically if you are in a care accident, and it ends up being your fault, your insurance company get billed for the costs of the fire department coming to the accident. They also plan to start billing people for false fire alarms. After the first 3, you get billed $100 for the first incident and $200 per each additional incident.

What do you think? One has to imagine the insurance companies will pass this cost on....

 

[AKL_Megs]

I wouldn't mind picking up the small percentage of that fee if it meant a fire fighter could keep his job.

I also always vote yes for fire and police millages.

I have been there before, my husband, a police officer, almost got laid off in June because there wasn't enough money to keep him and three other officers. Thankfully, someone donated hundreds of thousands of dollars, but moral of the story is yes - even $20 more a year would be worth it to save jobs, I know how lucky we are to have $20 to give. I've been there.

 

[Handbag Lady]

A city in Massachusetts is trying to avoid Fire Department layoffs and in order to cut costs they have decided to start billing insurance companies for the Fire Departments cost of the response in cases where the driver is "at fault" for the accident. They said for "gross negligence and careless driving" and gave examples of bad drivers with bad records, drunk driving etc.

So basically if you are in a care accident, and it ends up being your fault, your insurance company get billed for the costs of the fire department coming to the accident. They also plan to start billing people for false fire alarms. After the first 3, you get billed $100 for the first incident and $200 per each additional incident.

What do you think? One has to imagine the insurance companies will pass this cost on....

A city here in SoCal has done this same thing. Only the fines are MUCH higher if you have an accident in their city.

http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-huntington-beach-crash-charge,0,7738290.story

Makes me nervous to drive there now.

 

[tvguy]

Sacramento City Council tonight is debating this very issue.

Funny how things we have already paid for in our taxes, are becoming fee for service setups.

 

[JennaTX]

I have never heard of such a thing. But it seems kind of crazy to me.

Isn't that part of the fire departments job, to respond to accidents? Don't we already pay them in our taxes for that job?

Now I am in no way against firefighters, nor do I want them to loose their jobs. I just do not agree with fining people for emergency services.

 

[golfgal]

There are a lot of communities across the country that have been doing this for years. If you read your insurance contract there is coverage for this already.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

Sounds like they have to do something to retain services in their city. I guess they can just make the cuts and let people burn to death.

It is a no win situation really, unless the taxpayers are willing to pay more to cover the gap.

 

[bicker]

The fire department is indeed funded to address accidents. When a car "accident" is deemed to have someone at-fault, then indeed it is no longer an "accident". It is an error, a failure, and/or an instance of incompetence, and as such the people of the city shouldn't pay the costs associated with having the fire department respond. Now, if the accident was truly an accident, something that no reasonable person could have avoided, then surely there should be no cost-transference. Also, if it can shown that the city is partially at fault (bad roads, bad signage, etc.) then they should absolutely pay that portion of the costs.

This should extend beyond cars: If a home fire is due to homeowner negligence, then they should pay for the costs of having the fire department respond. Again, the people of the city shouldn't be paying for something that is truly a specific person's fault. No citizen has the right to effectively incur costs onto government unilaterally.

The principles of personal responsibility and accountability should prevail.