At a time when government spending is under intense scrutiny, and large portions of the American populous is up in arms over how their tax dollars are spent, it appears as though one thing the majority can agree upon is how traffic accidents are paid for.
According to the results of a Harris Interactive poll, conducted by telephone for the
The survey, which contains the responses of 1,428 adults aged 18 and older, finds that while one-third of adults believe charging these fees are appropriate, 60% disagree with the practice. The opposition to charging these fees grows to 66% if it were to lead to an increase in the cost of insurance, and to 70% if only non-residents are charged the fee. The survey also found that charging accident response fees could also have a significant impact on local businesses and tourism, as more than 40% of adults reported they would be hesitant to travel to towns that assess such fees.
“There is strong public opposition across the country to this new trend of charging accident response fees,” Robert Passmore, senior director, personal lines for PCI, said in a release. “Public safety is the primary duty of local government and police or firefighting services are already paid for through property and other local taxes. Motorists clearly see this for what it is: local governments trying to impose a hidden, double tax on consumers. We call these fees an accident tax or crash tax.”
In recent years, PCI says local governments have sought to impose fees on traffic accident victims in an effort to plug budget shortfalls. These fees can range from hundreds to thousands of dollars. Some local governments levy fees on all accident victims, while others only bill out-of-town drivers. Still others target at-fault drivers or accidents that involve fires or spill cleanups. These fees, in turn, are often passed on to insurance companies, but frequently the costs aren't covered, which leaves the victim facing a bill or the potential of higher insurance costs.
“The crash tax adds insult to injury by victimizing drivers twice—once by being in an unfortunate accident and then again with a fee,” Passmore adds. “Then when you add the potential negative impact on local businesses, charging for emergency services is simply a bad public policy option for local governments.”
PCI says the accident response fee issue is currently an issue in several major cities, including New York, Denver, Sacramento and Tulsa. Additionally, 10 states restrict local governments from charging accident response fees. Such legislation is already in effect in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Tennessee.
Although it is early in the 2011 state legislative process, bills to prohibit local governments from charging accident response fees have been introduced in Arizona, California and Michigan.
