Quinn, Garodnick, AAA Oppose FDNY Crash Fees at Public Hearing

Fire Department officials listen members of the public, insurance industry reps, and politicians oppose their plans to charge for responding to traffic crashes. Photo: Noah Kazis.
Fire Department officials listen to testimony at today's hearing. Photo: Noah Kazis

At a public hearing held by the Fire Department this morning, every person who testified spoke against charging a fee for FDNY response to traffic crashes, calling it inappropriate to make drivers pay for what they said ought to be a basic government function.

The charges are part of the Bloomberg administration’s attempt to close a budget deficit. The Fire Department proposes to recover the cost of responding to a traffic crash by charging the motorists involved between $365 and $490, depending on the severity of the crash. They estimate the fees would raise $1 million a year.

The charges can also be seen as an attempt to make motorists bear some of the enormous cost of traffic crashes. According to the city Department of Transportation, traffic crashes cost $4.29 billion a year.

No one at this morning’s hearing saw it that way. Opposition focused on whether it was right to switch from using general taxation to fund fire services to a user fee model:

  • The charge would “radically alter the relationship between the city’s taxpayers and the services they receive,” said City Council Member Dan Garodnick in a statement read by an aide. Continuing down this path, he argued, would create “two forms of government – one for those who can pay and one for those who cannot.”
  • “Imposing crash taxes on individuals unfortunate enough to have accidents adds insult to injury,” said AAA New York’s John Corlett. “Public safety services are a core government function and therefore should be properly budgeted for.”
  • The flat charges would place “a disproportionate financial burden on poor and minority citizens,” said William McDonald of the NAACP’s Jamaica Branch, speaking for the branch’s president.

Council Speaker Christine Quinn also wrote in to the Fire Department in opposition to the fee. “The Fire Department doesn’t charge for its response to structural fires, and the Police Department doesn’t charge for patrolling a block. Charging for responding to the scene of an accident is a slippery slope,” she wrote. She also worried that drivers might choose not to call 911 if faced with an additional fee, leaving people on the road who shouldn’t be, like injured or drunk drivers.

Though the Fire Department has the authority to institute this charge unilaterally, legislation has been introduced in both the City Council and state legislature to take away that power.

One important question that remains unresolved is the extent to which auto insurance policies would cover the charge. Fire Department counsel Julian Bazel seemed to believe that insurance would cover the charge, while multiple insurance industry representatives said that while it depended on the policy, most drivers would be paying out of pocket. State Insurance Superintendent James Wrynn agreed with insurers that most policies wouldn’t cover the charge, according to an article in the Daily News.

The charge would work very differently depending on whether the city or the industry is correct. If insurance does cover the charge, the city would essentially be increasing the overall cost of driving, as the fees would show up in all drivers’ premiums. If not, it really is a charge for particular services rendered.

Perhaps more importantly, if insurers covered the charge, insurers would in most cases shift all the fees onto the at-fault party in any given crash, according to industry reps. If drivers paid out of pocket, both parties might end up having to pay the charge, even if one was rear-ended while stopped at a red light.

  • vnm

    Just to re-post what I added late to the headlines thread:

    AAA’s Robert Sinclair told today’s Daily News: “A motorist already pays the cost of a response to a crash by paying income and sales tax and things like that. This plan makes them pay twice.”

    Actually, that’s a completely bogus argument. If the crash charge were to be implemented, motorists would no longer have to pay for crash response via sales and income taxes. So they’d pay for crash cleanup only once. In fact, non-crashing motorists wouldn’t have to pay at all.

  • butters

    I hate cars just as much as the next guy, but this is a dumb idea that will encourage drivers to flee the scene. There are lots of ways to price driving more appropriately–gas taxes, pay-as-you-drive insurance, an end to parking subsidies, congestion pricing. And there are lots of things we can do to deter bad driving–speed cameras, better liability rules (like, “hit a pedestrian and you’re presumed to be at fault), or legalized tire-slashing against people who park in bike lanes. Billing people for emergency services makes no sense. Nobody will be deterred by the distant possibility of a $400 fine. (They *will* be deterred by the high possibility of a pricey speeding ticket, if we roll out some cameras.) And $1m revenue? That’s chump change. I hate to say it, but AAA is right. We should budget for the cost of driving up front, by making drivers pay for their pollution and congestion and parking.

  • vnm

    Actually, I think it would encourage drivers to drive more safely.

  • PaulCJr

    I think this is stup

  • PaulCJr

    I think this is stupid as well. But this is what happens when we don’t want to pay taxes.

  • clever-title

    If the FDNY start charging crash fees, could they face antitrust suits, and be forced to allow competing ambulance/fire services to operate in the city?

    But seriously, isn’t the idea of fines associated with moving violations to partly recoup the costs those behaviors impose on responders?

  • Glenn

    There’s already major inequalities in the justice system based on personal wealth. Rather than fees for crashes (or even higher insurance rates) which impact people very differently based on their personal wealth, I like more user restrictions (points toward suspending license, install monitoring system, etc) placed on motorists that crash or kill.

  • Jeffrey Hymen

    Back in the day, there was no municipal fire department; your insurance company paid for fire response. No insurance; no firefighting. Perhaps there is an analogy to be taken from this.

    Also, if you slip and fall and someone calls an ambulance, you can send the “bus” away and avoid the cost of transport to the hospital. But the way these types of laws are being written across America, you get billed whenever the fire company rolls. Granted, if there is gasoline all over the street, emergency response is needed. But in other cases my reaction would be, “I didn’t ask you to come, so how am I responsible for the cost of the ‘service call’?”

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Why Motorists Should Pay for Crash Investigations

|
As any good policy wonk knows, certain activities effectively force people who only bear the costs of that activity to subsidize the beneficiaries. To use the classic contemporary example, fossil fuel polluters receive billions in tax breaks, but pay nothing for the climate change-inducing carbon that they emit. The same problem applies to private motoring, […]

Reforming NYPD Crash Investigations: What’s Next?

|
New Yorkers were outraged to hear yesterday that there may be no criminal charges against cab driver Mohammed Himon, who plowed into a bicyclist and several pedestrians, horribly injuring a woman on the sidewalk. Although yesterday’s NYPD statement was not official, anonymous leaks to the effect that sober drivers who stay at the scene of […]