Some cities are proposing to charge people fees that get in accidents!
How stupid, so a person has an accident (let’s say slipping on ice while driving responsibly), and now the city comes back and charges them fees for the accident?
So let’s think this through, you are driving with the kids in the car, and the roads aren’t salted well, your car slides through an intersection and your car gets totaled, because of the accident you and your kids need to go to the hospital, so now you have a car repair and a hospital bill. And to add insult to injury, now you are going to have to pay money for the accident too?
In winter, if the roads are salted well, accidents could happen because of it! Does this mean that we should sue the city since the are going to charge us for accidents? Personally, Idon’t like to sue the city because indirectly it means that we are suing each one of the residents…
When I was carpooling a few years ago, my buddy was driving and he slowly eased up to the stop sign, but since the road was a sheet of ice, we slowly slide across the road and into the ditch on the other side. Luckily, no damage was done to this car. A police officer came and realize it wasn’t his fault and parked his car and put on the flashing lights to protect his car from being hit. The officer could have technically charged my buddy, but the officer realized that the road wasn’t salted. I wonder if the city could charge him for the accident if he would have gotten a ticket for the accident. My buddy isn’t stupid, I’m sure he would have sue the city for life endangerment or something similar if he got a ticket.
I think that city official are forgetting why we pay them taxes!
Do you thinks it’s a good idea to charge people for accidents? Doesn’t that seem unfair… after all if they were drinking or acting reckless, they’ll get punished for their activity anyway?
If you disagree with me, please present your case below…
-Mr
Pingback: fwisp.com
It’s not quite the same thing, but over where I live, there is a clause in the law that says that the city is not responsible to tire and suspension damage, should you damage your car due to a pothole or damage to the road.
So what this means is that if you’re driving down a road, and then you hit a deep pothole either because you didn’t see it in time or it wasn’t visible due to snow or the lighting conditions, and you bust out a tire in the process… too bad for you.
@Kevin@InvestItWisely
If we damage a tire in a pothole, we have to pay for it too.
But what is being proposed above is that if your car catches on fire, and the firefighters come out to put out the fire, you have to pay them. If you damage a sign, you have to pay for that.
If Detroit had to pay for every tire damaged by a pothole, the city would be insolvent within 13 seconds since the roads are so bad here. When I was reading your story, potholes were the first thing I thought of because I have had damage on my suspension because of them. I hate that ‘thunk’.
Money Reasons, I agree with you- I thought we paid taxes for city services such as fire and police. I know we have to pay a fine if police come out to your house 3 or more times for faulty house alarms, but I understand that.
@Everyday Tips
I never heard of the paying a fine if the police have to come out to your house more than 3 time, but I agree with that. After all, 3 visits is wasting public resources.
So far, the charging people for accidents is just talk. I doubt it will get very far, perhaps a few cities… but not more than that.