So? Maybe not a terrible idea, if done so that it is covered by insurance. How about taxing the auto-body shops a percentage on collision work, which would then flow through on their rates and then it _would_ be covered by insurance.

I think it's unlikely that insurance would ever cover someone's taxes, or fine or penalties for that matter.

Clackamas Fire Dist. #1 was the first to get in on this scam in Oregon. They took a statue that the Legislature passed to help small rural fire districts recover costs for big wrecks on the interstates and railroad right-of-ways, neither of which pay property taxes for any services; and turned it into a cash register for every little fender bender they go to anyway. CCFD #1, a rich district gets richer, which is not what the Legislature intended.

Imagine getting the tab for one of the many six hour, total road/freeway closing, traffic accident reconstruction investigations that's only purpose is to determine if those involved were wearing their seat-belts and create more early retirement comp-time for public employees who themselves decide when enough data has been gathered.

It's Deja Vu only much worse.

States and Cities Fight Recession With New Taxes

By MICHAEL DECOURCY HINDS
Published: July 27, 1991

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CEFDC113AF934A15754C0A967958260

So, collision insurance doesn't cover sales tax on repairs in states that have sales tax? I'm a bit surprised by that.

They probably cover customary sales taxes. But I doubt that they'd cover a "tax" like this -- particularly since it's in the nature of a penalty.

Every time I've been stalled, waiting for a wreck to be cleared, I thought something like this ought to be implemented. Of course it comes nowhere near the cost of having hundreds or thousands of people waiting because you had to use your cell phone or turned and yelled at your kids or whatever.

Make it conditional on getting a citation - careless driving, reckless driving, etc. and it seems fair to me.

Arent we as taxpayers already paying for emergency services? I thought it was bad enough when I slipped and broke my ankle at a MAX stop in 2005. I got an ambulance ride from Goose Hollow to Good Sam...the bill was $900. And my limited insurance plan I had at the time didnt cover ambulance rides. I think a cab ride would have been much cheaper.

How about using transportation/gas taxes for this? Maybe put it in a "rescue" fund instead of building trains we dont need.

How does insurance company avoid such a tax? If the bill for repairs would be $3000 in jurisdiction A but is $4000 in jurisdiction B, and the policyholder living in B gets his/her car fixed where they live, how does the insurance company avoid their obligation to cover the insured loss up to the insured limit? I'm sure the same repair costs very different amounts in Wasilla AK, Portland, OR, and Klamath Falls, OR (and all points surrounding). Things cost what they cost, and the cost of repairs is one of them. If Driver has an insurance policy against loss from auto collisions, then this seems like a covered loss.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not seeing it.

Doesn't get at the problem of raising the number of totaled cars though -- if the cost of the same repair shoots up by the value of the tax, then more cars will be worth less than their repair cost and so will be written off and not repaired.

(On the other hand, that could be a good thing if it means that we're taking older, low mpg cars off the road.)

I'm most uneasy about allowing any public agency response costs to be allocated to a victim. We actually do this right now if a stolen car is recovered; the victim is forced to pay (often exhorbitant) towing and storage fees up front just to get the car back - which isn't very popular.

I think the model that county sheriff's agencies often use for mountain / backcountry / wilderness rescue is a much better solution: If you go in with reasonable preparedness and understanding of your training and abilities, and conduct yourself in a way that you aren't taking undue risk for the situations encountered, should you ever need rescue, it's probably free. If, on the other hand, you go in unprepared, untrained, and take extreme risks, you'll still be rescued, but more and more, you can expect to be billed for the rescue.

If insurance companies just roll over and say they'll pay these taxes, it just encourages passage of similar legislation in other jurisdictions - the attituide being that people are more likely to tolerate indirect costs as opposed to direct.

In Europe firefighters are used to fight fires not attend every minor fender bender or lil ol lady falling on some ice.

I think we could save a ton of money if we used the skills of the firefighters only when they were usefully needed (ie jaws of life etc).

Isn't the fire service another group over protected by a powerful union (can you say teachers) that essentially bullies a suppliant public into a see no evil,speak no evil status quo. ?

Urban renewal and the FPD&R are sucking all the dollars out of city government. Until those are dealt with, they will continue to increase fees for the services which are supposed to be the city's core function.

Insurance companies would be the first to tell you the mandates such as an accident response tax are simply passed on to policyholders in rates.

And that's fine, that makes sense, because it means shifting the costs that drivers (as a class) impose on the system back onto drivers (as a class of insureds), rather than onto homeowners, general fund, etc.