The City’s New Fee for Recklessness
Published: October 1, 2009
In their quest to raise new revenues, the state and its localities often cast their collective eye toward a public service that could be taxed. The meals tax and entertainment tax fall into that category. Neither is particularly popular (are any taxes or fees?), but most residents have accepted them as a necessary method of raising revenues to maintain services provided by the government.
Last week, City Council approved a new fee that has the potential of raising additional revenues. But unlike most fees or taxes, this one could prove to be more popular than the others.
This new fee makes great sense — and it could prove to be an incentive for safer driving.
The fee will make it easier for authorities to seek restitution from drivers who cause accidents in the city. It will only apply to drivers convicted of certain charges, such as driving under the influence of alcohol or reckless driving. But it could be extended to other charges eventually.
New Feature
Sign up for our newsletter e-mailed to you at 8 a.m. each day Monday through Friday.
Under a new law approved by the last General Assembly, localities can approve a measure that would allow public safety officers to recoup the cost of responding to a wreck. A judge can make restitution one of the requirements of the guilty driver’s traffic sentence.
In the past, the only way to recover those expenses was for the locality to file a civil action against the driver who caused the crash. Local emergency responders do not typically exercise that power because of the burden involved in going through a separate civil trial.
Officials say the newer approach will allow the city to make greater use of the existing restitution clause.
How will it work?
Under the law, which will become effective Nov. 1 as part of the city code, police and emergency responders have the option of charging a flat fee of $250 or seeking as much as $1,000 for each incident provided they compile a detailed, minute-by-minute accounting of their expenses.
Police Chief Parks Snead said his department will most likely stick with the flat fee of $250. The added fines will apply to drivers involved in an accident who are convicted of driving under the influence, reckless driving, driving without a proper license or leaving the scene of an accident.
City officials also added an additional restriction that says both the police and fire or EMS departments must respond to an accident in order for it to qualify for imposition of the restitution fee.
And how much money will this new law generate for the city treasury? Officials have said it is difficult to predict. But the police department has tentatively projected it will raise $20,000 a year in DUI convictions alone.
So beginning Nov. 1, the fools who drive on city streets and who cause wrecks will get to pay for a portion of the cost of the police and emergency medical services they required.
There’s nothing wrong with that. In fact, the new law could amount to an incentive for some of those drivers to be a little more careful on the roads.
That would benefit everyone.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
And by the way here’s an example of what you can accomplish with reading comprehension.
...And I am a man FYI
If you could comprehend what you read, you would have known all I did was repeat your words back to you.
And that is proof positive why I say you need reading comprehension classes AF. Thanks for the confirmation.
Great, now all I am hearing from the poet is “wah wah wah, everyone hates me.“ And I am a man FYI.
AF you’re wrong. Be woman enough to admit it and move on.
And think of this in the meantime.
All I did was bring up a long known saying…be careful what you ask for. That is not a new nor a strange concept, but somehow you spring boarded that into:
I think that you are happy that “those people” are going to be paying for it in the hopes that maybe somehow you won’t have to pay as much
Now how you made such a leap of logic to imply I’ve been causing accidents is beyond me.
I don’t know what your age is AF, but if you’re over the age of 10 I’m quite sure you’ve warned people to be careful of what you ask for. How wrong were you at those times?
Poet, face it your wrong. Be woman enough to admit it and move on.
Now hold on a min Clare. I didn’t attack anybody by telling them they missed my point. I’m sure you’ve told plenty of folks to reread something, because they obviously didn’t get it the first time. Were you attacking them then?
You might want to take some of your own reading lessons, because I never said or implied you are an idiot and defy you to show where I did. All I did was say reread my post. The same as you have done at times as well as everyone else that’s trying to make a point.
Now if you take that as an attack, maybe you are an idiot per your definition, but that’s your problem.
If you see the need to defend AF let me say this. When a person deliberately misrepresents a clear statement from another, and proudly declares that misrepresentation as intellectual, then yes, they need reading comprehension classes. Period.
And to be blatantly redundant, whether it is expanded to other charges is the opinion of the News and Advance. According to the General Assembly that passed the bill (a link is included in my previous post), it is strictly limited to the specified charges.
But yes, time will tell. If we follow the actions of our elected delegates and representatives, we can help to monitor any potential abuse. I believe that what has been passed is perfectly reasonable.
Clare at the risk of being redundant here is the quote:
It will only apply to drivers convicted of certain charges, such as driving under the influence of alcohol or reckless driving. But it could be extended to other charges eventually
I’m not willing to gloss over that as if it doesn’t exist.
I’ve never said the ones causing such accidents shouldn’t pay, as I’ve been falsely accused of by AF. I’m just pointing out that there now is an opened door for abuse. And I can assure you from all my decades of living, when that door is opened, all kinds of things will come through it, especially in a depressed economy.
That’s the only issue I’m pointing out.
Time will tell.
Have a good week
I harbor no bitterness toward the man who wrecked our cars - he made a bad choice. I do, however, believe that the city should be able to recover the costs of his decision.
poet - Any anger I have directed at you has been based on your assertion in 3 different posts that other posters cannot or do not read.
I am licensed to teach reading. Just because I do not agree with you does not mean that I am an idiot nor does it mean that I did not read your posts correctly.
This is why I provided additional information to back up my position and offered some reading for you as well. I try to stay away from attacking other posters, but in reflecting upon your own posts on this article, perhaps you will see a pattern of behavior that you had not previously realized.
AF you suffered an accident that no one should suffer. You didn’t suffer it at my hands and it’s ridiculous of you to assert because I’m looking at this article and seeing the potential abuse this has opened the doors for, then that means I did something criminal, or something to you.
Don’t let you sorrow turn you into a shortsighted bitter person falsely accusing people of things like that based on nothing at all.
You still haven’t gotten the point.
I’ve lost family members to traffic accidents as well. I don’t let that hinder me from thinking though.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Find us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Advertisement