>  I don't know which government you are talking about, but at least here
> accidents always cost tax money. Health care, for instance. Also cleaning
> up the mess is done by officials, not individuals, so it costs tax money
> too. If someone involved got paralyzed, that will cost a lot of tax money.

You're going way off topic here into the irrelevant details, my point was 
that there are much cheaper ways to save lives than 60 million people all 
stuck in traffic for 30 minutes.  You said "Yes" you'd like them to do that 
to save one life, I am making a point that what you agree with is a 
horrendously expensive way of saving a life...  That's all.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
>> Also don't forget that 
>> repaving creates traffic jams just the same way that accidents do, plus they 
>> actually cost the government financially (accidents don't).
> 
>   I don't know which government you are talking about, but at least here
> accidents always cost tax money. Health care, for instance. Also cleaning
> up the mess is done by officials, not individuals, so it costs tax money
> too. If someone involved got paralyzed, that will cost a lot of tax money.
> 

Here is the US the cost for tax money is much lower because so many 
things are not government run - health care, rescue and ambulance, tow 
truck service, etc...

Putting scott's example together with this can get a very twisted 
conclusion:

Accidents where people do not get killed are the most profitable for the 
hospitals.  Therefore if you get a few non-dead people through the door 
you can buy that $10m piece of equipment that can save the lives of 10 
people.

Post a reply to this message

Tom Austin <taustin> wrote:
> Here is the US the cost for tax money is much lower because so many 
> things are not government run - health care, rescue and ambulance, tow 
> truck service, etc...

  Then who pays those things?

  I have hard time believing that if the victims of the accident do not
have any money, they and their car wrecks are left in the middle of the
road. *Someone* has to at least remove the debris from the road. Who does
that if the government (or the accident victims) doesn't pay for it?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>  Then who pays those things?

The insurance company of the one who was deemed to be at fault in the 
accident usually picks up all the direct costs (fixing any damaged 
vehicles/property, tow-trucks, any medical compensation etc).  The only 
general cost that is footed by the government will be the cost of any 
emergency services if they are needed on the scene.

Saying all that though, in countries like the UK where everyone is scared of 
driving on snow, all the accidents I've seen have been where people have 
slid off the road at very low speed and ended up hitting a wall or half-way 
into a ditch.  I doubt they even call the emergency services for this.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Tom Austin <taustin> wrote:
>> Here is the US the cost for tax money is much lower because so many 
>> things are not government run - health care, rescue and ambulance, tow 
>> truck service, etc...
> 
>   Then who pays those things?
> 
>   I have hard time believing that if the victims of the accident do not
> have any money, they and their car wrecks are left in the middle of the
> road. *Someone* has to at least remove the debris from the road. Who does
> that if the government (or the accident victims) doesn't pay for it?
> 

I didn't say that there was no tax cost, it is just much lower.

People who get paid per service (ie tow truck, hospital, ambulance) will 
bill you for their services - after the fact.  Usually it is handled by 
the involved insurance companies.

People who are paid by taxes are just doing their job, there usually is 
no extra cost.  Exceptions may be where you cause damage to public 
property (ie destroy a bridge, etc...).

As scott said, insurance usually takes care of the bills.
Just about everyone has auto insurance - it's required here.
If you happen to not have insurance you get into legal trouble - and you 
are personally responsible for the bills.

The government does not pay to have your car towed.  They just call the 
tow truck to come get your car.  Then the tow truck driver bills you for 
service.

In the end it is through your insurance premiums that you pay the 'tax'.
The premiums are based on the insurance company still making a profit 
while shelling out the money for other people's stupidities.


Tom

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> >  Then who pays those things?

> The insurance company of the one who was deemed to be at fault in the 
> accident usually picks up all the direct costs (fixing any damaged 
> vehicles/property, tow-trucks, any medical compensation etc).  The only 
> general cost that is footed by the government will be the cost of any 
> emergency services if they are needed on the scene.

  What if it was nobody's fault? What if there was no insurance?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp escribió:
>   What if it was nobody's fault? What if there was no insurance?

In Argentina, I bet they would keep blaming each other and leave the car 
in the middle of the road for months :)

(ok, big exaggeration; but it *has* happened that two city governments 
argue about who is in charge of fixing something and meanwhile the thing 
doesn't get fixed)

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:59:36 -0500, Warp wrote:

> scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
>> >  Then who pays those things?
> 
>> The insurance company of the one who was deemed to be at fault in the
>> accident usually picks up all the direct costs (fixing any damaged
>> vehicles/property, tow-trucks, any medical compensation etc).  The only
>> general cost that is footed by the government will be the cost of any
>> emergency services if they are needed on the scene.
> 
>   What if it was nobody's fault? What if there was no insurance?

In the US, at least in my experience, if it's "nobody's" fault, it's 
"everybody's" fault (everyone who was involved), so each insurance 
company pays some.  But usually they can pin it on one party or t'other.  
Or ISTR there's something called "no fault insurance" available.

If there's no insurance, part of the premium those of us who are legal 
(because, at least with driving a car or owning a home, there's a legal 
requirement to have insurance) end up paying a little extra to cover the 
costs of the uninsured.  Or maybe it's that there's a separate rider we 
can pay for that covers those situations.

But at least in the case of a car accident, if you don't have insurance, 
you're looking at a fine at the least.  For homeowners, unless you own it 
outright, the bank won't lend you money for the mortgage without it, and 
if your insurance policy is canceled, they'll be notified (as part owner 
in the property) and most lenders will send a nasty letter saying 
essentially that if you don't correct the situation, they'll foreclose.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>  What if it was nobody's fault?

That never happens, the insurance companies always agree between them who 
will pay (sometimes it's split 50/50).

> What if there was no insurance?

Not having a minimum of 3rd party insurance is illegal in most countries - 
of course that doesn't mean it never happens, but it's only a very small 
minority of cases.  Under that situation it means the insurance company of 
whoever owns the damaged property must pay up themselves - even if it wasn't 
their fault.  Of course you can try to sue the uninsured driver to get some 
money back, but for small amounts it usually isn't worth it.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> In the US, at least in my experience, if it's "nobody's" fault, it's 
> "everybody's" fault (everyone who was involved)

  Sounds fair. First you are in a dangerous car accident which might
have even costed your life, and then you have to pay money for it.
Yeah, fair.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message