Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1926-08-01
AUTO INSURANCE
BILLS DENOUNCED
Compulsory Liability Policies
Would Increase Reckless
ness, Says A. A. A.

Cnffagging opposition to compulsory
automobile liability insurance is
pledged by the American Automobile
Association following an exhaustive
survey of the potential effect of such
legislation, which is now being advo-
Gated in many sections of the country
as a panacea for traffic mishaps.
Claims of sponsors of compulsory
insurance that ii would promote
safety are wholly unfounded and
based upon deep rooted fallacy,
in the opinion of officials of the motor.
ing organization.
legislation are raised by A. A. A. of.
ficials.
First. 1t Is in> no sense a safety
measure as there is no relation be.
tween prevention of accidents and
compensation for accidents
Second. All the evidence points to
the probability that compulsory in.
Surance would breed reckIesSneSS
rather than promote greater care.
Burden OF $500, OOO,O
Third 1t would subject the car
owners in mass to a burden of $500.
000,000 in compulsory premiums in
order TO provide protection against a
comparatively few motorists who are
financially irresponsible.
Fourth. 1t would tend to increase
insurance rates because 1t would do
away with the principle of selective
risks.
/ Fifth 1t would inevitably degenerate
into State insurance and be an enter
ing wedge0for State control of every
other business.
The position Of A. A. A. is set forth
in the following statement:
1T is generally admitted that less
than 20 per cent of motorists carry
insurance, leaving something like 49,
100000 of the total 10000, 900 motor
vehicles Of America without insur.
ance. Consequently. If these com.
puisory insurance proposals became
law in all the States, $4,000. 900 We
hicle owners would be compelled to
purchase insurance: and on the basis
Of the ordinary premium for the
amount of insurance carried, these
$4,000. 900 would be required to nav
more than $500. 600, 900 in premiums
to comply with the law. This would
bring the total bill, now something
like 500, o00,0 900. to approximately
$780, 100000.
Loss to Motorists.
If the present ratio should hold. in
the event compulsory insurance was
adopted, only about one-twentieth OF
the gigantic amount would be paid
back to the motorists in realization
on insurance after damages had been
done. Thus, there would be the enor.
nous total of $500, Goo. 600 in premiums
to carry insurance 70 meet but $780,
000 000 in rnf41nof10a fnH RI ~ eYos,
Characterizing as a fallacy the be-
lief that compulsory insurance would
decrease accidents, the statement con-
tinued:
When insurance is arranged for.
the feeling of liability on the part of
the individual is lessened. No insur-
ance can prevent suffering or restore
life. No doubt a great many motor
lists who are insured feel that because
of their insurance they need not exer.
else so much care while driving. 1t
would be a most human. most natu.
raj, if unfortunate and, regrettable,
attitude.
IF the State guarantees to pay
everybody who is hurt on the roads
stipulated indemnity the reckless and
irresponsible can so the limit with
no fear of anything but criminal re-
sponsibility.
mat tnere Is a. crying need for
some drastic action to reduce autonlo-
bile accidents cannot be denied. 1t Is
not to be wondered at that legislative
bodies, civic organizations and good
citizens generally are deeply concerned
in finding remedy. But 1t is a source
of wonder that the latest medium pro-
posed contenplates indemnity for the
Injured. Instead of making a real
effort to enforce ample speed laws and
traffic statutes and ordinances 1t is
proposed TO let the carnage go on.
seeing only that the heirs of the dead
are provided for in Il material sense
and that the MANNED and the injured
are assured monetary compensation.
shall America contemplate such a.
method of obtaining its patrimony and
permit financial redress to become the
price of human Hfe?"