Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1926-11-08

Oils nave caIled Tor compulsory IN
surance. Such Is the type of law
schedule to go into effect on January
first next year in Massachusetts,. 1t
will be tested in a referendum before
that date.
surance claim it's great strength to
be that 1t guarantees to all victims
Of automobile accidents or their
families, the payment of money to
offset, hospital, surgical and medical
bills and a temporary depreciation
or permanent loss of income. 1t Is
asserted that this Is the one Objecr
tive sought and that it's accomplish
ment alone justifies compulsory In
surance.
Another contention of compulsory
insurance advocates is that the cost
of insurance to any one motorist I'M
DER this plan would not attain bur
densome figure because 1t would be
spread among all the motorists OF a
given state in equal proportion.
Some persons hold that compulsory
insurance Is the simplest and the
most workable solution of the finan-
cial responsibility dilemma. A few
assert that it Is the only feasible
solution.
Many persons believe that compul-
sorry insurance will reduce accidents.
1t Is fair to spread the cost of COM
pulsory insurance among all motor
lists, according to it's advocates, be-
cause it is impossible to forecast
which particular motorist will have
an accident and which will not. The
proponents of compulsory insurance
state that tits fair to ask motorists
as a whole to pay the cost of its
operation since the responsibility
can not be definitely fixed in advance.
Other advocates state that the
payment of damages to accident vic
Tins or their fam'H~~ is an obligation
directly related to the operation Of
an automobile as such and that all
motorists should be compelled to
meet that obligation instead of mere
ly those who possess the necessary
funds. ~.
Those who oppose the compulsory
insurance idea state that it is unjust
in principle because it compels mo-
florists who are careful and who do
not have accidents to pay for the
damage done by reckless motorists.
This places the financial burden Of
the reckless upon the careful The
opponents claim that compulsory in
surance overlooks the fact that auto
mobile accidents are a matter of per-
sonal responsibility and not of mass
responsibility They believe that the
responsibility rests upon the Shout
ders of those who do the damage.
1t is also maintained that compul-
sorry insurance disregards the fact
brought out by the Hoover Confer
ence on Street and Highway Safety
that only percent of the insured
drivers have accidents during one
year, or that the average driver has
but one accident in twenty years.
And that it is possible to discover
,, the identity of this small and reck-
I less minority.
The principle of compulsory insur-
| ance is further stated by its oppo.
nentS to be defective in that certain
measures call for payments to acct
! dent victims without regard tc
! fault 1t is held that this provision
would put a premium on the care
| lessness of the pedestrian and alst
I introduce a moral hazard by making
! it possible for irresponsible pedes
! TRANS to bring about accidents OF
their own volition.
! The plan of the compulsory pay.
| ment of annual insurance premiums
| by motorists has also been cues
! toned in the light of its possible
+! unconstitutionality. Some opponents
maintain that it is contrary to the
| spirit of the constitution to tax Ger.
tain citizens who are free of blame
for the payment of damages fol-
which other citizens are directly and
! solely responsible
! Another contention is that compul.
| sorry insurance would increase rather
than decrease accidents because II
would give persons lacking a sense
of responsibility an undue sense OF
security so that they would be apt
to lean" on the protection it afford d
! and run wild" This viewpoint OF
/ Indifference to results would lead tC
| careleSsness, a greater number OF
accidents, more frequent liability
| damage verdcts and a consequent
general raising of automobile insur-
ance rates. This would force the
careful motorist to absorb an unfair
share of the higher cost brought
about by those who We're forced tc
insure and who viewed their insur-
ance as an invitation to take greater
risks.
The opponents of compulsory in
surance call attention to the fact
that pedestrians are to blame TO,
many accidents and that the whole
responsibility can not fairly be
placed upon the shoulders of motor
lists. They set forth the following
data:
A two-year survey Of automobile
accidents in the District of Columbia
from July 1. 1928, to August 81, 1925
indicated that in 21.6 per cent of the
! cases the pedestrian was to blame
! In Connecticut during 1923, 40 per
| cent of the fatal accidents and SO per
cent of the serious personal injury
accidents were the fault of persons
, other than the operators of the cars.
! The National Bureau of Casualty and
| Surety Underwriters summarized the
cause of 21,120 accidents for the
Hoover Conference and reported that
1888 per cent were the faul, of the
pedestrians. The Insurance Com
mittee of the Hoover Conference
found that in 1927 per cent of motor
accidents reckless driver was re-
sponsible, that in 1913 per cent a
reckless pedestrian was responsible
and that in 1877 per cent 10th par
ties were responsible.
At the 1924 meeting of the Hoover
Conference on State and Highway
Safety, the matter Of compulsory au-
tomobile insurance was referred to
the Insurance Committee for consid-
Grafton as a means of reducing acci-
dents. The Committee rejected this
proposal The question was then
brought up during general meeting of
the Conference. 1t was voted down
almost unanimously.
Opponents of compulsory insur
ance also state that it will furnish
victims no indemnity in cases where
there are no witnesses and in cases
where the pedestrian is struck by a