Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-12-22
BY THOMAS r. HENRY,
President American Automobile Associatio

President American Automobile Association.
There is no royal road to safety. No
single panacea has been advanced and
probably never will. But the fact that
the close of the year 1929 finds the
country confronted with gigantic toll
Of automobile fatalities and injuries, as
well as a considerable sum in uncon1-
pensated damages, challenges an exam
nation of the efficiency of such definite
steps as have been taken for the amel-
ioratioY of conditions.
It Is generally known that the safety
responsibility laws now in effect IN IL
States were heralded as promising the
maximum benefits along sane and prac-
tical lines. It Is inevitable that their
operation will be watched with the
keerlest interest from Maine to Cali
fornia and from the Yukon to the Rio
Grande. It Is well that this should
be so.
In the meantime, however, some criti4
cism has been leveled at the safety.
responsibility principle. This criticism
falls into two categories. First, it rep
resents the viewpoint Of special inter-
estS whose business they feel might be
adversely affected, who have consistent
ly opposed all forms Of responsibility
and who, as far as Is known. have never
brought forward q constructive alter
native. Second, it comes from sources
whose object it is either to misrepresent
legislation and its aim or who have not
taken the trouble to distinguish between
what 1t provides for and what 1t does
not.
Legislation Is Summarized.
The all-important thing now is that
the American people should learn
something about what Is going on III
the States where the safety RESPONSE
bility law, or provisions thereof have
been enacted, since manifestly it is this
practical test rather than what pro-
ponents or opponents Of the leglsla
ton have to say that will decide the
future.
Before proceeding to ascertain what
the States experimenting with the leg
1t briefly. To do this will take the
so-called American Automobile Asse-
citation safety-responsibility law. not
because Of any proprietary interest
claim In 1t, but because It is the most
comprehensive statement of the prin-
ciple. Now, what exactly does It pro-
vide for? It endbodies four cardinal
principles, as follows:
First, universal drivers license law,
and in this day and age it is dif1cult to
believe that this demand will meet with
any sound opposition.
Second, d mandatory suspension Of
the driving privileges of all persons con-
victed of serious violations of the motor
vehicle laws until proof of future, f1nan-
ctal responsibility has been established
This Is in addition to penalties under
the State motor vehicle code.
Third, it provides for the suspension
Of the driving privileges of all persons
against whom . final judgment estab-
fishing the drivers negligence has been
legally rendered and who have failed to
meet the judgment, this suspension to
remain IN effect until the judgment has
been satisfied and a guarantee Of flu
ture responsibility established.
Fourth, 1t provides for the insertion
in the drivers license law of every
State a proviso which will prevent the
issuance Of permit to any person
whose right to drive is at that time
suspended in any other State, thus in
effect providing for the interexchange
Of suspension rulings as between the
States and rendering the disability ma
tionally reciprocal.
Responsibility Il Fixed.
one Of the con1naonest arguments ad.
vanced against the legislation Is that 1t
does not make the financial RESPONSE
bility operative at all until man or a
woman has had an accident. A glance
at provision two. above stated, will show
that this is not the case. In fact, q
person never need have had an accident
to come under the penalties Of the leg
islation.
Now, what offenses against highway
safety bring these provisions in opera
ton? Briefly summarized, they are:
Reckless driving, driving while under
the influence Of intoxicating LIQUOR or
narcotic drugs. leaving the scene of an
automobile accident In which personal