Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1963-09-13
Uninsured Motorists

September 6 editorial on I'M
insured automobile drivers.
You did not mention one
phase Of the problem, and I
have not seen it discussed In
any other place, although !
am sure that 1t must have re-
ceived a great deal of atten-
ton. This is the sale Of so
many automobiles with very
low down payments and the
responsibility of the "real1
owners Of the automobiles.
The problem of uninsured
drivers must stem to a very
considerable degree from the
narrow financial interest Of
the drivers Of many cars.
In order to make the sale
with low monthly payments,
the seller really disregards
the interests and protection
Of others using the public
streets. He requires the buyer
to carry $50 deGuctible COL
lision insurance, to protect
himself, but does not require
him to take out public La
bility and property damage
insurance. The sellers inter-
est is not at stake.
Why not place the insur-
ance responsibility on the
lender as well as on the tech
nical. legal owner (often the
mythical owner) of the au-
tomobile? The lender is
known; he generally is re-
sponsible: he has a financial
interest In the automobile;
he makes responsibility pos
sible; he owes this obligation
to the community.
Admittedly, this suggestion
introduces many problems of
definition and equity. The
auto finance companies, the
consumer credit firms, the
banks and other lenders OBJ
viously would violently object.
But once the principle of
"owner" responsibility was &C
ceptec, the problems of draft
ing q sound and equitable
statute should not be inSu-
perable.
George B. Travis
Your editorial on the prob
lem Of the uninsured motor
list fails to mention what
seems an obvious way Of
handling this difficulty.
Laws requiring liability in
Surance have. so far as I am
informed, operated through
making evidence Of insurance
a requirement to obtain an
automobile license. This, as
you pointed out, is easily
evaded by the person who is
irresponsible enough to want
not to carry insurance. He can
simply cancel his policy after
he gets his plates. Then Moth
ing happens to him, even If
he gets into an accident.
A simple remedy would be
to make the law read that
he Is required to carry in
surance in order to drive,
and to make it a misdemeanor
with a stiff fine, plus revoca-
ton Of his driving permit, to
be involved in an accident or
even to be caught driving
without an active liability
insurance policy. II liability
insurance were placed in the
same category as a driving
permit, as q requirement In
order to drive. rather than
merely a requirement to OBJ
tain license plates, and II
the law had teeth In 1t, the
sort Of responsibility de-
plored by your editorial would
undoubtedly decrease consid-
erably. 1t has always seemed
curious to me that this has
never occurred to police de-
partments or lawmakers.
F. r. FOsberg
Regarding your editorial on
our uninsured motorist prob
lem. l suggest that some adj
ditional provisions be includ-
ed in any law enacted for the
District Of Columbia.
Several years ago, when the
Virginia uninsured motorists
law was enacted, there was
included an additional prem
ium on my liability policy, in
addition TO the additional
cost Of license tags for unin-
sured motorists. This was
thought to be fine, until my
wife was crossing an inter-
section in Winchester, Vir-
ginia, and was hit, along with
three other cars, by an unin-
sured motorist. When 1t was
turned over to the insurance
company for settlement. n