OCR Text |
Show RECKLESS DRIVERS AND WAR Proponents of compulsory automobile automo-bile liability insurance laws advance the argument that such laws would assure all persons damages in case of injury by the driver of an automobile. auto-mobile. This is not correct because persons injured through the fault of their own, and a large proportion are so injured, could not collect damages. dam-ages. In Massachusetts, where a compulsory compul-sory automobile insurance law is in effect, the courts have upheld an insurance in-surance company which canceled a policy because the driver got drunk. In order that drunken drivers or incompetents in-competents may secure insurance, law-makers have gone so far in some states as to introduce laws requiring insurance companies to accept all risks, on the ground that if they do not accept all, they are showing partiality. Such arguments are ' childish, for the only safeguard the insurance company has is the right to reject risks which are known to be bad. Why should an insurance company be forced to insure a known bad risk? The state should refuse an automobile license to such a party, and not giwe him the chance to go on the highway and endanger the lives of others. Instead of reducing personal re-sponsibiity re-sponsibiity and carefulness through compulsory insurance, let the law increase in-crease personal responibility and thereby indirectly force every driver to either volutarily carry insurance or so conduct himself that accidents will be reduced to a minimum. The murderer and the highwayman, highway-man, as well as the reckless and irresponsible ir-responsible driver cause death and suffering for which there can be no adequate remedy or reparation any j more than there can be for the hor-1 hor-1 rors of war. We should work to re- movi the cause of these misfortunes rather than to make it easier for I them to occur. , - . . 1 |