OCR Text |
Show wnv: wiiv! why: The San Francisco Bulletin brings up tlic 1 1 1 1 1 - iion of irresponsible automobile au-tomobile drivers ht ing allowed to operate oa i row deil streets and high-ways. high-ways. li cilos the rase of a local accident ac-cident where a child o!" I wo years lost his let'l arm almost to toe shoulder. His mother ti.i.l a u';irt lire ami di.-location of her iinklo. The driver of the machine said, "I have not paid for the ear, have no insurance, insur-ance, ami tint in debt." The iiuestion then arises, why should such an irresponsible driver bo allowed on a public highway with it' deadly an instrument as a r.ioior car? If u man cannot afford to get a public liability insurance policy on his car. he should not bo permitted to run it. When it is sujfitesu-d that such a policy be required by law. agitators for public ownership of in-dtutry in-dtutry immediately demand that mieh a policy be furnished by the state "at cost." This mean; "at cost of taxpayers." for the stele cannot write an insurance policy which will: pay expenses of wriiini; it. cover looses, loo-ses, and taxes which should be col-1 looted, for any less than a private company. Why should the general taxpayer have to run the risk of being assessed asses-sed even a single penny in order to try to furnish state insurance "a. cost" to irresponsible automobile' diivevs w'a0 do not ow n a t ar, who, can't afford to buy insurance, ami! who are in debt vhv should such' a person bo driving as expensive a piece of inaehin :y as an au omo'ulo. Why si-.uilil ho -! l.-u:;.-.-r toe lives of the public or why should the taxpayers tax-payers bo involved hi furnishins: him insurance.' |