Whats is accident insurance

Finally, the article pads its tale of woe by descanting on the numbers of victims of automobile accidents caused by dangerous curves and other defects of the highways. What has this got to do with the subject of the article? Find more information on auto insurance basics on our website.

Compulsory insurance is no way to mend highways. Compulsory liability insurance would not benefit the victims of such accidents. Nor would compulsory compensation insurance necessarily do so, since its latest proponents, recognizing the iniquity of the original idea of compelling careful motorists to insure “joy-riders” against jumping the road, butting into fences, lamp-posts and the like, would now limit the compensation coverage to collisions between motor-vehicles and collisions between a motor vehicle and a pedestrian.

What the victims of automobile accidents of the kind referred to in this paragraph need is accident insurance, that is insurance against accidental injuries to themselves, bought and paid for by themselves. Why in all this farrago in favor of state action is there not a word about the need of more self-providence?

Besides the statements above cited, this article has another feature typical of propaganda for sensationalism and “half-baked” reforms, namely, it is highly indefinite in what it advocates. It jumps back and forth, higgledy- piggledy, from extolling compulsory liability insurance to presenting arguments for compulsory compensation insurance. In one paragraph it commends one form of liability insurance and in the next paragraph it touches on the advantages of a different form of such insurance. Then it tells how cheap compulsory compensation insurance might possibly be if in one form and then goes on to assume for it advantages possible only from a far more expensive form. And so on throughout.

Comments are closed.