To the editor:
A Source editorial asks the question: "How do opponents of compulsory automobile insurance view the losses sustained by innocent victims of automobile accidents…"? The answer is that compulsory insurance for drivers is not about compensating victims. It's about creating a lawsuit-rich, impersonal society where people have the attitude "Don't worry about it; it's insured!"
Too many people have lost sight of the concept of personal responsibility. The insurance concept is based on the idea that some monetary risks are unacceptable. Catastrophic loss can be avoided sometimes by paying a smaller part of that loss each year and, through great numbers of co-insured, spread and reduce the risk to an acceptable level. We have the right and the power to choose the level of risk to which we are reduced.
You can buy health insurance in case you get sick; dental insurance in case of a toothache; fire and windstorm. . . and the list goes on and on. One can certainly buy accident insurance to protect oneself if involved in an accident! Many do. No lawsuit, just compensation.
Compulsory liability insurance for cars goes one step too far. It mandates that everyone buy insurance to insure against personal lawsuit.
Why has society changed the rules to make the accident buy the insurance? It's because we need to blame! Many people assume that the generic "uninsured driver" is therefore a bad driver or one who purposely is out to get the rest of us; in short, the enemy. We so need to be able to sue him/her but fear we can't because he/she is poor. How frustrating!
The solution is to make him/her buy insurance so we can sue his/her insurance company; a sweet solution to the problem.
Is there a better way? Of course there is. Let's recognize that life contains risks, be it tripping on a banana peel, having an operation by a competent yet human doctor, or driving our cars around other drivers who are equally human and susceptible to accidents. Going out on the highway is not unlike going to a doctor for surgery. There are risks and benefits.
A doctor who has done thousands of successful operations should not have to buy malpractice insurance to protect him/her for a fluke error, and a driver with thousands of miles of careful driving should not have to insure against a similar error.
We "victims" have the power to accept the risks of life or buy insurance to protect us. It's that simple. If we want to protect the innocent victims of auto accidents, we should as a society pay for their medical coverage just as we pay for guard rails or warning signs. That would be simple and straightforward. Negligent drivers are punishable in other, more effective ways than by having all the good drivers (through an insurance company) pay for their damages.
Terry Conklin
St. John
