AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

COMPULSORY INSURANCE FOR ALL OWNERS?

9th August 1921, Page 2
9th August 1921
Page 2
Page 3
Page 2, 9th August 1921 — COMPULSORY INSURANCE FOR ALL OWNERS?
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

THERE allay be more than meets the eye in a recent answer by the Parliamentary Secretary

to the Ministry of Transport to a question in the House of Commons concerning compulsory insurance for motor owners. We observed this incident in the course of proceedings in the House on July 6th, when Mr. Wignall, MP., suggested. that

the time had come for the Government to co'nsider " the promotion of legislation to provide that a

motorist's lieence!shall only be issued on condition that the applicant is adequately insured in an approved society which undertakes to compensate

any person injured by him when motoring, and that the compensation for such accidents shall be on the same scale as under the Workmen's Compensation Act and be payable upon simple proof of accidents." The suggestion has been receiving our attention for some considerable time.

The reply of Mr. Neal was in the following terms, which are admittedly, on the face of it, discouraging to advocates of the course involved:— " I am afraid my hon. friend's suggestion is an impracticable one. I will take steps, however, e6

to bring it to the notice of the Departmeutal Committee on the Regulation of Road Vehicles, which is considering, among other things, the question of the issue of drivers' licences.

The point. of importance is that the subject raised calls for discussion and examination in spheres other than the lofty atmosphere and rooms of the Ministry of Transport. It closely concerns the bulk of our supporters, andmay re-act upon motoring a.s a whole, whatever the recommendations which prove to emanate from the Committee to which the matter hag been referred, and whatever the legislation (if any) which may arise thereafter.

Compulsory insurance is at no time popular. The National Health Insurance Scheme, for example, has largely proved to be a veiled system of indirect taxation upon both employers andworkersehaving regard to the extreme difficulty with which settlements of claims are obtained, and the enormous army of offi, eials making inspections, journeys, and records, the while the real sufferers are very often waiting for their money and thrown upon their own resources or those of their friends. We certainly trust that

an contemplated scheme of compulsory insurance for motor owners will not be on State lines, and we are willing to dismiss that evil possibility as outside the range of practical politics: Every owner of a road 'motor is liable to do—or

to sufferinjury or material damage. Some owners can discharge their liabilities or bear their losses, as the ease may be, but tens of thousands, lightheartedly and in no deliberate sense contrary to the public weal, take or accept risks against which they are not covered by their resources or insurance. Our attention has from time to time been directed toinstances of hardship arising from these circumstances, as much for the motor owner as for individual members of the public, and it is because of specific instances of the kind that Mr. Wignall appears to have been prompted to initiate the inquiry under reference.

In confining ourselves for the present to the case of the commercial owner, whether of a passenger vehicle or a goods vehicle, it cannot be contended that the larger undertakings; fail to meet their obli-. gations at law, and, sometimes, to make additional ones ex. gratia. The smaller men do not make adequate provision, if any, and it is this discrepancy that has now to he considered from all aspects. We feel that large users are at a disadvantage with their smaller competitors in relation to the costs which they bear to enable them to make provision for and meet these contingent obligations, and, that it will conceivably add to the stability of road transport generally if some uniformity and requirementof practice are established. Can it be done?

There are precedents, we find, in the regulations enforced by the Metropolitan Police in4espect of omnibuses, chars-a-banes, and cabs, for requiring proofiof financial stability on the part of the owner or the taking out at his expense ofa suitable and approved insurance policy. We understand that the London police incertain cases insist upon cover against passenger and third-party risks forlat least S110,000 per vehicle in the ease of chars-à-banes, of X1,000 in the case ofi!motoreabs, and of R100t.in the case of horse-cabs. The avowed object of this regulation is to protect the public against the ownership of licensed public vehicles by men of straw.

We are satisfied that users' organizations will be -ranch concerned as to the outcome of the proposals fo'r compulsory insurance but we cannot disguise from ourselves the fact that the uninsured owner of even a motor-bicycle May do serious personal injury, for which, in the event of hit not holding an insurance policy, there may result the non-payment of due compensation by him, and consequent hardship. It is a question of degree, as well as of negligence 3r contributory negligence by one or more-of the parties concerned, and the inquirytmentioned by Mr. Neal may logically prove to lead as far as compulsory insurance for the pedestrian. The main proposal-is none the less one u-poll which there must be much diversity of opinion, andit is certainly desirable that the leading motoring organizations should put their views on this matter before Sir Henry Maybury's Committee, to which it•has been referred. We understand that it is already down for discussion at the meeting Of the National Council of the C.M.U.A. fixed to be held in Bristol on the afternoon of. *ednesday, October 5th.


comments powered by Disqus