A brief history of compulsory motor insurance

Compulsory insurance of motor vehicles in Switzerland began in 1904. Eight years later, she took Norway, followed by Denmark in 1918. In this country such a policy was first discussed in New Jersey in 1916 and 1927 some form of compulsory motor insurance has been subject to another in most states.

Connecticut in January 1926 commissioning of a financial liability. The following year, the "stone" plan came into effect in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, during the first and still the only one peremptory liability insurance for car owners opened.

Maine, Rhode Island, Vermont and Minnesota have laws similar to Connecticut, a small current plan. These different methods of dealing with car accidents and are explained in detail the problems that accompany at a later date. In addition to the various plans is now in operation, a number of alternative proposals have been described.

The Massachusetts system of mandatory insurance has been proposed as a testing ground for the experience of the compulsory motor insurance. Curiously, the experience of the State of the Bay was used to support both the pros and cons.

There was a considerable subtlety about the original intent of the law, a point for them, as an alleged breach, it is not the number of accidents, say others, that the law has never was designed as a safety measure reduces, but only as a means for insurance financial responsibility. It was calculated that the administration has indeed become involved in politics.

The overall effect of difficulties in the operation of the Massachusetts law was imposed in order to divert attention, at least temporarily, of the insurance indemnity, may, if the temperament and the number of articles magazine and newspaper comments will be used as a criterion.

It is not unlikely that the fight about obligatory insurance of the responsibility is on the ground, that tip the balance, thought mainly because of the precedent is in the workers' compensation insurance. However, the plan may be adopted in the future, either a liability or a compensatory measure. Connecticut and New Hampshire plans, and a number of other suggestions, ideas available for review.

While public opinion was too confused about the meaning of the different proposals on these principles are well understood and an active role in the controversy seems unnecessarily lying far apart on certain key assumptions.

For example, it would be a general agreement that prevention of road accidents should be the main purpose of each type of legislation on this matter be, because there are no accidents, no need to any form of remuneration. However, only the prevention of accidents, is the need for the injured and their families.