No-Fault Insurance
Your editorial “A Potential New Alliance for No-Fault Insurance” (Sept. 15) failed to mention that 75% of Californians voted against no-fault in 1988. Obviously, many Californians do not like the idea of letting drunk or reckless drivers who cause accidents off the hook.
We must not be fooled by an insurance industry that spent $80 million to “convince” voters to back a no-fault scam known as Prop. 104 and have continued to push for the concept of no-fault in the Legislature. Stated simply, no-fault means asking the victims of drunk-driving crashes and auto accidents to assume responsibility for the wrongdoing of others--adding insult to injury. We don’t need to give up our rights to fair compensation in case of accident or injury in order to have access to affordable car insurance.
There are other ways lawmakers can provide low-cost car insurance without sacrificing the rights of California drivers and giving control to the insurance industry.
JUDITH ROWLAND
Founder
California Center on Victimology
San Diego
Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond. In your inbox three times per week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
