The US Senate is poised to vote this week on legislation that essentially would force every state in the country to adopt a "no-fault" automobile insurance scheme that could actually increase motorists' premiums. This bill, known as the "Auto Choice Reform Act" (S.2454), should be opposed by our federal legislators and defeated by the Senate.

Under this no-fault scheme, good drivers would end up paying for bad ones and negligent and reckless drivers would get off the hook unless they were drunk or intentionally meant to harm someone.

Here's how this bill would work in the real world: If a reckless driver speeds through a red light and slams into a family whose automobile is lawfully in that intersection, the reckless driver would virtually never bear any accountability to that family -- even if they were killed or catastrophically injured. Whatever happened to personal responsibility, particularly in an era of "Road Rage?"

Under this federal no-fault scheme, no-fault drivers involved in motor vehicle accidents must file claims against their own insurance companies for their losses - even if they didn't cause the accident.

Sound fair? Think again. This scheme would force good drivers to pay for the mistakes of bad ones through the subsidization of bad drivers' insurance premiums. Think of it this way: if you file a claim with your own insurance company, even if you did not cause the accident, do you think your insurance company will raise your premiums? Of course it will. That helps explain why premiums in states with some type of no-fault are higher.

Ironically, proponents of this legislation claim that it will somehow reduce motorists' premiums. But they don't tell you this: Absolutely nothing in the federal bill guarantees that insurance companies will lower premiums. For example, there's no mandated rate rollback included in the bill, which insurers would fight tooth and nail.

Further, proponents of no-fault, in projecting their premium "savings," rely entirely on the total elimination of claims for so-called "non-economic" injuries. These are injuries such as gross disfigurement, loss of vision, loss of a limb, loss of fertility, or excruciating lifelong pain.

Yet, under this federal legislation, no one could be compensated for these very real injuries unless he or she had purchased extra expensive coverage. And there's no requirement that insurers even offer this coverage.

The fact is, every state in the country is now free to enact an identical compensation system, but none have done so. And no state has enacted any form of no-fault since 1976; three of those - Connecticut, Georgia, and Nevada - later repealed their no-fault laws.

The real question, then is: Do we really want Congress to herd every single driver in this state into a system that guarantees no savings, forces good drivers to pay for bad ones, and lets reckless drivers off the hook? I don't think so. This bill should be driven straight to the legislative junkyard.

Jack Scheich