Since safe driving should be incentivized by the law, the state's no-fault insurance statute should be dropped. In a state with no-fault insurance the insurer of an injured driver pays for damages even if the driver is not at fault. So the risk to the insurance company is greater than it would be if it only had to cover damages for drivers who were at fault. Consequently, safe drivers payer higher rates than they would without a no-fault law.

What's the main conclusion of the argument?

A. Safe driving should be incentivized by the law

B. The state's no-fault insurance statute should be dropped

C. In a state with no-fault insurance the insurer of an injured driver pays for damages even if the driver is not at fault

D. The risk to the insurance company is greater than it would be if it only had to cover damages for drivers who were at fault.