I say cited, not everyone can afford insurance, and if they do have an accident they would just have to pay all of their lifes savings, so its kind of their fault to lose all their stuff and home, right?

I oppose auto insurance and believe a better solution would be to not punish people by making it illegal to have to buy protection based on possible scenarios. Instead we should have a court system which enforces financial judgments better and let people pay their restitutions for what they have actually done and not what "might" happen. Every car accident is not an accident at all and is always due to negligence and people not following the rules of the road anyway. The insurance companies have lobbied for the financial responsibility law so that everyone must pay for their service under the guise of it being illegal not to do so. Those who are good drivers should not have to pay for something they don't need and the courts should be the foolproof method of recovering damages. Let those who cause accidents pay for them without costing everyone part of their income. The courts love this, because they can for the most part stay out of these issues and let insurance companies fight it outside of their arena, but we all pay. Your question sidesteps whether or not the whole law is even constitutional, which it is not. If you believe it is, then I say your insurance company should make you buy homeowners insurance as well, because I might trip over something you've left in your yard, or your tree might fall on my car....but you have nothing to worry about if you aren't negligent do you?

Not if they are not involved in an auto accident. In 1987, I collected 3,000$ of food stamps due to the mandatory auto ionsurance law. There are 20 million americans eligible for food stamps who can buy 1,000$ of auto insurance and then go on food stamps to get something to eat. I did a food stamp study to see if there are any food stamp skyrockets linked to auto insurance laws. there are many. The best is in New Mexico. In Albuquerque, everything was fine year after year until it started having skyrockets in its Jan and Feb numbers starting 1985. What happened in Jan and Feb????Thats when New Mexico used to renew its registrations. Its law started Jan 1984. Get the food stamp numbers for the New Mexico counties and see for yourself. Another potential problem is that if you are stopped for no insurance in Montana, you can show the card to a jury instead of the police or judge. Wouldn't that be expensive for the state///?? I also pushed for a food stamp survey (done in Billings) that indicated 12 of every 96 food stamp applicants listed auto insurance as a reason for applying for food stamps. That would equal around 30,000 over the last 20 years.

This is obviously an American based question, there is no choice in Britain, you cannot drive without Insurance it is a criminal offence, and it is very expensive too . The younger you are and the larger engine in the car the higher the insurance. You cannot get away with it and will go to jail if you have an accident that hurts anyone or messes up their vehicle

Take 'em to jail! If they don't have insurance, they aren't going to show up and pay the fine for n ot having insurance. Heck, there is a huge chance they won't be able to pay for the damages they caused... On a side note, insurance gives losers the ability to file suit for made up reasons just to get more $$ than they deserve for the accident. So, there is a down side to insurance. The losers who abuse it. And by the way, the cost of insurance goes up because of the losers who abuse it.

I'm surprised with your question... Of course they should, driving without auto insurance is illegal