I think the op has a misconception.
Wisconsin as an example relatively recently made insurance mandatory. Before it was mandatory despite being drink capital of the world had extremely high numbers of insuranced and moderately reasonable insurance costs.
Once insurance became mandatory the cost of insurance doubled overnight, and registrations dropped and each time as the state has attempted to get more road funding and insurance compliance the actual rate of insurance/ registration drops.
Every state I’m aware of that increases how draconian enforcement of insurance/registration is the net result is always lower compliance, lower collections and a more burdened expensive legal system.
The issue is a simple one, most of the population can’t actually afford the new egregious registration and insurance costs, despite being fully employed and needing a vehicle .
In every case I’ve seen any time people become very financially stressed where they can’t afford necessities
the first “necessities “ to go are always registration and insurance.
When states have cracked down on these unimportant crimes by working poor crushing cars and doing other draconian over-reactions to things that didn’t used to even be legally required the net result is even more non-compliance.
Now that we dug us into the hole of spending billions of dollars punishing minor crimes like insurance/ registration how do we reset to the way things were before these changes?
I understand your point, but counter with the following:
The "rich" are the opposite of the "poor" in your scenario, right? And so isn't it the "rich" who end up paying when the poor people cause accidents? When a person who doesn't have insurance wrecks into my car, I have to use my policy ( the "uninsured/under-insured" rider) to pay for my car to be fixed. So in effect, the poor person is not only inconveniencing me by wrecking my car, but also making MY premium rates go up because he can't/won't pay for his insurance.
This actually happened to my son. A person was fleeing local LEOs and the person smashed into my son at an intersection. No insurance whatsoever. My son's car was totaled. And my son only had medical and liability coverage (it was an older car, and he couldn't afford much other than the "state" minimums). So my son, through no fault of his own, was now without a car and no way to get the unemployed drug addict to pay for it. Even if my son had the "uninsured/under-insured" coverage, it would still be a claim on his policy, thereby having the effect of jacking up HIS rates for the poor decisions of others. Also, my son had two passengers in his car; they all went to the hospital. So my son's medical coverage got maxed out. All this negatively affected his premiums, and NONE of it was his fault. He lost a decent car, and now pays higher insurance costs, all because some "poor" driver hit him.
I tire of this "poor people are the down-trodden and we should excuse their behavior" mentality. I assure you, I'm not "rich", nor is my son. But I do my part to carry my burden and pay my way, and so does he. Just because we have insurance doesn't make us rich. It just means we're responsible citizens.
***********
Further, there is a difference between mandatory coverages for liability and other costs required by a loan creditor.
The "egregious" costs of insurance are a reflection of the "egregious" cost of vehicles today. The high complexity of vehicles, combined with the scarcity of repair parts due to supply chain issues, makes for very expensive repair costs. So the cost of insurance coverage naturally has risen substantially in the last several years. Do I like my high insurance premiums? Heck no! But I'm not blind to the costs they have to cover. Let's not pretend like the auto insurance industry is the only one to see significant price increases. It's no different than the obscene costs of homeowner's insurance, but hurricanes and wildfires take their toll and the pool of paying clients has to bear the burden.
The alternative is that, without mandatory insurance requirements, the only avenue would be to civilly sue anyone who causes a vehicular accident. Whereas a "rich" person does have assets which could be leveraged, "poor" people have nothing of value by definition. So to let "poor" people drive without insurance means there's really no way to be made whole when they cause accidents. And speaking for my "poor" son, I can tell you that sucks. Why should hard working "poor" people (like my son) who pay for insurance have to also pay the costs when hard working poor people don't "pay their fair share"? I mean, are we saying that poor people don't hit the cars of other poor people? Because it sure happened to my son.
If a "poor" person drives an older, moderate cost vehicle, the liability insurance costs aren't really that much. Most states only "require" liability coverage. The other insurance costs are required when a loan is present, so that the creditor is covered. If a "poor" person isn't driving a two year old BMW or Lexus, then the costs really aren't that bad. The minimum liability standards in most states are manageable.
