Auto insurance is a legal must have in 48 US states to drive a vehicle on their roads. Only New Hampshire and Wisconsin do not have compulsory auto insurance liability laws. Liability is the insurance one must have in states that require auto insurance. This insurance pays for the damage you cause to someones property if you are at fault. It does not cover your own property.

Most people seem to favor compulsory auto insurance liability laws. We want our stuff fixed when you run into us. We also don't want to or have the money to pay the repair bill if we are at fault. Car wreck repairs can get expensive, fast.

Every state that has enacted compulsory auto insurance liability laws has seen an increase in insured vehicles. However, it has not resulted in all drivers being insured. In some states, the increase has been very small. This is due to the cost of insurance. Some folks are just getting by paying for the operating expense of the car. Add in insurance and they can't afford to drive. Don't give me some trash about not needing to drive. You come to my house and walk to my job for a week and maybe then I'll listen to that.

States also have a hard time enforcing the law. It costs money and man power they don't have. One solution to this is to deny an inspection sticker or registration to uninsured vehicles. Get caught without those and you get a ticket, possibly loose your license and plates and maybe even have your car impounded. Some states will impound your car on the spot if you get caught with no insurance.

I don't like the state being able to take my personal property like that. I paid for this vehicle, not them. Still though, I like compulsory auto insurance liability laws, aka, pay to play. If someone wrecks into me, I want to know that my vehicle, my way to work, is going to be fixed so I can continue to get to work and earn a living. Besides, again, I paid for this vehicle. I didn't buy it for you to wreck it and deny me its use. Having been at fault in wreck myself, that insurance came in handy. My 17 year old self didn't have the cash to pay for the damage I did to that '68 Ford Fairlane.

C'mon, Mr. I don't need no stinking insurance Stone. You got me on this when you said you didn't need to insure a motorcycle you owned outright in New Hampshire.

Here in Cali, the insurance companies are required by law to report all their insurance policies to the DMV. If a driver is found without insurance, a warning letter in sent by the DMV threatening to suspend his license. Once his license has been suspended...if he is caught driving an auto registered in his name, the state is allowed to possess the vehicle and sell it...as well as throwing the driver in jail. Pretty tough living in this looney liberal California state!

Compulsory insurance is fine by me. As you've said, Aint, why should someone pay for something that is not their fault.



Then get the insurance. Sure, insurance can get expensive, especially if you have crashed your car before. Hell, the reason I can't afford insurance is being my car was stolen and I lost my no-claims bonus.

Bottom line is, if you can't afford the insurance, don't drive. Find some other means of transportation. Or don't moan and bitch that they take your car away, or that someone else's insurance sues you.

I think the compulsary part is also for personal injury liability. When we're talking about "body damage" that covers a lot more than just damage to your car. It's compulsary to carry insurance in case you get injured in a crash, or in case you injure somebody else, and there's hospital bills to be paid. That's the biggest chunk of the insurance bill right there.

I have absolutely no problem with compulsory insurance for all drivers. If people cant afford to pay this insurance, is it likely they can pay for any injuries or damage they cause? Hardly.

The system here in Australia works pretty well. All vehicles on the road must show a current registration disk. The bulk of the registration fee is third party insurance, which covers, not the driver, but any other person injured in an accident caused by the driver. Fair enough, why should an innocent party have to pay out medical and hospital expenses? Third party insurance also cover for permanent disability as a result of the accident. This is the first tier and is compulsory, it covers the vehicle not the driver.

The second tier is Third Party Property insurance. This covers any property damage that may be caused by your vehicle. If I lost control of my car and took out someone's fence, the policy would pay, providing I was not breaking the law at the time of the accident. Many people also add a 'fire and theft' policy to this. This insurance is not compulsory.

Top tier is Fully Comprehensive Insurance. This covers pretty much everything, and yes, it is expensive. I choose this level of insurance. Twice I have claimed on this, both times my car was 'hit & run' in a supermarket carpark. While the damage appeared to be only minor, the repair bills were not. Without this insurance I would have paid out over $6,000. I figure I am in front on the premium outlay.

I think it is extremely naive to believe that insurance is too expensive. If you drive a car, insured or not, and you cause injury or damage, you will have to pay. Perhaps it should be considered as insurance on the future security of your financial resources and assets.

If you can or wont pay the insurance, dont drive.

"You come to my house and walk to my job for a week and maybe then I'll listen to that."

perhaps the US in general (and that's the US Government administering wages where it chooses to AND US employers) should be paying better salaries and hourly rates to cover people getting to work AND being insured. Your pay rates are very poor - and yes we've been to the US, so no fair saying we haven't seen this first hand - we have.

I don't own a bike yet, I was using it as a hypothetical. Here's how it pretty much works here as I understand it. If you have a relatively clean driving record and you own your vehicle you are not required to maintain insurance. Most people generally do, though. Now, if you drive a car that the bank owns, one of which you haven't paid off, it will be the bank that requires you to maintain insurance on the vehicle.

If you're a high risk driver with more than a certain amount of points on your license, then the state forces you to carry liability insurance. Same goes with DUI offenders.

Where it gets a bit confusing is when you get into an accident that is clearly your fault. If LEO determines it was your fault, you're on the hook for the damages and can go to court where a settlement plan will be determined. You are also forced to start carrying insurance as you'll be deemed a high risk driver. If you don't pay, your license will be suspended and if they can find your car, it will be impounded. It's also highly likely that either the person you hit or their insurance company will drag you into court again and file a civil suit against you.

The system seems to work pretty well here as you don't hear of too many people complaining about getting hit by uninsured drivers. In fact, I would be willing to bet that we're statistically right on par with the rest of the country in this regards.

Bike, car, truck or big ass RV; I want my ride fixed now, not 10 years from now when some guy making $2.13 an hour at Joe's Greasy Spoon finally pays off the settlement.

Aint, I wasn't aware that the US government chose the location for it's citizen's houses, or ield of employment, or the location of that employment. Land of the free indeed...

I was under the silly impression that Americans had a hand in some of those things. For example, in choosing to live somewhere where a car is a requirement, or in working someplace so far from their residence. I'm not saying that moving closer to their job would be convenient, or even cheaper, they might lose a bundle in the process. But is anyone holding a gun to their head to keep them there?

Compulsory insurance is no more interfering with people's rights than compulsory licensing. I'm sure there are people out there who can't afford the test to get a license, but no one seems to appear to be arguing that they should be able to hop behind the wheel anyways.

I'm sure electronics fencers don't like it when the government confiscates their personal property too. But that's the consequence of breaking the law that is designed to protect the rights of others by not allowing your rights to infringe upon their freedom.

In Canada, we have similar multiple tiers of coverage, but I have to have proof of coverage to get the registration sticker for my car. So yeah, I too am in favor of these laws, and kinda creeped out by the states that don't have them.

The move within walking or bike riding distance to work argument is nonsense. Its biggest flaw is that it assumes that there is housing available within reasonable walking or biking distance to every place of employment.

I work at a wastewater treatment plant. These facilities are often built away from homes. It's one of those places that everyone needs, but most no one wants in their backyard. We are surrounded by light industrial and commercial property. Other places of employment are also out of the neighborhood. Large farms, refineries, factories and so on. Sure, there are some that are in the neighborhood. Still, this doesn't address those that are not. Where would the maker of the live closer so you don't have to drive argument have people live?

The retort to this problem is more nonsense. "You don't have to work there." No. I don't. Neither does the next person. Or the next person. Or the next person, but someone has to. Now what?

Back to the proximity of housing to the work place. Even if there is housing close by, there is no guarantee that it is available. It may be all full up. It may be beyond the financial means of the person being to told to live there. Now what?

For the record, let me remind everyone that I DO favor mandatory insurance laws.