It's a sad case, but the law makes sense. Just try the alternative: people colliding with you and then leaving you to pay for your own problems. Talk about not fair.

Basic liability insurance is a must.

...For the simple fact that if she caused damage to another person or vehicle, she is held accountable and her insurance bears the brunt of the costs instead of her on her own. When you are in a position to cause harm to another, it only makes sense that insurance should be required, as it protects both parties involved. I sure hope I never have an accident with your sister.

And perhaps there are other things your sister might be able to give up in order to pay for mandatory insurance. Does she have internet, cable tv, a huge gas-guzzling vehicle? Those are just a few things that can and should be sacrificed in times of need. Better to struggle and do what is right (and legal) than to risk adding more expense and trouble should something unexpected happen.

Everyone has choices to make. Being responsible is a choice. Owning a vehicle is a choice. Some choices come with added responsibilities.

Surely your sister knows that if she buys a pound of hamburger from the store that she will have to provide a way to cook that hamburger. She doesn't expect the store to furnish a stove with every pound of hamburger does she?

Owning a vehicle is the same. A vehicle requires gas and oil. Those items don't come with the car. A car also requires insurance. It is not a optional item. It is required. It is part of the cost of owning a vehicle, just as buying gas and oil are part of the cost of owning a vehicle or owning a stove is part of the cost of cooking at home.

The very first thing that each of my children learned about driving was that if they wanted to get a drivers license, THEY had to pay their own insurance. Each of them got a job and paid for their own insurance. Each of them learned to be a responsible citizen.

The fact of the matter is, "accidents" happen. That is why they call them accidents. Your sister isn't immune from an accident. Your sister needs to be covered for her benefit and mine.

If I sustained great personal injury because of your sister and she were not insured, I would not being paying for it out of my pocket. I would go after your sister's house and everything else she owns. Then how poor would she be?

We would both lose.

The fact remains that if your sister can't buy car insurance, she has no business driving. Here's an idea...why don't YOU help YOUR sister pay for her car insurance so she can drive without breaking the law, instead of whinning about her getting caught for breaking the law?

I pay more for car insurance in part because of uninsured drivers like your sister. Sorry - no sympathy from me.

I feel sorry for your sister. At least the cop should have offered her a ride home. But he problay wanted to get back on the road and find another unisured driver to continue his fun. Rather then going after the real crime breakers out there. Cause he like other cops don't have the guts to go after them. Cause they would rather go after the normal law abiding people who break a stupid law like this one cause the Idiots on the hill want to help their buddies line their pockets from the honest folks. Then go after the real law breakers, cause they might get hurt.

While I don't think it is right to for your sister to be left on the road in the middle of the night, I also do not think it is right that she be driving without insurance coverage. What if your sister wrecked her car into yours? You may have insurance that may or may not kick-in to help you, and it may not be enough to fix your car and pay for medical expenses.

Car insurance is overpriced, and a hassle, but it is also a must. Perhaps your sister can look into cloth diapers or other cost saving measures that can enable her to purchase basic liability coverage.

There was a reason the officer ran her plate, does she have warrants? Sorry, insurane is an unneccessary evil for sure but as a victim of one who was hit by someone without insurance I have no sympathy for your sister. Insurance is a rip of for sure but at the same time a protection. Maybe you can help your sister out and buy her liability insurance.

Why not pay for your sister's insurance?

Funny how the "law" requires you to have auto insurance, but not health insurance for your kids.

You must have at least liability insurance. I've seen too many people hit by those without it and they end up with massive medical bills. Any car older than 6-7 years, it won't be much. And the longer you have it, the price tends to drop a bit.

How come I read so many letters that stress the "choice" between buying something for yourself, or feeding, clothing, etc. your children?

If your sister can't afford car insurance, why does she have two children?

So cry me a river, and when your sister gets in an accident, you better write another letter to the editor saying how unfair it is when uninsured drivers force the victim to pay.

And what if that victim is another person who struggles to make ends meet, who has to feed their children? Your sister hits them and then what?

This is actually a very selfish, irresponsible letter.

I don't necessarily oppose the law as is, but the enforcement of it, in this example, seems to be a case of what an old curmudgeon once called "anarchotyranny" - the multiplication and enforcement of little laws against the mostly law abiding while ignoring much bigger offenses by (or for the benefit of) the politically powerful or wealthy.

Another good definition, though somewhat different: "The state allows for a certain amount of instability (like letting in legal or illegal immigrants from hostile countries), and then turns around and uses that instability as an excuse to 'restablize' things by creating more laws."

An example of anarchotyranny would be terrorizing innocent, otherwise non-offending drivers for having no insurance, while ignoring the 100,000+ illegal immigrants in our state.

I faced both at one time a few years ago when an uninsured illegal alien totalled my car. The law pursued him for all he was worth for not having insurance. But did they bother to get him deported? Nope.

The funny thing is that no small portion of the state's uninsured driver problem is due to illegals who don't have insurance.

She shouldn't have been driving. I think a cure would be a law that prevents anyone without insurance from suing someone who does, even though the driver with insurance was at fault, negligent and caused the accident. How would you feel being sued by someone who had no right to be driving, and you would have been able to recover nothing even if they had caused the accident?

Those that can't afford insurance certainly can't afford to pay the cost of an accident caused by them. This is as irresponsible as DUI, in my opinion. Being responsible for the harm caused to others is part of the responsibility we assume when we receive a driver's license.

Interesting event. When I let the insurance lapse on one of my vehicles because I was rebuilding the engine and not going to be driving it, I got a letter from the state requiring an explanation that was easily provided by my agent, since he knew what was going on.

Personally, I do not believe the story about the officer running the plates for no good reason, so count me in as one who thinks there was good reason for the officer to be checking. Sounds like we didn't get all the information in the first place.

The state should be contacting those whose cars do not show in a database as being insured, such as happened to me. That would avoid the stupidity of leaving someone on the sidewalk late at night with no ride.

However, don't come crawling to me looking for sympathy. If you can afford the car, you can afford insurance, and I am way up to hear with having to pay for uninsured motorists on my policy.

Insurance on your car, is in case you damage someone else's property. What kind of stupid comment is it to compare that, to health insurance for kids?

It all goes to the Liberal thought process that someone else should have to pay.

We have two opposing elements in this argument. One is the "blessing" of having a car. The other is the "responsibility" of having a car. "Blessings" and "responsibilities" should be offsetting. In other words, before you can receive a "blessing", you have to accept the "responsibility" that goes with that "blessing".

Situations can and do exist when there is greater need than there is ability to meet that need. An honest person will first do everything he/she can to solve the problem, including cutting all costs. (Most of the things that we consider to be necessities are not necessities at all - they are luxuries that can be safely eliminated without any harm to us or to our families.) Next, an honest person will ask his/her extended family for help. If they can't or won't help, then that person might have to ask people in the community for help.

But, to break the law just because it is inconvenient to keep the law, is criminal behavior.

Liability insurance costs much less than one gallon of gasoline per day. Be responsible. Pay the price.

Liability insurance for the driver of every car is a legal requirement.

Shouldn't an employer whose business benefits from an employees driving to and from work pay a living wage that covers that employee's necessary expenses?

An employee who must chose between food, transportation to and from work (including insurance) and housing is not being paid enough.

Henry Ford used to pay his workers enough so that they could afford to purchase one of his products.

American business owners have forgotten the significance of paying a living wage. Having to choose between food and car insurance is not good for anyone.

To 1:17,

Every job has a VALUE. Hopefully, that VALUE is enough that the worker can provide for the normal necessities of life. However, not all jobs have sufficient value to generate enough income to cover a mortgage, a car, groceries, clothing, entertainment, etc. There are 'entry level' jobs that most of us know are a great asset to teenagers and others who are just learning what it means to hold a job.

Most people would not expect McDonalds to pay everyone an income that would cover all the costs of running a household. Why? Because almost anyone can be trained to work at McDonalds and to be effective in that job after just a very few hours of training. When the cost to replace a worker is minimal, the expectations of a wage should also be minimal.

Some employers take advantage of their workers, but that is a self-correcting situation. If an employer underpays his employees, he won't be able to find workers and his business will close.

For the person who can't make ends meet, it's time to improve your worth by getting training or live on what you are worth.

Supply and demand. It's a natural law.

Joe Moe | 1:06 a.m. July 5, 2008: "It's a sad case, but the law makes sense. Just try the alternative: people colliding with you and then leaving you to pay for your own problems. Talk about not fair."

That's why I carry uninsured motorist insurance.

Either pay for food for the family or buy insurance. Makes you wonder why so many repugs in Utah see no problem with enriching the wealthy all the while the poor get further and further behind.

Keep in Mind that even if the sister had the minimum insurance it would not be enough to pay your bills if she negligently injured you in a car accident. EVERYONE who can afford it should have un-insured motorists cover (UM) in the event the person who negligently injures you has NO insurance AND under-insured motorists coverage (UIM) in the event the person only has the minimum limits, presently $25,000. That's probably only one or two days in intensive care. UM and UIM additional coverage is fairly inexpensive. Ask your Agent about it and then buy as much as you can afford to protect you and your loved ones against un insured and under insured negligent drivers. It could save you from bankruptcy.

To 3:31,

Why hasn't Congress listened to the Citizens? Why haven't the Democrats kept their word about lowering gas prices and instead have stood stone-faced as they stonewall every effort to get more American oil to market? Why do the Democrats want to greatly increase gas prices by taxing "windfall profits" which will just be passed on to us consumers?

Those tactics nearly shut down commerce during President Carter's administration. Do the Democrats have some magic potion that will make it work this time?

I'm betting that the lady who is having financial problems has had those problems greatly magnified by a do-nothing, promise-everything Congress.

You and I are her neighbors. I'm willing to make a contribution to a fund that's set up to help her out, are you?

Good grief, Mike, do you have to bring the "liberals are at fault for everything" argument into every debate? Give it a rest. And for the record, there are two reasons for the insane price of gas: speculation has driven the price up, and the value of the dollar has decreased dramatically. Guess which party held power while those two things happened?

I feel that it is overstepping government's bounds to require an individual to purchase insurance of any kind. If a person chooses to live a risky lifestyle then that should be their prerogative.

HOWEVER - that also means that people should not be free from the responsibilities that come with those choices. If someone chooses to drive without insurance and is involved in an accident then they still should be held financially liable for the damages. There should be no easy out policy like there is today for uninsured drivers.

We don't force people to buy home insurance, health insurance, or life insurance, so why do we force them to buy car insurance?

I, for one, am tired of the nanny state.

Obviously you lack the ability to grasp the law, otherwise you wouldn't have written such a silly comment.

Damages sustained in an accident are CIVIL in nature. Now, I'm not sure if you understand what what CIVIL means, so I'll explain it to you. The government has no ability to make someone pay for CIVIL damages. Those are between two private parties.

Because damages in accidents are civil in nature, requiring insurance is the only way to ensure that such damages get paid.

The reason we don't force people to buy other types of insurance is because they don't affect anyone but THEMSELVES.

The insurance we require people to buy for their cars protects the rest of society from their possibly negligence.

You want to hold people financially responsible for the damages caused in an accident? That's why we require them to carry insurance, to ENSURE they are responsible. Without that, it's very difficult for the other person to recoup any losses....as they have to file a civil lawsuit to force payment, and hope that they succeed.

Driving is a privilege, not a right. If you want to take advantage of that privilege, you need insurance. Deal with it.

Jeffery,

7:34 p.m. answered the liability question perfectly - much better than I could.

Now to your assertion that inflation and speculation are the root cause of the price of gas: that statement is false. If it were true, only America would have had a 100% increase in gas prices.

Read the newspapers throughout the world. There have been riots. There are strikes. India has subsidised gasoline prices to the point of bankrupting their country.

Speculation in America cannot be blamed for global price increases. We don't buy all the oil worldwide. Inflation in America is not the cause of global price increases.

However, here in America we have a LIBERAL Congress that is sitting on their amble back-sides while the citizens of America suffer. We have more than enough oil to handle our needs without letting the Persian Gulf set the price of oil.

A LIBERAL CONGRESS is responsible. Congress has stopped oil companies from bringing oil out of the ground. Congress has stopped the construction of new refineries. Congress has stopped nuclear power generation which would minimize the need for oil in generating electricity.

A LIBERAL Congress has stopped America's progress. Thank the Democrats for shutting down America.

I'd like Kathryn to call my niece who was rear ended not long ago by an un-insured driver and explain why this is such a terrible law. After she was rear ended at an off ramp. the guy begged her not to call the police; when her husband insisted on it, screamed obscenities at them until the police arrived. Not only is their car wrecked, but she went into premature labor and had to spend 5 hours in the emergency room before they were able to stop her contractions. Oh and did I mention that the guy HAD NO INSURANCE! So they have a wrecked car and a whomping emergency room bill for something that was someone else's fault and he had NO INSURANCE!
We're required to have uninsured motorist insurance in AZ- so I pay more because of the irresponsibility of others. I applaud the state of Utah for insisting that cars on the road are covered by insurance.

No sympathy here. My son's best friend was riding his motorcycle on redwood road and a young single mom without insurance pulled out in front of him. He was life flighted to the 'U' but by some miracle lived through the experience. However, being self employed he lost months of work recuperating and had thousands of dollars of medical bills after his insurance had paid their part. It took him 3-4 YEARS to financially recover!!!!