This is just an idiot following his leader!! Obama did the same thing with credit cards. Now those of us who pay our bills off every month will be paying for those who use them so they can buy things they can't afford and never pay it off!! Remember these things when elections come up people and vote their greedy butts out of office!!!

Wisconsin's uninsured motorists group is estimated to be approximently 15%. It could be higher or lower because it's difficult to guage. That is high nationally. However those of you who clamor for mandatory insurance should be aware that it is a double edged sword. Generally two groups of drivers go without insurance, high risk and low income. The low income drivers go without because they can't afford it. Passing legislation forcing them to buy it won't make it anymore affordable. They will drive without it. Even the states with the longest running mandatory insurance laws have uninsured vehicles. As far as high risk drivers go the insurance industry will not be able to charge them a premium that adequately compensates them for the risk they assume. It will simply be unaffordable. That means the insurance industry will have to spread the risk by charging higher premiums to all of their insureds. Good drivers pay more. States with mandatory insurance laws have some of the highest average premiums for everyone. Lastly, it was not the insurance industry lobby that pushed this legislation through. It was the trial attorney's lobby that you should point fingers at. The fact of the matter is most insurance companies don't want to insure high risk drivers and the trial attorneys want more money to be available when their clients are awarded judgements.

Could the rising costs be due to police officers wasting valuable resources attending to accidents caused by irresponsible drivers? Could rising costs be due to the number of fines outstanding for OAR/OAS, the uncaptured fees for the growing number of people forgoing renewing their licenses, or deciding to save a few bucks by skipping a year or two on vehicle registration? When someone is pulled over for an expired registration, they are given a citation. If they fail to pay the fine AND still saved a years registration fee, who is out the money? Not only that, but you and I paid for the time the officer spent on the stop.

If the vehicle that is being driven without proper insurance, registration, or licensing is impounded that allows the person to correct the problem in order to get their car back. If they so choose not to do so, it is sold at auction with the proceeds to cover the program as well as the "rising costs" Sannio speaks of. Cruel, sure, but driving is a privilege; not a right! If you can not afford to handle the responsibilities that come with the driving privilege; take the bus, walk, bike, or move.

As it should, Sannio! Regardless of why they are doing it, the point is missed. The basis of this legislation is fallible at best. Forcing someone to purchase high-risk insurance without a penalty for not doing so is futile. The same people that drive w/o insurance, drive unregistered cars w/o a license. Many do so with many outstanding, never intended to be paid, fines for being caught in the past. Irresponsible drivers continue to clog our roads causing accidents at a higher rate than insured individuals. Look in the police reports at the number of 2nd, 3rd, ...12th OAR's or OAS's. Operating after revocation or suspension is so common that many counties will not even allow the person to be taken to jail. Dane County's DA will not allow a revocation or suspension violator be taken to their jail due to overcrowding and the frequency of the violation. At what point does it cease to make sense for the responsible person to feel the need to waste money on license fees, insurance, and registration? The only people that tend to buy the high-risk insurance that is mandated following a drunk driving are the people that were responsible prior to the arrest or accident. Sure, they made a huge mistake or a poor decision to be forced to buy high-risk, but they were generally responsible prior to the event. I promise you will not find a person going out to buy SR-22 that did not have insurance, had invalid registration on their car, and/or had a revoked or suspended license. The only thing raising the insurance minimum will do, without teeth in the penalties, is cause more responsible people to struggle. When responsible people that are already struggling to pay the insurance premiums, hear about, or become a victim of a person not carrying insurance they will start to second guess their need to waste money subsidizing the irresponsible. This is pandering to the insurance lobby at it's best.

I don't think they're raising the minimum to help pay for uninsured motorists, I think they did it because of rising costs. Anyway, you shouldn't be at that low minimum anyway. This should affect mostly people who are getting mandatory insurance to obtain a license through a SR-22 filing (high risk). Drunk driving just got more expensive.

I keep seeing the same pattern of nearly socialistic crap coming from this man. Basically everything he has proposed such as the increase of tax and fees over tobacco. is pointed to paying for everything. This money has to come from somewhere!!!!! Usually it comes from the person who is responsible, and now has to cover the one who isn't. Typical Democratic attitude. "reward bad behavior, show no incentives for doing the right thing, make everyone carry the other's load, and tell all the good bill-paying people that the other group is trying and can't fend for themselves."
*
If my premiums go way up, to cover the uninsured (the way I read this between the lines), then maybe I should cancel my insurance coverage and get a free ride. Oh wait, then I would be screwing the rest of you over, and I don't want to do that.
*
Quit spending everone's money Doyle. Start pushing for common sense legislation, and not required taxing, redistribution of wealth, etc...!

A liability policy should be required for anyone to get and keep a driver's license. A separate liability policy should be required for anyone to keep and register a vehicle. This is about personal responsibility and fairness. No vehicle or driver should be allowed on our roads without adequate insurance to compensate others for losses due to their actions. Drivers in noncompliance should have their licenses and vehicles revoked and impounded respectively.

Yet another juicy bone thrown to the trial lawyers association who, if I'm not mistaken, are big contributors to Diamond Jim...Hmm, coincidence?

unbelievable! this is a tax on the responsible to cover those who are not.
thanks jimmy d!
morons who voted for this man -- please, for the love of God, pay attention to his record and how it has affected your pocketbook.
his election year rhetoric will be all sunshine and roses.

People are not required to have insurance unless they get into an accident. What is in incentive to have insurance if over 1/2 of the people on the road do not carry any? I would like to see the cars taken away by the State if you are caught without insurance, driving without a license, or driving afer revocation/suspension. Maybe not the first time, but the second and beyond. The funds from the sale of the vehicles can then go into a State insurance fund to cover police, courts, and jail costs as well as uninsured driver expenses.

Wisconsin has a financial responsibility law. It is designed to make sure that any motorist licensed to drive in Wisconsin has insurance or enough money to pay for damages to others that may be caused by a motor vehicle. These requirements may be met through a motor vehicle liability insurance policy, a surety bond, personal funds, or certificate of self-insurance.

from oci.wi.gov

You see the peolple that are voting for these raises are people that dont pay for car insurance themselves they are driving cars that tax payers are paying for and insurance paid for by tax payers so you see no out of pocket for them so why should they care. It's just another case of the rich getting richer

Send good old Jimmy and his goons my regards. Things like this make me glad I moved out of state.

Before I jump to the conclusion, "Just when you thought liberals couldn't get any dumber...", I want to make sure I understand completely. I don't have to buy car insurance, even though everyone would be better off if I do. So, in order to encourage more drivers to do the right thing, we're going to arbitrarily raise the price for those who do! Have I got that right? Those who voted for this partisan incompetent must be so proud!

This is typical of the Democratic Party. They say they are for the working person. They say they won't raise peoples income taxes, which is usually true. They just raise requirements, fees, and other taxes on everything else.

so why don't they just require insurance like a lot of other states? I have insurance but i think its dumb that im gonna end up paying more... DUMB

Thanks alot Doyle