That cuts both ways though, surely.
If you're barely making ends meet, and some uninsured jerk smashes into you and totals your car, suddenly you're in precisely the same position you described above, except the person getting screwed had been paying liability insurance and was not at fault in the wreck.
Surely, "potentially taking someone's lifeblood away from them for years cuz they screwed up once," is better than taking someone's lifeblood away from them for years because somebody ELSE screwed up AND was irresponsibly uninsured?
Also, for exactly this reason, I don't think I know of anywhere where it's legal to drive without insurance. Is there such a place?
Anyway, I'm sorry for coming on so strong here; I've been in that situation and it really and truly sucks. My point is that (illegally or not) uninsured drivers/cars are more common in poorer areas, so it is proportionately more likely that their victims are not well off, and are put out just as much (if not more so) than the uninsured drivers themselves.
If someone causes harm by being irresponsible, I think we should insist on holding them responsible for the harm they have caused. From the uninsured motorists to CEOs, I think this is a good rule all around. Wow, again, sorry, but this touched a nerve. /u/stooners, you're good people for defending the little guy here. But sometimes there is no Goliath, and you have to choose in a fight that is just David vs. Another David.