Most people who are uninsured are not collectible. Suing them is fruitless, and suspending their license rarely works because if they don't care about being uninsured, they don't care about whether or not they have a license either. We see it all of the time.

I get the sentiment about an uninsured person being automatically at fault, but it can't be that way. If I'm stopped at a red light, and someone hits me from behind, they are at fault and should be held responsible for damages/injuries. If I'm uninsured, then I should be penalized as the law allows, but I should not be left holding the bag if it wasn't my fault. The "shouldn't have been on the road argument" is an emotional argument, though very understandable. I feel that way in my gut about impaired drivers, but I know it's not feasible. The same argument could be also made regarding distracted drivers, unlicensed drivers, and other scenarios. The problem with that approach is that it lets someone who broke the law by being at fault in an accident avoid responsibility for that. I rear-end you, I broke a traffic law. I shouldn't be off the hook just because you broke a different law that did not impact the facts of loss.

We hear similar complaints when a customer causes an accident while drunk, or texting, or driving recklessly. "You shouldn't insure people like that. Shame on you!" Well, the alternative is that they don't have insurance, which means the person complaining would really be screwed.