Should states mandate 'pay at the pump' auto insurance?

Pro: Drivers who are now uninsured would be covered by an insurance policy paid for by a tax on gasoline, say of 50 cents per gallon. This 'pay at the pump' insurance might supplement, if not altogether replace, the insurance coverage now purchased by drivers at their own discretion.

Con: Drivers who already have insurance—the majority of drivers—would resent the additional tax. Or the administrative requirements associated with exemptions from the tax would be extremely costly.

Pro: Insurance companies could enjoy a reduction of overhead: administrative costs associated with maintaining auto insurance policies would be reduced.

Reply: Drivers could present proof of insurance at the time of their purchases. However, this would still require expenditure for setting up the system.

Pro: 'Pay at the pump' auto insurance would have a no-fault feature: the cost for investigation and legal services would be reduced, and inflated, unfair settlements would be eliminated.

Con: 'Pay at the pump' auto insurance would have a no-fault feature: drivers would not be punished with higher insurance rates for causing accidents—drivers with bad driving records would pay the same rates as those with good records.

Con: 'Pay at the pump' auto insurance would provide no incentive for drivers to buy safer cars or cars which are less costly to repair.