It doesn't have to be a surveillance state for enforcement. Just preventing repeat offenders would practically remove that lowest denominator. For example, I knew a guy in high school who totaled 4 cars and had other minor accidents in 2 years. There's no reason for that person to be allowed to operate a vehicle. On the prevention side, we could require more training.

If you tried to enforce self driving cars, you'd still need some level of surveillance too.

>For example, I knew a guy in high school who totaled 4 cars and had other minor accidents in 2 years.

Wait, he did all that in high school?

I heard something about "20% of drivers are responsible for most of the insurance claims" but it sounds like that one guy is jacking up the averages!

> There's no reason for that person to be allowed to operate a vehicle

Doesn't much of america outside of cities also have the secondary problem of you physically cannot feed yourself, get to appointments, or do anything without operating a vehicle?