[meta]

The article treats mandatory insurance as a burden added to licensing.
But if an insurer will extend ample coverage, why require a licence?
(Aside from keeping the hooks in for social engineering, of course.)
If insurability replaced bureaucratic approval,
we might do better on both safety and freedom.

[Zon]

The article treats mandatory insurance as a burden added to licensing.
But if an insurer will extend ample coverage, why require a licence?
(Aside from keeping the hooks in for social engineering, of course.)
If insurability replaced bureaucratic approval,
we might do better on both safety and freedom.

Exactly The Point. To further that, several free market driving schools could compete for customers. Each having their own driving tests. The insurance companies would decide the level of competence of each school. Could even having different level of driving tests. A test for the average driver, a test for little old ladies, a test for highly skilled drivers. Insurance could be based on the grade an insurance customer got on a specific test. People that take no test would pay much higher premiums. That means every person has the freedom of choice.