Another dreamer wishing in one hand and shitting in the other, I wonder which hand fills up first.
"Prove it" says I, and I would invoke the post WWI demonstration bombing that got Billy Mitchell in trouble.
FWIW, the example problem I presented was of an airplane heading towards a base, flying with no IFF transponder, flying low and erratically. The question was whether it was a damaged friendly (no IFF, no radio) and returning to base or an enemy spoofing to look like a damaged friendly. The Army troops were unanimous, "Shoot it down; sort it out on the ground". The flyboys were not so sanguine.
The incentive is NOT to make the most money. It is to charge just enough that there is very little room for a competitor to slip in a lower premium for the same protections. Thus, if you are deemed to be an expected cost is $1K/year driver then your premium should be about $1.1K a year to leave them some protection against the high-side risks (protection they usually get through re-insurance, but that's another concept and we don't want to overload the wet-ware circuits). Conversely, if you are deemed to be an expected cost is $10K/year driver then your premium should be $11K a year and I bet they just hope someone else comes along and offers you a better deal.
But "increasing the total sum they get from premiums" is not even a first order approximation of the TWTWW (the way the world works).
This list is not supportable by either party, which makes me think it could be the best set of trade-offs ever. The only improvement would be if estates of everyone who died were taxed at a rate that paid off their (proportional) share of the national debt that they let get run up on their watch (without regard to which party incurred it). Might make those 20-somethings think a little bit about how much debt they wanted their cohort to put on the books.