No he's not. He's saying that if you have a ratings system where 5 means "Good", 4 means "Not good but could have been worse", and 1-3 means "Fire this guy", then people's default vote will be 5, and it'll be impossible to determine who's actually a good driver, and who just does the minimum.
eBay is a good example of this idea in practice. By rights, the right item arriving as described during the advertised delivery period should be rated a "Neutral" transaction, and an average eBayer should have mostly "Neutral" ratings. But because of... well, I don't know why, but somehow we got to the point that "Neutral" means bad, and so the score of an eBayer is completely useless - you genuinely can't tell the people who go the extra mile from the people who do just enough to avoid getting fired. (And interestingly their attempt to introduce more fine grained seller ratings fails for the same reason.)