I don't disagree that the drunks are still a HUGE problem (my sister was hit head on by one who crossed the center line on a 55 mph road while borrowing my car and was very lucky to escape without more serious injuries than she received). The drunk middle aged woman involved in my sister's collision had a really high BAC, was smoking pot while driving, and had no insurance or drivers' license, and STILL only went to jail for a night or two when she was first arrested and escaped with probation and a fine. She ended up getting sued by us (me included, since it was my car that was destroyed) and our insurance company, and had a $50,000+ civil judgment found against her for the injuries, car, etc. She still hasn't paid a dime 5+ years later, claiming that she has no income (she works under the table, apparently). The fact is that the authorities simply aren't interested in harshly enforcing the traffic laws, even in serious cases. So you're 100% correct that that has to change, and it might well be worth it to use a technological solution to try to cut down on this crap. Hit and run should be punished by 10 years in jail if we want to put a stop to it, as it seems to be becoming disturbingly more common.

All that being said, I think that my solution is complementary to yours. Better driver training and testing has been proven to greatly reduce traffic accidents and fatalities in many other countries. And I think that people might be less likely to drive drunk if driving weren't taken so "casually" in general here, and they had a better understanding of why they need to be in complete control of their mental faculties while doing it. If driving were treated by the authorities as the serious undertaking that is, requiring expensive training and testing, and privileges to do it were revoked upon any sort of serious irresponsibility, people would pay attention more and take it more seriously. There would be less driving drunk, less texting, less cell phone use, etc. So effective enforcement of the laws is necessary, but we also need to seriously address the roots of people's poor driving behavior. And my solution is essentially "free" for the government if it's paid for by licensing fees. And furthermore if benefits the driver who is having to pay for it nearly as much as it benefits others, because it teaches them how to be a safer driver. I don't understand why there would be serious opposition to that plan.