> As someone who is a good-but-fast driver, I am not sure how I feel about this

Every fast driver thinks this about themselves.

Slow drivers typically also think they're safer, because they equate speed to safety.

If all other circumstances are equal this is true from a physical standpoint, as E = 1/2 m v^2, at least as long no high speed driver crashes into them.

It's relative velocity that counts, and in most situations it's the other cars that are more likely to cut in front of you or rear-end you than the tree on the side of the road. People who think slow (relative to the ground) is safer are oversimplifying.

The problem is that we humans throw a wrench into the mix. Slow drivers even cause irrationality in other drivers; I would like to consider myself competent, but I'm willing to admit that a bumbling old fart in his Mercedes can get on my nerves.

I realize that, "if all other circumstances are equal," was specifically mentioned.

90% of drivers think they are above average.

Assuming a non-symmetric distribution of driving skill, 90% of drivers may in fact be above average.

If it reduces insurance rates and accident rates, is that good?

If such scoring technology is mandatory at the behest of insurance agencies, is that bad?

If 'naked' cars -- cars whom are lacking the scoring technology -- are prohibited on certain roads at certain times, is that good?

Self-driving cars will be the gold standard that humans are measured against, how we apply that standard is something else entirely.