The point of licensing is to restrict the privilege to those who can responsibly and competently preform the task. If they can't conform to that, then they shouldn't be driving. Tougher licensing and enforcement would drastically reduce fatalities. We already see this in many European nations with stricter enforcement and licensing.
Those of us who drive defensively strongly disagree with this metric. The "average driver" is extremely skewed towards a relatively small subset of drivers who cause most of the wrecks. Not coincidentally, the same people who can't afford a fancy autonomous car anyway.
That is the bar that autonomous vehicles need to reach. Crash rate of zero is not required, through if it is higher than the average driver then it might be worth to make the license requirements higher.
Where I live the practical part of the driver exam is 30m of driving in mixed environment, usually involving a number of environments (based on what the driver inspector can find that day). Those involve city driving, country driving and on-off to the highway, with a number of events such as driving in areas where there are pedestrians/cyclists/children, crossing railway, lane changes, roundabouts, passing construction work, and so on. Just like with a driver instructor the car has double controls, but if the inspector has to take control of the car to prevent an accident then its an automatic fail and the person has to retake the test at a later date. Minor failures can be accepted, through the basic concept is that a person who can't drive around for 30 minutes without causing an accident shouldn't be on the road.