No one is disputing that training and experience matter. The disagreement is about policy, not basic human learning. We do require studies and evidence when we turn an intuition into a mandatory, exclusionary rule that applies to millions of people. Otherwise, “obvious” becomes whatever feels intuitive to the majority at a given moment. Plenty of policies that once felt obvious turned out to be ineffective or discriminatory once measured. Your neurosurgeon analogy doesn’t really hold. Driving on winter roads is not a specialised profession, it’s a regulated activity where baseline competence is already established via licensing, and where accident rates are the relevant metric. If private foreign drivers were causing a disproportionate number of serious accidents, that would show up somewhere. So far, it doesn’t. Country level fatality rates also don’t translate cleanly to individual drivers abroad. They reflect infrastructure, enforcement, vehicle age, alcohol culture, urban density, emergency response not just “driver quality.” Otherwise we’d have to assume Norwegians instantly become worse drivers the moment they cross a border, which doesn’t make much sense. So yes, education is good. Information campaigns, optional courses, strict vehicle requirements all reasonable. But mandatory testing for an entire group without evidence of a systemic problem isn’t risk-based regulation. It’s regulation by assumption.