So is this another example how the super rich can sideline laws that need to be followed by the not super rich? Like for example, anything that's not allowed, but the only repercussion is a fine? (let's say, littering, just as a concrete example) If I'm super rich, that basically means I can do it, but a poor person would think twice.

Also see companies dealing in business malpractices that only receive a pittance of a fine as the outcome of losing the legal trial. ie: "cost of doing business"

In California for example, You post the bond in the amount required by the state (35k), that acts as your certificate of insurance. Purchase a surety bond from a company licensed in California, or file a certificate of self insurance (only for motor carriers, and requires a 300-750k deposit), or you can purchase traditional liability insurance.

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/brochures/fast...

But why would one do that, rather than pay insurance? What's the benefit to the driver?

In the long run, its cheaper - if you have the initial capital.

So it's an example of, "being poor is more expensive than being rich"

Any other pluses to doing it this way?

One less thing to worry about, you file the bond once, and its good forever

No, it's not.

Insurance requirements are for liability -- the other car and driver.