If I was an auto insurer, I would want to know that my policy holders were properly maintaining their vehicles. I would also have a strong interest in ensuring that non-policy holders did the same.

And as a driver, I certainly want everyone around me to be required to properly maintain their cars.

This is a hilarious interpretation of how driving laws are enforced. I happen to know a lot of people in the racing / street car community, though I am not involved myself. As a matter of course, I've come to learn how they get ticket convictions less often than me and your average guy who barely speeds but gets caught once a decade by sheriff joe.

(1) They have GPS tracking of all camera locations with alerts at each one

(2) They use laser jammers

(3) They have the best radar detectors

(4) They all know the best lawyers for getting your tickets dropped and failing that

(5) They know how to approach the prosecutor for diversions

The much better, safer, driver gets the ticket and higher rates instead because they haven't revolved their driving experience over defeating the ticketing enforcement. And the 'justice' system is good with this because the end goal is revenue, not identifying problem drivers.

I'm not gonna let the goal posts move here. That still doesn't make it a moving violation on par with driving like a dick and/or causing an accident.

What you're saying seems to make sense on face value but in reality letting insurance leverage safety inspections is just a politically less thorny wealth proxy. The inspections themselves don't provide all that much value (IMO this is because of how comprehensive they are, 90/10 rule and all that) and multiple states have ended their programs because they don't actually provide meaningful improvement for the money.