If you drive the speed limit while all the traffic around you is going 10 over, then you are the one who is endangering everyone else. In this case, the person following the law is increasing the risk of everyone else.
I think this is a fallacy. Even if I was going 10 over like everyone else, the overall risk of accidents would be higher compared to the situation where everyone is going exactly at the speed limit. So even if the situation where everyone but me is going 10 over is more risky than the situation where everyone including me is going 10 over, this only means that everyone else is endangering everyone by going 10 over, not me by going at the speed limit.
(Reminds me of an argument for liberal gun laws: if everyone but me has a gun I need to have the right to buy one too - when in fact the risk of being shot is much lower when nobody has a gun.)
The system proposed simply gives "society" (the people) a means of pushing back and expressing their opinion.
I'm glad to see that you have good intentions (didn't expect anything else from you ;-) ). However, I think the system will mostly be (ab)used by evil-doers (for the lack of a better word).
For example, even though drunk driving is a victimless crime (when no one is hurt), I doubt they would get many voluntary contributions from their mutual aid society even if they are a paying member.
Drunk driving (or speeding as in the previous example) are not victimless crimes, at least not in the statistical sense. Both increase the risk of injury for otherwise unrelated people who happen to be in the way of the drunkard at the wrong time. And I think almost everyone is aware of that, which is precisely the reason why drunken drivers wouldn't get many voluntary contributions.
PC's argument basically seems to revolve around every law having a stated purpose that is for the benefit of society. The real question is whether any law is worth making a new class of criminal. Is it worth locking someone up at the thread of eminent death? You will notice through-out his analysis he never approaches that question.
If no one ever pushes back against laws, the unjust laws will continue to unjustly push society.
No! I'm fully aware that many stupid, meaningless and even unjust laws exist.
I'm arguing that you cannot break these laws and try to get away with that by creating some form of insurance. If you want to push back against laws you either have to do it on the political level within the system, or you have to start a revolution. (And no, this mutual aid society is not a revolution.)