> Legal Limits results in many deaths a year that would not occur if the Limits were more strict.

Source on this please. Let's take speed limits as an example. Looking at [1], the data for the US doesn't seem to be conclusive to me - some times speed limit decreases didn't have a significant effect, sometimes increases lead to more crashes, sometimes to less crashes. So I don't know about you, but I wouldn't use such a blanket statement. Also, Europe often has higher speed limits, but significantly less fatalities than the US[2], both by miles driven and by number of cars. That may or may not be causal, but the world is not as simple as it's the law so it must be good.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit#Effectiveness

[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...

Edit: I've been looking for regulations on following distance, but I can't actually find any. There's lots of rules that are given to driving learners but I can't find anything legally binding, whether for the US nor for European country. Obviously keeping a safe distance is necessary for reducing accidents, but lacking any data I can't really say what distance is safe. In Switzerland we learn the 'two second rule', in the US it seems to be three seconds - which seems excessively much to me - at that distance you'd have driver after driver using the gap in front of you since half the distance would seem close enough to the two-second-rule to them - thus creating way more critical situations where you have to be careful.

I was referring to following distance. And yes, three seconds is the "too liberal" version that I was referring to. Once we have automated systems in place, then anybody cutting into a three second gap gets an automatic $xx fine or some type of penalty to discourage them from doing that.

I assure you, that if every driver on the road was a minimum of 4 seconds behind the car in front of them, with mechanisms to enforce that, certain classes of accidents (predominantly rear-ending events, and rapid-swerve events) would be significantly reduced.

The good news is that over the next 3-5 years, a large number of safety automation systems will start to make their way into high-end $50K+ vehicles. The three that I'm super impressed by (having driven in a bunch of vehicles with them) - are Crash Avoidance (your car hits the breaks to prevent it from running into the vehicle in front of you), Lane Control (Your car keeps you in the current lane), and Blind Spot Protection (Your car prevents you from ramming into a car in your blind spot). If, as I strongly suspect, there is a huge drop in car accidents as a result of these three technologies, then we'll start to see them being introduced into the $30K-$50K range over the following 4-6 years, and then, soon thereafter as the technology has been commoditized, the NHTSA will start requiring it. By 2030, all new cars sold in the United States will require those three technologies.

I can only begin to imagine what new technologies will be developed as the march towards self driving cars takes place.

"Doesn't seem conclusive"? I find it hard to believe you could read that table you linked to and claim that speed limits are not effective. Most of the data presented show double digit correlations between speed limit changes and fatalities!

I'm quoting the data entries for the US that are either nation-wide or multi-state:

decreases

* US (22 states) (1992) 5 mph to 15 mph (8 km/h to 24 km/h) decreases No significant changes

increases

* US (1989) 55 mph to 65 mph (89 km/h to 105 km/h) Fatal crashes increased by 21%

* US (40 states) (1990) 55 mph to 65 mph (89 km/h to 105 km/h) Fatalities increased by 15% Decrease or no effect in 12 States

* US (40 states) (1994) 55 mph to 65 mph (89 km/h to 105 km/h) Statewide fatality rates decreased 3-5% (Significant in 14 of 40 states)

* US (22 states) (1997) 5 mph to 15 mph (8 km/h to 24 km/h) increase No significant changes

So no, I don't see the defining answer here. I'm not saying that the limits should be raised across the board, I'm also not saying that decreases aren't good - all I'm saying is that legal limits should be assessed from time to time (which they are), because of changes in society, technology and new data. Laws are not perfect.

How come it's because of speed when every time someone die in a car he's either drunk, on drugs or felt asleep while driving?

Not to mention people die less because today's cars are also millions times more safe, not because we put speed camera on the side or because people drive slow.