Except most accidents are cause by drivers not paying attention (distracted / fatigued / alcohol) or from speeding[0], not from being unable to identify the traffic around them. So giving them more information wouldn't help them reduce accidents, reducing the requirement of driver attention would (i.e. self-driving cars)
- Distracted drivers, bringing their attention back to the hazards on the road.
- Fatigued drivers, by alerting them to a hazard they missed.
- Drunk... yeah, probably won't help much here. Hopefully we can get to the point where you can't start such cars while impaired by alcohol.
- Speeding - again, improving knowledge of hazards, such as corners they can't navigate at the current speed, or vehicles which are at drastically slower/faster speeds.
Don't be quick to dismiss how technology can augment humans. Anything a car can learn to eventually handle on its own, it can notify a human about on a much faster time scale (as in it won't be the perpetual 3 years away, it could be now, since we don't have to perfect the reaction, just the detection).
And, perhaps most importantly for you, this doesn't preclude the development and deployment of fully automatic driving systems when they're actually at level 4/5. In the mean time, we can make a meaningful and broad drop in the vehicle accident statistics.
EDIT: Since this may not be clear - I expect this information and these warnings to be coming 4-5 seconds before an incident would occur, giving the driver classes you've pointed out sufficient time to react.
Or putting all that money into making cars that can't speed and that can track if the driver isn't paying attention.
If the goal really is just to reduce how many people die in traffic there are far easier ways than self-driving cars. The goal of self-driving cars seems to be far more than just reducing traffic deaths, that's just the part that sounds good in public.
[0] https://www.natlawreview.com/article/most-common-causes-coll...