25 ms·

How Britain built some of the world’s safest roads

149 points by sien 1y ago

DaiPlusPlus 1y ago
From the footer: > Our World in Data is a project of Global Change Data Lab, a nonprofit based in the UK (Reg. Charity No. 1186433). I'm a Brit too, but this article felt a bit too self-congratulatory given I've read other recent reports about other places (cites, regions, and entire countries) with overall safer roads; kinda like how we love to tell everyone how chuffed we are with how safe our AC plugs are.
- louthy 1y ago
  > kinda like how we love to tell everyone how chuffed we are with how safe our AC plugs are. I never see Brits saying this. Only people from other nations. The plugs are the safest though!
  - DaiPlusPlus 1y ago
    Oblig: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEfP1OKKz_Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEfP1OKKz_Q
    - louthy 1y ago
      Oblig: https://youtu.be/139Q61ty4C0?feature=shared https://youtu.be/139Q61ty4C0?feature=shared https://youtu.be/92YHhed3B-Y?feature=shared https://youtu.be/92YHhed3B-Y?feature=shared https://youtu.be/dTPuYf30B1M?feature=shared https://youtu.be/dTPuYf30B1M?feature=shared https://youtu.be/efh4k6TJa2c?feature=shared https://youtu.be/efh4k6TJa2c?feature=shared https://youtu.be/2rQiiOKIEcU?feature=shared https://youtu.be/2rQiiOKIEcU?feature=shared https://youtu.be/eeT5xtc_Dd4?feature=shared https://youtu.be/eeT5xtc_Dd4?feature=shared +1000s more…
      - DaiPlusPlus 1y ago
        > I never see Brits saying this ...but that was my point: Tom Scott is British.
        louthy 1y ago
        Right. I had never seen it. That was my point. Now I’ve seen 1.
- PaulRobinson 1y ago
  Our AC plugs are, however, the safest design on the planet. I think if these guys are honest about their numbers - and the main number they're calling out is a 22-fold decline in road deaths per mile driven in the last 75 years, which is remarkable - and shows those other safer regions in their comparisons, what is the problem?
  - zik 1y ago
    > Our AC plugs are, however, the safest design on the planet. Not if you step on them with bare feet - those things are worse than LEGO. They could punch through a horse's hoof.
    - marliechiller 1y ago
      why are you stepping on them?
      - throwaway290 1y ago
        because sometimes you unplug it and leave it around. unless you live like a king sometimes there is 2 sockets and you have 5 devices to plug at different times. european and other ones will be on the side so stepping on it is no problem but uk ones will be the pointy end up
        masfuerte 1y ago
        Live like a king! Are these prices beyond your means? https://www.argos.co.uk/search/extension-lead/ https://www.argos.co.uk/search/extension-lead/
        throwaway290 1y ago
        I have one too! 3 out of 6 plugs stopped working! I have 2 plugs outside of mini kitchen area and I have laptop, phone charger, camera charger, 2 ikea lamps, ....... there are no uk plugs here so I'm not complaining:) if keeping everything plugged works for you, awesome!
- JimDabell 1y ago
  The article starts off with a graph showing the UK has 2 deaths per 100k people, with Norway, Malta, Singapore, and Sweden at 1.9. It then finishes by saying: > If every country could lower its rates to those of the UK, Sweden, or Norway, this number would be just under 200,000. We’d save one million lives every year. The article wasn’t making the case that the UK is the absolute best, it was discussing what the UK did to change from being unsafe to much safer.
- zelos 1y ago
  It would be more interesting to compare the rates of serious injury (including death), I think. That would remove the effect of improvements in medical treatement over time.
- rgblambda 1y ago
  >kinda like how we love to tell everyone how chuffed we are with how safe our AC plugs are. I would actually love to see some data that compares total deaths and injuries per capita from electrocution from plugs across different countries. I have a feeling the total worldwide figures are tiny in comparison to injuries from stepping barefoot/putting your knee on UK plugs. Also, UK plugs tend to have the wire coming out the bottom and then curving upwards as the electrical device is usually above the socket, over time resulting in an exposed wire, while most other plugs have the wire coming out the centre.
  - closewith 1y ago
    The big danger from outlets and plugs is fire rather than electric shock, which is what you'd need to compare.
  - mjg59 1y ago
    The nominal idea is that having them come straight out encourages people to remove plugs by pulling on the cord, which introduces even more strain than having a curved wire - although maybe this ends up being an argument to mount UK sockets the other way up?
  - ajb 1y ago
    I've never seen a plug that has an exposed wire for that reason - all the plugs have a heavy clamp internally that attaches to the outer sheath, preventing the movement that would cause this. I would suspect that any plugs where wear has caused exposure are either properly ancient, or were wired incorrectly (eg by trimming the outer sheath short of the clamp).
- Theodores 1y ago
  Definitely self-congratulatory. I chose active travel over car dependency at an early age. I also worked in the cycle trade. My opinion is that roads have become far more dangerous, however, most of what can be killed by the car has already been killed and the reason for fewer deaths is slimmer pickings. Children and the elderly are two canaries in the coal mine. Kids used to get new bicycles at Christmas, play in the streets and be 'free range' in the UK. Nowadays they are all welded to mobile phones and cocooned in SUVs. Only something like one on four know how to ride a bicycle nowadays and that Christmas trade in bicycles died thirty years ago. Although you see a fair few Lime bikes and people commuting by bicycle in London, most bicycles are sold to rich people for them to strap to cars, for them to drive to a designated safe spot, for them to ride from the car park in a loop back to the car park. You never see these bicycles parked up next to the door at a supermarket or even at a railway station, partly due to the risk of theft, but also due to the dangers of the road. As for the elderly, nowadays they are boomers and they all have cars. They only give up their car keys when they get condemned to retirement homes. Hence, like kids, old people are not to be found in the streets, unless cocooned in tin boxes. As for being cocooned in a tin box, what happened to spirited driving? In the 1970s it was normal for people to cross the country with no sat nav or seat belt, driving as if they were in a Group B rally car, taking their special shortcuts, drunk, with cigarette in hand. Nowadays this doesn't happen, people in cars just shuffle from traffic light to traffic light fearing CCTV and speed cameras. We have also priced out younger motorists, who would have been the 'spirited drivers'. Hitchhiking used to exist in the 1970s. Thatcher era stranger danger put an end to that, so nobody hitchhikes these days. Does this mean that hitchhiking is safer? No! There is another aspect of car dependency and 'safety'. Sure, you might not get killed in an ultra-violent crash in a tin-box cocoon, however, what about cardiovascular disease? Being car dependent and eating the convenience foods of the car dependent is a shortcut to obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease, cognitive decline and death by blocked arteries. The government knows this, and this is why 'active travel' is a phrase. By 2030 the UK government wants more than half of all journeys in built up areas to be 'active travel' rather than lame car dependency.
petesergeant 1y ago
My least favourite part of driving in the UK is that a road like this[1] (chosen at random from rural roads) has a speed-limit of 60mph/95kmh 0: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.358056,-2.6822578,3a,75y,344.24h,83.18t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sFoPUskrDXzGb5a5yiQ3zxQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D6.822975788674967%26panoid%3DFoPUskrDXzGb5a5yiQ3zxQ%26yaw%3D344.2385601582941!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDkwMy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D https://www.google.com/maps/@51.358056,-2.6822578,3a,75y,344...
- seszett 1y ago
  You don't have to drive 60 mph there though. You can use your judgement. I'm more used to France's 90 km/h countryside roads (now 80 km/h for most of them) but it's the same, sometimes you can only drive 70 or 50, but sometimes 90 is perfectly fine. But you should be able to see it for yourself, and in the specific places where you can't see the danger there are generally signs and a lower speed limit.
  - dazc 1y ago
    You don't have to do 60mph, this is true, but there are lots of people that will try to.
  - hdgvhicv 1y ago
    I drive 20 miles a day on single track roads. The widths vary from a few passing places which you have to reverse if you meet a horse or bike coming the other way, let alone a tractor or lorry, to places where you can just about pass a large vehicle without stopping, and easily pass a car. There’s even a handful of places you can overtake if the car in front stays to the left and nothing is coming. Safe speeds vary from 15 to over 60 depending on the visibility. If you get stuck behind an idiot it can add 10 minutes to the journey. On a clear road it takes under 15 minutes to do the 10 miles each way, but get stuck behind someone who hasn’t hit a clue, prevents you from overtaking in the places you can (one of which is about half a mile of 30mph where the idiots inevitably speed), refuses to pull in to let you past, spends forever trying to get into a passing place etc and it can take nearer 30. Get that in each direction and that’s an extra half hour a day — it’s very frustrating. There should be a separate license for driving on country roads
sien 1y ago
There is data for Australia as well that shows a similar decline. It's worth looking at the road deaths data in wikipedia at : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_Australia_by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_i... The road toll of 1266 in 2023 and 4.8 fatalities per 100K residents is and comparing it to 1970 where it was 3,798 and 30.4 per 100K residents. Even the trend on deaths per 100K residents is down from 8.15 per 100K residents in 2003 and has declined to 4.4 in 2023. In terms of road fatalities per billion kilometres driven it's down from 44 per billion kilometres traveled in 1971 to 4.4 in 2020. It's really interesting to see how many single vehicle accidents there were and the breakdown of who was killed. From : https://www.carexpert.com.au/car-news/australias-catastrophic-2023-road-toll-laid-bare https://www.carexpert.com.au/car-news/australias-catastrophi... "48 per cent of deaths recorded were drivers, while 20 per cent were motorcyclists, 16 per cent were passengers and 12.5 per cent were pedestrians. 304 women were killed over the 12 months, while the report recorded 956 male deaths. 792 deaths occurred during weekdays and 474 victims were killed over a weekend." The breakdown on where the crashes happened is interesting "A total of 326 people died in major cities across Australia, with 581 deaths in regional Australia and 63 in remote or very remote parts of the country." Given that the vast majority of Australians live in major cities it's surprising. It's really surprising how many accidents are single vehicle : "Out of 1266 deaths, 490 victims were involved in multiple-vehicle road incidents, whereas 776 people who died were involved in single-vehicle crashes." On top of this it should be added that in a review of fatalities in Victoria ~52% of the crashes involved a driver who tested positive for alcohol or drugs or both. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457520317255 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00014... 41% of fatalities are estimated to involve speeding. https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/topics-tips/speeding https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/topics-tips/spee...
hazzamanic 1y ago
I wonder if there will be a reversal in pedestrian deaths with the rise in larger cars. I live in a large UK city and it is mad the number of SUVs you see driving around.
- mytailorisrich 1y ago
  The issue is bad drivers and, sometimes, reckless pedestrians. Obviously, in an UK town pedestrians and cars should never come in contact, there are pavements, pedestrian crossings, etc.
- rusk 1y ago
  There is a compensating rise in small EV also so hopefully that will cancel things out
- CalRobert 1y ago
  Do you have Individual Vehicle Approval? It’s shocking how many gigantic Dodge Rams (which do not meet EU safety rules) are driving around the Netherlands. One killed a 23 year old cyclist a few weeks ago.
  - andrepd 1y ago
    Don't worry, our dear leaders are already hard at work giving up their people's safety and ensuring we bend over backwards to appease the US. Such vehicles will be able to drive in the EU with no hurdles. Fuck me
  - Symbiote 1y ago
    I hope there's progress being made to close the import loophole: https://www.ecf.com/en/news/eu-commission-acknowledges-regulatory-flaws-with-large-pick-up-truck-imports-following-ecf-co-signed-letter-/ https://www.ecf.com/en/news/eu-commission-acknowledges-regul... Meanwhile, there's a group (mostly in Britain) that sometimes lets the air out of the tyres of inappropriate vehicles [1] and sometimes drills holes in them [2]. From [3], "My mother is in palliative care and I came to the car to go to her, but because of your vicious act, I am stuck trying to reinflate my tyres!" — I have no sympathy whatsoever. She bought the 'car', she can call a taxi if the journey is urgent. [1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/who-are-the-tyre-extinguishers/ https://www.vice.com/en/article/who-are-the-tyre-extinguishe... / https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/29/tyre-extinguishers-deflate-tyres-of-900-suvs-in-biggest-ever-action https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/29/tyre-ext... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/07/activists-drill-holes-in-tyres-of-more-than-60-suvs-at-exeter-car-dealership https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/07/activist... [3] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg67xeqp296o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg67xeqp296o
Delphiza 1y ago
Putting in roundabouts as a default so many years ago (as described in the article) makes a huge difference the the road infrastructure in the UK. They take up a lot more space, but the lack of stop-start traffic light intersections makes a completely changes how people move around. Bigger, more complex roundabouts do have traffic lights, but straight-up road intersections with traffic lights are the exception.
KaiserPro 1y ago
I have children who are now approaching, or have approached large independence milestones. By the time I was my eldest's age (no just in high school [11-13 years old]) I knew of at least one kid from my school (a school of 55) who had died in a road accident. By the time I had left sixth form (18), two other people from my high school had died in RTAs and two others had life changing injuries. Granted this was rural east of england, so the roads were/are more dangerous. However those last crashes triggered changes to the layout of the roads where they happened. This wasn't some line painting thing either, complete junction change from a y junction to a roundabout with re-grade of the road to improve visibility. Much as it pisses me off, speed cameras, bumps and "low" speed limits are almost always a reaction to road deaths. All of this means that my kids, who go to a much bigger school (500 and 1500 respectively) have not lost people they know to road crashes. objectively kids are much much safer outside than any 80s kids. Yet, for whatever reason we don't think thats the case.
- CalRobert 1y ago
  Similarly, Ireland has seen a massive drop in road deaths, but one problem is that a lot of that improvement came from removing vulnerable road users - the kids biking and walking to school, etc are now much more likely to be in a car. (The US is similar - biking or walking to primary school was once the norm). Similarly you’d have zero drownings if you threw sharks in every pool. I do wish we could acknowledge that a lot of the improvement in road “safety” was a result of people just removing themselves from places where cars are.
  - closewith 1y ago
    No, that’s not true. Walking and cycling did decline, but risk per kilometre for has also fallen sharply (by approximately 50%) over the same period. Vulnerable road users are safer now than they ever were, despite similar actual numbers using the road network due to population growth and profile. The main factors behind the fall in deaths: * drink-driving enforcement, * seatbelt enforcement, * speed limits and speed cameras, * NCT improving the vehicle fleet, * road engineering changes, * driver training. So the “sharks in the pool” analogy is absurd. Everyone is safer, including the most vulnerable road users, so a better analogy is the road network has changed from shark-infested seas to a managed watercourse with swimmers, surfers, and boaters are seeing vastly fewer deaths or injuries.
PaulRobinson 1y ago
As somebody who has driven in a few places around the World, I would say that overall the standard of driving and safety is remarkably high in the UK given that the road layouts are often quite confusing (we have roads in use today from Roman, Saxon, Norman, Medieval, Tudor and more modern phases of development, so it can get confusing), and the level of signage around some confusing layouts is much lower than, say, California. This is because the rules are more complex, but actually get a license is, too. There are plenty of bad drivers, there are still idiots who drink/take drugs/use their mobile phones while driving, but it's way, way less than in some other parts of the World. And the rules of the road are broadly followed in terms of lane discipline and right of way in a way that they aren't in much of Europe or elsewhere. I sometimes wish that we had clearer lane signage in some parts of the road network, like that seen in the US, but overall, once you get it, it's all very straightforward.
- CalRobert 1y ago
  Confusing roads are safer though, it forces drivers to pay more attention
  - piker 1y ago
    More importantly, it selects against a lot of nervous, disabled, young, drunk and other bad drivers.
    - CalRobert 1y ago
      Yeah, better to be confused and drive in to a ditch at 20 mph than confident and t-bone a family at 50. Not sure what you mean about disabled? If nothing else a confusing road will get drivers to put the goddamn phone down.
      - piker 1y ago
        By disabled I mean, for example, my father has polio and has driven his entire life in the US but would be unable to do so physically in the UK because of the demands the civil engineering would impose on him here.
lordnacho 1y ago
But why is it that countries that are culturally close to Britain (eg colonies) have much higher fatality rates? You'd expect them to have implemented some of the same policies. Singapore and Malta have similar rates, but the others are much higher. Regarding roundabouts, it makes sense when explained like in the article. But I've always felt like they were dangerous, especially the ones they have in Britain where you have multiple lanes with lights and connecting roundabouts. Perhaps that sense of fear is what actually makes them safe.
- jamesblonde 1y ago
  Ireland has followed the same trend, slightly behind the UK.
- asdff 1y ago
  Because they don't have the same road use culture.
- bluehatbrit 1y ago
  Large roundabouts are pretty safe, if you've gone through the learning process we have in the UK. I did about 30-40h of practical lessons with an instructor, over half of which would have included multi-lane roundabouts. The lights control the flow, so no need to worry about giving way. You pick your lane in the lead up using the signs and road markings. Then you follow your painted lane, the markings of which guide you all the way through. The markings and lights do all the work for you, unless you're in the wrong lane at the start. All your awareness is focused on looking for hazards of people who are in the wrong lane because your route is dictated by the road markings. I will admit, they look complicated - especially if you've never driven one before. My first time around one was a bit nerve-wracking, but they quickly become second nature.
piker 1y ago
As an American who drove for 20 years before obtaining a license in the UK, I can offer some observations. First, driving in the UK is much more a privilege than a right as in the US. You can live a complete life in the UK without a license because of the wide availability of public transit. In the US however, if you want to maintain a steady job outside of NYC, Chicago, DC, Boston or perhaps a few others, you'll have to drive. Revoking a driver's license in the US can be life-altering in a way that it just won't in the UK. Fewer people bother getting the license and fewer still drive. Second, driving is much more physically and mentally demanding in the UK. Perhaps that serves to reduce traffic deaths by forcing focus, but it also imposes a limit on the types of people who can drive here. This selects against too young, too old, too small, disabled, etc. in a way that would not be tolerated in the US for the above reasons. Third, annual vehicle inspections are much more stringent in the UK which takes a lot of older vehicles off the road and again selects against those of lower socio-economic status in a way that would be unconscionable in the US.
- robk 1y ago
  I don't know I'm the same and find being in the valley more stressful than the drive to wembley from central London. More taxing mentally to have insane people passing you at 100mph. The licensing is harder but still was a one shot 5 hour prep thing for me.
- MrBrobot 1y ago
  I think universal vehicle inspections alone would massively cut down on a significant amount of accidents, especially in Michigan. The number of people I see driving in 6” of snow with bald tires, grinding brakes, and blown out suspension is really concerning.
  - dghlsakjg 1y ago
    It would just lead to people driving unlicensed vehicles. People driving around in dangerous vehicles aren't doing it for fun, they are doing it to get to work, go shopping and otherwise live their lives with limited resources.
philjohn 1y ago
Our driving test standards are also high, having spoken with US colleagues, much higher than state-side (although I imagine that varies from state to state). The theory test you must pass before taking your practical also now includes a hazard perception test - you are shown multiple videos and must click when you first perceive a hazard - the earlier you click after the hazard presents the higher your score - but if you just click randomly you get a zero. Some of them are tricky - for instance, one I remember is a van coming from a side road at too fast a speed, but you can only first see this hazard forming in a reflection of a shop window.
- keyringlight 1y ago
  Then you get the two wheeled side of the fence. You can do a one day compulsory basic training course and convince a trainer you know what you're doing, then drive on the road with everyone on a 125cc motorcycle (or 50cc at 16 years old), and then repeat the CBT every two years to keep on the road. It's only if you go for the full license that you need to study for theory as a prerequisite, so long as you keep out of trouble.
  - michaelt 1y ago
    You make it sound like motorbike riders are practically unregulated, but in a sense it's the opposite. A few decades ago, 125cc bikes were mostly for learners practising before taking their test. But successive governments have made it harder and harder to get a full license - so loads of riders just stay on learner bikes forever. So the status quo is, in a sense, the result of very strict regulation.
    - Neil44 1y ago
      It's the Deliveroo, Just Eat etc crowd too. CBT and off you go. No incentive for further training.
      - cjrp 1y ago
        Yep. They should re-think allowing people to work with just a CBT, but I guess they don't want to stop people from having a job.
aswegs8 1y ago
Finally something positive about the UK. Usually the crowd will come in with pitchforks swinging everytime there is something about UK housing or politics going wrong.
rich_sasha 1y ago
UK is extremely risk-averse. In the case of road safety, it shows: a lot of time and cash goes into minimising deaths. This is not only road users: roadworks have restrictive speed limits, which are not taken down when there is no workforce out, to minimise risk to workers setting and unsetting limits, traffic cones etc. Things that in other countries would close a lane often close the whole road, again because of risks to road users and maintenance people. This is of course great, but also very expensive - and I cannot shake the feeling that the UK loses so much money on this risk aversion that is actually causes more hazard due to underinvestment elsewhere. NHS is crumbling, the very safe roads take forever to navigate, introducing inefficiencies and starving the central budget of cash. GDP per capita has barely grown since 2008. Even a small annual boost would unlock a lot of cash for investment, in particular into NHS and saving lives. It's like putting all your pension investments into bonds, because they are safer. But you swap market risk for the risk of not having enough cash when you retire. But maybe it's easy to have this perspective because I have a desk job and commute by public transport.
- louthy 1y ago
  Seems a rather tenuous link to the state of the NHS. The UK has a lower tax regime than most equivalent nations. If we wanted a better NHS we could just collect similar tax rates to that of Germany or other western nations. One of the issues is we’re trapped with a media ecosystem that won’t even allow progressive parties to say “we’ll take a bit more in tax and in return you’ll get a functioning health service”, instead they feel they have to promise to run the economy like the Tories (which is mind numbing). It’s not just the recent Labour election I’m referring to. The first time Blair got in it was the same. We get the services we deserve.
  - zelos 1y ago
    That's pretty much been Lib Dem policy since 1992, but they finally gave up on it in 2023: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66910334 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66910334
  - rich_sasha 1y ago
    It's not just the roads, it's everything. Most pension money is invested in UK bonds. UK treasury department focuses on a set of very narrow spending criteria, so much so that it's hard for governments to spend money on investments. And then it's not just the NHS. My point is, rather, that extreme risk aversion in the short term can actually increase the medium-term risk. If the UK could generate a few extra 0.1% of GDP growth per year in exchange for some risk, that would seem an overall better world to be in.
amai 1y ago
tldr; speed limits
berryg 1y ago
Driving in the UK can be quite a shock when you're used to the roads in the Netherlands. The speed at which people navigate roundabouts can feel terrifying, and the maximum speed in the countryside is something else. Going *60 mph* on narrow roads with limited visibility is just crazy. The locals just speed by. I guess it's just what you're used to.
- tialaramex 1y ago
  You're not supposed to drive 60mph on those tiny roads. Why are they 60mph? Well, the symbol they display doesn't say 60mph, it's basically just a slash symbol - it should be read "National Limit Applies" or perhaps "Derestricted" and it so happens that the law in the UK says that if there's no other rule in place that limit is 60mph and on these tiny roads nobody has put in place a more specific limit so that's the law. [If there is carriageway separation, e.g. a larger road on which traffic flowing in the opposite direction isn't sharing the same tarmac, this global rule says 70mph, but no tiny roads have multiple carriageways, actually sometimes it feels like there's barely room for one let alone two] However, just because there isn't a lower limit doesn't mean it's appropriate to drive at 60mph and people who do are generally maniacs. Where I grew up there are lots of these roads, steep, winding, narrow tracks paved in the 19th or 20th centuries for access to a farm here or a cottage there, and maintained by the public. You absolutely might turn a corner and find an entire flock of sheep in the road going "Baa!". If you're doing 60mph after you've killed a bunch of sheep and the bodies start smashing through your windscreen you're probably dead. Sheep don't have lights, don't know about jaywalking laws (which Britain doesn't have anyway) and aren't smart enough to have considered this risk, they're just there and now you're dead. So you drive at maybe 30-40mph on the straight parts, slower on curves and always pay a lot of attention 'cos things can go very bad, very quickly. Roundabouts are a bit different. The UK has a lot of what are called "mini roundabouts". As a pedestrian, or perhaps on a bicycle these do just look like they're small roundabouts, too small for the island in the middle to have any purpose so it's just paint. But in a vehicle it's apparent that the island can't exist because you'd crash into it, perhaps not in a Mini but certainly in a bin truck or a bus. The mini roundabout isn't a roundabout except in the sense that the same rules apply as if it was, which means if I can see you can't enter before I do then I know you mustn't enter, I have right of way, which means I needn't slow down - you won't be in my way, you're not entering.
cjensen 1y ago
The article says "safest roads," but the statistic used to demonstrate that is deaths per 100K people rather than deaths per kilometer driven. Seems to me the latter would be a much better metric for the safety of the physical roads.
- jamesblonde 1y ago
  Montana would be amazingly safe based on your metric.
  - cjensen 1y ago
    Nope. It's top-10 for most dangerous [1]. [1] https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/fatality-statistics/detail/state-by-state https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/fatality-statistics/deta...
  - voxic11 1y ago
    No actually on that metric Montana is one of the most dangerous and Massachusetts is one of the safest.
    - throwaway2037 1y ago
      > Massachusetts is one of the safest For those unaware, Boston (largest city in Massachusetts) has a reputation for incredibly aggressive drivers (so does New York City). Is Massachusetts relatively safer because it has so few freeways? I find it hard to believe this can be explained by "quality of drivers". Another idea: Maybe local police are very, very strict about drink/driving, thus reducing the number of deaths.
      - potato3732842 1y ago
        >Maybe local police are very, very strict about drink/driving, thus reducing the number of deaths. The Karen Read trial was illustrative about how seriously Massachusetts law enforcement takes DUI.
kypro 1y ago
In my opinion some of this is simply due to how congested built up areas are today. It's genuinely hard to get up to 30 in a city or any populated area in the UK today, and most cities in the UK now have 20mph speed limits when there's likely to be pedestrians around. It's pretty hard to kill people if you're driving under 30, and anywhere people are driving in excess of 30 it's not that populated and cars these days are pretty safe unless you have a head on collision at significant speed.
- owlbite 1y ago
  That and the speed limits are actually enforced, at least significantly more so than they seem to be here in California: - Lots more speed cameras - Average speed cameras especially make a huge difference vs spot enforcement - Tolerance for enforcement is normally 10% rather than 10 mph (i.e. 30 limit means no more than 33mph rather than no more than 40mph)
breadwinner 1y ago
As an American tourist in London I found the roundabouts very interesting. In big cities and small, all intersections have a roundabout. Compare that to the US. You have Stop signs which are easy to miss. Sometimes the Stop signs are ignored by people in a hurry. Sometimes people steal the Stop signs to use as decoration in dorms.
- zabzonk 1y ago
  > In big cities and small, all intersections have a roundabout. As someone that has lived in London for nearly 30 years, I can safely say - no they don't. Most intersections have traffic lights.
  - breadwinner 1y ago
    OK, I meant at least have a roundabout, and I meant in England not in London.
    - zabzonk 1y ago
      It's not just London. For example the small city I now live in (Lincoln) has very few, if any, roundabouts in the city itself - they are confined to the ring-road around the place, and roads in/out of it. Not true for all places, of course - for example Swindon is notorious for its "Magic Roundabout".
- dboreham 1y ago
  There are large numbers of roundabouts in parts of the US too now. E.g. Montana.
renewiltord 1y ago
This is amazing to me since anywhere in the country you have high speed driving around blind corners.
2dvisio 1y ago
Just back from a 8500+km road trip (car, wife, and two kids 6 and 1) around Europe where we visited 9 countries (UK, Germany, France, Italy, Austria, Switzerland, Slovenia, Croatia, Greece). For us as a family, France and UK had the safest and more relaxing roads. Italy was OK compared to the usual standard, Slovenia and Croatia had highways with too many slopes but people drive carefully. The ones where we struggled and developed high anxiety were (surprisingly!) Germany and Switzerland. In both latter countries we seriously struggled to relax as driving in any lane becomes a stressful experience. We have decided NOT to cross those countries anymore in our next trips sadly.
- looofooo0 1y ago
  By death per km France, Italy, Slovenia and Croatia are more dangerous then Germany or Switzerland. German Autobahn is crazy and non-pleasant if you drive slow, but in Switzerland everyone follows the speed limit so it is quite relaxing. Also, you seem to struggle with mountainous roads, which depends on the topography and not the country.
  - 2dvisio 1y ago
    Agree, though an intensive one (8500km in 6 weeks) that is just subjective experience, which is why I caveated it mentioning that it was our own family personal experience. I lived in a mountainous area of Italy (very narrow roads, full of ups and downs) so I am a fairly confident driver (probably why I was not too stressed driving in Italy) and drove in countries like India and Iran in the past (so very familiar and happy with slow, but very crowded and unpredictable traffic). To clarify, the anxiety we had on Autobahn and Swiss' highways was not a reflection on the quality of the roads, and more a reflection on the driving 'style' combined with the speed that those roads allow. The style was quite aggressive, very fast in every lane, loads of overtakes (car constantly zig-zagging), people coming from the back _FAST_ and staying there, people switching lanes immediately after signalling rather than giving some time for people to notice. Overall, that combination made for a very stressful experience which we have agreed (as family) not to repeat in the future.
    - 1y ago
Hilift 1y ago
A more enlightening chart: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year#/media/File:1994-_Motor_vehicle_traffic_deaths_in_road_accidents,_by_country.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...
- wwqrd 1y ago
  per capita is a bit weird, maybe people in the UK don't drive as much.
  - graemep 1y ago
    Less than in the US, but I imagine similar to the other European countries. One thing that is not being discussed is that cars have become a lot wafer - for both people in the car and for pedestrians they might hit.
    - laurencerowe 1y ago
      For the pedestrians they might hit the opposite has happened in the US as cars have been replaces with giant trucks and SUVs with extremely poor visibility.
    - Hilift 1y ago
      The US is a mobility and automobile obsessed society. Walking and cycling are usually associated with exercise or inability to drive due to lack of resources. Combine that with an obsession to make cars available to anyone, even if they are known dangerous. Look up videos on YouTube of police pursuits in Florida, Georgia, Arkansas, Michigan. Those aren't exceptions, they are glimpses into a mass pathology. I believe Madison, Wisconsin was tracking multiple police pursuits per day in recent years. The subjects there frequently and deliberately drive on the wrong side of roads to compel the police to terminate the pursuits.
- djoldman 1y ago
  Thanks. This is from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in... Browsing through this I found: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Accidental_deaths_2004_in_the_United_States.webp https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Accident... What is up with poisoning in the early 40s?
user____name 1y ago
If you want to have a laugh: "I will not accept that it's a highly dangerous road" https://youtu.be/7Qir4EEpawE https://youtu.be/7Qir4EEpawE
MrBrobot 1y ago
Roundabouts are great… except when you install them in places people don’t understand how to traverse them. A list of the most dangerous intersections in Michigan is published every year, and the roundabouts near me pretty consistently make the top 5 to top 10. https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/local/2024/07/03/these-are-the-20-most-dangerous-michigan-intersections/ https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/local/2024/07/03/these-a...
abridgett 1y ago
The hazard perception test was a great addition in my opinion. (Basically a video plays and you have to press a button when something dangerous has happened). I passed my driving test 30+ years ago and then took the HPT as part of a motorcycle test 15 years later. Paying attention (to the kid bouncing a ball at the side of the road, to the cyclist when it's windy weather etc) is a key part of road craft and I hope this made it much clearer with some (contrived) examples. TBH I just wish they let you click earlier (for _potential_ threats - i.e. before they step into the road, not just afterwards).
- adammarples 1y ago
  Actually this is wrong, it's what everyone thinks, but when you take the hazard perception test, if you press a button when you perceive a hazard, you will fail. What actually happens is there are 5 points available per hazard. You have to press the button five times, evenly spaced throughout the due of the hazard, but not starting earlier than the test setters deem appropriate, or you will drop points. It's one of the most bizarrely implemented tests, and needs serious practice to get its arbitrary rules right.
panick21_ 1y ago
I think one of the things not mention, is to simply have less driving. That helps a lot. Move more people onto buses, trains, bikes and walking. In shared spaces, the more alternatives you have the more the car has to adjust to that reality and that tends to slow down cars. And even more importantly, politically measures like 'slowing down cars' is much easier to pass if people have alternatives. Here in Switzerland we are just fighting against the Right Wing Transport Minister who wants to make 50km mandatory in every city (but they are anti-regulation of course). Secondly, I think these numbers only really look good, in light of them having been so horrible bad before. So much more could be done. There are 100s of streets that should simply be pedestrianized, both for economic reason and for safety reasons. There is lots of good research going on in Netherlands, Finland, Norway and so on. In Oslo for example, they have reduced the cars in the city to a point where I was often simply walking on the street (sadly partly by moving cars underground). Sweden in Stockholm implemented congestion pricing. Another thing not addressed here, is to keep cars light. The chance of death is much less with a smaller lower profile car. Charge higher registration and road fees to larger cars. Create maximum sizes for all public parking spots and harsh fines is somebody parks their dumb F-150 there. More can be done along those lines as well. Narrow roads and use safer configuration. For example, never have a 4-lane road. A 3 lane where the middle is a turning lane, has the same threw-put and is safer. In general, preventing any kind of overtaking improves flow and safety. There are so many more things that can be done. The goal has to be not just less people killed, but also less property damage and other kinds of negative effect. Zero is the acceptable number.
lonesword 1y ago
I moved from Germany (Cologne) to London recently and I am surprised to read that UK has safer roads than Germany. I have not yet driven in London - but I have driven in Germany and I have bicycled in both countries. London is hands down terrifying to me. Certain kinds of drivers (eg: vans) seem deliberately hostile to cyclists, and plenty of people park in a cycling lane. Never seen that happen in Germany with such frequency. Also, roads are bumpier - what’s with that?! Now, cyclists in London are a driver’s nightmare. I’ve seen people barrel down a junction at full speed and jump a red light. This lack of desire for self-preservation is startingly common. Between the hostile vans and the daredevil red-light-jumping cyclists, I am baffled at this report. Perhaps mortality rates are low, but injury rates are much higher than say, Germany?

149 points by sien 1y ago

From the footer: > Our World in Data is a project of Global Change Data Lab, a nonprofit based in the UK (Reg. Charity No. 1186433). I'm a Brit too, but this article felt a bit too self-congratulatory given I've read other recent reports about other places (cites, regions, and entire countries) with overall safer roads; kinda like how we love to tell everyone how chuffed we are with how safe our AC plugs are.

louthy 1y ago
> kinda like how we love to tell everyone how chuffed we are with how safe our AC plugs are. I never see Brits saying this. Only people from other nations. The plugs are the safest though!
- DaiPlusPlus 1y ago
  Oblig: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEfP1OKKz_Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEfP1OKKz_Q
  - louthy 1y ago
    Oblig: https://youtu.be/139Q61ty4C0?feature=shared https://youtu.be/139Q61ty4C0?feature=shared https://youtu.be/92YHhed3B-Y?feature=shared https://youtu.be/92YHhed3B-Y?feature=shared https://youtu.be/dTPuYf30B1M?feature=shared https://youtu.be/dTPuYf30B1M?feature=shared https://youtu.be/efh4k6TJa2c?feature=shared https://youtu.be/efh4k6TJa2c?feature=shared https://youtu.be/2rQiiOKIEcU?feature=shared https://youtu.be/2rQiiOKIEcU?feature=shared https://youtu.be/eeT5xtc_Dd4?feature=shared https://youtu.be/eeT5xtc_Dd4?feature=shared +1000s more…
    - DaiPlusPlus 1y ago
      > I never see Brits saying this ...but that was my point: Tom Scott is British.
      - louthy 1y ago
        Right. I had never seen it. That was my point. Now I’ve seen 1.
PaulRobinson 1y ago
Our AC plugs are, however, the safest design on the planet. I think if these guys are honest about their numbers - and the main number they're calling out is a 22-fold decline in road deaths per mile driven in the last 75 years, which is remarkable - and shows those other safer regions in their comparisons, what is the problem?
- zik 1y ago
  > Our AC plugs are, however, the safest design on the planet. Not if you step on them with bare feet - those things are worse than LEGO. They could punch through a horse's hoof.
  - marliechiller 1y ago
    why are you stepping on them?
    - throwaway290 1y ago
      because sometimes you unplug it and leave it around. unless you live like a king sometimes there is 2 sockets and you have 5 devices to plug at different times. european and other ones will be on the side so stepping on it is no problem but uk ones will be the pointy end up
      - masfuerte 1y ago
        Live like a king! Are these prices beyond your means? https://www.argos.co.uk/search/extension-lead/ https://www.argos.co.uk/search/extension-lead/
        throwaway290 1y ago
        I have one too! 3 out of 6 plugs stopped working! I have 2 plugs outside of mini kitchen area and I have laptop, phone charger, camera charger, 2 ikea lamps, ....... there are no uk plugs here so I'm not complaining:) if keeping everything plugged works for you, awesome!
JimDabell 1y ago
The article starts off with a graph showing the UK has 2 deaths per 100k people, with Norway, Malta, Singapore, and Sweden at 1.9. It then finishes by saying: > If every country could lower its rates to those of the UK, Sweden, or Norway, this number would be just under 200,000. We’d save one million lives every year. The article wasn’t making the case that the UK is the absolute best, it was discussing what the UK did to change from being unsafe to much safer.
zelos 1y ago
It would be more interesting to compare the rates of serious injury (including death), I think. That would remove the effect of improvements in medical treatement over time.
rgblambda 1y ago
>kinda like how we love to tell everyone how chuffed we are with how safe our AC plugs are. I would actually love to see some data that compares total deaths and injuries per capita from electrocution from plugs across different countries. I have a feeling the total worldwide figures are tiny in comparison to injuries from stepping barefoot/putting your knee on UK plugs. Also, UK plugs tend to have the wire coming out the bottom and then curving upwards as the electrical device is usually above the socket, over time resulting in an exposed wire, while most other plugs have the wire coming out the centre.
- closewith 1y ago
  The big danger from outlets and plugs is fire rather than electric shock, which is what you'd need to compare.
- mjg59 1y ago
  The nominal idea is that having them come straight out encourages people to remove plugs by pulling on the cord, which introduces even more strain than having a curved wire - although maybe this ends up being an argument to mount UK sockets the other way up?
- ajb 1y ago
  I've never seen a plug that has an exposed wire for that reason - all the plugs have a heavy clamp internally that attaches to the outer sheath, preventing the movement that would cause this. I would suspect that any plugs where wear has caused exposure are either properly ancient, or were wired incorrectly (eg by trimming the outer sheath short of the clamp).
Theodores 1y ago
Definitely self-congratulatory. I chose active travel over car dependency at an early age. I also worked in the cycle trade. My opinion is that roads have become far more dangerous, however, most of what can be killed by the car has already been killed and the reason for fewer deaths is slimmer pickings. Children and the elderly are two canaries in the coal mine. Kids used to get new bicycles at Christmas, play in the streets and be 'free range' in the UK. Nowadays they are all welded to mobile phones and cocooned in SUVs. Only something like one on four know how to ride a bicycle nowadays and that Christmas trade in bicycles died thirty years ago. Although you see a fair few Lime bikes and people commuting by bicycle in London, most bicycles are sold to rich people for them to strap to cars, for them to drive to a designated safe spot, for them to ride from the car park in a loop back to the car park. You never see these bicycles parked up next to the door at a supermarket or even at a railway station, partly due to the risk of theft, but also due to the dangers of the road. As for the elderly, nowadays they are boomers and they all have cars. They only give up their car keys when they get condemned to retirement homes. Hence, like kids, old people are not to be found in the streets, unless cocooned in tin boxes. As for being cocooned in a tin box, what happened to spirited driving? In the 1970s it was normal for people to cross the country with no sat nav or seat belt, driving as if they were in a Group B rally car, taking their special shortcuts, drunk, with cigarette in hand. Nowadays this doesn't happen, people in cars just shuffle from traffic light to traffic light fearing CCTV and speed cameras. We have also priced out younger motorists, who would have been the 'spirited drivers'. Hitchhiking used to exist in the 1970s. Thatcher era stranger danger put an end to that, so nobody hitchhikes these days. Does this mean that hitchhiking is safer? No! There is another aspect of car dependency and 'safety'. Sure, you might not get killed in an ultra-violent crash in a tin-box cocoon, however, what about cardiovascular disease? Being car dependent and eating the convenience foods of the car dependent is a shortcut to obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease, cognitive decline and death by blocked arteries. The government knows this, and this is why 'active travel' is a phrase. By 2030 the UK government wants more than half of all journeys in built up areas to be 'active travel' rather than lame car dependency.

petesergeant 1y ago

My least favourite part of driving in the UK is that a road like this[1] (chosen at random from rural roads) has a speed-limit of 60mph/95kmh 0: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.358056,-2.6822578,3a,75y,344.24h,83.18t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sFoPUskrDXzGb5a5yiQ3zxQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D6.822975788674967%26panoid%3DFoPUskrDXzGb5a5yiQ3zxQ%26yaw%3D344.2385601582941!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDkwMy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D https://www.google.com/maps/@51.358056,-2.6822578,3a,75y,344...

seszett 1y ago
You don't have to drive 60 mph there though. You can use your judgement. I'm more used to France's 90 km/h countryside roads (now 80 km/h for most of them) but it's the same, sometimes you can only drive 70 or 50, but sometimes 90 is perfectly fine. But you should be able to see it for yourself, and in the specific places where you can't see the danger there are generally signs and a lower speed limit.
- dazc 1y ago
  You don't have to do 60mph, this is true, but there are lots of people that will try to.
- hdgvhicv 1y ago
  I drive 20 miles a day on single track roads. The widths vary from a few passing places which you have to reverse if you meet a horse or bike coming the other way, let alone a tractor or lorry, to places where you can just about pass a large vehicle without stopping, and easily pass a car. There’s even a handful of places you can overtake if the car in front stays to the left and nothing is coming. Safe speeds vary from 15 to over 60 depending on the visibility. If you get stuck behind an idiot it can add 10 minutes to the journey. On a clear road it takes under 15 minutes to do the 10 miles each way, but get stuck behind someone who hasn’t hit a clue, prevents you from overtaking in the places you can (one of which is about half a mile of 30mph where the idiots inevitably speed), refuses to pull in to let you past, spends forever trying to get into a passing place etc and it can take nearer 30. Get that in each direction and that’s an extra half hour a day — it’s very frustrating. There should be a separate license for driving on country roads

sien 1y ago

There is data for Australia as well that shows a similar decline. It's worth looking at the road deaths data in wikipedia at : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_Australia_by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_i... The road toll of 1266 in 2023 and 4.8 fatalities per 100K residents is and comparing it to 1970 where it was 3,798 and 30.4 per 100K residents. Even the trend on deaths per 100K residents is down from 8.15 per 100K residents in 2003 and has declined to 4.4 in 2023. In terms of road fatalities per billion kilometres driven it's down from 44 per billion kilometres traveled in 1971 to 4.4 in 2020. It's really interesting to see how many single vehicle accidents there were and the breakdown of who was killed. From : https://www.carexpert.com.au/car-news/australias-catastrophic-2023-road-toll-laid-bare https://www.carexpert.com.au/car-news/australias-catastrophi... "48 per cent of deaths recorded were drivers, while 20 per cent were motorcyclists, 16 per cent were passengers and 12.5 per cent were pedestrians. 304 women were killed over the 12 months, while the report recorded 956 male deaths. 792 deaths occurred during weekdays and 474 victims were killed over a weekend." The breakdown on where the crashes happened is interesting "A total of 326 people died in major cities across Australia, with 581 deaths in regional Australia and 63 in remote or very remote parts of the country." Given that the vast majority of Australians live in major cities it's surprising. It's really surprising how many accidents are single vehicle : "Out of 1266 deaths, 490 victims were involved in multiple-vehicle road incidents, whereas 776 people who died were involved in single-vehicle crashes." On top of this it should be added that in a review of fatalities in Victoria ~52% of the crashes involved a driver who tested positive for alcohol or drugs or both. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457520317255 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00014... 41% of fatalities are estimated to involve speeding. https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/topics-tips/speeding https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/topics-tips/spee...

hazzamanic 1y ago

I wonder if there will be a reversal in pedestrian deaths with the rise in larger cars. I live in a large UK city and it is mad the number of SUVs you see driving around.

mytailorisrich 1y ago
The issue is bad drivers and, sometimes, reckless pedestrians. Obviously, in an UK town pedestrians and cars should never come in contact, there are pavements, pedestrian crossings, etc.
rusk 1y ago
There is a compensating rise in small EV also so hopefully that will cancel things out
CalRobert 1y ago
Do you have Individual Vehicle Approval? It’s shocking how many gigantic Dodge Rams (which do not meet EU safety rules) are driving around the Netherlands. One killed a 23 year old cyclist a few weeks ago.
- andrepd 1y ago
  Don't worry, our dear leaders are already hard at work giving up their people's safety and ensuring we bend over backwards to appease the US. Such vehicles will be able to drive in the EU with no hurdles. Fuck me
- Symbiote 1y ago
  I hope there's progress being made to close the import loophole: https://www.ecf.com/en/news/eu-commission-acknowledges-regulatory-flaws-with-large-pick-up-truck-imports-following-ecf-co-signed-letter-/ https://www.ecf.com/en/news/eu-commission-acknowledges-regul... Meanwhile, there's a group (mostly in Britain) that sometimes lets the air out of the tyres of inappropriate vehicles [1] and sometimes drills holes in them [2]. From [3], "My mother is in palliative care and I came to the car to go to her, but because of your vicious act, I am stuck trying to reinflate my tyres!" — I have no sympathy whatsoever. She bought the 'car', she can call a taxi if the journey is urgent. [1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/who-are-the-tyre-extinguishers/ https://www.vice.com/en/article/who-are-the-tyre-extinguishe... / https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/29/tyre-extinguishers-deflate-tyres-of-900-suvs-in-biggest-ever-action https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/29/tyre-ext... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/07/activists-drill-holes-in-tyres-of-more-than-60-suvs-at-exeter-car-dealership https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/07/activist... [3] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg67xeqp296o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg67xeqp296o

Delphiza 1y ago

Putting in roundabouts as a default so many years ago (as described in the article) makes a huge difference the the road infrastructure in the UK. They take up a lot more space, but the lack of stop-start traffic light intersections makes a completely changes how people move around. Bigger, more complex roundabouts do have traffic lights, but straight-up road intersections with traffic lights are the exception.

KaiserPro 1y ago

I have children who are now approaching, or have approached large independence milestones. By the time I was my eldest's age (no just in high school [11-13 years old]) I knew of at least one kid from my school (a school of 55) who had died in a road accident. By the time I had left sixth form (18), two other people from my high school had died in RTAs and two others had life changing injuries. Granted this was rural east of england, so the roads were/are more dangerous. However those last crashes triggered changes to the layout of the roads where they happened. This wasn't some line painting thing either, complete junction change from a y junction to a roundabout with re-grade of the road to improve visibility. Much as it pisses me off, speed cameras, bumps and "low" speed limits are almost always a reaction to road deaths. All of this means that my kids, who go to a much bigger school (500 and 1500 respectively) have not lost people they know to road crashes. objectively kids are much much safer outside than any 80s kids. Yet, for whatever reason we don't think thats the case.

CalRobert 1y ago
Similarly, Ireland has seen a massive drop in road deaths, but one problem is that a lot of that improvement came from removing vulnerable road users - the kids biking and walking to school, etc are now much more likely to be in a car. (The US is similar - biking or walking to primary school was once the norm). Similarly you’d have zero drownings if you threw sharks in every pool. I do wish we could acknowledge that a lot of the improvement in road “safety” was a result of people just removing themselves from places where cars are.
- closewith 1y ago
  No, that’s not true. Walking and cycling did decline, but risk per kilometre for has also fallen sharply (by approximately 50%) over the same period. Vulnerable road users are safer now than they ever were, despite similar actual numbers using the road network due to population growth and profile. The main factors behind the fall in deaths: * drink-driving enforcement, * seatbelt enforcement, * speed limits and speed cameras, * NCT improving the vehicle fleet, * road engineering changes, * driver training. So the “sharks in the pool” analogy is absurd. Everyone is safer, including the most vulnerable road users, so a better analogy is the road network has changed from shark-infested seas to a managed watercourse with swimmers, surfers, and boaters are seeing vastly fewer deaths or injuries.

PaulRobinson 1y ago

As somebody who has driven in a few places around the World, I would say that overall the standard of driving and safety is remarkably high in the UK given that the road layouts are often quite confusing (we have roads in use today from Roman, Saxon, Norman, Medieval, Tudor and more modern phases of development, so it can get confusing), and the level of signage around some confusing layouts is much lower than, say, California. This is because the rules are more complex, but actually get a license is, too. There are plenty of bad drivers, there are still idiots who drink/take drugs/use their mobile phones while driving, but it's way, way less than in some other parts of the World. And the rules of the road are broadly followed in terms of lane discipline and right of way in a way that they aren't in much of Europe or elsewhere. I sometimes wish that we had clearer lane signage in some parts of the road network, like that seen in the US, but overall, once you get it, it's all very straightforward.

CalRobert 1y ago
Confusing roads are safer though, it forces drivers to pay more attention
- piker 1y ago
  More importantly, it selects against a lot of nervous, disabled, young, drunk and other bad drivers.
  - CalRobert 1y ago
    Yeah, better to be confused and drive in to a ditch at 20 mph than confident and t-bone a family at 50. Not sure what you mean about disabled? If nothing else a confusing road will get drivers to put the goddamn phone down.
    - piker 1y ago
      By disabled I mean, for example, my father has polio and has driven his entire life in the US but would be unable to do so physically in the UK because of the demands the civil engineering would impose on him here.

lordnacho 1y ago

But why is it that countries that are culturally close to Britain (eg colonies) have much higher fatality rates? You'd expect them to have implemented some of the same policies. Singapore and Malta have similar rates, but the others are much higher. Regarding roundabouts, it makes sense when explained like in the article. But I've always felt like they were dangerous, especially the ones they have in Britain where you have multiple lanes with lights and connecting roundabouts. Perhaps that sense of fear is what actually makes them safe.

jamesblonde 1y ago
Ireland has followed the same trend, slightly behind the UK.
asdff 1y ago
Because they don't have the same road use culture.
bluehatbrit 1y ago
Large roundabouts are pretty safe, if you've gone through the learning process we have in the UK. I did about 30-40h of practical lessons with an instructor, over half of which would have included multi-lane roundabouts. The lights control the flow, so no need to worry about giving way. You pick your lane in the lead up using the signs and road markings. Then you follow your painted lane, the markings of which guide you all the way through. The markings and lights do all the work for you, unless you're in the wrong lane at the start. All your awareness is focused on looking for hazards of people who are in the wrong lane because your route is dictated by the road markings. I will admit, they look complicated - especially if you've never driven one before. My first time around one was a bit nerve-wracking, but they quickly become second nature.

piker 1y ago

As an American who drove for 20 years before obtaining a license in the UK, I can offer some observations. First, driving in the UK is much more a privilege than a right as in the US. You can live a complete life in the UK without a license because of the wide availability of public transit. In the US however, if you want to maintain a steady job outside of NYC, Chicago, DC, Boston or perhaps a few others, you'll have to drive. Revoking a driver's license in the US can be life-altering in a way that it just won't in the UK. Fewer people bother getting the license and fewer still drive. Second, driving is much more physically and mentally demanding in the UK. Perhaps that serves to reduce traffic deaths by forcing focus, but it also imposes a limit on the types of people who can drive here. This selects against too young, too old, too small, disabled, etc. in a way that would not be tolerated in the US for the above reasons. Third, annual vehicle inspections are much more stringent in the UK which takes a lot of older vehicles off the road and again selects against those of lower socio-economic status in a way that would be unconscionable in the US.

robk 1y ago
I don't know I'm the same and find being in the valley more stressful than the drive to wembley from central London. More taxing mentally to have insane people passing you at 100mph. The licensing is harder but still was a one shot 5 hour prep thing for me.
MrBrobot 1y ago
I think universal vehicle inspections alone would massively cut down on a significant amount of accidents, especially in Michigan. The number of people I see driving in 6” of snow with bald tires, grinding brakes, and blown out suspension is really concerning.
- dghlsakjg 1y ago
  It would just lead to people driving unlicensed vehicles. People driving around in dangerous vehicles aren't doing it for fun, they are doing it to get to work, go shopping and otherwise live their lives with limited resources.

philjohn 1y ago

Our driving test standards are also high, having spoken with US colleagues, much higher than state-side (although I imagine that varies from state to state). The theory test you must pass before taking your practical also now includes a hazard perception test - you are shown multiple videos and must click when you first perceive a hazard - the earlier you click after the hazard presents the higher your score - but if you just click randomly you get a zero. Some of them are tricky - for instance, one I remember is a van coming from a side road at too fast a speed, but you can only first see this hazard forming in a reflection of a shop window.

keyringlight 1y ago
Then you get the two wheeled side of the fence. You can do a one day compulsory basic training course and convince a trainer you know what you're doing, then drive on the road with everyone on a 125cc motorcycle (or 50cc at 16 years old), and then repeat the CBT every two years to keep on the road. It's only if you go for the full license that you need to study for theory as a prerequisite, so long as you keep out of trouble.
- michaelt 1y ago
  You make it sound like motorbike riders are practically unregulated, but in a sense it's the opposite. A few decades ago, 125cc bikes were mostly for learners practising before taking their test. But successive governments have made it harder and harder to get a full license - so loads of riders just stay on learner bikes forever. So the status quo is, in a sense, the result of very strict regulation.
  - Neil44 1y ago
    It's the Deliveroo, Just Eat etc crowd too. CBT and off you go. No incentive for further training.
    - cjrp 1y ago
      Yep. They should re-think allowing people to work with just a CBT, but I guess they don't want to stop people from having a job.

aswegs8 1y ago

Finally something positive about the UK. Usually the crowd will come in with pitchforks swinging everytime there is something about UK housing or politics going wrong.

rich_sasha 1y ago

UK is extremely risk-averse. In the case of road safety, it shows: a lot of time and cash goes into minimising deaths. This is not only road users: roadworks have restrictive speed limits, which are not taken down when there is no workforce out, to minimise risk to workers setting and unsetting limits, traffic cones etc. Things that in other countries would close a lane often close the whole road, again because of risks to road users and maintenance people. This is of course great, but also very expensive - and I cannot shake the feeling that the UK loses so much money on this risk aversion that is actually causes more hazard due to underinvestment elsewhere. NHS is crumbling, the very safe roads take forever to navigate, introducing inefficiencies and starving the central budget of cash. GDP per capita has barely grown since 2008. Even a small annual boost would unlock a lot of cash for investment, in particular into NHS and saving lives. It's like putting all your pension investments into bonds, because they are safer. But you swap market risk for the risk of not having enough cash when you retire. But maybe it's easy to have this perspective because I have a desk job and commute by public transport.

louthy 1y ago
Seems a rather tenuous link to the state of the NHS. The UK has a lower tax regime than most equivalent nations. If we wanted a better NHS we could just collect similar tax rates to that of Germany or other western nations. One of the issues is we’re trapped with a media ecosystem that won’t even allow progressive parties to say “we’ll take a bit more in tax and in return you’ll get a functioning health service”, instead they feel they have to promise to run the economy like the Tories (which is mind numbing). It’s not just the recent Labour election I’m referring to. The first time Blair got in it was the same. We get the services we deserve.
- zelos 1y ago
  That's pretty much been Lib Dem policy since 1992, but they finally gave up on it in 2023: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66910334 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66910334
- rich_sasha 1y ago
  It's not just the roads, it's everything. Most pension money is invested in UK bonds. UK treasury department focuses on a set of very narrow spending criteria, so much so that it's hard for governments to spend money on investments. And then it's not just the NHS. My point is, rather, that extreme risk aversion in the short term can actually increase the medium-term risk. If the UK could generate a few extra 0.1% of GDP growth per year in exchange for some risk, that would seem an overall better world to be in.

amai 1y ago

tldr; speed limits

berryg 1y ago

Driving in the UK can be quite a shock when you're used to the roads in the Netherlands. The speed at which people navigate roundabouts can feel terrifying, and the maximum speed in the countryside is something else. Going *60 mph* on narrow roads with limited visibility is just crazy. The locals just speed by. I guess it's just what you're used to.

tialaramex 1y ago
You're not supposed to drive 60mph on those tiny roads. Why are they 60mph? Well, the symbol they display doesn't say 60mph, it's basically just a slash symbol - it should be read "National Limit Applies" or perhaps "Derestricted" and it so happens that the law in the UK says that if there's no other rule in place that limit is 60mph and on these tiny roads nobody has put in place a more specific limit so that's the law. [If there is carriageway separation, e.g. a larger road on which traffic flowing in the opposite direction isn't sharing the same tarmac, this global rule says 70mph, but no tiny roads have multiple carriageways, actually sometimes it feels like there's barely room for one let alone two] However, just because there isn't a lower limit doesn't mean it's appropriate to drive at 60mph and people who do are generally maniacs. Where I grew up there are lots of these roads, steep, winding, narrow tracks paved in the 19th or 20th centuries for access to a farm here or a cottage there, and maintained by the public. You absolutely might turn a corner and find an entire flock of sheep in the road going "Baa!". If you're doing 60mph after you've killed a bunch of sheep and the bodies start smashing through your windscreen you're probably dead. Sheep don't have lights, don't know about jaywalking laws (which Britain doesn't have anyway) and aren't smart enough to have considered this risk, they're just there and now you're dead. So you drive at maybe 30-40mph on the straight parts, slower on curves and always pay a lot of attention 'cos things can go very bad, very quickly. Roundabouts are a bit different. The UK has a lot of what are called "mini roundabouts". As a pedestrian, or perhaps on a bicycle these do just look like they're small roundabouts, too small for the island in the middle to have any purpose so it's just paint. But in a vehicle it's apparent that the island can't exist because you'd crash into it, perhaps not in a Mini but certainly in a bin truck or a bus. The mini roundabout isn't a roundabout except in the sense that the same rules apply as if it was, which means if I can see you can't enter before I do then I know you mustn't enter, I have right of way, which means I needn't slow down - you won't be in my way, you're not entering.

cjensen 1y ago

The article says "safest roads," but the statistic used to demonstrate that is deaths per 100K people rather than deaths per kilometer driven. Seems to me the latter would be a much better metric for the safety of the physical roads.

jamesblonde 1y ago
Montana would be amazingly safe based on your metric.
- cjensen 1y ago
  Nope. It's top-10 for most dangerous [1]. [1] https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/fatality-statistics/detail/state-by-state https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/fatality-statistics/deta...
- voxic11 1y ago
  No actually on that metric Montana is one of the most dangerous and Massachusetts is one of the safest.
  - throwaway2037 1y ago
    > Massachusetts is one of the safest For those unaware, Boston (largest city in Massachusetts) has a reputation for incredibly aggressive drivers (so does New York City). Is Massachusetts relatively safer because it has so few freeways? I find it hard to believe this can be explained by "quality of drivers". Another idea: Maybe local police are very, very strict about drink/driving, thus reducing the number of deaths.
    - potato3732842 1y ago
      >Maybe local police are very, very strict about drink/driving, thus reducing the number of deaths. The Karen Read trial was illustrative about how seriously Massachusetts law enforcement takes DUI.

kypro 1y ago

In my opinion some of this is simply due to how congested built up areas are today. It's genuinely hard to get up to 30 in a city or any populated area in the UK today, and most cities in the UK now have 20mph speed limits when there's likely to be pedestrians around. It's pretty hard to kill people if you're driving under 30, and anywhere people are driving in excess of 30 it's not that populated and cars these days are pretty safe unless you have a head on collision at significant speed.

owlbite 1y ago
That and the speed limits are actually enforced, at least significantly more so than they seem to be here in California: - Lots more speed cameras - Average speed cameras especially make a huge difference vs spot enforcement - Tolerance for enforcement is normally 10% rather than 10 mph (i.e. 30 limit means no more than 33mph rather than no more than 40mph)

breadwinner 1y ago

As an American tourist in London I found the roundabouts very interesting. In big cities and small, all intersections have a roundabout. Compare that to the US. You have Stop signs which are easy to miss. Sometimes the Stop signs are ignored by people in a hurry. Sometimes people steal the Stop signs to use as decoration in dorms.

zabzonk 1y ago
> In big cities and small, all intersections have a roundabout. As someone that has lived in London for nearly 30 years, I can safely say - no they don't. Most intersections have traffic lights.
- breadwinner 1y ago
  OK, I meant at least have a roundabout, and I meant in England not in London.
  - zabzonk 1y ago
    It's not just London. For example the small city I now live in (Lincoln) has very few, if any, roundabouts in the city itself - they are confined to the ring-road around the place, and roads in/out of it. Not true for all places, of course - for example Swindon is notorious for its "Magic Roundabout".
dboreham 1y ago
There are large numbers of roundabouts in parts of the US too now. E.g. Montana.

renewiltord 1y ago

This is amazing to me since anywhere in the country you have high speed driving around blind corners.

2dvisio 1y ago

Just back from a 8500+km road trip (car, wife, and two kids 6 and 1) around Europe where we visited 9 countries (UK, Germany, France, Italy, Austria, Switzerland, Slovenia, Croatia, Greece). For us as a family, France and UK had the safest and more relaxing roads. Italy was OK compared to the usual standard, Slovenia and Croatia had highways with too many slopes but people drive carefully. The ones where we struggled and developed high anxiety were (surprisingly!) Germany and Switzerland. In both latter countries we seriously struggled to relax as driving in any lane becomes a stressful experience. We have decided NOT to cross those countries anymore in our next trips sadly.

looofooo0 1y ago
By death per km France, Italy, Slovenia and Croatia are more dangerous then Germany or Switzerland. German Autobahn is crazy and non-pleasant if you drive slow, but in Switzerland everyone follows the speed limit so it is quite relaxing. Also, you seem to struggle with mountainous roads, which depends on the topography and not the country.
- 2dvisio 1y ago
  Agree, though an intensive one (8500km in 6 weeks) that is just subjective experience, which is why I caveated it mentioning that it was our own family personal experience. I lived in a mountainous area of Italy (very narrow roads, full of ups and downs) so I am a fairly confident driver (probably why I was not too stressed driving in Italy) and drove in countries like India and Iran in the past (so very familiar and happy with slow, but very crowded and unpredictable traffic). To clarify, the anxiety we had on Autobahn and Swiss' highways was not a reflection on the quality of the roads, and more a reflection on the driving 'style' combined with the speed that those roads allow. The style was quite aggressive, very fast in every lane, loads of overtakes (car constantly zig-zagging), people coming from the back _FAST_ and staying there, people switching lanes immediately after signalling rather than giving some time for people to notice. Overall, that combination made for a very stressful experience which we have agreed (as family) not to repeat in the future.
  - 1y ago

Hilift 1y ago

A more enlightening chart: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year#/media/File:1994-_Motor_vehicle_traffic_deaths_in_road_accidents,_by_country.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...

wwqrd 1y ago
per capita is a bit weird, maybe people in the UK don't drive as much.
- graemep 1y ago
  Less than in the US, but I imagine similar to the other European countries. One thing that is not being discussed is that cars have become a lot wafer - for both people in the car and for pedestrians they might hit.
  - laurencerowe 1y ago
    For the pedestrians they might hit the opposite has happened in the US as cars have been replaces with giant trucks and SUVs with extremely poor visibility.
  - Hilift 1y ago
    The US is a mobility and automobile obsessed society. Walking and cycling are usually associated with exercise or inability to drive due to lack of resources. Combine that with an obsession to make cars available to anyone, even if they are known dangerous. Look up videos on YouTube of police pursuits in Florida, Georgia, Arkansas, Michigan. Those aren't exceptions, they are glimpses into a mass pathology. I believe Madison, Wisconsin was tracking multiple police pursuits per day in recent years. The subjects there frequently and deliberately drive on the wrong side of roads to compel the police to terminate the pursuits.
djoldman 1y ago
Thanks. This is from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in... Browsing through this I found: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Accidental_deaths_2004_in_the_United_States.webp https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Accident... What is up with poisoning in the early 40s?

user____name 1y ago

If you want to have a laugh: "I will not accept that it's a highly dangerous road" https://youtu.be/7Qir4EEpawE https://youtu.be/7Qir4EEpawE

MrBrobot 1y ago

Roundabouts are great… except when you install them in places people don’t understand how to traverse them. A list of the most dangerous intersections in Michigan is published every year, and the roundabouts near me pretty consistently make the top 5 to top 10. https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/local/2024/07/03/these-are-the-20-most-dangerous-michigan-intersections/ https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/local/2024/07/03/these-a...

abridgett 1y ago

The hazard perception test was a great addition in my opinion. (Basically a video plays and you have to press a button when something dangerous has happened). I passed my driving test 30+ years ago and then took the HPT as part of a motorcycle test 15 years later. Paying attention (to the kid bouncing a ball at the side of the road, to the cyclist when it's windy weather etc) is a key part of road craft and I hope this made it much clearer with some (contrived) examples. TBH I just wish they let you click earlier (for _potential_ threats - i.e. before they step into the road, not just afterwards).

adammarples 1y ago
Actually this is wrong, it's what everyone thinks, but when you take the hazard perception test, if you press a button when you perceive a hazard, you will fail. What actually happens is there are 5 points available per hazard. You have to press the button five times, evenly spaced throughout the due of the hazard, but not starting earlier than the test setters deem appropriate, or you will drop points. It's one of the most bizarrely implemented tests, and needs serious practice to get its arbitrary rules right.

panick21_ 1y ago

I think one of the things not mention, is to simply have less driving. That helps a lot. Move more people onto buses, trains, bikes and walking. In shared spaces, the more alternatives you have the more the car has to adjust to that reality and that tends to slow down cars. And even more importantly, politically measures like 'slowing down cars' is much easier to pass if people have alternatives. Here in Switzerland we are just fighting against the Right Wing Transport Minister who wants to make 50km mandatory in every city (but they are anti-regulation of course). Secondly, I think these numbers only really look good, in light of them having been so horrible bad before. So much more could be done. There are 100s of streets that should simply be pedestrianized, both for economic reason and for safety reasons. There is lots of good research going on in Netherlands, Finland, Norway and so on. In Oslo for example, they have reduced the cars in the city to a point where I was often simply walking on the street (sadly partly by moving cars underground). Sweden in Stockholm implemented congestion pricing. Another thing not addressed here, is to keep cars light. The chance of death is much less with a smaller lower profile car. Charge higher registration and road fees to larger cars. Create maximum sizes for all public parking spots and harsh fines is somebody parks their dumb F-150 there. More can be done along those lines as well. Narrow roads and use safer configuration. For example, never have a 4-lane road. A 3 lane where the middle is a turning lane, has the same threw-put and is safer. In general, preventing any kind of overtaking improves flow and safety. There are so many more things that can be done. The goal has to be not just less people killed, but also less property damage and other kinds of negative effect. Zero is the acceptable number.

lonesword 1y ago

I moved from Germany (Cologne) to London recently and I am surprised to read that UK has safer roads than Germany. I have not yet driven in London - but I have driven in Germany and I have bicycled in both countries. London is hands down terrifying to me. Certain kinds of drivers (eg: vans) seem deliberately hostile to cyclists, and plenty of people park in a cycling lane. Never seen that happen in Germany with such frequency. Also, roads are bumpier - what’s with that?! Now, cyclists in London are a driver’s nightmare. I’ve seen people barrel down a junction at full speed and jump a red light. This lack of desire for self-preservation is startingly common. Between the hostile vans and the daredevil red-light-jumping cyclists, I am baffled at this report. Perhaps mortality rates are low, but injury rates are much higher than say, Germany?