[namelost]

A high rate of road deaths isn't a fait accompli. Musk would have us believe that technology is the only answer.

The UK has the 2nd-lowest rate of road deaths in the world (after Sweden).

The roads in the UK are not intrinsically safe, they are very narrow both in urban and rural areas which means there are more hazards and less time to avoid them.

However, the UK has strict driver education programme. It is not easy to pass the driving test, with some people failing multiple times. It means that people only get a license when they are ready for it. Drink-driving will also get you a prison sentence and a driving ban.

[Svip]

Just a note. Switzerland ranks better than the UK. By inhabitants: Switzerland (2.6), Sweden (2.8) and UK (2.9). By motor vehicles: Switzerland (3.6), Finland (4.4), Sweden (4.7) and UK (5.1). By number of kilometres driven: Sweden (3.5), Switzerland (3.6) and UK (3.6).

I'd also note that most European countries are hot on the heels of the UK, Sweden and Switzerland by the above measures. By comparison, the US numbers are 10.6, 12.9 and 7.1, respectively. Most European countries are well below those numbers.

Particularly in Western European and Nordic countries, the driving tests are very strict. Even for all the stereotypes, France's numbers of 5.1, 7.6 and 5.8 are quite good, and they are moving in the right direction.

Sources:

* http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_safety_st...

* https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/transport/road-safety-annual-r...

Notes:

I use death rate, not incidents/accidents rate.

I ignored "smaller" countries for the above listing, such as San Marino and Kiribati.

All numbers are from 2015, and they are also presented in the Wikipedia article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...

[EnderMB]

As someone that has been caught speeding, it's also worth mentioning that one of the big reasons why the UK has improved its road safety statistics is a reasonably new initiative where you get an option on your first offence to either take the points on your license or to attend a safety workshop.

IIRC, the workshop was about three hours, but it was surprisingly useful. The instructors treated you like adults and not children or criminals, and they gave fairly useful tips on driving and looking out for things like lights suddenly changing, ensuring you are in the right gear, how you're supposed to react if an emergency vehicle wants you to go forward when you're by a set of traffic lights with a camera, etc.

However, on the drink driving front, given the news with Ant from Ant and Dec I think it's safe to assume that not everyone gets a prison sentence for drink driving.

[emiliobumachar]

Out of curiosity, how are you supposed to react if an emergency vehicle wants you to go forward when you're by a set of traffic lights with a camera?

I would think to look carefully at all directions and, if visibility allows, pass the red light, then contest the fine with an "emergrncy vehicle passing through" defence. But what is the official position?

[cmdkeen]

Drink driving rarely attracts a prison sentence. In the vast majority of cases it attracts a driving ban along with a significant fine. The sentencing guidelines have imprisonment as an option for blowing over 120 where the limit is 35 (in England and Wales, it is lower in Scotland now).

The UK went through a major cultural change relating to drink driving several decades ago, it isn't viewed as acceptable, the police get tip offs on a regular basis.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/item/excess-al...

[hibby]

It's not too common to head to prison for a single DD incident. It's also worth noting that England&Wales and Scotland have different drink driving laws.

In Scotland, the BAC limit is lower than in England and the punishment is a 12 month driving ban and fine for being over the limit - no grey areas or points or getting away with it.

In England a fine and penalty points are common, repeat offenders can be suspended and jailed. The severity of the punishment can often depend on how far over the limit you are and other factors.

[DanBC]

> However, on the drink driving front, given the news with Ant from Ant and Dec I think it's safe to assume that not everyone gets a prison sentence for drink driving.

Has he been sentenced?

[notahacker]

Other innovations include an off road "hazard perception test" I'd be pleasantly surprised if derivatives of self driving software could reliably pass.

[jaggederest]

> The roads in the UK are not intrinsically safe, they are very narrow both in urban and rural areas which means there are more hazards and less time to avoid them.

Actually, paradoxically that means they are actually safer. People drive slower on narrower roads, which means that accidents are within the safe energy envelope that modern cars can absorb.

Very, very few people will ever die as a passenger or driver in a car accident at 25 mph / 40 kph. At 65mph / 100kph, the story is completely different.

[namelost]

You say that but people will happily drive at 50+ down a narrow country road. I think the "narrow = slower" only works for a limited period of time before people get normalised to it.

[zip1234]

The UK also has a lot of roundabouts for road junctions. It means less 'run red light' collisions.

[maccard]

> It is not easy to pass the driving test, with some people failing multiple times. It means that people only get a license when they are ready for it.

And that's the way it should be. The driving test may not be easy, but it's not any more difficult than driving is. People should be held to a high standard when controlling high speed hunks of metal.