Yes, I am well qualified to comment on the competence of the UK government.
Yet as terrible as the government is, you still managed to be wrong.
I don't want to downplay the importance of using a car responsibly and carefully in the slightest, but I expect most of the downward trend on the above chart is probably down to improvements in technology and safety. In the 1940s, for example, you could almost guarantee that a steering wheel would go right through your chest in the event of a serious prang. In the meantime: Airbags... side impact protection... ABS... safety glass... anti-collision radar... and probably a ton of other stuff that makes driving safer has been developed.
Whilst that is a large part of it, many of those things became normalized through legislation requiring them.
For example, my motorcycle has ABS because it is a legal requirement in Europe. But in the U.S. on the same model was only an optional feature that you needed to pay extra for. And that change was not without the industry trying to fight it on the grounds it would increase costs and effect sales. Though they were successful in preventing it applying to smaller bikes, even though they can still reach 60 mph.
Although conversely that bike model also has running lights in the U.S. because they were required in some states, yet that feature is not available at all on U.K. models as it was not a requirement here.
But legislation on drink-driving (as it is called here) had a big statistical impact on safety, as did laws requiring helmets for motorcyclists, and the standards they need to meet. Driving licence requirements and testing have also increasingly been made stricter.
And as much as people do not like them, constant reductions in speed limits on many roads have reduced the severity of accidents. There are plenty of "if someone is hit by a car at 30 mph they have
x% of being killed, but at 20 mph it is just
y%" campaigns. Although the
x and
y do seem to be different every time! But the key point there is it is not just about reducing accidents, but how dangerous they are.
Because as cocooned as a car driver may be by all those safety features you mention, people killed on the road also includes vulnerable road users without those protections. These include motorcyclists, horse riders, cyclists, and pedestrians.
One of the problems with safety features is they do give a feeling of invincibility. It is easy to think it is okay to use your phone because a small dink with another car if just an annoying increase in insurance premiums because you are both well protected in modern vehicles. But what if that dink is someone without any safety features at all?
As a motorcyclist I have no crumple zones, no seat belts, no radars, no airbags (you can get airbag jackets, but they are still extremely expensive). I am just sitting freely on top of a engine wearing abrasion resistant gloves, trousers, and jacket, with some strong boots and a big lump of plastic on my head. A dink at speed and I am flying into oncoming traffic.
Just yesterday I had a car overtake me on a 70 mph road that was straddling the divider between its lane and mine. Most of their safety features did nothing to make me safer.
To bring it back on topic, that is the problem with those who argue about their freedoms being taken away. All laws take away freedoms, but they do it at the point where ones person's freedom impinges on those of someone else. I am not free to just take you car whenever I want because I do not care about your personal interests, and you are not free to unnecessarily risk my life whenever you want because you do not care about me.
Those who complain about their freedoms being taken away always seem to want the state to support their own interests, and oppose a total anarchy which removes any protections of their property or lives.
