
Why Sweden Has So Few Road Deaths - sethbannon
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/02/economist-explains-16?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/whyswedenhassofewroaddeaths
======
tomohawk
I'm acquainted with a civil engineer who worked in the FHWA for several
decades.

He spent a big chunk of that time trying to convince government agencies to
build roads with pavement that had a better coefficient of friction. See for
example

[http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/pavement/pavement_fr...](http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/pavement/pavement_friction/)

He estimated that they could reduce deaths considerably with more appropriate
pavement.

In many cases, states refused to even allow pavement friction tests to occur,
as they didn't want to be on the hook for paying for improvements if the tests
showed poor friction. Also, requiring better friction would disallow certain
road materials, which would adversely affect certain very large politically
connected contractors.

In Europe, they take this much more seriously. The Germans have started using
a concrete pavement that is both better for friction and is quiet.

It's interesting that if a government builds a substandard road that leads to
people losing their lives, it doesn't seem to be a big deal, but if a car
manufacturer produces a car that leads to a much smaller number of people
dying, then it is.

~~~
jacquesm
In NL we use this:
[http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeer_Open_Asfalt](http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeer_Open_Asfalt)

It's super good if you have lots of rain (the rain sinks right away under the
road surface) but it is prone to frost damage. Super quiet and great in the
rain though, the difference is incredible when you switch from ZOAB to regular
asphalt or the other way around.

~~~
ominous_prime
I remember tests of a similar asphalt near me in the NE US. In the spring we
had black banks of it all along the road, where it was scraped off by
snowplows over the winter. What's left was packed with sand.

------
dschiptsov
* Sparse, mostly rural population (with an unique culture).

* "2+1" roads, which discourages meaningless overtaking or competing. (But I don't buy it as the single cause).

* Roundabouts instead of crossroads with traffic lights. (My bet this is one of the most important factors).

* Special reserved lane for doing left turns to secondary roads.

* Lots of street lamps (Sweden is famous for illumination and urban development).

* High percentage of expensive, very good quality cars (lots of Volvos) which kept well-maintained.

* 40 km/h speed limit in most small towns.

Together it works. Basically a complex phenomena is a weighted sum of multiple
different causes - cultural (tradition), economical, social (current
"normals"), technological, etc. with "random variables". Such simple model
could explain it to some extent.

I am in Sweden now, and I drive a classic Volvo.

~~~
pkaye
Regarding roundabouts I personally find them confusing since they are not
common where I live but I wonder if the main benefit of a roundabout it that
the curve forces people to slow down instead of gunning through a yellow/red
light.

~~~
MetallicCloud
Having recently moved to America from Australia (specifically Canberra, which
is considered the round-about capital), one of the biggest things I miss is
round-abouts. They don't stop the flow of traffic like all way stop signs or
traffic lights do.

One of the things I really like here though that I wish Australia would adopt
is being able to turn right from (almost) any traffic light while it red.

~~~
tacticus
Actually the NT did implement the left on red stuff for a short while. Too
many idiots was the final judgement.

Also roundabouts work great for low volume roads but with roads with
significant traffic directions basically lock out the ones they pass.

------
pash
The article ignores the single biggest reason Americans are likelier than
Swedes to die on the roads, which is simply that Americans drive more. The
death rate is nearly four times higher per capita in the United States, but
only twice as high per mile driven [0].

(In fact, in America, the last few decades' worth of safety improvements to
cars have been almost entirely offset by an increase in miles driven; despite
their much safer cars, Americans are only slightly less likely to die driving
today than they were in 1990 [1].)

The bigger mystery is why Americans are now far likelier to die in their cars
than Europeans _even after you control for the time they spend in them_. That
didn't use to be the case. Until the mid-1990s, Sweden (like almost every
other country [2]) had a higher rate of traffic fatalities per mile driven
than did the United States. Those rates have declined markedly all around the
world, but much less in the United States than elsewhere.

My guess is that the divergence comes down to diverging patterns of living.
Over the last few decades, American cities have sprawled all over the
landscape, so Americans not only drive more, but their road infrastructure is
built to facilitate daily travel at high speeds over long distances. A great
many Americans drive 30+ highway miles each day between their suburban homes
and city offices, but that sort of commute is rare elsewhere.

0\. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-
re...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-
related_death_rate)

1\.
[http://www.planetizen.com/node/68200](http://www.planetizen.com/node/68200)

2\. See, e.g., statistics showing that fatalities per vehicle mile were lower
in the United State than in many European countries in 1991,
[https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hs93/Sec7.pdf](https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hs93/Sec7.pdf)
[PDF; see page 4]

~~~
hobbes78
Europeans and americans may have diverging patterns of living, but sleeping in
suburban areas and working in city centres isn't one of those patterns, as
it's becoming the norm everywhere...

~~~
flexie
Few or no European suburbs are as vast as your American suburbs (think
Houston, Atlanta or the Bay area). In my home country (Denmark) young families
now tend to stay in city centers rather than moving to suburbs so the trend is
reverse.

Also, European cities generally have much better public transportation such as
really decent busses, trolley busses, light rails, subways, trains, and trams.

Finally, I suspect a mile driven by 30-60 year olds are generally safer than a
mile driven by teenagers. Europe has older population and few teenage drivers.

~~~
ZenoArrow
There are certainly Europeans that engage in long commutes. In the UK, many
people who work in London commute from outside, sometimes multiple hours each
way, but you're right, public transport is widely used, those aforementioned
London commuters tend to rely on trains. Perhaps London is a special case
because it's so expensive to live there, but in general it's easy to get
around the country on trains.

------
netcan
George Orwell:

 _.. Accidents happen because on narrow, inadequate roads, full of blind
corners and surrounded by dwelling houses, vehicles and pedestrians are moving
in all directions at all speeds from three miles an hour to sixty or seventy.
If you really want to keep death off the roads, you would have to replan the
whole road system in such a way as to make collisions impossible. Think out
what this means (it would involve, for example, pulling down and rebuilding
the whole of London), and you can see that it is guite beyond the power of any
nation at this moment. Short of that you can only take palliative measures,
which ultimately boil down to making people more careful.

But the only palliative measure that would make a real difference is a drastic
reduction in speed. Cut down the speed limit to twelve miles an hour in all
built-up areas, and you would cut out the vast majority of accidents. But
this, everyone will assure you, is ‘impossible’. Why is it impossible? Well,
it would be unbearably irksome. It would mean that every road journey took
twice or three times as long as it takes at present. .._

[http://orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/eaip_0...](http://orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/eaip_04)

~~~
DanBC
There have been experiments in the UK where all road markings and signs and
lights and pavements have been removed. Vehicles and pedestrians are free to
move as they wish. These areas tend to be safer for everyone because the
uncertainess forces car drivers to slow down and look out.

An average speed of 12MPH seems high for central London!

> _Transport for London 's latest figures state that for the first quarter of
> 2011/2012 the average traffic speed on major London roads for the 12 hours
> between 7am to 7pm was 19.33 mph and over the same period was 8.98 mph
> across Central London._

[http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/jun/30/uk.transport](http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/jun/30/uk.transport)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space)

[http://www.rospa.com/RoadSafety/conferences/congress2006/pro...](http://www.rospa.com/RoadSafety/conferences/congress2006/proceedings/day3/ballie.pdf)

~~~
click170
This makes me wonder though, do they slow down because the signage that used
to be posted has been taken down and they're now unsure of what to do in that
area?

Many of the "driving problems" I've seen involve drivers in areas where they
feel comfortable. Eg, the last bit before home. Part of me wonders if after a
period of time, the same behaviours would resurface as people became
acclimatized to the lack of signage.

------
arethuza
Even when you look at deaths per billion vehicle-km the US still seems to be
quite bad at 7.6, with the UK at 4.3 and Sweden at 3.7:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-
re...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-
related_death_rate)

~~~
emodendroket
"Safer than Japan" sounds like a good pitch.

------
Retric
The US saw a huge advertising effort trying to convince people that pedestrian
fatalities were not an issue with either cars or drivers. Realistically, while
it costs more and be less convenient for drivers a better separation between
cars and people is going to save plenty of lives.

However, only 14% of traffic fatalities ~(4,743/year) are pedestrains in the
US. ed:(+ 726 bike/year) So there is a limit to how far that can take you.
[http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_crash.cfm](http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_crash.cfm)

------
bluedino
Whenever I see a non-highway fatality here in the US, it falls under a few
categories:

* head-on because someone crossed the center line on a 2-way, 40-55mph road, and they are usually going well over the speed limit

* one of the cars was running the light at a 4-way intersection

* someone pulled out into traffic into a 40-55mph road and was hit

~~~
rogerbinns
You haven't included people who aren't in cars being fatalities. For example
there have been two deaths of cyclists in the last week here due to hit and
run. The cycle lanes where they exist are a joke.

~~~
Chronic30
Sounds like a city problem.

~~~
spdustin
It's a problem in my far-off Chicago suburb, too. Distracted driving is a
major problem - I wonder if it's the same in other countries?

------
01Michael10
Roads like the ones in Sweden will never be common place in the US. We value
speed, convenience, and cheap over a "couple" of dead people.

~~~
codeflo
To state my European prejudices, you also seem to value being allowed to drive
without proper training, and driving around in bulky vehicles that are
basically designed to use the _other_ car as their crumple zone. Those two
things are possibly related.

~~~
hueving
Well it sounds like they are pretty baseless prejudices. You must pass a
skills test, even if not as rigorous as some countries. Additionally, the idea
that the other car is the crumple zone was valid maybe 50 years ago. Safety
tests are conducted by smashing cars into walls that don't crumple.

Everyone I know who has been in a crash hasn't been due to improper training,
it been because of ignoring rules that they knew very well (speeding, texting
and driving, etc). I don't know anyone that has crashed because they didn't
know how a stop sign worked.

~~~
jbrooksuk
> Everyone I know who has been in a crash hasn't been due to improper
> training, it been because of ignoring rules that they knew very well
> (speeding, texting and driving, etc)

How can anybody not know that texting and driving is a bad idea? That's just
stupid.

~~~
bkmartin
But people do stupid things every day. Smoking is stupid, binge drinking is
stupid, not wearing your seat belt is stupid... all have consequences. The
point still remains, it is a choice people make to not follow the rules that
causes most of the problems. Now, how do we get people to follow the rules
better?

------
thomasahle
"Building 1,500 kilometres (900 miles) of "2+1" roads—where each lane of
traffic takes turns to use a middle lane for overtaking—is reckoned to have
saved around 145 lives over the first decade of Vision Zero."

I'm no expert in roads, but can anyone explain how that shared middle lane is
not the recipe for disaster?

~~~
sicher
It's not an open shared middle lane. There's a wire fence separating traffic.
Here's how it looks: [http://www.motor-
life.com/sites/default/files/articles/vagve...](http://www.motor-
life.com/sites/default/files/articles/vagverket_region_mitt_a.jpg)

~~~
vacri
Meh, in Australia we have plenty of these 2+1 roads with no fence, just road
markers. We don't have an epidemic of head-on collisions. All you need to do
is at the end of the '+1' section, have the _outside_ lane merge into to
_inside_ lane. There's no 'sudden switchover' where traffic in the middle lane
is coming at traffic going the other way.

------
kristofferR
In addition to the road quality I would say the driver's ed is also a big
factor. Getting a license in Sweden is much tougher than most other places,
especially the US.

~~~
Svip
I should point out, that EU has standardised driving licence education. So
despite Denmark having almost no tunnels (no mountains to speak of), we still
have to learn about tunnel driving. And that's good.

These tests also include driving at a facility.

However, the EU requirements are minimum requirements, countries are allowed
to make the requirements tougher, such as Finland (which I think requires at
least 3 days at a facility).

~~~
sampo
What does _' driving at a facility'_ mean?

~~~
Svip
A driving facility, where you experience driving through water, surfaces with
low friction, as well as attempting avoiding obstacles, rescuing skidding
(both front and back end) out and so forth.

~~~
kiiski
So I suppose in Finland these would be driving on ice x2, and the night
driving simulator (at least in my case). Are you sure that tunnels are a part
of the standard? I didn't need to do that ~5 years ago.

Is the education split into three seperate parts in all EU countries (first
gives a temporary license, and there must be a few months before the others
(to get real world driving experience), but all must be done withing 2 years)?
When I got my license, the education cost about 2500 euros (I think it's
higher now). Is that about the same as elsewhere in the EU?

~~~
Svip
In Denmark you get a full licence the first time you pass. But in practical
terms, authorities (and insurance and car rental companies) look 'harsher' on
newer drivers. But legally there is no temporary licence (except the licence
you get the day you pass, which is just temporary until your actual licence is
delivered in the mail).

I know tunnels was required in 2011, but the teacher also seemed to indicate
that it was a recent change.

I never used a simulator, night driving meant driving at night. Taking a bus
driving licence was mostly the same ordeal, although there is some extra focus
in the theory about how a bus works and what requirements it has.

When I took my B-category driving licence, it cost about 6500 DKK (about 880
euros). But that was a big driving school, I also see prices at 8000 DKK
(about 1075 euros). Fortunately, my bus driving licence was subsidised (so I
only paid 3600 DKK (480 euros)), otherwise it would have cost 31000 DKK (4180
euros).

But I hear Finland is unbelievable expensive.

~~~
ptaipale
Perhaps "unbelievable" is an exaggeration, but Finland is more expensive. A
license to drive a normal car ("B" category license) costs between 1500 and
2000 euros in a driving school (for the initial phase, which gives a temp
license valid for 2 years). Then around 400 euros for the second phase which
must be done after 6 to 24 months.

But fortunately a family member (or similar) can also teach, with just a few
mandatory lessons at "facilities". This way, the cost is around 500 euros (if
you don't include the car and fuel costs when driving the mandatory 20 half-
hour lessons.)

(License categories are the same in all of EU I think: A is for motorcycles, B
a car, C a lorry, D a bus, E a trailer, with sub-divisions like A1 and A2 for
different power classes of motorcycles etc; see
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver%27s_license#mediaviewer/...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver%27s_license#mediaviewer/File:Fahrerlaubnisklassen.png)).

In Finland, licenses were about to become very expensive last year after a law
change that was lobbied by driving schools - that effectively made it
impossible to teach your own family members to drive. But after seeing the
ripping-off by driving schools, and also after extensive protests by the
public, the government (unbelievably) backed down and changed the rules back
so that teaching a family member is again feasible. My third kid is soon ready
for the driving test...

BTW people say that it's a great test of trust and co-operation between a
parent and a teenager to try to teach a young one to drive. For me this has
fortunately gone very well.

~~~
darklajid
Germany: My wife got her license rather late, recently. The costs were roughly
the same (for "B"). You're on a two year 'probation' period. Any offense that
would lead to an entry in our "You did something wrong and we're awarding you
points for that" database means that you'll lose your license - with a well-
defined process to restart / try to recover it. This includes speeding over a
certain limit (say, 20km/h over the limit in towns for example) or running a
red light, ignoring a stop sign etc.. All of these are - in theory, if you're
caught, instant reasons to lose your license.

We don't have costs after the 2 years though, the license just graduates and
becomes permanent. Now you'd receive a certain number of points for the
offenses listed above and there are limits that might require you to take
driving lessons again or - in bad cases - might again lead to the loss of your
license.

------
mytochar
I found this part particularly interesting, for strange reasons: "now less
than 0.25% of drivers tested are over the alcohol limit"

Why are they testing those other 399 people (0.25% = 1 in 400)? Driving while
drowsy? drunk driving checkpoints? Someone's a little swervy and gets noticed?

~~~
ptaipale
In Sweden, like much of Europe, the police can (and routinely does) stop
everybody for a breathalyzer test.

I understand that in the US the police can't do that; they need some reason
(like swervy driving) to apply a breathalyzer test.

~~~
serge2k
random stops or roadblocks?

Canada (BC at least) does roadblocks.

~~~
ptaipale
The road is not actually physically blocked, but every vehicle that comes on
that road is hailed to stop for the test. If someone takes a U-turn to avoid
the test, there's typically a motorbike or a patrol car ready to chase.

~~~
seanp2k2
The U.S. does this too. Happens maybe once a month around San Jose, for
example. Usually you can avoid it because Google Maps detects the huge back-up
and routes you around it :) if you know what to look for (half-mile stretch of
red traffic in a place where that's not the norm on a week-end evening), it's
generally not hard to spot.

------
kazinator
National mentality has to do with it. For instance, you see a night-and-day
difference in driver behavior when you cross the border from, say, Switzerland
to Italy.

Why poor countries have lots of deadly car accidents probably has something to
do with corruption, in part. People won't respect order, such as traffic
codes, when their government isn't respectable. If I imagine I'm a citizen of
a poor country, why would I stop at a red light if my president gave a
contract to some foreign company in exchange for bribes. If he can do as he
pleases, so can I.

There is also driver licensing. Here in the provinces of Canada, for instance,
if you have a measurable pulse and/or your breath can fog a cold mirror, you
can get a driver's license. I can't imagine that the same is true in Sweden.

A learner's permit can be obtained by passing a written test. After that, a
very brief and easy road test results in a driver's license. No formal
schooling is required; a friend or relative can teach you, for instance.

Furthermore, driver's license renewals do not require any testing. I got my
driver's license in 1987. Since, then, I have renewed it every five years
simply by paying the fee, signing a paper, and having my picture taken. I've
never been required to take any additional training or testing.

Imagine if it was like that for, say, commercial airline pilots.

------
ptaipale
Regarding "Vision Zero": I find it unrealistic, for the simple reason that you
can't stop people from dying. I think Sweden must share the same way of
counting as my country (Finland) where the traffic death statistics include
suicides and "natural" deaths.

We have around 250 road deaths per year in a country of 5 million, and about
50 of these are suicides. This means that practically every week there's
someone who kills him/herself by an intentional act in traffic. For instance,
a couple of months back a mother killed herself and her three children by
driving 100 km/h head-on at a bus where his husband was travelling. This was
just an act of defiance, desperation and hate.

When suicides count for about one fifth of traffic deaths, it is not
insignificant and leaves the number of traffic deaths well above zero. Also,
natural deaths - people dying of a heart attack or a stroke while driving -
account for a significant part of the statistics (somewhere around 10-15 %).
They're counted as traffic deaths even in cases where no one else is hurt and
even the vehicle is unscathed.

~~~
akgerber
It's a statement of engineering priorities, not an literal goal.

This is in contrast to the United States, where only very recently has
anything other than maximum automotive throughput been prioritized.

~~~
spdustin
I wouldn't say that throughput is the priority. The typical speed limits on
interstates were optimal for fuel efficiency. Convenience highways are revenue
generating through the use of automatic toll collection, but in my experience,
only have higher speed limits when they have more limited access (read: fewer
exits/on-ramps).

------
ErikHuisman
Whenever I'm in Sweden i just drive one road. The E4. I bet the asphalt per
capita is probably pretty low compared to any other country. But still the
quality of the roads don't compare to Denmark or the Netherlands for example
which feel even more thought out and structured.

~~~
rab_oof
As an aside, the bicycle roads in the Netherlands are extremely well-
organized. The U.S. and other countries should borrow this format for inter-
and intracity cycling. Most U.S. bicycle paths are like road signs in rural
Germany: few and far between or hidden behind an overgrown hedge.

------
xasos
>Planning has played the biggest part in reducing accidents. Roads in Sweden
are built with safety prioritised over speed or convenience. Low urban speed-
limits, pedestrian zones and barriers that separate cars from bikes and
oncoming traffic have helped.

This is big. Cities in Sweden have the ability to cater much faster to bikers
because biking is a much more prevalent way of trasport than in the United
States. In fact, that is one of the larger causes for deaths in cities like
San Francisco. [1]

[1] [http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Streets-of-S-F-a-
road-...](http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Streets-of-S-F-a-road-hazard-
as-pedestrian-5205143.php)

------
alkonaut
Don't forget mandatory _practical_ training in driving in wet/icy conditions
as well as mandatory winter tires in such conditions. This probably causes
some deaths in countries where such conditions occur less frequently. On the
other hand, several months of snow/ice is likely adding to Swedens death toll.
Training looks like this:
[https://youtube.com/watch?v=6AJ1J5wVpMY](https://youtube.com/watch?v=6AJ1J5wVpMY)

------
protomyth
I've seen 2+1 in Minnesota (cannot remember which road, but it is a highway
off I90 and headed to the cities). In SD and ND, I've seen the added lane for
slow traffic to move to so the normal traffic can pass. Same effect, but
probably an acknowledgement of the number of slow vehicles found on rural
highways (e.g. combines, tractors, heavily loaded grain trucks).

------
pc86
Can someone with knowledge or experience on the subject explain how the
"2+1"[0] road is better than a standard 3-lane highway?

[0] FTA "Building 1,500 kilometres (900 miles) of "2+1" roads—where each lane
of traffic takes turns to use a middle lane for overtaking—is reckoned to have
saved around 145 lives over the first decade of Vision Zero"

~~~
codfrantic
I'll try,

imagine a road like this:
[http://lh6.ggpht.com/_gt_enTZIj1g/TMq0zFITxUI/AAAAAAAADo8/Rb...](http://lh6.ggpht.com/_gt_enTZIj1g/TMq0zFITxUI/AAAAAAAADo8/Rb7HaW7Yb6Q/s912/IMG_1388.jpg)

(not sweden but Netherlands but it works for the example.)

Overtaking is not allowed (except for farm traffic), in a 2+1 situation there
would be three lanes all the time, alternating between directions. This means
that there will always be a legal spot to overtake within a few minutes.
(usually the climbing direction would be two lanes so you can overtake slow
trucks e.d.) Therefore you don't have to overtake a slow driver by using the
oncoming lane.

By a 'standard 3-lane highway', I assume you mean three lanes each way, these
roads have nowhere near enough traffic on them to explain all that extra
tarmac.

~~~
pc86
Yes that is what I meant, the main highway I drive to work on is 3 lanes each
direction. Bumper to bumper < 40 MPH (65 KPH) in rush hour, sporadic traffic
going 75-85+ MPH (135+ KPH) at other times.

We have a few of these roads in my area but not very many, and you can easily
go many many miles on a road similar to the one in your picture with no
passing lane.

------
Apofis
I certainly know why Dominican Republic has such high death rates on the road.
The people that drive there are freakin' insane. They have no regard for road
rules, traffic signs, pedestrians... Driving in Santo Domingo is like driving
in the demolition derby. It was absolutely terrifying.

------
finid
In which city in the US of A do you see bike lanes like that in the article?

In my neck of the woods, riding a bike is a disaster waiting to happen.

~~~
mpapi
They're not exactly common in the Boston area, but they're here, and new ones
are getting added (mainly in Cambridge, as far as I can tell). At least one
even has separate traffic lights that turn green for bikes a few seconds
early.

FWIW I tend to stick to the roads anyway, though, because the segregated bike
lanes often have pedestrians and runners in them regardless, and the paths
often get cracked from tree roots and whatnot. Most drivers don't seem to care
if I'm not on the dedicated path, so long as I'm hauling and not riding crazy.

------
ZachS
I'm not convinced the added safety is worth it.

If you had the choice between getting to your destination in 20 minutes, with
a 11.4 in 100,000 chance of dying, or arriving in 25 minutes with a 3 in
100,000 chance, which would you choose?

~~~
ronjouch
Would you say that again while considering your spouse is a travelling
salesman? It's not about one-time trips, it's about the aggregated death toll
over years or decades.

~~~
ZachS
Yes, absolutely.

My comment was actually incorrect, since it's 11.4 in 100,000 per year. I
think I'd want my spouse to spend 1/5th less time driving for the increase in
risk.

~~~
quesera
5 minutes is that valuable to you?

------
psp
Hah few you say, what about Cliff Burton!

------
happyscrappy
From the comments:

"Sweden has 264 road deaths for 9.5 million people. Britain has 1730 for 62
million people. The deaths rates, at 28 per million people, are virtually
identical in both countries and way below every other European country.

Britain though, has impossibly crowded narrow roads laid down hundreds of
years ago, full of bends and hazards large urban conurbations with lots of
people, including pedestrians, using the roads at the same time, and almost no
new roads designed for safety or anything else.

Yet Britain has no more per capita road deaths than Sweden. Perhaps the Swedes
have technical solutions in road planning, design and all sorts of legal
restrictions on drivers to aid road safety. Perhaps the British are just more
considerate and more aware, that, as their roads are much more hazardous, they
have to take a lot more care when driving."

Very surprising that Britain has done that well.

~~~
sampo
I would guess, narrow roads in medieval towns would lead to slow driving
speeds, and with slow speeds accidents are less fatal. Perhaps you can still
kill a pedestrian when driving at 30 km/h, but a collision with another car at
such speed is probably not fatal.

~~~
arethuza
I suspect you are overestimating the extend of "medieval towns". Even places,
like here in Edinburgh, that do have a core of medieval buildings have
surrounding areas built in later centuries that generally have much wider
streets out to the suburbs that were probably mostly built in the last century
and have "modern" roads.

------
_almosnow
>Building 1,500 kilometres (900 miles) of "2+1" roads—where each lane of
traffic takes turns to use a middle lane for overtaking—is reckoned to have
saved around 145 lives over the first decade of Vision Zero.

Basically translates to: "this substantial increase on costs (3 lanes instead
of 2, +50%) is going to save the lives of 15 people per year". It is really
praiseworthy for a country to just go for it and put people first. A human
life is truly invaluable but very few countries actually account for them as
such; on most other countries "15 dead" would simply just not be worth the
investment.

~~~
alkonaut
Conversion to 2+1 isn't very expensive as the starting point is a 1.5+1.5 road
without dividing fences, where overtaking takes place at least partly in the
incoming lane. There is normally no need to widen the road to convert to 2+1.
The lanes in the 2+1 is just narrower and it has less shoulder.

