Partly that's because in huge parts of the country, it's effectively a necessity to be able to drive in order to get to work, buy groceries, etc., since public transit outside of a few urban cores is very spotty (often nonexistent). Therefore removing someone's license, or not letting them have one in the first place, is seen as a very serious matter that could greatly complicate the person earning a living.

The further east you go, the better it is.

Urban sprawl does make things more difficult, but doing better than the current state would still be quite possible in many cities. For example, taking the two most recent cities I've lived in, Houston and Copenhagen have closer population densities than people may think in the majority of their commute basin. If you draw a circle with radius roughly 30 km from each city's downtown, both have a density of about 1,000/km^2. Yet Copenhagen has 5 commuter rail lines, a subway, and an extensive 24-hour bus network, while Houston has 3 light-rail lines and a pretty bad bus network. So of course it's harder to get around in Houston without a car, even in the dense parts (for example, it's a huge pain to get from a high-rise condo in the Galleria area to an office building downtown, even though these are both dense areas and only about 15km apart). Houston is slowly improving in the past 10 years, though.

Yes, that's true ... but they only just got there. They, or their parents likely grew up in a much more rural, sparser population density.

So in the same way that it's going to take a generation or three to convince folks not to eat as much as a farmer needs to eat to do manual labor all day, it will also take a generation or three to convince folks that they don't need to start an engine to run every errand.

much of american habits, beliefs and culture are heavily derived from rural farming life.

It's anecdotal, but certainly none of the farming background in my family involved car culture. My great-grandfather lived in a small farming town in Kansas, and they didn't own a car. The town, despite being small, was very centralized around a compact "main street" where all the shops were in walking distance of each other, pretty typical of any Midwestern town prior to WW2. People who lived outside of town either rode into town on a horse, took a tractor in, hitched a ride in, or walked. If they needed to go longer distances, they used this method to get to the nearest town with a train station, and took the train. They bought a car when? When they moved to Los Angeles in the 1930s. The rise of car culture and suburbia also led to most of these traditional compact farm towns turning into what you see today, with old downtowns are that are abandoned or semi-abandoned, replaced by a string of strip malls on the bypass freeway—a bypass freeway that in most cases was built in the 1950s or '60s, well after most Americans lived in cities.

Primary reason my coworkers support public transportation, according to them, in an area with pretty good transit (especially for people who commute during "normal" hours): "I want the buses and trains to be good so everyone else will take them and get off of my roads."

Edit: and I dare say people might prefer that after a thorough CBA since it might mean paying $10/day for some private bus service but also saving an hour in commute time while also being able to use the commute to get something else done. But the prospect of tolls that high and riding a bus have a big "ick" factor for a lot of people, so...

Post WW2 government programs encouraged vets and similar to move to the suburbs and highway programs gave way to a very strong automobile industry.

The top it off with more restrictive zoning laws in the US, where compared to Europe you much much less likely to see mixed use of land. in the US land zoned residential is usually kept well separated from industry which does add in commute times and needs for alternative transportation. Throw on that fuel and car taxes have always been cheap

Just by virtue of the fact that you live in the middle of nowhere, should not give you the right to pilot a several ton metal box going 100+kph that has the ability to kill you and those around you.

Driving should still be seen as a privilege and something that you have to earn, not just "oh, you live in the countryside.. well, do as you please"

In many European countries sprawls are illegal. Roads, buildings and public transportation are planned to avoid large low-density cities.

Given that Germany has much higher speed limits and still fewer fatalities per mile driven, I would definitely focus on giving tickets for overtaking on the right and not speeding up on the on ramp. That shit makes things dangerous for everyone and provides benefits to no one. It's just plain stupid. I would implement draconic penalties for that shit.

Several states (Indiana being one) have recently enacted new laws that allow ticketing drivers who are driving at the posted speed limit but blocking traffic in the left lane. So even if traffic coming up from behind you is exceeding the speed limit, you are not permitted to block the left lane.

In Michigan, for example, there are terrible potholes. Drivers also often in beat-up cars, often related to high auto insurance – that may create an attitude of not caring as much about bumps. They'd never pass an MOT in the UK. Drivers tailgate, text on their phone, overtake on any side and regularly demonstrably drunk.

I suspect that has to do more with "job creation" rather than a desire to have good roads. After all, there are plenty of other places with similar weather without the horrendous roads.

PS. I find it ironic that Michigan was voted best state to live in.

International individuals are almost always required to take the full driving test simply because driving is so different in other countries and a lot of stuff doesn't apply to the US.

I too learned in the UK, and when I moved to the US I still took driving lessons for a few weeks before taking the test because driving on US roads is dramatically different from the UK and there is a lot of little nuances to get used to.

They could certainly offer lower rates to drivers that pass a skills test, but I doubt they care to (just because I sort of doubt it would be a better predictor than the information they already use (age and driving history being the big ones)).

In AZ, I had to take a long form multiple choice test of 40 questions plus a 30 minute practical demonstrating my understanding of the dimensions of the car, parallel parking, urban, highway, and rural driving.

So, yes, people make the same high level driving mistakes in the US and around europe. The problem the US has is that the normal day to day driving is so much worse.

Tailgating in particular is extremely common in the US. It scares the heck out of me when idiots behind me driving within two car length of me at over 65 MpH even when there is space enough behind them that they could easily double that gap, still arrive at their destination at the same time, and if I needed to stop suddenly they wouldn't rear end me.

I'm just bothered by the wording. To call driving in the US "extraordinarily dangerous" is just hyperbole. It might be quantitatively "more dangerous" than the UK, but there really isn't anything to fear going out on the roads in the US.

The way these sorts of articles are written, they make it sound like you need to don a suit of armor and make sure your will is up to date every time you step outside, lest a car comes hurtling off the road and wipes out your entire family.

I'm not trying to condone driving drunk, but drunk-driving out in the middle of nowhere like in the shock story cherry-picked for the opening article just isn't as assuredly insta-death as MADD would like you to believe.

Yes, tailgating is relatively more dangerous than not tailgating. Is tailgating objectively dangerous? The fact that millions of people do it every day and still live to tell the tail suggests otherwise. "Alcohol is a factor in 1/3rd of road deaths". Yeah, but what factor is it in road survivals? Road statistics have never been conducted in a sound manner.

Drive here long enough, and you won't even notice those guys. After all what are they really going to do to you? They're going to pass you when the road straightens out so they can see what's coming in the other lane. Let them pass, but at all times pay enough attention to what's in front of you that you'll never need to "stop suddenly". A rear-end accident is always the trailing driver's fault, but the leading driver could always have avoided it by paying more attention to the road, and slowing down when conditions warrant, before it's necessary to suddenly stop. [EDIT: of course there are exceptions, like a friend of mine who had been stopped at a red light for 30 seconds when he got blasted from behind by some blind person...]