Yes even the DfT would struggle to adjust overall stats on road deaths. However, how many lives are being saved by safety improvements in cars? How many by medical advances? Road crashes which would have resulted in fatalities a decade ago are likely to be survivable now. Statistics aren't going to show that.
On the same note, how many accidents are being caused by drivers driving like plonks because they believe that airbags and crumple zones make them invincible?
One of the factors here is how we treat danger. If you look at the
euro ncap safety ratings for new cars, there is a consistent pattern*: the driver and passenger get the highest rating, child occupants 2nd rating and pedestrians the lowest category (they don't test for 2 wheel safety so they're lumped in with pedestrians). Cars consistently provide good to moderate protection for the first two classes and consistenly poor ratings for parts of the vehicle for pedestrians. The point is that danger is externalised.
And while the nearest and dearest are safe, insulated from the street, why not relax a little, get a bit of entertainment, a bit of ever-in-touch communication?
What are we like for pedestrian KSIs - for killing children, for example? It's the bits that get left out that are the most notable, from my point of view.
*Unusually, there's a Mazda that scores higher for pedestrian safety than for the driver. I've looked at the figures over a period of time and this is the first time I've found one.
.
