Funny how airplane safety is discussed all the time whereas I see no similar posts for automobile safety.
40,000 people die each year in car accidents in US alone, which is a heck of a lot more than in airplanes. Unlike air safety, individual road safety can be increased by any individual; even the safest dirvers can improve thier chance of survival by expending extra effort.
Yet somehow it's a lot more exciting to worry about things you can't control and hardly know anything about. Humans are fascinating. One day I'll figure out what makes them tick.
> Unlike air safety, individual road safety can be increased by any individual...
I think that's a big part of the reason. I know I'd feel a lot safer (if I was qualified) flying an airplane than having someone else do it. Having a large measure of control over a potentially dangerous situation is reassuring.
The other thing is that airplane crashes are very often catastrophic. A whole lot more people survive car accidents than die in them.
The other thing is that airplane crashes are very often
catastrophic. A whole lot more people survive car
accidents than die in them.
I'm speechless. You think that's something positive? Another way to phrase the same thing: not only cars kill a lot more people than planes, they also multilate and injure even more. Only 4 people died last year in air accident in US (http://www.planecrashinfo.com/2007/2007.htm), which makes it 10,000 more likely to die in a car accident.
You're right in your other point - it seems people don't mind dying so long as they have illusion they could have prevented it. Only when people feel powerless they become afraid.
Stay with us DenisM, the lure of an article/research like this is that we might bale to control (even if only slight;y) something we deemed "out of our" hands previously.
The idea that you can possibly save your own life in a plane crash contradicts what most people believe, which is usually "instant unavoidable death". Unlike ..oh car accidents.
This low probability of an accident actually happening suggests that the condition probabilities presented in the article have huge standard errors. This may make the differences between sections of the plane insignificant. Then again, there aren't standard errors per se because we should have the population of all accidents rather than a sample. Interesting....
My understanding is that the per-minute risk of car travel and plane travel are roughly equivalent. Per mile, of course, planes are a heck of a lot safer. But if you wear your seatbelt in your car, you should be willing to sit at the back of a plane, right?
I do not agree with the conclusion. They used a small sample size (20) and they did not correct for any differences in plane type, accident type, phase of flight, etc. You simply cannot draw any conclusions with their data set and methodology.
The probability of death is going to be overwhelmingly driven by the speed and orientation of the aircraft at impact, which is going to be determined by the cause of the accident, the skill of the pilot(s), and just plain luck.
You'll be much better off just picking the seat that you will be most comfortable in.
You'll be much better off just picking the seat that you will be most comfortable in.
I would not be at all surprised to find that more people die as a result of deep vein thrombosis caused by sitting poorly on long flights than die in air crashes.
40,000 people die each year in car accidents in US alone, which is a heck of a lot more than in airplanes. Unlike air safety, individual road safety can be increased by any individual; even the safest dirvers can improve thier chance of survival by expending extra effort.
Yet somehow it's a lot more exciting to worry about things you can't control and hardly know anything about. Humans are fascinating. One day I'll figure out what makes them tick.