3 ms·
The primary way overly-intrusive TSA measures just move the danger around is by making flying unpleasant. If a new indignity -- like making people take their s
by raldi 10y ago
The primary way overly-intrusive TSA measures just move the danger around is by making flying unpleasant.
If a new indignity -- like making people take their shoes off or wait in a 20% longer line -- pushes even a small percentage of travelers to drive instead of fly (and it does) the increased human risk from the added driving easily outweighs the tiny risk mitigation gained by the new airport rule.
- dmoy 10y agoDoes it? What's the growth of flights compared to population? Edit: for at least last year, I'm seeing ~5% air travel growth compared to <1% population growth. So I don't know if your premise has taken effect yet...
- clarkmoody 10y agoConsidering that driving is -- by far -- the most dangerous activity that most undertake on a daily basis... <Insert appropriate discussion of how people are very bad at estimating risk, especially when those risks involve death> <Also insert something about (risk of occurring) * (consequence of occurrence)> I would say the GP's point is true to first order.
- dmoy 10y agoBut what if TSA actually causes people to fly more, because they're bad at estimating risk and it gives them a false sense of security?
- Nullabillity 10y agoThere are other variables in play as well. The TSA and its equivalents can retard growth without managing to turn it around.
- raldi 10y ago> What's the growth of flights compared to population? That's irrelevant. For all we know, if we still had pre-2001 TSA rules, air travel would be growing 6% or 7%.
- hexane360 10y agoThat doesn't mean that growth wouldn't be 6% without the TSA. Just because the growth is still positive doesn't mean there isn't a negative effect.