5 ms·

If it helps 96% of people involved in airplane accidents actually survive.

vog 9y ago
Also, travelling by plane is safer than by train and especially safer than by car. Really, as a rational person, you should be scared by the road more than by any other type of transportation. It's just that all those deaths are scattered across the time axis, while for planes and trains, more deaths happen at once, which is "better" for media coverage.
- Retric 9y ago
  It has higher risk per trip, and ok per duration. Trip length simply has minimal safety impact. However, while ISS space station also has a great safety record per mile that does not make it safe. Which is why frequent flyers have high lifetime risks even if you call it 'safe'. ~X deaths per billion miles sounds great until you notice people with 10+ million miles.
  - sp332 9y ago
    But if you've already decided to make a trip, flying is the safest way to cover a given distance. It's pretty rare to choose between taking an average-length car ride vs an average-length plane ride.
    - Retric 9y ago
      People don't drive from the US to France. So, you can't assume mode of transit has zero impact on trip length. Flying promotes more long trips making fatalities per mile meaningless. Further, highway miles while sober have very different safety numbers. Making the short vs long trip comparison even more different.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
        >Further, highway miles while sober have very different safety numbers A chart/graph that compares the impact on accident likeliness of various safety reducing things about driving and quantifies them relative to "beers on an empty highway" would be interesting. It would also anger a lot of people who condemn drunk driving while doing various dangerous things themselves. Someone should make that chart.
  - ravingraven 9y ago
    >Trip length simply has minimal safety impact. Yes, and trip length is pretty much the only metric that matters as airplanes are faster than everything else. Since planes are so fast, the only thing I "value" when flying is how far I get. >However, while ISS space station also has a great safety record per mile that does not make it safe. For the ISS we don't care about distance though. We care about duration. People aboard the ISS are not travelers.
    - dredmorbius 9y ago
      For most travel, time, rather than distance, is most relevant. People allocate travel by time, mostly.
  - dionidium 9y ago
    Another way to say this is that, since most fatal accidents occur during takeoff and landing, a flight from St. Louis to Chicago is about as safe as one from New York to Tokyo. If you measure based on time or distance, you'll get wildly different numbers. But that time and distance doesn't really matter.
- the_cat_kittles 9y ago
  the statistics are relevant, and should help. but the rational part of the PFC is just a single participant in our mental cacophony, so its not like knowing this is going to fix the problem right away. not saying you are guilty of thinking this, but ive seen alot of people who are. flying being safe statistically is a perfect example of how knowing something is but a small step towards really knowing it.

vog 9y ago

Also, travelling by plane is safer than by train and especially safer than by car. Really, as a rational person, you should be scared by the road more than by any other type of transportation. It's just that all those deaths are scattered across the time axis, while for planes and trains, more deaths happen at once, which is "better" for media coverage.

Retric 9y ago
It has higher risk per trip, and ok per duration. Trip length simply has minimal safety impact. However, while ISS space station also has a great safety record per mile that does not make it safe. Which is why frequent flyers have high lifetime risks even if you call it 'safe'. ~X deaths per billion miles sounds great until you notice people with 10+ million miles.
- sp332 9y ago
  But if you've already decided to make a trip, flying is the safest way to cover a given distance. It's pretty rare to choose between taking an average-length car ride vs an average-length plane ride.
  - Retric 9y ago
    People don't drive from the US to France. So, you can't assume mode of transit has zero impact on trip length. Flying promotes more long trips making fatalities per mile meaningless. Further, highway miles while sober have very different safety numbers. Making the short vs long trip comparison even more different.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
      >Further, highway miles while sober have very different safety numbers A chart/graph that compares the impact on accident likeliness of various safety reducing things about driving and quantifies them relative to "beers on an empty highway" would be interesting. It would also anger a lot of people who condemn drunk driving while doing various dangerous things themselves. Someone should make that chart.
- ravingraven 9y ago
  >Trip length simply has minimal safety impact. Yes, and trip length is pretty much the only metric that matters as airplanes are faster than everything else. Since planes are so fast, the only thing I "value" when flying is how far I get. >However, while ISS space station also has a great safety record per mile that does not make it safe. For the ISS we don't care about distance though. We care about duration. People aboard the ISS are not travelers.
  - dredmorbius 9y ago
    For most travel, time, rather than distance, is most relevant. People allocate travel by time, mostly.
- dionidium 9y ago
  Another way to say this is that, since most fatal accidents occur during takeoff and landing, a flight from St. Louis to Chicago is about as safe as one from New York to Tokyo. If you measure based on time or distance, you'll get wildly different numbers. But that time and distance doesn't really matter.
the_cat_kittles 9y ago
the statistics are relevant, and should help. but the rational part of the PFC is just a single participant in our mental cacophony, so its not like knowing this is going to fix the problem right away. not saying you are guilty of thinking this, but ive seen alot of people who are. flying being safe statistically is a perfect example of how knowing something is but a small step towards really knowing it.