4 ms·
Eh, if you change this to the fear of this far outweighs any possible benefits, I'd agree; I mean, flying using current technology is far safer than driving,
by lsc 9y ago
Eh, if you change this to the fear of this far outweighs any possible benefits, I'd agree; I mean, flying using current technology is far safer than driving, but we've by law severely limited the usefulness of air travel because people are somehow more scared of crazies in airplanes than crazies (or incompetents; it's difficult to tell) in cars, even though the latter clearly injures and kills far more people.
Our current 'arrive two hours early' security screening has cost many lives simply because it tilts the drive/fly equation towards driving, which is dramatically more dangerous.
That said, you are probably right about the net effect.
- em3rgent0rdr 9y ago> Our current 'arrive two hours early' This. Considering about 800 million passengers per year in US, that's 800 million extra hours of awake human that the additional hour to handle security requirements suck up. Considering a 79 year lifespan per human (totaling 461360 awake hours), that's around 1734 human lives wasted per year in US. 9/11 only killed 2996 people, of average age 40, so roughtly could be said that the extra hour of airport security in US costs a 9/11 every year. (I'll admit, maybe people having a friendly chat in the secutiry line or otherwise enjoy the extra time in the airport terminal, so not exactly apples-to-apples comparison).