4 ms·

Flying -- even accounting for all the 737 Max crashes is still statistically by far the safest form of travel per unit of distance travelled -- the 737 Max is a

by s_dev 7y ago

Flying -- even accounting for all the 737 Max crashes is still statistically by far the safest form of travel per unit of distance travelled -- the 737 Max is a blip just like 9/11.

bilbo0s 7y ago
Flying is safe. No question. And you can make it that much more safe by doing yourself a favor and avoiding the 737 MAX.
- tylermac1 7y ago
  As my flight anxiety will tell you, there's nothing safer than not going anywhere at all.
  - StavrosK 7y ago
    Actually, flying might be safer than staying at home, given that home is where the showers and pointy things are.
- alistairSH 7y ago
  What is statistically more dangerous... 1. Flying a 737 Max on a major carrier 2. Flying a commuter plane with a regional carrier 3. Flying an Airbus with a 2nd tier international carrier I have no idea, but I suspect they're all still orders of magnitude safer than driving.
  - paganel 7y ago
    This is a non-sequitur, we were not comparing the 737 MAX with driving but with other planes. It looks like other planes are an order of magnitude safer than the 737 MAX and as such potential airplane clients should avoid the 737 MAX as much as possible
  - cjbprime 7y ago
    Ethiopian is a major carrier with a previously stellar safety record. The MAX has suffered hull losses at around 100x the rate per flight of baseline airline travel, so I suppose it's the most dangerous in your list.
StreamBright 7y ago
Nobody is arguing about flying vs no flying. This thread about 737MAX safety.
- icebraining 7y ago
  The GP said "on a Boeing plane", not just on 737MAXs.
thinkloop 7y ago
Unit of distance is not the correct measure to use for safety because it skews heavily towards speed. The fastest means of transport will almost always look the safest. Consider if planes doubled their speed overnight (which they can, it's just a matter of gas/costs) and crashes remained the same - did they instantly become twice as safe? Definitely not, there is still the fixed risks of takeoff, landing, and being in the air for even a second, etc. The additional miles are almost free in terms of risk, but eat away a lot at the risk metric. The better measure is time: deaths per hour traveled. And by that measure buses are actually safest, followed by rail, then air [1][2]. Cars are still 4x more dangerous, but that's much less stark than the common wisdom. And even that is misleading because with cars specifically, there is much more variability of drivers, car quality, maintenance, etc. If you are sober, responsible, educated, with a well maintained car, etc. your odds are significantly lower. Think drunk drivers who only kill themselves in accidents (this is a significant portion of car deaths). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety [2] http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_5_No_7_1_July_2015/15.pdf http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_5_No_7_1_July_2015/15.p...
- hackinthebochs 7y ago
  Well put. I've always felt an intuitive unease about that "safest per unit traveled" metric but wasn't able to articulate the problem as clearly as you did.
- dotancohen 7y ago
  Did I just read what I think I read? Are you suggesting that people take a bus from New York to Los Angeles, because though the chance of being injured or killed is higher, it is worth it because the trip takes so much longer?
- icebraining 7y ago
  I disagree; I don't want to spend 10 hours traveling, I want to get from point A to point B. Unit of distance is what makes sense. Who cares if I have half the chance of dying per hour, if I have to spend ten times the hours subject to that risk? I'm not sure why you think just doubling the speed would impact the crash/unit of distance ratio. If ten planes do a 600km trip and one crashes, that's 1 crash per 6000km regardless of the speed at which they're traveling. You're right that fixed per-trip risks are diluted, but that's because plane trips are longer, not because they're faster. The right comparison, in my opinion, would be to draw the curves of death rate / trip length.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
drivebyops 7y ago
The statistics for this include motorcycles. I would really like to see one for only vehicles.
- 15155 7y ago
  Motorcyclist here: have you seen how motorcycle fatalities break down? In the US, some overwhelming majority of these accidents are alcohol-involved and (I believe) single-vehicle.

by s_dev 7y ago

Flying -- even accounting for all the 737 Max crashes is still statistically by far the safest form of travel per unit of distance travelled -- the 737 Max is a blip just like 9/11.

bilbo0s 7y ago

Flying is safe. No question. And you can make it that much more safe by doing yourself a favor and avoiding the 737 MAX.

tylermac1 7y ago
As my flight anxiety will tell you, there's nothing safer than not going anywhere at all.
- StavrosK 7y ago
  Actually, flying might be safer than staying at home, given that home is where the showers and pointy things are.
alistairSH 7y ago
What is statistically more dangerous... 1. Flying a 737 Max on a major carrier 2. Flying a commuter plane with a regional carrier 3. Flying an Airbus with a 2nd tier international carrier I have no idea, but I suspect they're all still orders of magnitude safer than driving.
- paganel 7y ago
  This is a non-sequitur, we were not comparing the 737 MAX with driving but with other planes. It looks like other planes are an order of magnitude safer than the 737 MAX and as such potential airplane clients should avoid the 737 MAX as much as possible
- cjbprime 7y ago
  Ethiopian is a major carrier with a previously stellar safety record. The MAX has suffered hull losses at around 100x the rate per flight of baseline airline travel, so I suppose it's the most dangerous in your list.

StreamBright 7y ago

Nobody is arguing about flying vs no flying. This thread about 737MAX safety.

icebraining 7y ago
The GP said "on a Boeing plane", not just on 737MAXs.

thinkloop 7y ago

Unit of distance is not the correct measure to use for safety because it skews heavily towards speed. The fastest means of transport will almost always look the safest. Consider if planes doubled their speed overnight (which they can, it's just a matter of gas/costs) and crashes remained the same - did they instantly become twice as safe? Definitely not, there is still the fixed risks of takeoff, landing, and being in the air for even a second, etc. The additional miles are almost free in terms of risk, but eat away a lot at the risk metric. The better measure is time: deaths per hour traveled. And by that measure buses are actually safest, followed by rail, then air [1][2]. Cars are still 4x more dangerous, but that's much less stark than the common wisdom. And even that is misleading because with cars specifically, there is much more variability of drivers, car quality, maintenance, etc. If you are sober, responsible, educated, with a well maintained car, etc. your odds are significantly lower. Think drunk drivers who only kill themselves in accidents (this is a significant portion of car deaths). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety [2] http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_5_No_7_1_July_2015/15.pdf http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_5_No_7_1_July_2015/15.p...

hackinthebochs 7y ago
Well put. I've always felt an intuitive unease about that "safest per unit traveled" metric but wasn't able to articulate the problem as clearly as you did.
dotancohen 7y ago
Did I just read what I think I read? Are you suggesting that people take a bus from New York to Los Angeles, because though the chance of being injured or killed is higher, it is worth it because the trip takes so much longer?
icebraining 7y ago
I disagree; I don't want to spend 10 hours traveling, I want to get from point A to point B. Unit of distance is what makes sense. Who cares if I have half the chance of dying per hour, if I have to spend ten times the hours subject to that risk? I'm not sure why you think just doubling the speed would impact the crash/unit of distance ratio. If ten planes do a 600km trip and one crashes, that's 1 crash per 6000km regardless of the speed at which they're traveling. You're right that fixed per-trip risks are diluted, but that's because plane trips are longer, not because they're faster. The right comparison, in my opinion, would be to draw the curves of death rate / trip length.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

drivebyops 7y ago

The statistics for this include motorcycles. I would really like to see one for only vehicles.

15155 7y ago
Motorcyclist here: have you seen how motorcycle fatalities break down? In the US, some overwhelming majority of these accidents are alcohol-involved and (I believe) single-vehicle.