5 ms·

Great article. I just wonder if this bit is really true: >Most of those market and technical forces are on the side of economics, not safety. People seem to t

by ppod 6y ago

Great article. I just wonder if this bit is really true: >Most of those market and technical forces are on the side of economics, not safety. People seem to think about airline safety a lot, like, an irrational amount given the risk. I would guess that over the decades consumer pressure was a huge driver of safety improvements, and the increasing automation seems to have been a big safety benefit on balance.

nix23 6y ago
>like, an irrational amount given the risk. The risk that 300 Peoples at once can die? I think that's very rational.
- ppod 6y ago
  It seems to me that this danger receives a much larger degree of attention than other dangers which are more likely to happen, such as road traffic death.
  - rightbyte 6y ago
    Ye but imagine how dangerous airtravel would be if the safety routines were on level with road travel procedures (i.e. one checkup a year and pretravel routines always ignored).
    - nix23 6y ago
      It would be like that: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/25/business/pakistan-fake-pilot-intl-hnk/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/25/business/pakistan-fake-pi... and the crash that led to the findings: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-53162627 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-53162627
      - rightbyte 6y ago
        Yes. I say when people e.g. compare paragliding to traffic dangers, "imagine taking those precautions you do before paragliding when walking over the road". It is just different things and the statistics doesn't tell you much about the danger from doing it.
- 3pt14159 6y ago
  No. It's rational to focus on things like sugary drinks that lead to diabetes or to work on improving road conditions for motorists and cyclists. So few people die per unit distance traveled by plane that we're probably over investing in airline safety. It's that when an accident happens it's front page news, so the feedback to the overall system is more pronounced than when a person in their 50s has a heart attack.
  - Retric 6y ago
    It’s relatively cheaper to increase aircraft safety because you also save the aircraft at the same time you save the people. Crash lawsuits are also much simpler vs say soft drinks. That alignment of incentives is very different than say coal pollution. Airlines directly save money when accidents are avoided, but power plants only lose money when they add scrubbers.
  - nix23 6y ago
    >sugary drinks Whats there to think about it? Don't drink it (or not too much), that's where YOU are responsible for YOUR life and not the life of others. The Airline and Pilots are responsible for your safe travel. >road conditions for motorists and cyclists In Germany 445 people died in bicycle accidents in 2018, that's 1.5 Aircraft's. And please just use a helmet, but you are right sure. But neglect Air-safety to make Roads safer sounds stupid...why not do both. 43% don't wear helmets and 37% are against mandatory helmets on bicycles, again that's YOUR responsibility: https://www.thelocal.de/20161207/should-germans-be-made-to-wear-bike-helmets-cycling-germany-australia https://www.thelocal.de/20161207/should-germans-be-made-to-w... >we're probably over investing in airline safety. No we hold Airline's responsible for it, if you don't do that this will happen over time: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/25/business/pakistan-fake-pilot-intl-hnk/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/25/business/pakistan-fake-pi... >50s has a heart attack True because it's not something you or i can change, maybe he/she had bad habits (drinking, drinking sugar etc) maybe genetic, maybe could not afford a insurance (and this is something we should and could change)
    - 3pt14159 6y ago
      > Whats there to think about it? Don't drink it There are social costs to obesity and diabetes. They should be taxed like alcohol and tobacco and selling sugary drinks to children should be curtailed. We should have warning labels and government funded commercial campaigns highlighting the issue. We should subsidize healthier foods like vegetables and promote a healthy and active lifestyle. We should make nutritional education a core part of education. > But neglect Air-safety to make Roads safer sounds stupid...why not do both. We presently do both, but we underfund road safety and overfund airline safety. It's a matter of economics. If we're spending $10m per life saved in airlines and $300k per life saved on the road then we could save more lives by adjusting the expenditures. > No we hold Airline's responsible for it And I'm happy that we do, but we can still overfund health and safety in one part of the economy at the expense of the other.

by ppod 6y ago

nix23 6y ago

>like, an irrational amount given the risk. The risk that 300 Peoples at once can die? I think that's very rational.

ppod 6y ago
It seems to me that this danger receives a much larger degree of attention than other dangers which are more likely to happen, such as road traffic death.
- rightbyte 6y ago
  Ye but imagine how dangerous airtravel would be if the safety routines were on level with road travel procedures (i.e. one checkup a year and pretravel routines always ignored).
  - nix23 6y ago
    It would be like that: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/25/business/pakistan-fake-pilot-intl-hnk/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/25/business/pakistan-fake-pi... and the crash that led to the findings: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-53162627 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-53162627
    - rightbyte 6y ago
      Yes. I say when people e.g. compare paragliding to traffic dangers, "imagine taking those precautions you do before paragliding when walking over the road". It is just different things and the statistics doesn't tell you much about the danger from doing it.
3pt14159 6y ago
No. It's rational to focus on things like sugary drinks that lead to diabetes or to work on improving road conditions for motorists and cyclists. So few people die per unit distance traveled by plane that we're probably over investing in airline safety. It's that when an accident happens it's front page news, so the feedback to the overall system is more pronounced than when a person in their 50s has a heart attack.
- Retric 6y ago
  It’s relatively cheaper to increase aircraft safety because you also save the aircraft at the same time you save the people. Crash lawsuits are also much simpler vs say soft drinks. That alignment of incentives is very different than say coal pollution. Airlines directly save money when accidents are avoided, but power plants only lose money when they add scrubbers.
- nix23 6y ago
  >sugary drinks Whats there to think about it? Don't drink it (or not too much), that's where YOU are responsible for YOUR life and not the life of others. The Airline and Pilots are responsible for your safe travel. >road conditions for motorists and cyclists In Germany 445 people died in bicycle accidents in 2018, that's 1.5 Aircraft's. And please just use a helmet, but you are right sure. But neglect Air-safety to make Roads safer sounds stupid...why not do both. 43% don't wear helmets and 37% are against mandatory helmets on bicycles, again that's YOUR responsibility: https://www.thelocal.de/20161207/should-germans-be-made-to-wear-bike-helmets-cycling-germany-australia https://www.thelocal.de/20161207/should-germans-be-made-to-w... >we're probably over investing in airline safety. No we hold Airline's responsible for it, if you don't do that this will happen over time: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/25/business/pakistan-fake-pilot-intl-hnk/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/25/business/pakistan-fake-pi... >50s has a heart attack True because it's not something you or i can change, maybe he/she had bad habits (drinking, drinking sugar etc) maybe genetic, maybe could not afford a insurance (and this is something we should and could change)
  - 3pt14159 6y ago
    > Whats there to think about it? Don't drink it There are social costs to obesity and diabetes. They should be taxed like alcohol and tobacco and selling sugary drinks to children should be curtailed. We should have warning labels and government funded commercial campaigns highlighting the issue. We should subsidize healthier foods like vegetables and promote a healthy and active lifestyle. We should make nutritional education a core part of education. > But neglect Air-safety to make Roads safer sounds stupid...why not do both. We presently do both, but we underfund road safety and overfund airline safety. It's a matter of economics. If we're spending $10m per life saved in airlines and $300k per life saved on the road then we could save more lives by adjusting the expenditures. > No we hold Airline's responsible for it And I'm happy that we do, but we can still overfund health and safety in one part of the economy at the expense of the other.