6 ms·

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

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.
  - nix23 6y ago
    >They should be taxed like alcohol and tobacco and selling sugary drinks to children should be curtailed. Absolute no problem with that, but has nothing to-do with airline security. >but we underfund road safety and overfund airline safety I dont know where you life, but here 'WHE' pay nothing for Airline safety, but every passenger does, and flying is still too cheap. >but we can still overfund health and safety in one part of the economy at the expense of the other. I really don't know what a country that is, but here (Switzerland) every passenger pays a tax for the Airport which is responsible for the Air-control and the Security, and the Airport just lets Airlines land when they meet international Security standards, its not a public spend but a private one (from the passenger). And i think it's the exact same in your country.
- labawi 6y ago
  Mandatory helmets while walking would extend thousands of lives, but it's not very effective against road kills and it doesn't change the fact that cycling and walking fatalities overwhelmingly involve cars or bigger vehicles. Countries with biking cultures don't use helmets, because it's safe. Safer than countries with helmets. They just don't let cars ride fast near them.
oceanghost 6y ago
Your argument is so ridiculous I have trouble believing you're serious. As a society the doctors can focus on diabetes, the aerospace engineers can focus on planes, and the city planners can focus on traffic safety, simultaneously. The reason people are focused on airline safety (to the extent they are), is because there was a huge scandal. It's entirely rational to investigate.
- dash2 6y ago
  > As a society the doctors can focus on diabetes, the aerospace engineers can focus on planes, and the city planners can focus on traffic safety, simultaneously. Unfortunately, when budgets are finite, we cannot prioritize everything. OP's argument was that we spend too much money responding to visible, spectacular disasters, and too little on ongoing small harms which add up. There is some good evidence for this - for example Healy et al "Myopic voters and natural disaster policy", which shows that politicians overspend greatly on disaster response and underspend greatly on disaster preparedness. Another example would be the response to the 2000 Hatfield rail crash, which killed four people. The expensive safety systems then fit on trains cost so much, and added so much to the price of a ticket, that they probably killed more people than they saved, because people moved to on the road - which is a much more dangerous mode of transport.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - nix23 6y ago
    But the Argument is from ground up wrong. >we spend too much money responding to visible I that case the Aircraft producer has to invests that money, NOT the public. I'm not saying you are wrong, not OP, not you. But the argument is just plane wrong. Again, nearly every commercial plane-crash goes with 100% loss of life, in a vehicle where you can not break or stop, if something important goes wrong you will crash and loose 300 life's. But i think we all know that a plane crash or a train accident with 3 death's is much more Frontpage'able than toxic amount's of sugar in drinks, or pesticides, but that's a People and Press problem and not a technical one.

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.
- nix23 6y ago
  >They should be taxed like alcohol and tobacco and selling sugary drinks to children should be curtailed. Absolute no problem with that, but has nothing to-do with airline security. >but we underfund road safety and overfund airline safety I dont know where you life, but here 'WHE' pay nothing for Airline safety, but every passenger does, and flying is still too cheap. >but we can still overfund health and safety in one part of the economy at the expense of the other. I really don't know what a country that is, but here (Switzerland) every passenger pays a tax for the Airport which is responsible for the Air-control and the Security, and the Airport just lets Airlines land when they meet international Security standards, its not a public spend but a private one (from the passenger). And i think it's the exact same in your country.
labawi 6y ago
Mandatory helmets while walking would extend thousands of lives, but it's not very effective against road kills and it doesn't change the fact that cycling and walking fatalities overwhelmingly involve cars or bigger vehicles. Countries with biking cultures don't use helmets, because it's safe. Safer than countries with helmets. They just don't let cars ride fast near them.

oceanghost 6y ago

Your argument is so ridiculous I have trouble believing you're serious. As a society the doctors can focus on diabetes, the aerospace engineers can focus on planes, and the city planners can focus on traffic safety, simultaneously. The reason people are focused on airline safety (to the extent they are), is because there was a huge scandal. It's entirely rational to investigate.

dash2 6y ago
> As a society the doctors can focus on diabetes, the aerospace engineers can focus on planes, and the city planners can focus on traffic safety, simultaneously. Unfortunately, when budgets are finite, we cannot prioritize everything. OP's argument was that we spend too much money responding to visible, spectacular disasters, and too little on ongoing small harms which add up. There is some good evidence for this - for example Healy et al "Myopic voters and natural disaster policy", which shows that politicians overspend greatly on disaster response and underspend greatly on disaster preparedness. Another example would be the response to the 2000 Hatfield rail crash, which killed four people. The expensive safety systems then fit on trains cost so much, and added so much to the price of a ticket, that they probably killed more people than they saved, because people moved to on the road - which is a much more dangerous mode of transport.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- nix23 6y ago
  But the Argument is from ground up wrong. >we spend too much money responding to visible I that case the Aircraft producer has to invests that money, NOT the public. I'm not saying you are wrong, not OP, not you. But the argument is just plane wrong. Again, nearly every commercial plane-crash goes with 100% loss of life, in a vehicle where you can not break or stop, if something important goes wrong you will crash and loose 300 life's. But i think we all know that a plane crash or a train accident with 3 death's is much more Frontpage'able than toxic amount's of sugar in drinks, or pesticides, but that's a People and Press problem and not a technical one.