6 ms·

In general though flying is much safer than highway driving. If one wanted to minimize risk, one would always fly.

by publicola1990 6y ago

lovasoa 6y ago
Flying is actually much more dangerous than driving. The risk is to destroy the environment that sustains life on earth. This does not even compare with the risk of a car or plane accident.
- varajelle 6y ago
  I believe it might be better for the environnement to share a full plane than be alone in your car, for equal distances.
  - jeromegv 6y ago
    Quotation needed. All studies show the impact of flying as being much higher than driving, even when shared.
    - varajelle 6y ago
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_aviation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_avia... > in 2018, CO2 emissions averaged 88 grams of CO2 per revenue passenger per km. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_transport https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_tran... > In Europe, the European Commission enforced that from 2015 all new cars registered shall not emit more than an average of 0.130 kg of CO2 per kilometre (kg CO2/km). The target is that by 2021 the average emissions for all new cars is 0.095 kg of CO2 per kilometre. 0.088 < 0.095 That said, the 88 grams figure might not be accurate for short flights. But we'd still be in the same order of magnitude as a car
      - lovasoa 6y ago
        I think you are comparing unrelated things. The average car ride is thousands of times shorter than the average flight, and transports more than one person. You cannot just compare the average emissions of cars and planes and make the conclusion that it makes sense to choose a plane over a car to reduce your carbon footprint. And even when you make this comparison with sensible data, the car still wins: https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint
        lumost 6y ago
        when comparing driving to flying between destinations, it's highly likely that the flight will have a shorter duration. The big wrinkle in this comparison is that planes burn most of their energy in the ascent to cruising speed/altitude. Energy consumption per mile is likely to be much higher on a short hop flight where cruising altitude is never reached than a 12 hour transoceanic flight.
        asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
        On the other hand short-haul flights don't climb to as high of altitudes. They only climb about 2/3rds as high. But then again the air is thicker so cruising is less efficient. Oh gosh, for want of data.
        jrockway 6y ago
        You have to assume that airlines have chosen a decent compromise here. Every wasted joule of energy translates to a higher fuel cost and a lower profit margin.
      - antman 6y ago
        If also air distance calculated as the crow flies vs actual car km the numbers will be more air travel favirable
- GuB-42 6y ago
  If you are alone in your car, flying and driving are in the same ballpark when it comes to emissions. Trains are much, much lower. Especially considering that in France, most lines are electrified and 70% of production is nuclear.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
js2 6y ago
The difference in relative risk is high, but the absolute risk of dying in a car is still pretty low if you're sober, wearing a seatbelt, and not speeding. Oh, and apparently if you're not driving in the U.S. Geez, didn't realize we're such crappy drivers here. https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/motor-vehicle-safety/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/motor-vehicle-safety/index.ht...
- martin8412 6y ago
  Several things will need to change for that number to be lower. Licenses needs to be much more difficult to obtain, and a lot easier to lose. There are things allowed on American roads that could cost you your license in countries with lower numbers. Cars should have higher safety standards. Basically a lot of people wouldn't be able to drive anymore.
- ziml77 6y ago
  It's really easy to get a license in the US and cops focus on looking for speeders over other forms of dangerous driving.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  It's mostly not that people in the US drive worse, it's that people in the US drive more. Similar risk multiplied by more miles leads to more fatalities.
  - bildung 6y ago
    Sadly that isn't the case: The actual fatalities and accidents per billion km driven is higher in the US than many other industrialized countries, so it's not about more km/miles being driven in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...
    - Guthur 6y ago
      Are they also reluctant to wear seat belts?

In general though flying is much safer than highway driving. If one wanted to minimize risk, one would always fly.

Flying is actually much more dangerous than driving. The risk is to destroy the environment that sustains life on earth. This does not even compare with the risk of a car or plane accident.

varajelle 6y ago
I believe it might be better for the environnement to share a full plane than be alone in your car, for equal distances.
- jeromegv 6y ago
  Quotation needed. All studies show the impact of flying as being much higher than driving, even when shared.
  - varajelle 6y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_aviation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_avia... > in 2018, CO2 emissions averaged 88 grams of CO2 per revenue passenger per km. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_transport https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_tran... > In Europe, the European Commission enforced that from 2015 all new cars registered shall not emit more than an average of 0.130 kg of CO2 per kilometre (kg CO2/km). The target is that by 2021 the average emissions for all new cars is 0.095 kg of CO2 per kilometre. 0.088 < 0.095 That said, the 88 grams figure might not be accurate for short flights. But we'd still be in the same order of magnitude as a car
    - lovasoa 6y ago
      I think you are comparing unrelated things. The average car ride is thousands of times shorter than the average flight, and transports more than one person. You cannot just compare the average emissions of cars and planes and make the conclusion that it makes sense to choose a plane over a car to reduce your carbon footprint. And even when you make this comparison with sensible data, the car still wins: https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint
      - lumost 6y ago
        when comparing driving to flying between destinations, it's highly likely that the flight will have a shorter duration. The big wrinkle in this comparison is that planes burn most of their energy in the ascent to cruising speed/altitude. Energy consumption per mile is likely to be much higher on a short hop flight where cruising altitude is never reached than a 12 hour transoceanic flight.
        asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
        On the other hand short-haul flights don't climb to as high of altitudes. They only climb about 2/3rds as high. But then again the air is thicker so cruising is less efficient. Oh gosh, for want of data.
        jrockway 6y ago
        You have to assume that airlines have chosen a decent compromise here. Every wasted joule of energy translates to a higher fuel cost and a lower profit margin.
    - antman 6y ago
      If also air distance calculated as the crow flies vs actual car km the numbers will be more air travel favirable
GuB-42 6y ago
If you are alone in your car, flying and driving are in the same ballpark when it comes to emissions. Trains are much, much lower. Especially considering that in France, most lines are electrified and 70% of production is nuclear.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

js2 6y ago

The difference in relative risk is high, but the absolute risk of dying in a car is still pretty low if you're sober, wearing a seatbelt, and not speeding. Oh, and apparently if you're not driving in the U.S. Geez, didn't realize we're such crappy drivers here. https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/motor-vehicle-safety/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/motor-vehicle-safety/index.ht...

martin8412 6y ago
Several things will need to change for that number to be lower. Licenses needs to be much more difficult to obtain, and a lot easier to lose. There are things allowed on American roads that could cost you your license in countries with lower numbers. Cars should have higher safety standards. Basically a lot of people wouldn't be able to drive anymore.
ziml77 6y ago
It's really easy to get a license in the US and cops focus on looking for speeders over other forms of dangerous driving.
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
It's mostly not that people in the US drive worse, it's that people in the US drive more. Similar risk multiplied by more miles leads to more fatalities.
- bildung 6y ago
  Sadly that isn't the case: The actual fatalities and accidents per billion km driven is higher in the US than many other industrialized countries, so it's not about more km/miles being driven in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...
  - Guthur 6y ago
    Are they also reluctant to wear seat belts?