3 ms·

Cars are significantly safer than they are required to be.

atmavatar 3y ago
That's not exactly a ringing endorsement, given there are tens of thousands of auto fatalities every year. In fact, as I understand it, you are far more likely to die while driving to the airport than flying for any given trip you take.
- quickthrower2 3y ago
  The commercial aircraft vs. private equivalent of a car is probably a train.
  - samtho 3y ago
    Or perhaps a (non air) bus
- LanceH 3y ago
  Different kinds of miles. You would be far more likely to die landing that 737 at my grocery store.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  That isn't because of the cars, it's because of the drivers. If you get into a plane crash you pretty much die; safety rules are directed to preventing crashes. Only 2% of car crashes are caused by mechanical failure and nearly all of those are from improper maintenance rather than vehicle design flaws.
  - killerpopiller 3y ago
    probably true, the EU plans to require drivers for bigger cars to have a special drivers license to bring car crash fatalities to 0.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      Only for new liscences, and that provisions seems unable to get a majority at the moment. Which kind of makes sense, why limit it to weight? EVs and most family cars are above the proposed 1.8 tons. Limiting it by power / speed (EVs have a ton of power but lower top speeds) would make more sense, similar to what we had for motorbikes in the past.
  - rob74 3y ago
    > If you get into a plane crash you pretty much die If you're thinking about the scariest plane crashes, where the plane hits the ground at more or less cruise speed, you're right. But, when a crash occurs during take-off or landing (and that's most of the crashes, although they don't tend to capture the public's imagination as much as the others), the chances are much better. There are some photos of pretty badly broken up and/or burned planes (e.g. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/emirates-jet-burns-runway-after-dubai-airport-incident-n622046 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/emirates-jet-burns-runway...) where you would be surprised to hear that all or most passengers managed to get out...
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > But, when a crash occurs during take-off or landing (and that's most of the crashes, although they don't tend to capture the public's imagination as much as the others), the chances are much better. This is not really attributable to planes having great safety features though, it's just the type of event which is most survivable (and which they therefore spend fewer resources trying to minimize). It's basically like saying that people rarely die in car accidents that occur in parking lots. That's neither the reason for nor the result of the modern safety features.
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
In particular, cars (like personal aircraft) are predominantly bought by the people who ride in them, so this is the kind of market where buyers will actually care about safety. Compare this to a market where e.g. a government agency or health insurance company is choosing which product to buy for someone else to use.
anonymousab 3y ago
For the drivers inside, but not for everyone else. In fact, they just had getting bigger and bigger, an arms race prompted by bad regulation but kicked into perpetual high gear by standard market and consumer forces.
starfallg 3y ago
Euro NCAP, for example, was a UK government initiative that was adopted continent-wide. Car makers used safety as marketing to prompt people to replace older cars with newer safer ones, and it worked in this context.
Qwertious 3y ago
The single biggest design factors on whether a car will kill someone they hit, is its weight and height. And cars are significantly heavier and taller than they need to be.
- wombatpm 3y ago
  I learned in Driver’s Ed that if I was ever in an accident I wanted to be in a head on collision at 45 mph in a 74 Lincoln Continental hitting a 72 Chevy Vega. I think you would be hard pressed to find a heavier passenger car.
  - foxyv 3y ago
    I think they were talking about people walking or cycling.

That's not exactly a ringing endorsement, given there are tens of thousands of auto fatalities every year. In fact, as I understand it, you are far more likely to die while driving to the airport than flying for any given trip you take.

quickthrower2 3y ago
The commercial aircraft vs. private equivalent of a car is probably a train.
- samtho 3y ago
  Or perhaps a (non air) bus
LanceH 3y ago
Different kinds of miles. You would be far more likely to die landing that 737 at my grocery store.
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
That isn't because of the cars, it's because of the drivers. If you get into a plane crash you pretty much die; safety rules are directed to preventing crashes. Only 2% of car crashes are caused by mechanical failure and nearly all of those are from improper maintenance rather than vehicle design flaws.
- killerpopiller 3y ago
  probably true, the EU plans to require drivers for bigger cars to have a special drivers license to bring car crash fatalities to 0.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    Only for new liscences, and that provisions seems unable to get a majority at the moment. Which kind of makes sense, why limit it to weight? EVs and most family cars are above the proposed 1.8 tons. Limiting it by power / speed (EVs have a ton of power but lower top speeds) would make more sense, similar to what we had for motorbikes in the past.
- rob74 3y ago
  > If you get into a plane crash you pretty much die If you're thinking about the scariest plane crashes, where the plane hits the ground at more or less cruise speed, you're right. But, when a crash occurs during take-off or landing (and that's most of the crashes, although they don't tend to capture the public's imagination as much as the others), the chances are much better. There are some photos of pretty badly broken up and/or burned planes (e.g. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/emirates-jet-burns-runway-after-dubai-airport-incident-n622046 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/emirates-jet-burns-runway...) where you would be surprised to hear that all or most passengers managed to get out...
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > But, when a crash occurs during take-off or landing (and that's most of the crashes, although they don't tend to capture the public's imagination as much as the others), the chances are much better. This is not really attributable to planes having great safety features though, it's just the type of event which is most survivable (and which they therefore spend fewer resources trying to minimize). It's basically like saying that people rarely die in car accidents that occur in parking lots. That's neither the reason for nor the result of the modern safety features.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

In particular, cars (like personal aircraft) are predominantly bought by the people who ride in them, so this is the kind of market where buyers will actually care about safety. Compare this to a market where e.g. a government agency or health insurance company is choosing which product to buy for someone else to use.

anonymousab 3y ago

For the drivers inside, but not for everyone else. In fact, they just had getting bigger and bigger, an arms race prompted by bad regulation but kicked into perpetual high gear by standard market and consumer forces.

starfallg 3y ago

Euro NCAP, for example, was a UK government initiative that was adopted continent-wide. Car makers used safety as marketing to prompt people to replace older cars with newer safer ones, and it worked in this context.

Qwertious 3y ago

The single biggest design factors on whether a car will kill someone they hit, is its weight and height. And cars are significantly heavier and taller than they need to be.

wombatpm 3y ago
I learned in Driver’s Ed that if I was ever in an accident I wanted to be in a head on collision at 45 mph in a 74 Lincoln Continental hitting a 72 Chevy Vega. I think you would be hard pressed to find a heavier passenger car.
- foxyv 3y ago
  I think they were talking about people walking or cycling.