3 ms·

Do you look both ways when crossing the road? There are reasonable measures those around you can take to ensure that falling objects don't crash into you from

Do you look both ways when crossing the road? There are reasonable measures those around you can take to ensure that falling objects don't crash into you from the sky, or that the bridge you're on does not collapse as you're driving over it. The risk is mitigated by reducing likelihood and impact. There is nothing a pilot can do to avoid an air pocket. There is little mitigation possible.

marcinzm 2y ago
But then it's not about safety. It's about your need to feel in control of the situation even if the control is an illusion. That is fair in a way but saying it's a safety thing or that people are crazy for not needing to feel in control all the time isn't fair. Or even calling them crazy for not doing the same ultimately meaningless actions as you to create an illusion of control for themselves
- PaulRobinson 2y ago
  No, I'm talking about risk mitigation, not control.
  - riehwvfbk 2y ago
    So let's say the media started a campaign promoting wearing a helmet all the time. The anti-helmet people would be painted as reckless, feckless, and generally deplorable. All the celebrities would endorse wearing a helmet at all times. There would be New York Times editorials about "those people". Questions: Is this still about risk mitigation? If yes, are you at risk now? Why don't you wear your bike helmet at work all day? (never know when a ceiling tile could fall down) Would your opinion change following this hypothetical media blitz? Would you hop on the bandwagon and decry the irresponsibility of the anti-helmet folks? If you think about this for a second before hitting that downwards pointing triangle, does this dumb example mean that it's actually more about what's socially acceptable than actual safety? Why would you feel dumb wearing a helmet all day now, and dumb for not wearing it in that world?
    - rob74 2y ago
      The chance of an airplane hitting major turbulence unexpectedly, while pretty small, are much higher than the chance of some random debris falling from a building while you are passing by. Ultimately it's all weighing the inconvenience against the possible safety improvement: when you are sitting in your seat in a plane, the seatbelt is a very minor inconvenience. Wearing a helmet all the time is a much bigger inconvenience, with a much smaller benefit.
    - ghaff 2y ago
      Well, and in fact, helmet wearing at least in the US has become normalized in situations where no one other than competing athletes wore helmets for things like skiing or casual biking a few decades ago. Today you stand out by not doing so. Heck. Professional hockey players didn’t use to wear helmets.
    - Intermernet 2y ago
      A smart, independently minded person, would do the following risk analysis: - Planes fly through the atmosphere in varying conditions. - The conditions that lead to uncomfortable or dangerous turbulence are not at all uncommon. - These conditions are unpredictable and have little warning. - Wearing a seatbelt is a very minor inconvenience, and will protect me from the worst of the harms that can come from common turbulence. - I will wear a seatbelt. This doesn't seem complex. The argument about bike helmets, although nuanced, should have nothing to do with celebrities wearing them or not.
      - marcinzm 2y ago
        > - These conditions are unpredictable and have little warning Not true at all. The vast vast majority of turbulence incidents are very well predictable. It's not 1930 anymore. > - The conditions that lead to uncomfortable or dangerous turbulence are not at all uncommon. Except your flawed logic in the previous point flows to this point. The question isn't turbulence but unpredictable severe turbulence which is much rarer. About 1 per million flights I think which is far from common. > A smart, independently minded person, would do the following risk analysis: Given the flaws in the risks analysis I find this sentence hilarious.
MrMan 2y ago
[dead]

marcinzm 2y ago

But then it's not about safety. It's about your need to feel in control of the situation even if the control is an illusion. That is fair in a way but saying it's a safety thing or that people are crazy for not needing to feel in control all the time isn't fair. Or even calling them crazy for not doing the same ultimately meaningless actions as you to create an illusion of control for themselves

PaulRobinson 2y ago
No, I'm talking about risk mitigation, not control.
- riehwvfbk 2y ago
  So let's say the media started a campaign promoting wearing a helmet all the time. The anti-helmet people would be painted as reckless, feckless, and generally deplorable. All the celebrities would endorse wearing a helmet at all times. There would be New York Times editorials about "those people". Questions: Is this still about risk mitigation? If yes, are you at risk now? Why don't you wear your bike helmet at work all day? (never know when a ceiling tile could fall down) Would your opinion change following this hypothetical media blitz? Would you hop on the bandwagon and decry the irresponsibility of the anti-helmet folks? If you think about this for a second before hitting that downwards pointing triangle, does this dumb example mean that it's actually more about what's socially acceptable than actual safety? Why would you feel dumb wearing a helmet all day now, and dumb for not wearing it in that world?
  - rob74 2y ago
    The chance of an airplane hitting major turbulence unexpectedly, while pretty small, are much higher than the chance of some random debris falling from a building while you are passing by. Ultimately it's all weighing the inconvenience against the possible safety improvement: when you are sitting in your seat in a plane, the seatbelt is a very minor inconvenience. Wearing a helmet all the time is a much bigger inconvenience, with a much smaller benefit.
  - ghaff 2y ago
    Well, and in fact, helmet wearing at least in the US has become normalized in situations where no one other than competing athletes wore helmets for things like skiing or casual biking a few decades ago. Today you stand out by not doing so. Heck. Professional hockey players didn’t use to wear helmets.
  - Intermernet 2y ago
    A smart, independently minded person, would do the following risk analysis: - Planes fly through the atmosphere in varying conditions. - The conditions that lead to uncomfortable or dangerous turbulence are not at all uncommon. - These conditions are unpredictable and have little warning. - Wearing a seatbelt is a very minor inconvenience, and will protect me from the worst of the harms that can come from common turbulence. - I will wear a seatbelt. This doesn't seem complex. The argument about bike helmets, although nuanced, should have nothing to do with celebrities wearing them or not.
    - marcinzm 2y ago
      > - These conditions are unpredictable and have little warning Not true at all. The vast vast majority of turbulence incidents are very well predictable. It's not 1930 anymore. > - The conditions that lead to uncomfortable or dangerous turbulence are not at all uncommon. Except your flawed logic in the previous point flows to this point. The question isn't turbulence but unpredictable severe turbulence which is much rarer. About 1 per million flights I think which is far from common. > A smart, independently minded person, would do the following risk analysis: Given the flaws in the risks analysis I find this sentence hilarious.

MrMan 2y ago

[dead]