4 ms·

Why would you count trips and not distance? The output of "traveling" is distance, and air travel is by far the safest method of generating that distance. Meas

by mopsi 2y ago

Why would you count trips and not distance? The output of "traveling" is distance, and air travel is by far the safest method of generating that distance. Measures like accidents per hour or per trip skew the numbers, because air travel generates much more distance per hour and per trip than other forms of transportation.

ben_w 2y ago
If I take a trip to a fixed destination, then per mile (by each mode of transport) makes sense as if gives me the least risky way to get there. But if I don't care about the destination, and only the risk, then I may simply choose somewhere close enough that the (risk per km * distance) from the other mode(s) of transportation is less than the risk from a flight.
- n144q 2y ago
  You don't take a plane for a 2 mile trip, when that's one of the most common uses of a car. How does comparing "per trip" make any sense when planes don't even get you to where you need?
  - ben_w 2y ago
    For any scenario where planes are not an option, their safety (or lack of it) is fictitious anyway. I was thinking more along the lines of: I'm in Berlin, and it's possible for me to visit friends family in the UK by train* or by plane. If I want to visit them, I pick one of those options (plus the option of ferry or train for the channel). If I want to go to the shops, my options are bus or walk*. If I want to just go somewhere on holiday and I don't care where exactly, I can take the bus, trains, planes, etc., and pick my destination to taste, and at that point it's min( P(death or injury ∣ x ∈ destinations, y ∈ modes of transport) ) * not by car, I would have had to transfer my license within 6 months of moving here and I didn't, so it's not valid any more
ANewFormation 2y ago
Imagine when we get the first interstellar ships. Even if 90% of them blow up at launch, it'd still be, by far, the 'safest' method of transit in existence if we use the deaths/mile stat. Even for planes the stat is deceptive. Most people, hearing about the safety of flight, would think that if they replaced their car with a plane then they'd be far less likely to die in a crash, but that would be untrue because the real risk in flight is take off and landing - the distance traveled is near irrelevant.
- stvltvs 2y ago
  Even assuming the stats are measuring the actual miles traveled and not the planned miles (I'm not sure that's true), the difference would be vanishingly small given how rarely planes crash on takeoff. The overwhelming majority of flights complete safely, so the denominator is barely changed at all if we don't include flights that crashed on takeoff.

by mopsi 2y ago

ben_w 2y ago

If I take a trip to a fixed destination, then per mile (by each mode of transport) makes sense as if gives me the least risky way to get there. But if I don't care about the destination, and only the risk, then I may simply choose somewhere close enough that the (risk per km * distance) from the other mode(s) of transportation is less than the risk from a flight.

n144q 2y ago
You don't take a plane for a 2 mile trip, when that's one of the most common uses of a car. How does comparing "per trip" make any sense when planes don't even get you to where you need?
- ben_w 2y ago
  For any scenario where planes are not an option, their safety (or lack of it) is fictitious anyway. I was thinking more along the lines of: I'm in Berlin, and it's possible for me to visit friends family in the UK by train* or by plane. If I want to visit them, I pick one of those options (plus the option of ferry or train for the channel). If I want to go to the shops, my options are bus or walk*. If I want to just go somewhere on holiday and I don't care where exactly, I can take the bus, trains, planes, etc., and pick my destination to taste, and at that point it's min( P(death or injury ∣ x ∈ destinations, y ∈ modes of transport) ) * not by car, I would have had to transfer my license within 6 months of moving here and I didn't, so it's not valid any more

ANewFormation 2y ago

Imagine when we get the first interstellar ships. Even if 90% of them blow up at launch, it'd still be, by far, the 'safest' method of transit in existence if we use the deaths/mile stat. Even for planes the stat is deceptive. Most people, hearing about the safety of flight, would think that if they replaced their car with a plane then they'd be far less likely to die in a crash, but that would be untrue because the real risk in flight is take off and landing - the distance traveled is near irrelevant.

stvltvs 2y ago
Even assuming the stats are measuring the actual miles traveled and not the planned miles (I'm not sure that's true), the difference would be vanishingly small given how rarely planes crash on takeoff. The overwhelming majority of flights complete safely, so the denominator is barely changed at all if we don't include flights that crashed on takeoff.