3 ms·
> taking the number of crashes per kilometer, and multiplying by the number of kilometers you'll drive for. A trip of 5000km is less safe than a 5km one. When
by _heimdall 2y ago
> taking the number of crashes per kilometer, and multiplying by the number of kilometers you'll drive for. A trip of 5000km is less safe than a 5km one.
When comparing a difference of 1000x, sure its probably safer.
Your premise is wrong though, it isn't common sense to take a generalized statistic like deaths per km and extrapolate that to be the correct estimate for any particular trip.
The statistic loses all context of differences in vehicles, road conditions, time of day, specific roads, etc. The stat is a great example of how a statistic seems meaningful to get a big picture but is completely useless to us as we can't make any decisions based on a number that is so generalized as to lose all context and meaning.
- berndi 2y agoCommon sense means taking the less risky option. Assuming that the survival rate is constant as a function of trip length, the empirical estimate of the risk is fully determined by the number of deaths per distance.
- sokoloff 2y agoIn this case, they’re not fully determined by distance. Airline travel is much riskier in takeoff and landing phases. A bunch of 200 mile flights is riskier than a 3500 mile trans-con trip. Car travel is much safer on controlled access highways than 40 mph surface streets.
- _heimdall 2y ago> Assuming that the survival rate is constant as a function of trip length That's an assumption that doesn't hold up, at least that's the argument I was trying to make above. Generalizing so much data down to a single statistic makes the number useless. Almost all context is lost, really the only context kept is mode of transportation and distance traveled. That isn't enough to help anyone make a decision for any particular trip.