6 ms·

I think these are just different measurements of safety. I do trust a subway to get to its destination on a reasonable schedule to a greater degree than an Uber

by llbbdd 1y ago

I think these are just different measurements of safety. I do trust a subway to get to its destination on a reasonable schedule to a greater degree than an Uber, but to me that's a very different question than physical safety. The NYC subway is a great example of this actually, since it does seem to run very well but in the last year has had multiple horrifying incidents.

palata 1y ago
> The NYC subway is a great example of this actually, since it does seem to run very well but in the last year has had multiple horrifying incidents. Boeing has had multiple horrifying incidents in the last years. Would you say that aviation is unsafe?
- llbbdd 1y ago
  Again I think these are different concerns. On a plane I am with a section of the public that can hold their life together enough to buy a plane ticket, and I do not feel overtly physically threatened by them. On a subway I am with a section of the public so prolifically jumping over turnstiles that it's a systemic concern for for the subway itself. Concerns about the engineering mettle at Boeing or whoever provides the subway cars for NYC are separate.
  - palata 1y ago
    That's not what I meant. I understand that there are uncomfortable experiences in the subway in big cities. But statistically, what percentage of the people get physically hurt as compared to the total number of travellers? Same applies to planes: the quality of Boeing seems to have gone down in the last few years to the point where I choose airlines flying Airbus. That's my feeling, it is valid as a feeling. But statistically, the likelihood of my flight with Boeing ending up in a crash is very small.
    - llbbdd 1y ago
      For me it comes down to a very binary decision. Any measurable number of passenger-on-passenger incidents in the NYC subway is enough to give me pause over taking a taxi or Uber. It doesn't happen on planes, and taxis and uber have better audit trails, and the bad stuff mostly happens outside the US, where I live. In both of these situations I'm also at the mercy of a bunch of lazy engineers and a Jira board. It's valid to try to pick the better engineers. But my immediate concern is my physical safety, and the safety of the people I bring with me, and a private situation is always going to be the safer option when the primary threat is the strangers around me.
      - palata 1y ago
        > a private situation is always going to be the safer option when the primary threat is the strangers around me. Sure, but what I'm saying is that maybe you over-estimate the threat. > Any measurable number of passenger-on-passenger incidents in the NYC subway is enough to give me pause I don't see why you apply that to the NYC subway and not to Boeing flights: Boeing planes have crashed because of technical issues. The fact that they haven't crashed on the US soil doesn't say it's safer to fly them in the US. So there is a measurable number of deadly incidents that happened with Boeing planes. I find it interesting that it doesn't give you pause at all, but the subway incidents do.
        llbbdd 1y ago
        Over-estimation or not, it's safer to take an Uber than the subway or bus. The granularities of the stats don't affect my decision much. > I don't see why you apply that to the NYC subway and not to Boeing flights Because again technical and social issues merit different weighting. If I'm flying on a 787-MAX I am at the mercy of all the good and bad design decisions that went into producing it. Those will be relatively consistent between flights for better or worse. The population of people traveling on a bus or subway routinely changes and is much less predictable. That predictability matters a lot here (to me). And given the option between weighting the threat of strangers around me vs. the threat of technical issues with a particular manufacturer, it seems to me that Boeing would have to crash a lot of planes on US soil before it would outweigh the number of people threatened or made uncomfortable on other forms of public transit.

by llbbdd 1y ago

palata 1y ago

> The NYC subway is a great example of this actually, since it does seem to run very well but in the last year has had multiple horrifying incidents. Boeing has had multiple horrifying incidents in the last years. Would you say that aviation is unsafe?

llbbdd 1y ago
Again I think these are different concerns. On a plane I am with a section of the public that can hold their life together enough to buy a plane ticket, and I do not feel overtly physically threatened by them. On a subway I am with a section of the public so prolifically jumping over turnstiles that it's a systemic concern for for the subway itself. Concerns about the engineering mettle at Boeing or whoever provides the subway cars for NYC are separate.
- palata 1y ago
  That's not what I meant. I understand that there are uncomfortable experiences in the subway in big cities. But statistically, what percentage of the people get physically hurt as compared to the total number of travellers? Same applies to planes: the quality of Boeing seems to have gone down in the last few years to the point where I choose airlines flying Airbus. That's my feeling, it is valid as a feeling. But statistically, the likelihood of my flight with Boeing ending up in a crash is very small.
  - llbbdd 1y ago
    For me it comes down to a very binary decision. Any measurable number of passenger-on-passenger incidents in the NYC subway is enough to give me pause over taking a taxi or Uber. It doesn't happen on planes, and taxis and uber have better audit trails, and the bad stuff mostly happens outside the US, where I live. In both of these situations I'm also at the mercy of a bunch of lazy engineers and a Jira board. It's valid to try to pick the better engineers. But my immediate concern is my physical safety, and the safety of the people I bring with me, and a private situation is always going to be the safer option when the primary threat is the strangers around me.
    - palata 1y ago
      > a private situation is always going to be the safer option when the primary threat is the strangers around me. Sure, but what I'm saying is that maybe you over-estimate the threat. > Any measurable number of passenger-on-passenger incidents in the NYC subway is enough to give me pause I don't see why you apply that to the NYC subway and not to Boeing flights: Boeing planes have crashed because of technical issues. The fact that they haven't crashed on the US soil doesn't say it's safer to fly them in the US. So there is a measurable number of deadly incidents that happened with Boeing planes. I find it interesting that it doesn't give you pause at all, but the subway incidents do.
      - llbbdd 1y ago
        Over-estimation or not, it's safer to take an Uber than the subway or bus. The granularities of the stats don't affect my decision much. > I don't see why you apply that to the NYC subway and not to Boeing flights Because again technical and social issues merit different weighting. If I'm flying on a 787-MAX I am at the mercy of all the good and bad design decisions that went into producing it. Those will be relatively consistent between flights for better or worse. The population of people traveling on a bus or subway routinely changes and is much less predictable. That predictability matters a lot here (to me). And given the option between weighting the threat of strangers around me vs. the threat of technical issues with a particular manufacturer, it seems to me that Boeing would have to crash a lot of planes on US soil before it would outweigh the number of people threatened or made uncomfortable on other forms of public transit.