I did read it and I still think that planes killing 0 people in a good year on a global basis means that such effort is subtracted from other parts of society w

I did read it and I still think that planes killing 0 people in a good year on a global basis means that such effort is subtracted from other parts of society which ultimately plays so loose that kills people in droves. Just to mention the TSA you have to face in airports vs. absolutely fuck all lack of security while boarding trains and subway trains where you could be carrying a nuke or an AK47 in your suitcase and nobody checks a damn thing nor the ID etc. Plus the train arrives right in the city center where an ill intentioned individual could do maximum damage But not limiting to transportation means just observing how loose is safety in our cities where death is always around the corner (from accidental kinetic impact or human assault) > > One is by statistical methods and constant incremental improvement, It's the only game in town. We did that for ships, trains, automobiles and yes even planes, they aren't special. The lessons learned won't disappear. > > Spending less on air safety would make the currently-conspiratorial US public afraid of flying, particularly if 2 more 737-MAX type incidents happened. Air travel would drop off drastically, and all the travel that was worth it, would be done by automobile. This is the crux of it all, it's in fact a psychological problem not factual. The same that affects nuclear reactors. If 2 737Max go down in 2026 airplanes would still be many orders of magnitude on a casualty per mile traveled on a unit of time basis, especially when compared against automobiles.