Posted on 03/26/2015 5:25:59 PM PDT by Kaslin
And the fact that you are completely dependent on the integrity of a machine.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I disagree. You are completeley dependent on: Pilot, weather, terrorist acts, acts of god, bad software, integrity of a machine, etc.
Most car trips are only a few miles. A trip to the corner store is statistically far less likely to involve as many dangerous situations as a 100 mile trip.
A far better comparison would be accidents per hour of travel time but we don’t have the means to measure it at this time. It would show how dangerous spending 1hr in a plane is compared to driving.
But even that is almost meaningless since driving safety primarily depends on driver skill and reaction to other drivers. Flying airliners is far more dependent on mechanical systems and weather. One driver might actually be far safer than flying but another could be constantly getting into accidents.
I suppose that is why people are so terrified of flying- the sheer randomness of accidents and no control.
The number of people who die in the United States on the tables of the CHOICE clinics is roughly on average 1,000,000 people a year.
The biggest factor: the Grace of GOD
More accurately, in a car you are usually in control.
But sometimes you are not, as anybody who's ever hit a patch of black ice can attest. Or barely missed being obliterated by an out of control semi.
So sometimes you just have the illusion of being "in control."
While this is accurate, it also sees a lot of traffic during spring break. Not that I wouldn’t live there in a heartbeat - particularly in the spring - but Hulka seems to want to avoid crowds. Maybe down near St. Mary’s would be a good bet, though.
Thanks, guys. Will look as per your suggestions.
I am tired to the noise and lots of people associated with big cities. Had enough with the urban challenges.
Because we love our machines.
Aircraft and ocean-going ships are often some of our most beautiful creations.
To see them destroyed is heart-breaking. To think someone would wreck them deliberately is scary.
I think we already know where this investigation is leading.
Islam?
Ha!
I tried to get to Florida after Christmas, and ended up seeing a LOT of Georgia countryside (And Tennessee, too) that paralleled (more or less) the Interstate.
Gridlock on an interstate?
Not in Indiana!
Besides; EVERY tenth driver in T & G are evidently practicing for qualifying for some upcoming NASCAR race.
I've NEVER seen so many reckless idiots careening in and out of traffic!
Then there are the absolutely CRAZY bikers that are going at LEAST 110 MPH!
Thank GOD (or maybe AlGore) for a cell phone with GPS and mapping on it!
I hear ya!
I was a city person for 60+ years, until I moved to the relative boonies.
I've got 13 acres to play on now and some critters to attend.
I came to realize why GOD put man in a garden.
I hope I'm not too spoiled by it all to appreciate the city from GOD, coming down from Heaven.
Revelation 21:2
Okay, fine.....I get that you are not always in control 100% of the time in 100% of situations. But you are in control most of the time, and you can survive black ice even if there’s an accident. The topic at hand was not literal control of a vehicle, but the emotional reaction to a plane crash versus car accident.
Georgia drivers aren’t fast, the rest of you are simply too slow.
I agree with that.
But given the wildly disproportionate death rate per mile traveled for car vs. airplane, I’d simply note that the emotional reaction is not based on facts.
In fact, while accurate statistics are hard to come by, it is probable other modes of transport are not as safe as we think they are. Cycling and walking are 10x to 15x more dangerous per mile traveled than driving. Motorcycles, of course, are the most dangerous standard mode of transport, at 30x to 50x more dangerous than cars per mile traveled.
All this goes to show is that emotional reactions are not a particularly good basis for making decisions about risk.
Would also like to point out that if you’re a passenger in a car you have just as little control as a passenger in an airplane.
Despite the fact that total miles traveled keep going up.
This means that deaths per mile are going down rapidly.
Number of trips seems to be an inappropriate metric.
I think risk per hour or risk per mile makes more sense.
In one NZ study I ran across, it showed risk per hour was about the same for driving and walking. Since cars generally travel faster than people on foot, you can extrapolate the risk per mile yourself.
How can that be with the proliferation of cell phones? Worse than drunk driving. Shouldn’t those numbers have climbed?
Cars themselves are much safer in crashes these days.
The proof of it is that all the ambulance chasing tort lawyers have branched out into SocSec disability law because vehicle injury business is falling off.
Of course it’s not based on facts. That’s why the discussion is fascinating....that is assumed. If it were simply fact based, it would just be a thing, not a fascinating human nature thing.
Altho there is one fact that is important: the horror of knowing for many minutes you’re going to hit the ground and die is a horror that is only maybe a half second or so in a bad car crash. And in some cases, these poor souls know at 30 thousand feet they’re doomed. (not the case with Germanwings - they apparently knew for just a few seconds.)
Altho, seeing the captain try to break into the cockpit with an axe could not have been comforting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.