Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: CarrotAndStick
Are there any statistics available on the survivability of a technical snag occurring in a car vs. that occurring in a plane?

That's the job of the MSM in their endeavors in informing the public.

I'd wager the automobile is more survivable.

Why?

The plane has far more critical components that are likely to fail, and likely to lead to a fatal disaster, as a result, should they happen, than the car.

That's why cars don't require annual, 100 hour, 200 hour, 300 hour, 600 hour, 1000, 1200 hour, 5000 hour, 10,000 hour tear down inspections and tractability guaranteed on every part replaced on them.

Like always, statistics can be designed to "favor" a viewpoint.

15 posted on 05/05/2007 5:05:42 AM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: EGPWS
Why?

For starters, most often, you're worried about controlling motion in two dimensions in a car, instead of the additional headache of the third dimension, on a flying plane. Add to that the field of gravity...

What I'm trying to say is that one would have to take several times more rides on a car to meet with an accident statistically, than on a plane. People don't fly as much as they drive.

16 posted on 05/05/2007 5:12:43 AM PDT by CarrotAndStick (The articles posted by me needn't necessarily reflect my opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson