Replace "bus riders" with "airline passengers" and you've got a great argument against the new TSA screening processes.

TSA isn't just protecting the passengers on one flight from dying, they're protecting the entire airline industry and a large part of the US economy.

If a plane goes down due to a terrorist attack those unfortunate people end up dying. If you just calculate the cost of saving those people by implementing tough security measures you can argue that it's not cost effective.

BUT you can't just figure the lives of the people on the plane into your calculations. You have to figure the impact to the airline industry if people become afraid of flying and what will happen to the US economy when another successful attack comes.

All three (lives on plane, airline industry and economy) are worth having tough security measures in place.

The TSA's security measures are a farce according to any competent security researcher, so their net value is negative not only in preventing attacks, but in making flight for current passengers less safe as well as for those who will choose alternatives because of these policies.

What about when people stop of flying BECAUSE of the TSA and either don't fly or drive? How does that factor in?

"What about when people stop of flying BECAUSE of the TSA and either don't fly or drive? How does that factor in? reply"

So if they stop all of these security measures and people die as a result, you aren't going to blame the TSA or the airlines..right?

I do not blame the airlines for the previous terrorist attacks. Actions were taken to resolve the issue after the event so it is not like nothing has been done. Strengthening the cockpit doors and locking them is acceptable.

By that logic, TSA actually makes people less safe by causing people to take long dangerous road trips over safe flights.

Yes, the TSA's policies cause somewhere on the order of 100 extra road deaths each year.

If you have a source for that number, I'd love to spread it around.

Edit: I found a paper from 2007 that claims there were 129 extra driving fatalities in the last quarter of 2002 due to harsher airport security. http://aem.cornell.edu/faculty_sites/gb78/wp/JLE_6301.pdf (page 27)

And another 1,200 more deaths than expected in the three months following 9/11: http://ur.umich.edu/0405/Nov22_04/09.shtml

Or that backscatter X-ray machines odds of giving you cancer are roughly equal to those of dying in a terrorist attack: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/11/16/5477568-are-...

Yes, and I've also seen 150 road deaths on one http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/... and 190.7 deaths via all TSA causes in another that even includes methodoloty http://patrick.wagstrom.net/weblog/2010/11/24/do-the-tsa-new... The bias of those sources might skew their results, but I really doubt the number is less than 50, hence my use of "on the order of".

That's exactly right.

You've managed to stumble across Hacker News meme #17.

Until a problem is fixed, it is acceptable to communicate with solutions. (And if a problem remains unfixed after suitable solutions are offered, it is further acceptable to complain about it.)

I think my comment was misinterpreted by some. I don't disagree with his statement or with him saying it on Hacker News. I find it interesting that memes appear everywhere, even on sites that think they are "above them." Another example of a Hacker News meme is the phrase "Cargo Cult X." I've noticed others, but I can't recall them right now.

I remember feeling jealous when my teammates on the ski-team took their parent's cars up the mountain. But now I feel really safe for being in a school bus on those wet, snowy roads.