Re:US airlines transported passengers over two light-years s...
by n144q on Monday December 02, 2024 @07:33AM
(#42295568)
You don't take a plane for a 2 mile trip, when that's one of the most common uses of a car. How does comparing "per trip" make any sense when planes don't even get you to where you need?
Re:US airlines transported passengers over two light-years s...
by ben_w on Monday December 02, 2024 @08:41AM
(#42296100)
For any scenario where planes are not an option, their safety (or lack of it) is fictitious anyway.
I was thinking more along the lines of: I'm in Berlin, and it's possible for me to visit friends family in the UK by train* or by plane. If I want to visit them, I pick one of those options (plus the option of ferry or train for the channel).
If I want to go to the shops, my options are bus or walk*.
If I want to just go somewhere on holiday and I don't care where exactly, I can take the bus, trains, planes, etc., and pick my destination to taste, and at that point it's min( P(death or injury ∣ x ∈ destinations, y ∈ modes of transport) )
* not by car, I would have had to transfer my license within 6 months of moving here and I didn't, so it's not valid any more
But if I don't care about the destination, and only the risk, then I may simply choose somewhere close enough that the (risk per km * distance) from the other mode(s) of transportation is less than the risk from a flight.