Re:US airlines transported passengers over two light-years s...
by DrScientist on Monday December 02, 2024 @10:07AM
(#42296899)
The other key point when comparing car stats to flights is car stats include pedestrian/cyclist and motorcyclist deaths which make up perhaps around half of the deaths.
Yet I suspect the people in twin towers weren't included in airline death stats.
Sure there isn't a perfect single metric - just pointing out that the one the airlines prefer appears to be biased towards air-travel.
The other factor that is often ignored is the issue of control. As a passenger of an airline you have very little impact on the chance of an accident - you are just an accident statistic.
Whereas if you are driving, your own driving behaviour, choice of car, route etc puts you more in control of the chances ( though of course by no means completely ).
This has a big impact on the perception of risk ( as more than average think they are better than average :-) ).
If you really start including risk factors you'll never stop, the risk is proportional to many other factors as well:
1) Time of day: Time of day factors in probably for both flying and driving at varying degrees
2) Where: In the US, which state you're driving in matters significantly for driving fatality rates
3) Day of week: Driving on weekends is more dangerous than driving during the week, doesn't seem to affect flights
4) ATC is a variable for flight accidents but not drivers
5) Flights might actually carry more risk per mile in certain situations: Flying over the oceans, eg
A truly correct apples-to-apples comparison would be so hyper-specific as to be useless.