Re:US airlines transported passengers over two light-years s...
by berndi on Monday December 02, 2024 @07:26AM
(#42295514)
Common sense means taking the less risky option.
Assuming that the survival rate is constant as a function of trip length, the empirical estimate of the risk is fully determined by the number of deaths per distance.
Re:US airlines transported passengers over two light-years s...
by sokoloff on Monday December 02, 2024 @07:32AM
(#42295560)
In this case, they’re not fully determined by distance.
Airline travel is much riskier in takeoff and landing phases. A bunch of 200 mile flights is riskier than a 3500 mile trans-con trip.
Car travel is much safer on controlled access highways than 40 mph surface streets.
Re:US airlines transported passengers over two light-years s...
by _heimdall on Monday December 02, 2024 @10:17AM
(#42297011)
> Assuming that the survival rate is constant as a function of trip length
That's an assumption that doesn't hold up, at least that's the argument I was trying to make above.
Generalizing so much data down to a single statistic makes the number useless. Almost all context is lost, really the only context kept is mode of transportation and distance traveled. That isn't enough to help anyone make a decision for any particular trip.
When comparing a difference of 1000x, sure its probably safer.
Your premise is wrong though, it isn't common sense to take a generalized statistic like deaths per km and extrapolate that to be the correct estimate for any particular trip.
The statistic loses all context of differences in vehicles, road conditions, time of day, specific roads, etc. The stat is a great example of how a statistic seems meaningful to get a big picture but is completely useless to us as we can't make any decisions based on a number that is so generalized as to lose all context and meaning.