|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5 [Next] | ||||||||||
acesover Special user I believe I have 821 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-11-16 09:47, Dannydoyle wrote: Danny, Did not realize you were joking I thought you were just knocking my comparison. We need gdw to straighten this out.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
|
|||||||||
RS1963 Inner circle 2734 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-11-16 09:00, acesover wrote: How can what I said be wrong when it is the truth? How many fatal car wrecks in a day, week, month year are there? How many aircraft crashes and deaths for each? Again as I said when a Commercial jet crashes it does cause more deaths than a single or multiple car crash but to say that driving in a car is safer is not a fact. Yes I know you didn't say it was a fact, so don't jump on me for implying that you did. How does more cars on the road make it more likely that anyone is going to die in plane crash? It doesn't so who needs to think before they post? Also if there was only say 50 cars and 50 commercial planes in the world. The cars would still crash more often than the planes would. It's not really that hard to figure out. |
|||||||||
Andrew Zuber Inner circle Los Angeles, CA 3014 Posts |
I think the argument is that it's not really a balanced number of people; there are more people in cars than there are in planes at any given moment. If we had the same number of people flying every day as we had driving, then the comparison would be more accurate. The fact is, less people fly than drive, therefore it is at least possible that there are less airline fatalities because there are less planes in the sky than there are cars on the road.
Granted, if we had as many planes in the sky as we have cars on the ground, planes would be flying into each other left and right and crashing into the ground, crushing the cars. Then everyone would die. Just a thought
"I'm sorry - if you were right, I would agree with you." -Robin Williams, Awakenings
|
|||||||||
EsnRedshirt Special user Newark, CA 895 Posts |
What we really need to see is the total % chance of being in a car wreck each time you get in a car versus the total % chance of being in a plane crash each time you board the plane. That would be comparing equivalent statistics. Someone else will need to find that- I don't have time right now and my first few searches were turning up conflicting results.
Or we could compare overall statistics (which seem to be easier to find.) And this is also the answer to the original question of how we arrived at the conclusion that planes are safer than cars. The odds you'll die in a car crash are around 1 in 140. The odds you'll die in a plane crash are around 1 in 250,000. Source: http://www.safeteendriving.org/resources/facts_figures.php Anyone curious about train wreck statistics now?
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.
* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt. |
|||||||||
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts |
Or, as I mention above, you could compare the number of fatatlities per unit distance (mile or km, for example) or unit time (hours) traveled.
I think it is misleading to look at the number of trips, because so many car trips are only a couple of minutes long (which is another issue worth discussing...) John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-11-16 10:45, EsnRedshirt wrote: This is what I was trying to say. Thanks Redshirt. Now, I'm curious, does this mean 1 in every 140 people ridding in automobiles will die in a crash? That's a little high for my comforts.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts |
Just looking at the American statistics:
If 33,963 people died in car crashes in 2009, then during that year, (33,963)/(306,000,000)=0.00011, or roughly 1 person out of 10,000 died in a car crash in 2009. If this is a stable trend, we can estimate that over an 80 year lifespan, you have a probability of 0.008 or 0.8% of dying in a car crash at some point in your life. John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
RS1963 Inner circle 2734 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-11-16 11:11, gdw wrote: It would seem as that would be the general consensus. Doesn't mean that is a fact but just as things normally go it happens those figures fit around what does often occur. |
|||||||||
acesover Special user I believe I have 821 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-11-16 10:09, RS1963 wrote: We are talking about man hours traveling. If you compare all the man hours traveled in a car or truck as compared to those traveled in planes the morality rate will be higher. There are I am sure millions of more man travel hours than their are in planes. Based on the man hours spent in cars as opposed to man hours spent in planes, on average ther are more people and accidents per man hour in planes than cars. No one is denying that there are more car accidents than plane accidents but per timei traveling cars are safer as per people being transported.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
|
|||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-11-16 11:07, Magnus Eisengrim wrote: I would disagree completely, particularly as most accidents happen in those shorter trips, near one's home.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts |
Using (possibly dubious) data from Google, it appears that the average American travels 15,000 miles per year by car, and 1100 miles per year by plane.
If these numbers are correct, then you have a fatality roughly once every 135,000,000 car miles traveled and once every 305,000,000 air miles traveled. If these numbers are reasonably close, then car travel is more than twice as fatal per mile than is air travel. John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
acesover Special user I believe I have 821 Posts |
I finally did an internet search. There are over 750 million cars in the world today. If half of them are driven for an hour with two people in them that averages 750 million man hours of travel a day. Now someone find the man hours of travel in planes and compare the two. I am sure the plane man hours are way behind so again I say that for man hours traveled cars are safer. And you know what if I am wrong...so what. Does it really matter? But I am, not wrong in this assumption. On the whole for hours traveled cars are safer. More accidents absolutely but heck of a lot more hours in cars than planes.
Some one said 50 cars and 50 planes more car accidents. Now you would have the man hours reversed and that is really an absurd analogy. If you have all the roads you have today one would be hard pressed to see another car in ones life time. Quote:
On 2010-11-16 10:09, RS1963 wrote: Some one said 50 cars and 50 planes more car accidents. Now you would have the man hours reversed and that is really an absurd analogy. If you have all the roads you have today one would be hard pressed to see another car in ones life time.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
|
|||||||||
RS1963 Inner circle 2734 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-11-16 11:38, acesover wrote: I said that obviously. Did you think I would say I never posted that? It should have been obvious that it wasn't said in all seriousness either. lol That is true and there would be less roads there would maybe be an x amount of roads for the 50 cars to travel on. |
|||||||||
acesover Special user I believe I have 821 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-11-16 11:31, Magnus Eisengrim wrote: What is it you do not understand? Not miles traveled...time spent traveling is the issue. The more you do something, the more chance of something will happen when doing it. Example more heart attacks happen in cars than airplanes. Why? Because there are thousands or should I say millions of more hours spent in cars than planes. This does not make traveling in a car more heart attack prone than planes. It is just numbers. More hours in cars, more heart attacks in cars. Also I find it hard to believe that on average people only travel 15 times more by auto than air. Only because I believe that not that much of the population flies at all. But if it is on the internet it must be true. Does anyone know what percentage of the total population of the United States that fly in a year? My guess would be that only around 15 or 20 percent of the population fly in a year and that number may be high.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
|
|||||||||
ed rhodes Inner circle Rhode Island 2885 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-11-16 04:56, Pakar Ilusi wrote: "I want to go out peacefully, in my sleep, like my grandfather. Not screaming and crying like the passengers in his car." Shelly Berman (50s comedian) had an entire routine on flying with this gem; "You see the reports; 'flying is the safest was to fly.' (laugh) No, seriously they say that, statistically speaking, flying is the safest way to travel. (sotto voice) I don't know how much consideration they've given to WALKING!"
"...and if you're too afraid of goin' astray, you won't go anywhere." - Granny Weatherwax
|
|||||||||
EsnRedshirt Special user Newark, CA 895 Posts |
Aces- there's some data that's being discounted that makes accurate statistics really tough to pin down. The time spent traveling may not be as important as you think: most plane crashes occur on either take-off or landing. Just as most car crashes occur on short trips. Also, most car trips are short, whereas most plane trips are long. Take-off and landing can't really be compared to short car trips, the data doesn't mesh well.
And then keep in mind a few more data points- pilots are trained professionals, whereas automobiles are driven by teenagers, senior citizens, people doing their makeup or talking on a cell phone... Even if you're not one of those, someone else on the road might be- and if they change lanes without seeing you're approaching and in their blind spot, the result is the same. Pilots don't have to deal with that- and have air traffic controllers to help monitor their blind spots. For comparison sake, the only numbers we're really left with is overall odds. 1-in-140 versus 1-in-250,000. But go ahead and dig up some fatalities per mile travelled if you want. I'm curious now, too.
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.
* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt. |
|||||||||
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts |
ESN read up a few posts, I did some quick calculations on fatalities per mile.
John Quote:
On 2010-11-16 12:54, acesover wrote: Wow, I'm not sure what I've done to deserve your condescension, but you're being a jerk. Why is time more relevant than distance? For example, If I wish to travel to Calgary I can either drive or fly. I'm making a choice of how to travel 300km; I am not making a choice of how to spend my next half hour. Feel free to champion the time calculations over the distance calculations. But instead of being a *****, try providing a rational argument instead. John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
EsnRedshirt Special user Newark, CA 895 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-11-16 13:26, Magnus Eisengrim wrote: Sorry, missed it. Thanks! By the way Aces- in my experience, it takes about the same amount of time to drive from SF to LA that it takes to fly, once you factor in flight time, taxi-ing on the runway, boarding, passing through airport security, and walking in from the parking lot. Either way, you're looking at 5-6 hours of travel time. (And then you've still got drive time on either end of the plane trip.)
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.
* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt. |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-11-16 11:27, gdw wrote: This is EXACTLY why I moved.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
On a serious note, my guess is nobody has ever bothered to take a basic statistics class aside from John right?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » How do we arrive at the conclusion that air travel is safer than driving? (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.09 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |