On 23/06/2011 09:49 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 6/23/2011 12:29, clipka wrote:
>> Unfortunately, the safer cars get the more careless the drivers become.
>
> I've read studies where they found that anti-lock brakes didn't reduce
> the number of accidents because people just followed closer. I imagine
> it's the same thing.

I severely doubt that most people have the slightest clue whether their 
car has ABS or not. Apparently nobody has a clue how this technology 
works. (Most people seem to think it somehow magically increases grip.)

It's true that safety features tend to make people less cautious. But I 
doubt this particular one is a valid example.

Post a reply to this message

On 6/23/2011 5:29 AM, Invisible wrote:
> Number of people killed by bird flu: 303 world-wide in total.
> Number of people killed by SARS: 8,273 world-wide in total.
> Number of people killed by cars: 43,000 *per year* in the USA alone.
>
> How about we all go get some frigging perspective here? :-P
Need to include an adjusted figure on the number of people that would be 
killed by something like the flu, if we where not so paranoid about it. 
That said, I imagine the number of people killed by various accidents 
is, if not as high as cars, still higher than bird flu and SARS. Sadly, 
a lot of that car stuff is a combination of not having a sane way to 
keep drunks out of them, a failure to stop people driving that shouldn't 
be (or even make sure they bloody know how in the first place, given how 
frakking easy it is to get a license some places...), and the fact that 
just about every idiot has one, and no maintenance is "mandated" on 
them, unlike say.. airplanes, which only get to be flown by specific 
qualified people, and are inspected often (if not always often enough).

In short, I doubt the numbers would be that much better if we still had 
horses and buggies, save that the horses are probably smart enough to 
avoid some of the stupid shit people do in cars. lol

Post a reply to this message

On 6/23/2011 10:10 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 23.06.2011 16:02, schrieb Le_Forgeron:
>
>> What about the number of killed people in aircraft per year ?
>
> Far less than in car accidents. Flying is actually the safest way to
> travel on a risk-per-distance basis, even before trains.
Mind, since the vast majority of train accidents involve idiots in cars...

Post a reply to this message

On 6/24/2011 14:51, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Need to include an adjusted figure on the number of people that would be
> killed by something like the flu, if we where not so paranoid about it.

That's basically what I was trying to say.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 21:03:39 +0100, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull>  
did spake thusly:

> On 23/06/2011 06:10 PM, clipka wrote:
>> Am 23.06.2011 16:02, schrieb Le_Forgeron:
>>
>>> What about the number of killed people in aircraft per year ?
>>
>> Far less than in car accidents. Flying is actually the safest way to
>> travel on a risk-per-distance basis, even before trains.
>
> Any random drunk that wants to can stagger into a car and proceed to  
> cause utter carnage. You can't really do that with an aeroplane.

Excepting those stories regarding drunk pilots

> A plane undergoes rigorous safety checks every single damned time it  
> goes anywhere. You're *supposed* to do that with a car too. You're  
> literally supposed to check that all the tires look good, etc., every  
> time before you drive off. How many people ever do this?

Yes but just as you're supposed to check a car a plane is also *supposed*  
to be checked; doesn't mean it is.

> Planes are guided by air traffic control. They have two pilots. They  
> have automated computer failsafes. There's less traffic per volume of  
> space to actually hit. Need I continue?

However they're also travelling faster, further, and (allegedly) with less  
allowance for fuel.


-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

>> Any random drunk that wants to can stagger into a car and proceed to
>> cause utter carnage. You can't really do that with an aeroplane.
>
> Excepting those stories regarding drunk pilots
>
>> A plane undergoes rigorous safety checks every single damned time it
>> goes anywhere. You're *supposed* to do that with a car too. You're
>> literally supposed to check that all the tires look good, etc., every
>> time before you drive off. How many people ever do this?
>
> Yes but just as you're supposed to check a car a plane is also
> *supposed* to be checked; doesn't mean it is.
>
>> Planes are guided by air traffic control. They have two pilots. They
>> have automated computer failsafes. There's less traffic per volume of
>> space to actually hit. Need I continue?
>
> However they're also travelling faster, further, and (allegedly) with
> less allowance for fuel.

Well, it all depends of course. But assuming that the majority follow 
the rules, air travel has vastly more safety features. It's not 
surprising it's safer. (E.g., regulations demand that all flights set 
off with vastly more fuel than actually necessary to reach their 
destination. Whether that's followed or not, I can't comment.)

Post a reply to this message

On 6/23/2011 13:03, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Any random drunk that wants to can stagger into a car and proceed to cause
> utter carnage. You can't really do that with an aeroplane.

Not by accident, at least. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message