 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 23/06/2011 14:29, Invisible a écrit :
> 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
We need the number about the people killed by serial killers.
Should they get offered a car or many ?
What about the number of killed people in aircraft per year ?
--
Software is like dirt - it costs time and money to change it and move it
around.
Just because you can't see it, it doesn't weigh anything,
and you can't drill a hole in it and stick a rivet into it doesn't mean
it's free.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23/06/2011 03:02 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 23/06/2011 14:29, Invisible a écrit :
>> 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
>
> We need the number about the people killed by serial killers.
>
> Should they get offered a car or many ?
>
> What about the number of killed people in aircraft per year ?
Wolfram Alpha lacks data for air traffic deaths.
Apparently a 2008 estimate suggests that 11.15 million murders are
committed per year in the USA. (Emphasis *estimate*.)
I would imagine the statistics for /serial/ killers are much smaller.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> 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
The perspective is: Cars are necessary, bird flu and sars aren't.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> How about we all go get some frigging perspective here? :-P
>
> The perspective is: Cars are necessary, bird flu and sars aren't.
1. The assertion that cars are necessary is not beyond question.
2. There's very little you can do about deadly diseases. There's quite a
bit you could realistically do to reduce deaths from road traffic.
3. Cars kill far more people than SARS ever has. Yet people are
terrified of SARS, and perfectly OK with cars.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Apparently a 2008 estimate suggests that 11.15 million murders are
> committed per year in the USA. (Emphasis *estimate*.)
I would like to see some credible references to that. 11 million people
is like nuking New York and a good chunk of its surroundings (New York
has a population of something like 8 million). Each year.
Given that the US has a population of about 300 million, that kind of
murder rate would make it deserted in about 27 years.
In Finland about 140 murders are committed each year.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> 3. Cars kill far more people than SARS ever has. Yet people are
> terrified of SARS, and perfectly OK with cars.
Because cars are necessary, and hence the small risk is acceptable.
Sars and bird flu are not necessary and hence any risk whatsoever is
unacceptable.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23/06/2011 04:43 PM, Warp wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> 3. Cars kill far more people than SARS ever has. Yet people are
>> terrified of SARS, and perfectly OK with cars.
>
> Because cars are necessary, and hence the small risk is acceptable.
>
> Sars and bird flu are not necessary and hence any risk whatsoever is
> unacceptable.
Or, to word it differently,
"Cars are unavoidable. SARS is unavoidable."
Just playing devil's advocate here...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23/06/2011 04:36 PM, Warp wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Apparently a 2008 estimate suggests that 11.15 million murders are
>> committed per year in the USA. (Emphasis *estimate*.)
>
> I would like to see some credible references to that. 11 million people
> is like nuking New York and a good chunk of its surroundings (New York
> has a population of something like 8 million). Each year.
My source is here:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=murder
No indication of where *their* source is, nor what the confidence
intervals on that figure is. (It *is* only an estimate, after all...) I
note that this is the number of *crimes*, not actually the number of
people murdered. (I'm not sure how these relate; is killing 7 people
counted as 1 crime or 7 crimes? Can killing a single person be several
crimes at once?)
> Given that the US has a population of about 300 million, that kind of
> murder rate would make it deserted in about 27 years.
Disregarding the birth rate, I presume?
I agree though, it does sound a tad large just for the USA...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23-6-2011 19:10, 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.
I think that is not true, elevators are even safer.
--
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per
citizen per day.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 23.06.2011 19:33, schrieb andrel:
> On 23-6-2011 19:10, 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.
>
> I think that is not true, elevators are even safer.
What distance do you travel in a typical elevator?
You really think getting stuck is the worst thing that can happen to you
in an elevator?
Also think outside the box of technical problems. Terrorist attacks are
probably included in the statistics of aircraft travel, so you should
also include physical assaults in the risk assessment of traveling with
elevators.
And if that doesn't prove me right, let's limit the argument to
components of travel perpendicular to the gravitational field :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/23/2011 5:29, 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
Well, one difference is that bird flu and SARS will continue to kill more
and more people unless you do something about it, while cars tend to get
safer over time. Being afraid of natural disasters doesn't help much. Being
afraid of self-replicating diseases does.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am Thu, 23 Jun 2011 19:33:05 +0200 schrieb andrel:
> On 23-6-2011 19:10, 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.
>
> I think that is not true, elevators are even safer.
I would also mention the Wuppertaler Schwebebahn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuppertal_Schwebebahn
which was claimed to be the safest way to travel until the accident in
1999.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/23/2011 8:54, Invisible wrote:
> On 23/06/2011 04:36 PM, Warp wrote:
>> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>> Apparently a 2008 estimate suggests that 11.15 million murders are
>>> committed per year in the USA. (Emphasis *estimate*.)
>>
>> I would like to see some credible references to that. 11 million people
>> is like nuking New York and a good chunk of its surroundings (New York
>> has a population of something like 8 million). Each year.
>
> My source is here:
>
> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=murder
11.5 million is the number of crimes committed, where "crime" means
"something for which you can go to jail." So that includes stealing a car,
holding up a store, etc.
Total crimes is 3667/100K/year, actual crimes of intentionally killing
someone is 5.4/100K/year, so you're off by about 3 orders of magnitude there.
> No indication of where *their* source is, nor what the confidence intervals
> on that figure is.
My guess would be the UCR part 1. UCR is the FBI's Unified Crime Reports.
> is the number of *crimes*, not actually the number of people murdered. (I'm
> not sure how these relate; is killing 7 people counted as 1 crime or 7
> crimes?
It would be seven, because you can be guilty of killing one of them and not
the other, so the prosecutors always charge you with seven "counts" of murder.
> Can killing a single person be several crimes at once?)
Yes. Murder, assault with a deadly weapon, breaking and entering, etc.
> I agree though, it does sound a tad large just for the USA...
You're counting "all crimes" and think it means "murder".
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/23/2011 8:33, Invisible wrote:
> 2. There's very little you can do about deadly diseases.
Huh?
What century do you live in? I live in the one after the invention of the
germ theory of disease.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 23.06.2011 20:45, schrieb Florian Pesth:
> I would also mention the Wuppertaler Schwebebahn
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuppertal_Schwebebahn
>
> which was claimed to be the safest way to travel until the accident in
> 1999.
... and (from the point of statistical analysis) was indeed - until then :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 23.06.2011 20:43, schrieb Darren New:
> Well, one difference is that bird flu and SARS will continue to kill
> more and more people unless you do something about it, while cars tend
> to get safer over time.
They would, if usage patterns of cars didn't change. In the early days
30 km/h would have been fast, traffic density was close to nil, and
nobody would have even /thought/ about telephones that could be used
while driving in a car.
Unfortunately, the safer cars get the more careless the drivers become.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23/06/2011 07:49 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> I agree though, it does sound a tad large just for the USA...
>
> You're counting "all crimes" and think it means "murder".
The top of the result page clearly says "United States | rate of murder
and nonnegligent manslaughter".
However, the pod in question does have a tiny piece of text that says
"overall crime statistics". I didn't notice that. That'll be it, then...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
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?
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?
If you did all this for cars, car travel would become a crapload safer
too. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23/06/2011 07:53 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 6/23/2011 8:33, Invisible wrote:
>> 2. There's very little you can do about deadly diseases.
>
> Huh?
>
> What century do you live in? I live in the one after the invention of
> the germ theory of disease.
SARS is a *viral* disease. While there exist broad-spectrum antibiotics
which will kill almost any pathogen that might hurt you, killing a virus
is much harder. (It's not technically "alive", for starters...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 23.06.2011 22:03, schrieb Orchid XP v8:
> 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.
>
> 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?
>
> 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?
>
> If you did all this for cars, car travel would become a crapload safer
> too. ;-)
Then again, would you want to spend half an hour or so going through
checklists (or security screening, for that matter) every time before
you take your car for a spin? Or ask for traffic control's permission
every time you switch lanes or make a turn? :-P
Cars would also be a /tad/ more expensive if they were built to meet
airplane safety criteria.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/23/2011 13:03, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> How many people ever do this?
Truck drivers.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/23/2011 13:05, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> On 23/06/2011 07:53 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> On 6/23/2011 8:33, Invisible wrote:
>>> 2. There's very little you can do about deadly diseases.
>>
>> Huh?
>>
>> What century do you live in? I live in the one after the invention of
>> the germ theory of disease.
>
> SARS is a *viral* disease.
Even more to my point. That's even more the reason to be more afraid of SARS
than of cars. The only way to be safe from it is avoid it completely.
Also, you've given no evidence that you don't have the causality backwards.
People paniced about SARS and bird flu, and hence much fewer people caught
it. People don't panic about cars, and hence many more people die. Thus,
panic about a danger is a good thing. QED. ;-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 23.06.2011 22:49, schrieb Darren New:
> On 6/23/2011 13:05, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> On 23/06/2011 07:53 PM, Darren New wrote:
>>> On 6/23/2011 8:33, Invisible wrote:
>>>> 2. There's very little you can do about deadly diseases.
>>>
>>> Huh?
>>>
>>> What century do you live in? I live in the one after the invention of
>>> the germ theory of disease.
>>
>> SARS is a *viral* disease.
>
> Even more to my point. That's even more the reason to be more afraid of
> SARS than of cars. The only way to be safe from it is avoid it completely.
>
> Also, you've given no evidence that you don't have the causality
> backwards. People paniced about SARS and bird flu, and hence much fewer
> people caught it. People don't panic about cars, and hence many more
> people die. Thus, panic about a danger is a good thing. QED. ;-)
Wasn't that Andrew's point in the first place - that the ratio of panic
about diseases vs. panic about cars is somewhat out of proportion?
QED indeed :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011/06/23 16:49, Darren New a écrit :
> 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.
>
In fact, anti-lock breaks can CAUSE some accident.
Some reasons:
1 - Usualy, only one rotation reading per fotation.
2 - They are NOT progressive. It's all or nothing. It can literaly jerk
your foot off the break pedal.
3 - Been all/nothing, they can realy shake your car around, possibly
quite violently.
4 - In an emergency, if you brake near the sliding point and ONE wheel
slips a little more than the others, ALL breaking stops, then comes back
at FULL force, possibly causing all 4 whells to lock.
Correctly implemented anti-lock brakes should have multiple analog
sensors of multiple parameters:
Braking tork.
Suspention load.
Continouus rotation speed: e.e. arount 100 reading per rotations. Most
have less than 5...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/23/2011 16:07, clipka wrote:
> Wasn't that Andrew's point in the first place - that the ratio of panic
> about diseases vs. panic about cars is somewhat out of proportion?
Yes. But *my* point is that perhaps it's exactly *in* proportion.
For another example, would Y2K problems have been as trivial as they were
had not everyone in a panic a few years earlier and fixed all the systems?
So few people are killed by SARS because so many people are afraid of it
that they avoid SARS like the plague (to make a silly metaphor). If nobody
cared about catching SARS, maybe it would have been much more wide-spread,
just like bird flu is much more widespread amongst birds.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23/06/2011 09:45 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 6/23/2011 13:03, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> How many people ever do this?
>
> Truck drivers.
Hahahahahaha!
Yeah, right. I'll believe it when I see it. :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23/06/2011 09:43 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 23.06.2011 22:03, schrieb Orchid XP v8:
>> If you did all this for cars, car travel would become a crapload safer
>> too. ;-)
>
> Then again, would you want to spend half an hour or so going through
> checklists (or security screening, for that matter) every time before
> you take your car for a spin? Or ask for traffic control's permission
> every time you switch lanes or make a turn? :-P
>
> Cars would also be a /tad/ more expensive if they were built to meet
> airplane safety criteria.
Oh sure, I won't disagree with you on that. ;-) I'm just saying, there
are very obvious *reasons* why air travel is safer.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
