you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 41 points 2 days ago (12 children)

Airplanes are so much safer than cars, it's not even close. Cars are certainly more dangerous regardless of the driver, even if the safest drivers had 10x fewer deaths than average. (which is probably unrealistic, because even if you drive perfectly at 25mph, you can still be killed by some idiot going 100)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 2 days ago (8 children)

    Transport safety is measured in macro scale by how many deaths/injuries/incidents/etc. per person-km travelled. For example, if there's 100 people on a plane that travels 1000km, then 100 people travelled 1000km, so that one flight is 100,000 person-kilometers. If one person drives a car 1000km, then that's just 1000 person-km.

    Planes are in the range 0.07 incidents per billion person-km. Cars are 3.7 per billion. Motorcycles are over 100.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 days ago* (2 children)

    Motorcycles are more dangerous than I thought! Would have thought a factor of 4 maybe.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 days ago

    Motorcycles also generally only carry 1-2 people, so the person-km to vehicle-km ratio is closer to 1 compared to other forms of transportation. They're also unstable, small and tend to be operated even more carelessly than cars.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 days ago

    Something is off with your statistic. Can you provide a source?

    Planes being only ~50x safer per passenger mile doesn't sound right. Is that including all planes? General aviation is far more dangerous than commercial aviation, which might skew the statistic

    Per passenger mile commercial aviation should be at least 100x safer than cars, I would think

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 day ago (3 children)

    Motorcycles are over 100.

    Only in America, where motorcycles are a toy people with too much money and issues with their self-image buy to play with on weekends, 1/3 of which involve drinking, a significant number not wearing helmets, and are mostly dipshits who drive off the road taking a corner incorrectly. It's much safer in the rest of the world.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago* (2 children)

    I'd be surprised if southeast asia is more safe than the US in traffic deaths

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 child)

    The problem is everyone drinking then riding a bike with a phone in 1 hand and a cigarette in the other, wearing a thin plastic hat with zero protection instead of a helmet and ignoring red lights.

    But if the anti-drunk-motorcycling initiatives are a bit more successful like they have been for car operation in the US, and they continue to expand the bus system while lowering cost, it will be much safer than the US, just because everyone rides so slow and cars watch out for bikes. I have literally never seen road rage or people being a dick by trying to block someone from passing in Vietnam, meanwhile every motorcyclist in the US has had cars intentionally block them from filtering/splitting, yell at them, or try to push them out of their lane. Hell even on Lemmy I have had random car-brains tell me I am endangering them by splitting or passing traffic in ways cars can't.

    Over the last 2 years, since cops starting watching the worst lights and put cameras at a lot, I've seen many fewer people going 3+ seconds during a red light. I think it will be uncommon in a few more years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago

    I have literally never seen road rage or people being a dick by trying to block someone from passing in Vietnam,

    Entirely true, but then I've only ever seen 300 mopeds/motorcycles line up across both lanes of an intersection and just weave through eachother when the light goes green (or before) in Asia. On the other hand, I've never seen it go wrong.

    meanwhile every motorcyclist in the US has had cars intentionally block them from filtering/splitting, yell at them, or try to push them out of their lane. Hell even on Lemmy I have had random car-brains tell me I am endangering them by splitting or passing traffic in ways cars can’t.

    Carbrains are the weirdest people. "How dare you not make traffic worse like I am?!" is such a uniquely shit take. Buuuut, I do see plenty of lane splitting at >50km/h here in europe too.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    Aviation is safe because every accident gets thoroughly investigated and precipates changes to equipment and/or procedures to lessen the risk of it happening again. After decades of this, we've ironed out most of the common problems.

    Meanwhile, car accidents are met with a shrug. We continue to build bad traffic patterns, rely on outdated 'common sense' speed enforcement, fail to enforce real licensing standards, loose body shape regulations etc. etc. Basically the only thing we DO do for cars - making them safer in the event of a crash is one thing we absolutely do not do for airplanes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 day ago

    Meanwhile, car accidents are met with a shrug. We continue to build bad traffic patterns, rely on outdated ‘common sense’ speed enforcement, fail to enforce real licensing standards

    Who's this "we"?

    Greetings from the Netherlands.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 days ago*

    I used to think that, too. But lately, I've started to consider that even more people are even worse drivers than I thought. And I think that really changes things.

    Also, that common airplane statistic about deaths is usually reported in terms of passenger miles, which I think is a little misleading since airplanes intrinsically travel many more miles. It would be more meaningful to measure deaths per trip or better yet deaths per passenger hour rather than miles. However, I did find some lawyer websites saying that the lifetime odds of dying in a plane crash are around 1 in 800,000,000 versus 1 in 95 for cars.

    Now I know it seems deranged on the face of it, but hear me out.

    For driving to be as safe as flying, we would need someone to be about 8500 times less likely to die over the course of their life driving. Most people drive 5 days a week, for about 50 years, so 13000 days driving. So:

    The odds of surviving a day of safe driving= S

    Odds of surviving a day of dangerous driving= D

    8500=S^13000 / D^13000 = (S/D)^13000

    S/D = 8500^(1/13000) = 1.0007

    So if driving safer on day made you even 0.07% more likely to survive that day, then that gives us that 8500x increase over a lifetime.

    Now....I know this is based on that 1/95 which ALREADY includes the safe drivers. So the legitimacy of this estimate depends on how many drivers you think are safe. This is why my estimate of that ratio caused me to change my mind. I feel like only around 15% of people drive at that level of safety. So, of course, in some sense this still means that driving in general is more dangerous because you have an 85% chance of being one of the people for whom it is more dangerous. But I still think there's something to be said for the minority of truly cautious and defensive drivers.

    Acknowledging other failure points here, most airplane deaths are in private aviation, so that may make the bar harder to clear again. But I think the whole 13000 days estimate demonstrates how even tiny improvements there can easily account for large changes, too.

  • source
  • parent