Safety on low cost flights.
A Runyonesque Character
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The South of France ... Not
Age: 74
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
If you let that kind of thing bother you, you can seriously affect your quality of life.
I'm most likely going to die of cancer, heart failure, liver failure or just plain decrepitude. I don't worry overly about which it will be. To go in a blinding flash up in the sky might be preferable, providing it happens when I'm good and ready.
I'm most likely going to die of cancer, heart failure, liver failure or just plain decrepitude. I don't worry overly about which it will be. To go in a blinding flash up in the sky might be preferable, providing it happens when I'm good and ready.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: up north
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Statistics are abused all the time aren't they ?
You cannot compare these figures, unless they are subdivided by journey charecteristics. For eg:
Gather all these measures for say journeys made by each mode for all UK domestic air routes. Ie, deaths per passenger journey, Edinburgh-London by Air, Coach, Rail, Car, Van, etc.
The inapproriate use of the broad brush figures is best highlighted by the Bus figure. This is skewed immensely by the very high volume of short, urban, low speed journeys, where most accidents are minor bumps and scrapes, but the incidence of them is quite high (ie there are lots of accidents, but not many deaths). However, most passenger deaths by road public transport will be on long distance higher speed services. You will struggle to find data on Inter-city bus and coach deaths, but I would suggest that a trawl of the BBC news website for the past 5 years will show up many more UK deaths than equivalent domestic air transport.
You cannot compare these figures, unless they are subdivided by journey charecteristics. For eg:
Gather all these measures for say journeys made by each mode for all UK domestic air routes. Ie, deaths per passenger journey, Edinburgh-London by Air, Coach, Rail, Car, Van, etc.
The inapproriate use of the broad brush figures is best highlighted by the Bus figure. This is skewed immensely by the very high volume of short, urban, low speed journeys, where most accidents are minor bumps and scrapes, but the incidence of them is quite high (ie there are lots of accidents, but not many deaths). However, most passenger deaths by road public transport will be on long distance higher speed services. You will struggle to find data on Inter-city bus and coach deaths, but I would suggest that a trawl of the BBC news website for the past 5 years will show up many more UK deaths than equivalent domestic air transport.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These statistics do just that.
At a personal level I need to take approx 333,000,000 car journeys before I die.
In comparison I only need to take 85,000,000 flights before I die.
Now whether i am first or last in the queue makes no difference. Driving a car is safer.
The real problem is that we cannot comprehend how many cars and drivers are out there compared to aircraft. In the UK alone as I have already stated there are 34 million cars compared to 1010 aircraft. In the states there are 250 million cars compared with around 7,000 commercial aircraft.
It isn't surprising that we all know someone who had an accident or possibly died in a car crash. But the fact remains that journey for journey, cars are safer.
At a personal level I need to take approx 333,000,000 car journeys before I die.
In comparison I only need to take 85,000,000 flights before I die.
Now whether i am first or last in the queue makes no difference. Driving a car is safer.
The real problem is that we cannot comprehend how many cars and drivers are out there compared to aircraft. In the UK alone as I have already stated there are 34 million cars compared to 1010 aircraft. In the states there are 250 million cars compared with around 7,000 commercial aircraft.
It isn't surprising that we all know someone who had an accident or possibly died in a car crash. But the fact remains that journey for journey, cars are safer.
Junior trash
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It isn't surprising that we all know someone who had an accident or possibly died in a car crash. But the fact remains that journey for journey, cars are safer.
A Runyonesque Character
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The South of France ... Not
Age: 74
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Or, 'the fact remains' that if you fly only by Ryanair, Easyjet, Air Berlin, Norwegian, Wizz Air you will never have an accident, because statistically they are 100% safe ...
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless you are into taking journeys for the sake of it then its mile for mile that matters
The major difference being how quickly I ramped up the number of journeys. Obviously the more journeys the quicker statistically I will meet my maker. Doesn't change the basic premise though, cars are safer.
Ryanair, Easyjet, Air Berlin, Norwegian, Wizz Air you will never have an accident, because statistically they are 100% safe ...
Isn't this a bit like the [very] old argument that the chances of there being a bomb on an aircraft were one in a million, but the chances of there being two bombs on board were one in ten million, therefore statistically it was safer to take your own bomb on board with you.
Junior trash
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Miles are irrelevant, the statistic could get you on your first or last journey.
Junior trash
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't this a bit like the [very] old argument that the chances of there being a bomb on an aircraft were one in a million, but the chances of there being two bombs on board were one in ten million, therefore statistically it was safer to take your own bomb on board with you.
Baldrick: I'm carving something on this bullet sir.
Blackadder: What are you carving?
Baldrick: I'm carving "Baldrick", sir.
Blackadder: Why?
Baldrick: It's a cunning plan actually.
Blackadder: Of course it is.
Baldrick: You see, you know they say that somewhere there's a bullet
with your name on it?
Blackadder: Yes?
Baldrick: Well, I thought if I owned the bullet with my name on it,
I'd never get hit by it, 'cos I won't ever shoot myself.
A Runyonesque Character
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The South of France ... Not
Age: 74
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Safety Concerns you do seem to be hung-up on the statistics.
I disagree. You are assuming that the risk of dying from a given cause in the present or the future is determined by what it was in the past. What is your rationale for this?
But as I said earlier, it's all irrelevant. Even if you were correct, all you are saying is that, assuming you fly 21 times a year, statistically you are likely to be killed in an air crash sometime in the next 40 million years.
As soon as I step on board my chances of dying are 1 in 85,000,000
But as I said earlier, it's all irrelevant. Even if you were correct, all you are saying is that, assuming you fly 21 times a year, statistically you are likely to be killed in an air crash sometime in the next 40 million years.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ssk you are hung up on statistics (and I mean that in a nice way)
It is very interesting that you chose to revamp the statistic for flight only. Why didn't you do that for cars? and more importantly why don't you give us the figure?
The same figure for using my car 21 times a year.
It is very interesting that you chose to revamp the statistic for flight only. Why didn't you do that for cars? and more importantly why don't you give us the figure?
The same figure for using my car 21 times a year.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hotel mode it makes no difference.
It isn't about how far or how long, it is quite simply how often you use the thing.
You do not class a rattle snake as friendly just because you very rarely come across one but the rattlesnake remains lethal.
So why do we class air travel as safer than car? It isn't. It's just used less often.
It isn't about how far or how long, it is quite simply how often you use the thing.
You do not class a rattle snake as friendly just because you very rarely come across one but the rattlesnake remains lethal.
So why do we class air travel as safer than car? It isn't. It's just used less often.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're at point A, you need to get to point B x km away, where x is a reasonable distance to warrant taking a flight.
In this case (!) if you drive you are 62 times more likely to die. (3.1/.05)
Giving driving a very positive skew by including the millions of very short distance urban commutes / school runs where you'd be lucky to hit 30mph is pointless!!!
In this case (!) if you drive you are 62 times more likely to die. (3.1/.05)
Giving driving a very positive skew by including the millions of very short distance urban commutes / school runs where you'd be lucky to hit 30mph is pointless!!!
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the original question was...
Is it just me or has the original point of this thread (i.e. whether or not LCCs are as safe as other carriers) been somewhat hijacked by what seems to be an attempt to prove that selective use of statistics can be used to support whatever point you wish to make?
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Lisbon
Age: 51
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Giving driving a very positive skew by including the millions of very short distance urban commutes / school runs where you'd be lucky to hit 30mph is pointless!!!
Press release 1/3 accidents within a mile of home
Safety Concern's argument is valid, looking at the number of trips, not miles.
Those unlucky enough to be on Air Afriqah last year were airborne until within a couple of miles of the airport, but it did not make the flight a safe flight, because it completed 99.9% of the journey distance, so the 3,400 miles covered were not a safe event.
Likewise, a 1 mile car journey that ends in death is not safe.
The journey is the key statistic.
Last edited by Joao da Silva; 12th Jan 2011 at 15:45.
Junior trash
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
65% of crashes occur within 5 miles of home, 32% within 1 mile of home.
Press release 1/3 accidents within a mile of home
Safety Concern's argument is valid, looking at the number of trips, not miles.
Press release 1/3 accidents within a mile of home
Safety Concern's argument is valid, looking at the number of trips, not miles.
Additionally that statistic is meaningless in this context as it does not mention fatal accidents so it proves nothing.
The logical extension of the exposure is irrelevant argument is that your statistical likelyhood of dying in an air crash is the number divided by the worlds population regardless of whether they fly or not.
Surely the fact that every government publishes rates/mile rather than journey must mean something?
A Runyonesque Character
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The South of France ... Not
Age: 74
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Churchill has listed the most common accidents that occur close to home.
Reversing into parked cars
Collisions with neighbours when parking outside the home
Finding unexplained dents and scratches caused by other drivers
Clipping wing mirrors when driving up narrow residential streets
Scraping the side of the car when parking in the garage
Reversing into parked cars
Collisions with neighbours when parking outside the home
Finding unexplained dents and scratches caused by other drivers
Clipping wing mirrors when driving up narrow residential streets
Scraping the side of the car when parking in the garage
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Lisbon
Age: 51
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hotel Mode
With the very greatest of respect, you need to do a stats. refresher. You are supporting Safety Concern's arguement
SSK
Short journeys do include deaths, also. Many aircraft incidents include scrapes, e.g. ground vehicle damage.
How far would you like to peel the onion?
With the very greatest of respect, you need to do a stats. refresher. You are supporting Safety Concern's arguement
SSK
Short journeys do include deaths, also. Many aircraft incidents include scrapes, e.g. ground vehicle damage.
How far would you like to peel the onion?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hotel mode. The statistic I posted was obtained from the UK dept for transport.
So a government publishing rates per journey. By now it should be falling into place.
A small quote
So a government publishing rates per journey. By now it should be falling into place.
A small quote
The most accurate method is to compare the number of deaths with the number of journeys made. So accurate, in fact, that this is the measure used by the industry and its insurers. This makes much more sense, because what matters to the individual is the journey, not how long it took or how far it went. Also, it enables comparison of different types of jet, both long haul and short haul.
By this measure, air travel takes on a rather different complexion. Deaths per 100 million passenger journeys are, on average, 12 for airliners compared with 3 for cars, and 2.7 for trains. Only motorbikes, at 100 deaths per 100 million passenger journeys, are more risky than aircraft on this basis.
By this measure, air travel takes on a rather different complexion. Deaths per 100 million passenger journeys are, on average, 12 for airliners compared with 3 for cars, and 2.7 for trains. Only motorbikes, at 100 deaths per 100 million passenger journeys, are more risky than aircraft on this basis.
Last edited by Safety Concerns; 12th Jan 2011 at 16:37.