Myllz said:
So you'd take a 1/1,000 chance of getting into, and (maybe) surviving a car crash rather than having a 1/1,000,000 chance of dying in a plane crash?
XS+ said:
Yup. Airplanes are deathtraps.
That's a pretty irrational stance.
The statistics are clearly made up, but let's say for the sake of argument that the numbers are correct. Let's also say that every airline crash is 100% fatal (all passengers die). The proper way to compare them would be with expectation value:
Expectation value = SUM_over_occurrences[(probability of occurence) x (consequence of occurrence)]
In this case, all we care about is the case where you die. For plane crashes:
EV_plane = 10^(-6) x 1 = 10^(-6)
For cars:
EV_cars = 10^(-3) x (fatality rate) = ???
Unless the fatality rate for car accidents is less than 1 in 1000, airplane travel would be safer.
(The real statistics for the two situations, I suspect, are not even close to the hypothetical examples, and would be even more strongly indicative that plane travel is safer. It's New Year's, and I'm not going to waste my time Googling for statistics. You can investigate it if you want.)
The other thing to consider is that the reason so many car crashes are non-fatal is that they take place at slower speeds. Crashes at highway speeds are fatal far more often, and if you're trading off driving great distances versus flying, you'd be spending a lot more time at high speed, pushing yourself to make progress on your route...I fail to see how that would be all that much safer if you did it a lot.
For what it's worth, the actual metric used is number of fatalities per passenger mile traveled, and airline travel always ends up being far safer than automobile travel.