true this graph can suck my ballocks.
“pAsSeNgEr MiLeS” airplanes do 360x6000 passenger miles in one trip and avarge people hardly travel once a year. car owners do maybe 800 trips per year 50 passenger miles each.
What’s the objection? If you’re gonna be travelling from A to B, you, a passenger, will cover C miles, and the odds of biting it scale accordingly. “Per trip” would mean you can halve a car’s odds by stopping at a gas station and calling that a “trip”.
Per trip makes motorcycle more comparable with plane. Per mile makes motorcycle more comparable with car. They’re just inherently different, so comparing them is awkward.
You can multiply this by the average trip distance to get per trip.
This statistics is a bit sus because it’s unclear where it comes from, but average flight distance may be around 1000–3000, while average motorcycle travel distance will not be less than 15 miles (I would guess more than 50, really). So the difference between motorcycle and the plane might not be as big, but it will still be 15–150 times. Also I don’t think that per trip is really useful metric
No I disagree. Per trip is really useful considering %chance of survival per accident in airplane vs cars, and also % of accidents per trip between planes & cars.
I just want to know, how likely am I going to die when I ride this thing to my destination today. I’ve ridden cars more than 50,000 times in my life and experienced about 30 accidents and I’m still alive, but it was barely 6 times where I took a plane but thankfully 0 accidents otherwise 99.99% I wouldn’t be here.
Almost 50% of my family and friends btw have never took a plane in their lives, while the other 50% hardly travel with airplanes once every 6 years JUST to give you a hint how statistics are relative, skewed and meaningless from one person to another.
Statistics is skewed even more for cars, I travel by car less than 20 times per year now, and each ride is usually under 15 minutes, this would be very different rides from intercity/-state rides someone could do every day or every week and chances of being in an accident would also be very different
What are you even talking about? Which mode of transportation has the most deaths based on distance covered.
Meaning, if you want to drive from California to New York, you are more likely to die as a result of that trip, versus, if you took a train or plane.
If you want to judge this based on “per trip” or even “per hour”. The data would be even more skewed, making airplanes seem even safer, and motorcycles and cars even more dangerous. Also. How would you even measure “per trip” or “per hour”. At least with “per mile” you can measure it. Because vehicles have odometers that keeps track of distance covered. Meaning, you know how far the vehicle traveled before it turned into scrap metal.
here are estimates of death per trip driven from this meaningless stupid statistic in this post:
plane: 0.07×6,000×360÷10^9 ×100%= 0.0151% chance of dying per trip
car: 7.28×1x50÷10 ^ 9x100% = (3.64* 10^ -5)% chance of dying per trip
That means you’re more likely to die on airplane trip more than 415 times compared to taking a car ride!
Assuming average people travel 6000 miles once a year in a plane carrying 360 people. while an average car passenger rides it 800 times a year 50 miles each.
If those numbers were exaggerated, still the number would still be something like 150 times more likely to die on airplane trip than a car ride.
I can argue those numbers are reaslitic to 99% of people I know in my life who travel once a year to a country 3000 miles away, but use their cars to drive 3 hrs back & forth total to work daily, then an additional 2 hrs shopping or delivering things for their families with total reaslitic average of 50 miles a day or 60k miles a year. Again, statistics are only helpfull relatively to your own data. In my case I want to know how likely am I going to die when I ride this thing today, and those are my actual numbers and data, and 90% of the people I personally know as well.
Another shocking statistic would be survival chance per accident:
Airplanes would be 99.99% deaths per accident , while cars would again be 0.01% or roughly 1 out 1000 accidents maybe idk…
Anyway… these statistics I just came up with were rediculious because they are as just as accurate and realistic as the one in this post.
I didn’t need you to tell me your numbers were bullshit, it was pretty obvious. So if you want to mald in your chair and be angry over a report you don’t understand. That is your choice.
Though I’d recommend you read the report since that would be the best way of growing your understanding of the topic you are so intent on sharing your opinion on.
I edited my comment to calculate the chance of dying per trip riding an airplane vs riding a car using the same data in this study. even if my assumed numbers were exaggeratted it’d be 150 times more likely to die on airplane trip than a car trip. lol
The fact you don’t see the problem with that statement speaks volume.
You assumed a bunch of numbers pulled from thin air, and applied some other numbers without considering the context or methodology of how they were obtained.
And you think that will provide you with informational data? Good job. You clearly know what you’re doing. Keep it up.
no… read it above even quarter of my assumed numbers would still result in 100 times more likely to die. I do delivery work that’s why I drive 70k+ miles / year or 50 miles a day on average and experieced so many accidents… etc.
you try it yourself and use that data and calculate % chance of death in an airplane ride vs a car ride. use your own numbers and you will still get to the same conclusion
Your methodology is incorrect to begin with, it doesn’t matter what numbers you use if the method is wrong. You’ve been basing everything on that hundreds of people are all condensed into 1 plane trip, rather than viewing it as hundreds of people making 1 plane trip, per person. yet, when counting the deaths, you don’t count it per plane trip, you count it per person.
Your methodology is skewing your results by the hundreds. And that is independent of whatever numbers you’re coming up with.
The scientific community in collaboration with statisticians have over the past 20 years, all come to the same conclusion, that you are significantly less probable of dying while traveling in an airplane or train, than you are in a car, and especially a motorcycle.
If you genuinely believe, that you’ve made a breakthrough that goes against the result of every single published and peer reviewed report on the topic, I implore you to publish your results and have it peer reviewed by the various institutions that also collect data on the topic.
But I’m not going to argue with you about this. You are free to believe whatever you want. Personally, I’m going to believe that the data and methodology from a professor, with 39 years of experience and several published papers on the economics, and safety in the transit sector, is correct.
Per hour traveled makes the most sense imo, otherwise you bias towards modes of transport used for short trips instead since they spend less time in danger.
can we get this data “per trip”
because I have a feeling planes would not look nearly as safe.
true this graph can suck my ballocks. “pAsSeNgEr MiLeS” airplanes do 360x6000 passenger miles in one trip and avarge people hardly travel once a year. car owners do maybe 800 trips per year 50 passenger miles each.
What’s the objection? If you’re gonna be travelling from A to B, you, a passenger, will cover C miles, and the odds of biting it scale accordingly. “Per trip” would mean you can halve a car’s odds by stopping at a gas station and calling that a “trip”.
Per trip makes motorcycle more comparable with plane. Per mile makes motorcycle more comparable with car. They’re just inherently different, so comparing them is awkward.
You can multiply this by the average trip distance to get per trip.
This statistics is a bit sus because it’s unclear where it comes from, but average flight distance may be around 1000–3000, while average motorcycle travel distance will not be less than 15 miles (I would guess more than 50, really). So the difference between motorcycle and the plane might not be as big, but it will still be 15–150 times. Also I don’t think that per trip is really useful metric
No I disagree. Per trip is really useful considering %chance of survival per accident in airplane vs cars, and also % of accidents per trip between planes & cars.
I just want to know, how likely am I going to die when I ride this thing to my destination today. I’ve ridden cars more than 50,000 times in my life and experienced about 30 accidents and I’m still alive, but it was barely 6 times where I took a plane but thankfully 0 accidents otherwise 99.99% I wouldn’t be here.
Almost 50% of my family and friends btw have never took a plane in their lives, while the other 50% hardly travel with airplanes once every 6 years JUST to give you a hint how statistics are relative, skewed and meaningless from one person to another.
Statistics is skewed even more for cars, I travel by car less than 20 times per year now, and each ride is usually under 15 minutes, this would be very different rides from intercity/-state rides someone could do every day or every week and chances of being in an accident would also be very different
How many collisions have you been in? I’ve been in 3 car collisions, 2 of which had injuries. I’ve been in 0 flight collisions/crashes.
how many trips have you made in a car? how many flights?
What are you even talking about? Which mode of transportation has the most deaths based on distance covered.
Meaning, if you want to drive from California to New York, you are more likely to die as a result of that trip, versus, if you took a train or plane.
If you want to judge this based on “per trip” or even “per hour”. The data would be even more skewed, making airplanes seem even safer, and motorcycles and cars even more dangerous. Also. How would you even measure “per trip” or “per hour”. At least with “per mile” you can measure it. Because vehicles have odometers that keeps track of distance covered. Meaning, you know how far the vehicle traveled before it turned into scrap metal.
here are estimates of death per trip driven from this meaningless stupid statistic in this post:
plane: 0.07×6,000×360÷10^9 ×100%= 0.0151% chance of dying per trip
car: 7.28×1x50÷10 ^ 9x100% = (3.64* 10^ -5)% chance of dying per trip
That means you’re more likely to die on airplane trip more than 415 times compared to taking a car ride!
Assuming average people travel 6000 miles once a year in a plane carrying 360 people. while an average car passenger rides it 800 times a year 50 miles each.
If those numbers were exaggerated, still the number would still be something like 150 times more likely to die on airplane trip than a car ride.
I can argue those numbers are reaslitic to 99% of people I know in my life who travel once a year to a country 3000 miles away, but use their cars to drive 3 hrs back & forth total to work daily, then an additional 2 hrs shopping or delivering things for their families with total reaslitic average of 50 miles a day or 60k miles a year. Again, statistics are only helpfull relatively to your own data. In my case I want to know how likely am I going to die when I ride this thing today, and those are my actual numbers and data, and 90% of the people I personally know as well.
Another shocking statistic would be survival chance per accident:
Airplanes would be 99.99% deaths per accident , while cars would again be 0.01% or roughly 1 out 1000 accidents maybe idk…
Anyway… these statistics I just came up with were rediculious because they are as just as accurate and realistic as the one in this post.
The statistics in the post has a source. It is cited as Ian Savage. And it doesn’t take much to find the report these statistics are based upon.
https://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/ipsavage/436-manuscript.pdf
I didn’t need you to tell me your numbers were bullshit, it was pretty obvious. So if you want to mald in your chair and be angry over a report you don’t understand. That is your choice.
Though I’d recommend you read the report since that would be the best way of growing your understanding of the topic you are so intent on sharing your opinion on.
I edited my comment to calculate the chance of dying per trip riding an airplane vs riding a car using the same data in this study. even if my assumed numbers were exaggeratted it’d be 150 times more likely to die on airplane trip than a car trip. lol
The fact you don’t see the problem with that statement speaks volume.
You assumed a bunch of numbers pulled from thin air, and applied some other numbers without considering the context or methodology of how they were obtained.
And you think that will provide you with informational data? Good job. You clearly know what you’re doing. Keep it up.
no… read it above even quarter of my assumed numbers would still result in 100 times more likely to die. I do delivery work that’s why I drive 70k+ miles / year or 50 miles a day on average and experieced so many accidents… etc.
you try it yourself and use that data and calculate % chance of death in an airplane ride vs a car ride. use your own numbers and you will still get to the same conclusion
Your methodology is incorrect to begin with, it doesn’t matter what numbers you use if the method is wrong. You’ve been basing everything on that hundreds of people are all condensed into 1 plane trip, rather than viewing it as hundreds of people making 1 plane trip, per person. yet, when counting the deaths, you don’t count it per plane trip, you count it per person.
Your methodology is skewing your results by the hundreds. And that is independent of whatever numbers you’re coming up with.
The scientific community in collaboration with statisticians have over the past 20 years, all come to the same conclusion, that you are significantly less probable of dying while traveling in an airplane or train, than you are in a car, and especially a motorcycle.
If you genuinely believe, that you’ve made a breakthrough that goes against the result of every single published and peer reviewed report on the topic, I implore you to publish your results and have it peer reviewed by the various institutions that also collect data on the topic.
But I’m not going to argue with you about this. You are free to believe whatever you want. Personally, I’m going to believe that the data and methodology from a professor, with 39 years of experience and several published papers on the economics, and safety in the transit sector, is correct.
Per hour traveled makes the most sense imo, otherwise you bias towards modes of transport used for short trips instead since they spend less time in danger.