Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[omegod]

Just to slip into the budget airline debate, I flew with Germanwings to Cologne recently and they were pretty good for the price

[Kevin Wood]

Yep, 0.85 is the current "sweet spot".

[TheBoy]

i didn't say that i said the using deaths per mile is a misleading figure.  deaths per billion passenger miles for
flying is 0.07,
urban rail 0.24,
cars 7.28

but planes fly approx 20 times the speed of cars or urban rail so cover 20 times the mileage in 4 hours.  So, roughly, the comparable safety figures for 4 hours in each is
rail 0.43
flying 1.4
car 7.28

despite what per miles figures say spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car). 

Hang on a sec, you're not making sense. 

So I want to get to the Cote d'Azur, approx. 850 miles from my house, and somebody worried about safety. Why are planes suddenly 20times more dangerous, because they are 20 times faster.  The stats are well known and verifiable, without multiplying by an arbitrary figure.

And that's what I mean about conspiracists



Nick W - having done said Cote d'Azur by both car and plane, there is not much in it timewise (about an hour), both take a long day, due to all the dicking around at each end. IME anyway.

[omega2018]

i didn't say that i said the using deaths per mile is a misleading figure.  deaths per billion passenger miles for
flying is 0.07,
urban rail 0.24,
cars 7.28

but planes fly approx 20 times the speed of cars or urban rail so cover 20 times the mileage in 4 hours.  So, roughly, the comparable safety figures for 4 hours in each is
rail 0.43
flying 1.4
car 7.28

despite what per miles figures say spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car). 

Hang on a sec, you're not making sense. 

So I want to get to the Cote d'Azur, approx. 850 miles from my house, and somebody worried about safety. Why are planes suddenly 20times more dangerous, because they are 20 times faster.  The stats are well known and verifiable, without multiplying by an arbitrary figure.

And that's what I mean about conspiracists

I think you just need to learn to read...

[TheBoy]

I've flown with premium and budget, and not noticed the difference (price aside). I pick whats most convenient/fastest.

[TheBoy]

I think you just need to learn to read...

I think you're right MM, as you're not making any sense to me. I've even scribbed it on a sheet of paper, using your figures, and still can't work out why it immediate becomes 20 times more dangerous.

Not that I'm fussed, as I'd drive anyway, as stated. And we still agree that's the most dangerous.

[omega2018]

I think you just need to learn to read...

I think you're right MM, as you're not making any sense to me. I've even scribbed it on a sheet of paper, using your figures, and still can't work out why it immediate becomes 20 times more dangerous.

its not 20 times its approx 3 times more dangerous per hour than a train and still a lot safer per hour than a car.  I do believe this is what I said

here's some practice reading

"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"

I don't know how I can explain it any better than i did

[steve6367]

I think you just need to learn to read...

I think you're right MM, as you're not making any sense to me. I've even scribbed it on a sheet of paper, using your figures, and still can't work out why it immediate becomes 20 times more dangerous.

its not 20 times its approx 3 times more dangerous per hour than a train and still a lot safer per hour than a car.  I do believe this is what I said

here's some practice reading

"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"

I don't know how I can explain it any better than i did

Yes but in 4 hours on a train you will have got to the midlands, on a plane I will be Moscow.....

If I get a train to Moscow (several days?) I suspect I am exposed to more risk?

[Entwood]

The way this thread has gone demonstrates exactly why statistics has such a bad name in some circles.

There is a simple reason why fatalities are measured "per passenger mile" and not "per minute" or hour or whatever, and that is because the distance (mile) is a fixed measure for all transport types, and "per passenger" allows differentiation between a small aircraft and a large one, and allows trains, cars, coaches etc to be included as well.

It actually allows you to even compare the risk of cycling from london to moscow - will take a long time and one "body", but a fixed distance - with a car, train, plane, etc with a KNOWN degree of accuracy .. faffing about trying to claim that time makes difference is clearly stupid, as the time factor may involve sitting in a terminal waiting for a connection (plane or train) or sitting at traffic lights (car)  where the "risks" have nothing to do with the type of transport involved.

So, lets stop comparing apples to oranges, and stick with accurate, known methods that we all can understand.

[Nick W]

I think you just need to learn to read...

I think you're right MM, as you're not making any sense to me. I've even scribbed it on a sheet of paper, using your figures, and still can't work out why it immediate becomes 20 times more dangerous.

its not 20 times its approx 3 times more dangerous per hour than a train and still a lot safer per hour than a car.  I do believe this is what I said

here's some practice reading

"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"

I don't know how I can explain it any better than i did

And as Entwood wrote, you're saying that like it makes a BIG difference. But the baseline, the actual numbers, are very small. So it's (possibly, if the statistics are calculated in a meaningful way) 3 times an insignificant number. Which makes bugger all difference to the actual risk - the important part.


Consider this:


1) you have a 2 in 10 chance of dieing horribly if you get in a car, and a 6 in 10 chance if you get in an aeroplane.
2) You have a 4 in 20,000 chance in a car, and a 12 in 20,000 in an aeroplane.


Both are three times worse, but


1) is risky to start with, and three times worse is terrible odds.


2) is so insignificant to start with, that three times worse is still irrelevant. Making a decision is stupid based on 'three times' worse would be stupid.

[Kevin Wood]

I've flown with premium and budget, and not noticed the difference (price aside). I pick whats most convenient/fastest.

Yep, there is no such thing as a budget airline any more. They have all reached the lowest common denominator IME.

[Doctor Gollum]

Or as we used to say about our 3% annual payrises... 3% of opps all, is still opps all

[Mister Rog]

I think you just need to learn to read...

I think you're right MM, as you're not making any sense to me. I've even scribbed it on a sheet of paper, using your figures, and still can't work out why it immediate becomes 20 times more dangerous.

its not 20 times its approx 3 times more dangerous per hour than a train and still a lot safer per hour than a car.  I do believe this is what I said

here's some practice reading

"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"

I don't know how I can explain it any better than i did

And as Entwood wrote, you're saying that like it makes a BIG difference. But the baseline, the actual numbers, are very small. So it's (possibly, if the statistics are calculated in a meaningful way) 3 times an insignificant number. Which makes bugger all difference to the actual risk - the important part.


Consider this:


1) you have a 2 in 10 chance of dieing horribly if you get in a car, and a 6 in 10 chance if you get in an aeroplane.
2) You have a 4 in 20,000 chance in a car, and a 12 in 20,000 in an aeroplane.


Both are three times worse, but


1) is risky to start with, and three times worse is terrible odds.


2) is so insignificant to start with, that three times worse is still irrelevant. Making a decision is stupid based on 'three times' worse would be stupid.

Well . . . . . . .

I don't think that I'm ever going to fly, drive, take a ferry, train, bus, hitchhike, cycle, motorcycle, paraglide, skydive, scooter, rollerskate, rollerblade, ice skate, rollerskate, teleport (!), sail, surf,  . . . . . again

In fact I don't think I'm ever going to walk outside again, I might get hit by a bus, or struck by lightening, or swallowed by a sinkhole, or abducted by aliens . . . . . .

[Doctor Gollum]

I would move to darkest Wales Rog

Certain Migmog will advise you when it's time to move