Planes are not safer than cars

[Gabriel]

I suspect this whole thread was born as spam.

Mr TheFridayKnight had the only intnet to get hits to his blog.
Either that, or it was just a bad joke and hes is laughing at us now for wasting time discussing his stupid "article" in his "journal".

He asks us what we think but then, after many contributions for and against, we have not heard from him again.

[BoeingKing77]

Oh .. I missed that. Water is also in the statistics and it's almost always worse than flying ... how far back does the statisctics reach? Titanic?

always worst then flying???In my opinion some times Id rather go by boat then plane.remember the us airways jet that crash landed in the water???No fatalities.

Also,however started this is wrong.Even though there are more cars then planes,cars are more likely to crash because of:
1)Driver error
2)Drunkiness(how often do you here about a drunk pilot flying a plane)
3)Teens drive them
4)Less advanced

[Luka]

If you travel Qantas, the stats are yet to begin...

[thefridayknight]

I agree with you. It's all about money. These airlines dont even want to spend the money to get proper inspection equipment. They inspect these planes just by visual checks and knocking on the surface and listening. pretty primitive for the 21st century. The military uses sonar and infrared equipment to inspect.

[brianw999]

......rather, they equip the planes with life jackets and bullshits that are never used ... all planes fall from sky, so for god sake how would a life jacket be helpful in such cases ....
Thanks, Shadi

I think the passengers that came down in the Hudson River and all survived might argue against your position there ?

[thefridayknight]

Planes are not safer than cars (reprise)

First to the wise guy who said "we never heard from him again". I just happen to have other things to do so I wasn't able to respond as quickly as i would have liked to.

I don't know how to respond to the indivisual post indivisualy..I really wish I could. Maybe someone can help me with that.

Gabriel your response was great..the second half of your response had me cracking up laughing..very creative!
All of the responses were very interesting and thought provoking.
But i'm not moved.

Lets put aside the statistics for a bit and lets look at it from an emotional perspective. Picture yourself being in a car crash and then picture yourself being in plane crash. If you had a choice which one would you rather be in?
Have you ever been on a flight that went through a series of air pockets? What happened when the plane landed?....everyone starts clapping! Why did they clap? Because everyone was praying for thier dear lives! You can come with all the statistics you want. When your up there 10,000 feet up in the air and higher and that planes starts shakin around..you don't give a damn about statistics because your common sense and natural intelligence knows that this is a potentially very dangerous predicament.
Don't get me wrong; I am a big user of statictics myself. I use them heavily whem I'm making my argument on why all drugs should be legalized. I don't think that the point that I'm trying make requires statictics.

Let's say that you do survive a plane crash; a plane crash is something you just don't want to experience period! Do you know the degree of sheer terror and horror that one experiences in a plane crash?! I,ve been in a car accident twice and it wasn't that frightening. People have to go to counseling for months after experiencing a plane crash. It's a horrifying, terrifying experience..people urinate and defecate on them selves. So it's not just a matter of survival for me; what about your psychological and emotinal safety? It's just something that i never ever want to experience...give me a car crash anyday!

You dont need statictics. Most of the statistics stated in these posts are still dealing with the likelyhood of an incident happening, not chances of survival in the event of an accident. Everybody knows that if you are in plane crash your chances of survival are very slim at best! That alone makes it a less safer mode of travel. I still say the likelyhood of an incident happening or not happening does not make it safer or not safer. When I,m in a car I know that likelyhood of having an accident is very high but I feel very little fear (especially if I'm driving) because I know that if there is an accident the worst that is most likely happen is probably a couple of broken bones.. not my head hanging on a tree and my left bigtoe somewhere else (not to mention the fact that I'm not 20,000 feet in the air). I will start looking into statictics though.

[seahawk]

One thread is enough

[EconomyClass]

Planes and cars shouldn't really be compared anyway. Way too different. If airliners were flown with the safety systems on cars by people with the average driver's training and with half the pilots thoroughly inebriated, I guarantee you, the stats wouldn't look near as good. If the laws restricted cars to the extreme degree of airliners, car stats would be revolutionized. But it is politically impossible to do that. That's because driving yourself is nearly as much a right as carrying a gun. The true mark of a right is not that there's a clause in the Constitution, it is rather the ability of the government to curtail it. No government can curtail driving cars. Not even after the driver has killed people in a drunken stupor.

So compare planes with comparable vehicles, not cars. Granted cars make planes look better, but its a bogus image.

[Simpleboy]

Lets put aside the statistics for a bit and lets look at it from an emotional perspective. Picture yourself being in a car crash and then picture yourself being in plane crash. If you had a choice which one would you rather be in?
Have you ever been on a flight that went through a series of air pockets? What happened when the plane landed?....everyone starts clapping! Why did they clap? Because everyone was praying for thier dear lives! You can come with all the statistics you want. When your up there 10,000 feet up in the air and higher and that planes starts shakin around..you don't give a damn about statistics because your common sense and natural intelligence knows that this is a potentially very dangerous predicament.
Don't get me wrong; I am a big user of statictics myself. I use them heavily whem I'm making my argument on why all drugs should be legalized. I don't think that the point that I'm trying make requires statictics.

Let's say that you do survive a plane crash; a plane crash is something you just don't want to experience period! Do you know the degree of sheer terror and horror that one experiences in a plane crash?! I,ve been in a car accident twice and it wasn't that frightening. People have to go to counseling for months after experiencing a plane crash. It's a horrifying, terrifying experience..people urinate and defecate on them selves. So it's not just a matter of survival for me; what about your psychological and emotinal safety? It's just something that i never ever want to experience...give me a car crash anyday!

You dont need statictics. Most of the statistics stated in these posts are still dealing with the likelyhood of an incident happening, not chances of survival in the event of an accident. Everybody knows that if you are in plane crash your chances of survival are very slim at best! That alone makes it a less safer mode of travel. I still say the likelyhood of an incident happening or not happening does not make it safer or not safer. When I,m in a car I know that likelyhood of having an accident is very high but I feel very little fear (especially if I'm driving) because I know that if there is an accident the worst that is most likely happen is probably a couple of broken bones.. not my head hanging on a tree and my left bigtoe somewhere else (not to mention the fact that I'm not 20,000 feet in the air). I will start looking into statictics though.

Just type quote in between [] and [/quote] at the end with what you wanted quoted in the middle.

But the basis of your claim is still made on the premise that IF you end up in a crash then being in a car is safer. Which isnt really whats safer.

From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/safe

safe (sf)
adj. saf·er, saf·est
1. Secure from danger, harm, or evil.
2. Free from danger or injury; unhurt: safe and sound.
3. Free from risk; sure: a safe bet.
4. Affording protection: a safe place.
5. Baseball Having reached a base without being put out, as a batter or base runner.

So only the first two are really relevant here, but your whole basis for safety comes from whats safer, AFTER you have entered an unsafe event, Which isnt really a fair comparison. especially when air travel gets itself into an unsafe condition far less likely. Which means, when im in a plane, im safer BECAUSE im less likely to crash, and from that therefore less likely to die.

And now using you as an example, you've had two accidents in cars, but none in air travel and your still claiming cars are safer?

And back to the definition "Free from danger or injury" and what you say

I still say the likelyhood of an incident happening or not happening does not make it safer or not safer.

I think by definition being less likely to be in an accident means you are 'free-er' from danger or injury, and therefore safter.

[SYDCBRWOD]

If you travel Qantas, the stats are yet to begin...

Rubbish, Rainman was wrong.

[Gandalf123]

Lets put aside the statistics for a bit and lets look at it from an emotional perspective. Picture yourself being in a car crash and then picture yourself being in plane crash. If you had a choice which one would you rather be in?

Neither, thank you. You are now basing your whole argument on emotional grounds. You can't. Emotion, fear of flying, fear of heights ETC. have absolutely nothing to do with safety, be it in a plane, or any other mode of transport

Have you ever been on a flight that went through a series of air pockets? What happened when the plane landed?....everyone starts clapping! Why did they clap? Because everyone was praying for their dear lives!

You clearly don't seem to fly a lot, if at all. First of all, you need to understand the science behind flight. Many people don't understand it, so if the ride gets a little bumpy, and it can, people don't understand what is happening to the plane, so some may get scared. Air pockets are a wonderful thing. The only ones there are, is that vacuum over the trailing edge of the wing that is keeping the plane in the air. Turbulence might be a better word for what you are trying to say. Air rising, Air descending and clouds varying in temperature and moisture all cause a certain amount of turbulence but it is not going to rip the wings off your plane and send you to oblivion. (Barr British Overseas Airways 911 perhaps)

You can come with all the statistics you want. When your up there 10,000 feet up in the air and higher and that planes starts shakin around..you don't give a damn about statistics because your common sense and natural intelligence knows that this is a potentially very dangerous predicament.

On the contrary, the higher you fly, the smoother the flight becomes. Most convective activity peaks at only a couple of thousand feet above the ground. Above 20000 feet, no mode of ground transport can give you a smoother ride. Closer to the ground, flight crews are trained to avoid convective activity.

Let's say that you do survive a plane crash; a plane crash is something you just don't want to experience period! Do you know the degree of sheer terror and horror that one experiences in a plane crash?! I,ve been in a car accident twice and it wasn't that frightening. People have to go to counseling for months after experiencing a plane crash. It's a horrifying, terrifying experience..people urinate and defecate on them selves. So it's not just a matter of survival for me; what about your psychological and emotinal safety? It's just something that i never ever want to experience...give me a car crash anyday!

The difference between a car crash is that in most cases you don't see it coming, and if you do, the fact happens before you can even conceive what is happening to you. On an airliner, you are a long way from the ground. When that plane starts falling out of the sky, one has more than enough time to understand exactly what is happening, and what is about to happen next.

You dont need statictics. Most of the statistics stated in these posts are still dealing with the likelyhood of an incident happening, not chances of survival in the event of an accident. Everybody knows that if you are in plane crash your chances of survival are very slim at best! That alone makes it a less safer mode of travel. I still say the likelyhood of an incident happening or not happening does not make it safer or not safer. When I,m in a car I know that likelyhood of having an accident is very high but I feel very little fear (especially if I'm driving) because I know that if there is an accident the worst that is most likely happen is probably a couple of broken bones.. not my head hanging on a tree and my left bigtoe somewhere else (not to mention the fact that I'm not 20,000 feet in the air). I will start looking into statictics though.

Your chances of survival in any mode of transport depend completely on the nature of the accident. A head on car collision can be just as fatal as any plane plowing into terrain at 500 miles an hour. But in many cases, as other forum members have already told you, most plane crashes are survivable.

[Gabriel]

First to the wise guy who said "we never heard from him again".

Gabriel your response was great..the second half of your response had me cracking up laughing..very creative!

Errrrr... The "wise guy" and Gabriel are one.

You'll see. It's really uncommon to have someone with a real interest in the answer to ask a question in an Internet forum, that being his first post in such forum, and then disappear for three days.

You seem to be the exception, and I want to apologize for having misjudged you.

I don't know how to respond to the indivisual post indivisualy..I really wish I could. Maybe someone can help me with that.

Try clicking the "quote" button on the lower right corner of each post.

Lets put aside the statistics for a bit and lets look at it from an emotional perspective. Picture yourself being in a car crash and then picture yourself being in plane crash. If you had a choice which one would you rather be in?
Have you ever been on a flight that went through a series of air pockets? What happened when the plane landed?....everyone starts clapping! Why did they clap? Because everyone was praying for thier dear lives! You can come with all the statistics you want. When your up there 10,000 feet up in the air and higher and that planes starts shakin around..you don't give a damn about statistics because your common sense and natural intelligence knows that this is a potentially very dangerous predicament.
Don't get me wrong; I am a big user of statictics myself. I use them heavily whem I'm making my argument on why all drugs should be legalized. I don't think that the point that I'm trying make requires statictics.

Exactly. The point you are making doesn't need statistics because it's not about the real safety of a mean of transportation but of the emotional perception of that safety. It requires a psychologist, and that's why psychologists and not engineers are the ones that deal with fearful fliers.

Everybody knows that if you are in plane crash your chances of survival are very slim at best! That alone makes it a less safer mode of travel.

Wrong. That makes the plane a less safe mode of crashing, not less safe of travel.
Yes, crashing in a plane is much more dangerous than crashing in a car. But traveling in a plane is not nearly as dangerous because by far most plane travels don't end in a crash.

So when you consider the safety of the plane as a mean of travel, you simply can't get rid of the times when the plane doesn't happen to crash, because that's what almost always happen when you travel by plane.

You are right that you can't just count bodies and claim that the plane is safer. But it's not correct either to start with the crash as given because chances are that there will not be such a crash.

Again, that will be like evaluating the safety of walking on the sidewalk and starting with "in the event that a piano is falling on your head...". A piano doesn't need to fall on your head each time you walk on the sidewalk, and by large most of the times won't.

Both things, the chances to have an accident and the chances of dying in the event of such an accident, must be considered.

By the way....
- You are not the only one with other things to do here.
- Not everybody is scared to fly in turbulence. And not everyone clap after surviving a turbulent flight.
- The chances of surviving a plane accident are greater than what you think. Yes, they are MUCH MUCH worse than in cars, but more people survive than not. Of course, a lot depends on the type of accident. More serious fatal plane accidents tend to have much more press than less severe ones, and that affects perception. On the other hand, car crashes, lethal or not, have very little press if at all, even less than non-fatal plane accidents, and that again affects perception.

[3WE]

Screw planes and cars....let's talk trains!

I'm getting scared of train travel.

There is so very little train service in the US....yet they derail with a pretty good frequency!

They tend not to kill the whole train off (like a whole plane gets killed off), but it seems that the Chicago-Texas Amtrak train derails about once a year....and that's two trains a day....so 1 in about 700 trips you can count on a crash!

That's a lot worse than my car!

[Luka]

Yeah, thats a good point...But it is a little bit of wishful thinking in most cases...Commercial Airliners and water traditionally don't mix very well...How good was that landing? It reminded me of a book "down in the drink" (Ralph Barker) - Catalogs many sea "landings" from WW2. The bombers then were lighter and smaller than commercial jets today, and the occupants were strapped in better and had an evac drill down pat.
I did notice the pilot of the Hudson River jet dipped the tail at the last minute, catching the back first on a wave (small chop)...Perfect technique, was hugely impressed. Wonder if he knew what to do that or was plumb lucky?

[Luka]

Rubbish, Rainman was wrong.

Dude...Qantas has never had a major event. NO-ONE has died as a result of a crash in a Qantas Jet. Hey, if i'm wrong, tell me what major accident/crash Qantas has been in? I'm from the Northern Territory (Queensalnd and Northern Territory Air Service) - i'm not going by rainman.