Statistics! Car versus airplane.

derg

derg

Apparently a "terse" writer
Staff member
What do ya think?

From another thread:

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that the survivability of a car accident is higher than an airplane accident. That's all. Stats can say anything they want to. Feel free to call me a wanker. Lastly, I think that we should talk about this on another thread.

[/ QUOTE ]
 
I think more people survive car crashes then they do airplanes.

I think as far as overal safety (per mile) - airliners are safer then cars. But I am certain the death per mile travelled is lower in car accidents then it is general aviation.

Elevators are classed as the safest mode of transportation. Millions of people travel millions of miles per day via them, and I have yet to hear a fatality!
 
Are you sure, Iain? Airplanes don't drive!
smile.gif


Personally, I feel 1000% safer in the aircraft than I do on the crew shuttle to the airport or driving home.
 
When people ask me if I ever worry about Bill, like being in crash or something, I tell them I am far more worried about him when he has to be shuttled from MIA to FLL, or in any of the assorted frightening hotel vans than I am when he's in the air.

You want scary? Try the Q-runner in NY!
 
Sorry doug, I edited my post right after I made it...I should have said that I believe that the survivability of a car accident is higher than an airplane accident. I apologize, as my original statement was trying to say too much. Breaking it down into a few parts,
A: An airplane accident is harder to walk away from than a car accident, so for example, GA flying is more risky than the equivalent level of driving. This is obvious, I don't need to say any more.
B: I feel that "flying is safer than driving" is a misrepresentation of the risks of flying. Anyone who is interested in flying, is a pilot, or related to a pilot should know the risks, and how they can be managed. Referencing kellwolf's post, people should be informed as best as possible about the risks of flying and talk about it with others so that they can make the best decisions for them and let others know that too. I snapped at that statement because you hear it all the time and I do not believe it to be true.
C: This myth should be applied to buses and railroads, because in the stats included in my link and jep's first link, it is true that the total number of passengers killed on railroads and buses is less than the total number of airplane passenger deaths in a number of years, thus illustrating that these statistics can show another form of transportation to be "the safest".
D;free to call me a wanker if you think any of this doesn't make sense. It is fun to cite anecdotal advice and make a joke about stuff, but just being serious and logical about it, I believe the above argument to be pretty solid. I would appreciate it if I can be proven wrong.
 
I've heard lots of stories about the "Q" Amber! I've got a bid in for NYC 7ER so I'll probably familiarize myself first hand.
 
Hey Grassroots, no apologizing on Jetcareers man, keep it real! It was a good idea for a seperate thread.

Seriously. No worries bro.
 
[ QUOTE ]
A: An airplane accident is harder to walk away from than a car accident, so for example, GA flying is more risky than the equivalent level of driving. This is obvious, I don't need to say any more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where are the numbers that show that? Using the links that I provided and the data from 2002:

Car occupant, deaths = 16,337 odds 1 in 17,625
Occupant of pick-up truck or van deaths = 4,286 odds 1 in 67,182

Air and space transport accidents, deaths = 653 odds 1 in 440,951

In 2002 there were 543 deaths in Part 91 GA aircraft. I rec'd those numbers using a simple query from the NTSB database. (I have teh excel sheet saved if you'd like to see it).Using the 2002 US population of 287,941,220. If you divide the population by the number of GA deaths you will get a number 1 in 530,278 for your odds of dying in a GA crash. Compare that to the numbers above for car and or truck and it is far safer in a GA Aircraft than driving a car or truck.

Now there is some proof/numbers to my point and many others. Can you show some verifiable numbers to support your point?


[ QUOTE ]
B: ..... Anyone who is interested in flying, is a pilot, or related to a pilot should know the risks, and how they can be managed.

[/ QUOTE ]

No arguments here.

[ QUOTE ]
D;free to call me a wanker if you think any of this doesn't make sense. It is fun to cite anecdotal advice and make a joke about stuff, but just being serious and logical about it, I believe the above argument to be pretty solid. I would appreciate it if I can be proven wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

No fun, no joking. I have stated my view. If you have something to show another view, then please do so. We are all here to learn from each other.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Elevators are classed as the safest mode of transportation. Millions of people travel millions of miles per day via them, and I have yet to hear a fatality!

[/ QUOTE ]

I can take care of that:

HOUSTON, Texas (AP) -- A surgical resident was killed when an elevator malfunctioned and decapitated him, authorities said.

Malfunctioning elevator kills man
 
[ QUOTE ]
I've heard lots of stories about the "Q" Amber! I've got a bid in for NYC 7ER so I'll probably familiarize myself first hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Q-Runner is great, but when I was riding them, they had one really really BAD driver in particular. This person was just downright frightening. All the other drivers were just typical New Yorkers, and drove in such a manner as everyone else on the VanWyck. This other guy though, oiy.

One time their van was down for mtx, and they brought a huge old Brady-style station wagon. Not including the driver there were 8 of us, plus our bags, in that beast. I'm surprised the poor old thing made it to LGA!

Hope all that construction is done at JFK. It sure was tough trying to find where the Q-Runner picked up on any given day while all that was going on. We always had to call and find out the location of the day, it was constantly changing.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Are you sure, Iain? Airplanes don't drive!
smile.gif


Personally, I feel 1000% safer in the aircraft than I do on the crew shuttle to the airport or driving home.

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel safer in an airplane as well. I think part of this has to do with the fact that there aren't other airplanes within 10 feet of you going the smae or even faster speed, like cars do. 4 lanes of cars doing 70 mph is an accident waiting to happen(which is not to say i dont go on the highway). Anyways, think of GA flying like a sport, such as skiing. Skiing can be dangarus if you are reckless, and so can flying. So be safe and smart, you should be alright.
 
IMO, Safety is realitive. I know people, pilots and not, who I will be very impressed if they make it to 40, just because of the way they drive. I honestly dont think (knock on wood), because the way I drive, that I will crash a car anytime soon, I am more worried about someone else running into me.
I know people who fly in the same way they drive, and I know people who I will fly with on any day, but will never hop in the car with them to go get a bite to eat.

My point is, we as pilots, or aviation professionals, have the ability to make the airlines safer. It is a choice. Hoping into a 152 could be safer then driving to the airport, or it can be much more dangerous, it is all about the choces we make.

This aslo includes the driving...if your one of those people that have to make it faster then someone else...STOP DRIVING LIKE AN IDIOT. If you drive 75 and I do the speed limit, you MIGHT beat me there by 30 seconds. But I will make it there alive.
 
My take:
There seems to be lies, damn lies, and statistics all over this thread. With that said, good thread topic.

I feel its nearly impossible to calculate all the possibilities of getting in an accident, whether it be GA, airline or auto. Theres many factors that may not be taken into account depending on who is running the math. You can do the math using total deaths for each form of transportion. But my problem with this is that it just depends on what locality you are driving/flying through. If you compute the math at a regional level you will get very different results.

Case in point:
Find the GA accident rate on the western edge of Nebraska for a flight from Kearney to North Platte. Then find the rate for a drive along I80 from Kearney to North Platte.

Once completed find a rate in some metro area like SoCal, FL or NY.

My point is that it just depends on where you are flying or driving. I feel statistically I'm safer flying in central WI than in NY. So in regard to the stats JEP ran, would they really be an accurate portrayal for anyone?

Also, in regard to "walking away from an accident." It is indeed easier to walk away from some accident in a 25mph residential area than it is from a jet flying at 500mph. So are you not comparing, for the sake of saving the apple/orange thing, olives to grapefruit?

I don't know nor do I feel there is a correct answer. I'm just spitting in my 100 bones.
 
[ QUOTE ]
In 2002 there were 543 deaths in Part 91 GA aircraft. I rec'd those numbers using a simple query from the NTSB database. (I have teh excel sheet saved if you'd like to see it).Using the 2002 US population of 287,941,220. If you divide the population by the number of GA deaths you will get a number 1 in 530,278 for your odds of dying in a GA crash. Compare that to the numbers above for car and or truck and it is far safer in a GA Aircraft than driving a car or truck.

Now there is some proof/numbers to my point and many others. Can you show some verifiable numbers to support your point?

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting numbers, but flawed statistics, I'm afraid. It's true that when looking at the general population of the country, a person is much less likely to die in an aviation accident than a car accident. However, you fail to account for the fact that 99% of the population drives every day but flies rarely.

A more appropriate figure would look at the number of deaths/injuries per person-mile for auto and aviation transportation. I think that you would find aviation to be a bit more risky than driving.
 
[ QUOTE ]


In 2002 there were 543 deaths in Part 91 GA aircraft. I rec'd those numbers using a simple query from the NTSB database. (I have teh excel sheet saved if you'd like to see it).Using the 2002 US population of 287,941,220. If you divide the population by the number of GA deaths you will get a number 1 in 530,278 for your odds of dying in a GA crash. Compare that to the numbers above for car and or truck and it is far safer in a GA Aircraft than driving a car or truck.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you have assumed that everyone in the US flies GA aircraft, and does so as much as they drive - - flawed logic like that is the reason we are in Iraq!!
 
I think they way they break it down at the NTSB is by deaths per 100K miles or something like that.

That way, you are making an accurate comparison. For every 100K miles of travel by x method, you will see y people die.

I don't have that data handy but I'm sure if we examined it, we'd find that GA is no more risky than driving and that it might be safer.
 
Miles travelled don't work, quite, either (although the airlines like that metric). The reason is that people take a lot of short trips in cars, and the odds of an accident are higher on surface streets than on the highway. It is virtually impossible to quantify. Certainly if you do miles travelled the airlines look good, but if you do it per time travelled the stats change drastically in favor of autos. Is that meaningful? Maybe, maybe not, as that would also include time sitting at a traffic signal, etc. If you do it on a per trip basis, meaning from park to park, autos look even better yet.

What does all this prove? Nothing really, in the end. The job of the pilot is to manage risk, and THAT is what we get paid to do!
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A: An airplane accident is harder to walk away from than a car accident, so for example, GA flying is more risky than the equivalent level of driving. This is obvious, I don't need to say any more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where are the numbers that show that? Using the links that I provided and the data from 2002:

Car occupant, deaths = 16,337 odds 1 in 17,625
Occupant of pick-up truck or van deaths = 4,286 odds 1 in 67,182

Air and space transport accidents, deaths = 653 odds 1 in 440,951

In 2002 there were 543 deaths in Part 91 GA aircraft. I rec'd those numbers using a simple query from the NTSB database. (I have teh excel sheet saved if you'd like to see it).Using the 2002 US population of 287,941,220. If you divide the population by the number of GA deaths you will get a number 1 in 530,278 for your odds of dying in a GA crash. Compare that to the numbers above for car and or truck and it is far safer in a GA Aircraft than driving a car or truck.

Now there is some proof/numbers to my point and many others. Can you show some verifiable numbers to support your point?


[/ QUOTE ]



okay, I think swen was on the right track. I doubt there are many unicycle fatalities on the highway, so therefore unicycle is the safest wat to travel!
Using the total us pop to determine deaths is flawed. Not everyone is a passenger in GA. I know people who haven't even been in any airplane...cletus, big bertha, etc...just kidding, they just don't go anywhere...but almost everyone has been a passenger in a car or truck/bus. Using highways admin's fact sheet , (third paragraph) the rate of fatalities/accidents on the highway was about .67%, compared to about 20% for GA that someone mentioned above. This is a solid stat: number of people killed in car accidents on the highway vs people killed in GA accidents. The human body can only take so much trauma force before you die. Airplanes move much faster, aren't volvos, don't have arbags, all of which are contributing factors to less survivibility. Sidenote: until WWI, the total US fatal accidents involving a car > total US soldiers killed in all wars until WWI.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top