Flying - Safest means of transport?

[empip]

...0.03 deaths per 100 million kilometres for commercial aircraft versus 0.1 deaths per 100 million kilometres for rail travel...

Shouldn't we compare the number of deaths with the number of journeys made?? I believe this is the method used by the industry and its insurers.
A far different 'kettle of fish'.

 

[megawatt]

Deaths by distance travelled is better for aviation as it more accurately reflects time travelled which is the important thing i.e. time spent in the air.

Whichever way we do the stats though it will still come out the safest I suspect.

MW

 

[big-all]

a fairer comparison would be time spent in motion !!!

 

[blondini]

Have you got any figures for passenger deaths per journey Empip?

 

[empip]

I was casting a wide net on the subject, at first read of a 'New Scientist' article from 1999 I missed the sentence which I have emboldened below...

Is the writer correct concerning the measure used? Or do you know better?

...Take the claims about flying being the safest form of transport. If you plot the number of fatal accidents against distance travelled, you end up with 0.03 deaths per 100 million kilometres for commercial aircraft versus 0.1 deaths per 100 million kilometres for rail travel.

What the airlines don't tell you is that this form of comparison effectively dilutes the accident rate for aircraft. Aircraft usually travel huge distances while cars and trains don't. And while the risk of having a fatal accident in a car or train is spread more or less evenly across the journey time, the opposite is true for planes: 70 per cent of all aircraft accidents take place at takeoff and landing, which is only 4 per cent of journey time.

A better measure is to plot the number of deaths against the time travelled. This is fairer, since many car and train journeys last as long as plane journeys. But it still doesn't take into account the concentration of accidents around takeoff and landing.

The most accurate method is to compare the number of deaths with the number of journeys made. So accurate, in fact, that this is the measure used by the industry and its insurers. This makes much more sense, because what matters to the individual is the journey, not how long it took or how far it went. Also, it enables comparison of different types of jet, both long haul and short haul.

By this measure, air travel takes on a rather different complexion. Deaths per 100 million passenger journeys are, on average, 55 for airliners compared with 4.5 for cars, and 2.7 for trains. Only motorbikes, at 100 deaths per 100 million passenger journeys, are more risky than aircraft on this basis...

 

[megawatt]

Time spent travelling makes far more sense to me.

A fairer comparison would be time spent in motion !!!

Difficult to be airborne and not be in motion Big-all

MW

 

[big-all]

Time spent travelling makes far more sense to me.

A fairer comparison would be time spent in motion !!!

Difficult to be airborne and not be in motion Big-all

MW

i thought about "time on board" but thought this would favor rail travel where passengers get strait on the train at a terminal and maybe spend 10 mins "sitting on the train "waiting for departure time for a say 20 miniuet journey

 

[blondini]

Saw the same thing Empip. A bit shocking at first but I'd still feel safer flying to any destination than driving to the same. Not sure about the railways, but still safer than driving.

Compared to air travel, most rail and road journeys are short. If you took your car or train and did 'air miles' journeys, it still looks like air travel would be the safer option. Horses for courses.

 

[big-all]

have you got a link or a suggestion where i could find the article please!!!

 

[blondini]

have you got a link or a suggestion where i could find the article please!!!

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16321985.200.html

 

[Nige F]

safest way is a conveyor

 

[Richardp]

Its only really the landing bit thats dodgy, its like a controlled crash, I hate it.

 

[megawatt]

You've seen me fly then

 

[empip]

Saw the same thing Empip. A bit shocking at first but I'd still feel safer flying to any destination than driving to the same. Not sure about the railways, but still safer than driving.

Compared to air travel, most rail and road journeys are short. If you took your car or train and did 'air miles' journeys, it still looks like air travel would be the safer option. Horses for courses.

Did you miss this ?
"...The most accurate method is to compare the number of deaths with the number of journeys made. So accurate, in fact, that this is the measure used by the industry and its insurers..."

The insurance boys are usually in the ball park.

And...
"...Of course, as any insurance expert will tell you, a person's actual risk depends on their exposure. The real reason why air travel is relatively safe is because most of us use it so rarely. If you flew a Boeing 737 to work every morning and back, you'd be far more likely to die in a crash than if you drove a car. Does the fact that few of us do as much flying as driving make it OK for planes to be so much more dangerous?"

 

[Bilioustrumpstaine]

This all goes to prove that you can manipulate statistics to say whatever you want. (Yes minister)

There are many variables to flying and one is who you are flying with.

I would have more faith in BA than say Aeroflot or some of the budget asiatic based carriers who don't have the finance or infrastructure to maintain aircraft or update their fleet.