Would be interesting to do a real comparison of risk.  Some numbers
google pulls up indicate that car crashes (not fatalities, which are
much lower) occur at a rate of less than 100 crashes per billion miles
driven.

I have no idea what the airplane crash rate is, so I can't do a
comparison.  I would be interested in seeing all airplane miles, not
just commercial and shipping.

Then it would be nice to see the comparison per hour of
driving/flying, since planes can cover distance much faster.  Of
course, we can even stretch it out to include passenger counts
(crashes per person/hour driving/flying) since airlines are like big
buses.  Perhaps we could collect stats for bus crashes as well, then
use that as a comparative transform to see how risky a car really is.

Statistics aside, though, are you really claiming that since driving
accounts for more fatalities per year than X, Y, or Z activities, then
it's pointless to discuss X, Y, or Z until the driving issue is
handled?  Or that every discussion on X, Y, or Z should have a
disclaimer or acknowledgment that driving is worse?

-Adam

On 8/22/07, Nate Duehr <nate@natetech.com> wrote:
> As always, driving your car to work (or to the mountains to go
> rock-climbing, or to the airport to go flying) is by far the most
> hazardous thing you'll probably do all day, unless you are exceedingly
> reckless at other activities.
>
> Folks do that without even thinking about it.  They then discuss how
> hazardous the other activities are.  LOL!
-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Moving in southeast Michigan? Buy my house: http://ubasics.com/house/

Interested in electronics? Check out the projects at http://ubasics.com

Building your own house? Check out http://ubasics.com/home/
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist