The BMW 535 was one of the models in link above with zero fatalities in the US in 2012-15. In general their cars have a low fatality rate. There’s no way to prove to what extent that’s car and what extent the type of driver who buys that car but most likely conclusion IMO is that people who buy BMW’s like other expensive car buyers tend to be of higher social class, education and income, and it’s lower social class, education and income that correlate with dangerous driving, like they correlate with most other antisocial behaviors. Talking about ‘rich assholes who drive dangerously’ (though surely true in some cases like practically every characterization) is mainly a political/social feel good for some people I’d guess rather than a real statistical thing.
As far as car features in inducing people to be less safe that seems a reasonable inference in some cases, like 4/A-WD in snow and ice wrt fender benders. Being consciously willing to risk potentially fatal accidents and a totaled a car because of airbags I find more doubtful.
I agree that flying is statistically much safer than driving. I know where the OP is coming from though.
If I’m driving home on a two-lane road and the guy heading toward me in the other lane suddenly decides to end it all in a fiery head-on crash, I at least have some chance of dodging him.
If I’m a passenger on a jet whose pilot decides to end it all, I’m pretty muchhosed.
True enough, though there’s a very small handful of such incidents, out of the 38 million or so commercial flights conducted annually, worldwide. If someone’s choosing to not fly over concern that the pilot might intentionally crash the plane, then their decision-making process is purely being driven on emotion.
Which is why (I think) insurance companies prefer to measure risk on a per trip basis rather than miles traveled. Planes usually crash at takeoff and landing rather than in the middle of a flight so it does not really matter how far the plane goes because your risk is not all that much greater on a long plane flight than a short one.
On this basis the shuttle is not so good. The space shuttle was launched 135 times and was a complete loss twice. You’d never get on an airplane if every time you did there was a 1.4% chance per flight you and everyone on the plane would die.
I have a commute of 5 miles, so 1/5 of my weekday driving is in that distance. That commute (or less) is similar for over half the people working in my city I think. Add in weekend errands (1-2 mile radius) and “1/3 accidents a mile from home” is just proportional to distance.
If we assume that it’s based on time (e.g. I’m as likely to be rear-ended stopped at a traffic light as I’m likely to rear-end someone while moving), the small streets and stoplights in the first mile to the big highway mean that well over 1/3 of my driving time is in the 1-mile from home radius.
Airlines - .06 deaths per billion miles
Bus - .14 deaths per billion miles
Subway - .24 deaths per billion miles
Rail - .47 deaths per billion miles
Car - 5.75 deaths per billion miles
Motorcycle - 217 deaths per billion miles
Can I just say that I’m way worse than the OP as far as fear of flying–I’m 51 and have never been on a plane due to my shameful phobia, which has hindered me significantly over the years. (Although hey, at least Amtrak has benefited from my cross-country journeys! They need all the help they can get. :))
But. Even I know my fear is irrational and based on nothing but gut-based emotion, superstition, and pessimism (all of which I do try to fight, but not successfully as yet). The sheer number of flights–with thousands of people on those flights per hour–make it pretty clear that this is a pretty damn safe method of travel.
I sympathize with the OP due to the idea that one is more “in control” in one’s own car, and at least you can see the ground when you look out of the window, etc. etc. etc. But statistics and facts don’t lie.
And yet, all this said? I’m heading down to Orlando in a couple of weeks… via Amtrak. I am a chickenshit.
The OP and the others like hir in this thread are saying, “I see the statistics but am going with my gut feelings,” a common reaction. You cannot logic people out of a position they did not logic themselves into.
The per-km figures are an incomplete measure. There are 117 deaths per billion passenger-journeys in air travel, and only 40 deaths per billion automibile passenger-journeys.
To get the odds of “am I going to die walking onto this commercial flight” vs “pulling out of my driveway”, you would need to adjust the numbers down to account for the propensity of aviation deaths per sortie coming from hobbyists, and up to multiply the dozens of average passenger-journeys per flight.
The per-km figures are an incomplete measure. There are 117 deaths per billion passenger-journeys in air travel, and only 40 deaths per billion automibile passenger-journeys.
To get the odds of “am I going to die walking onto this commercial flight” vs “pulling out of my driveway”, you would need to adjust the numbers down to account for the propensity of aviation deaths per sortie coming from hobbyists, and up to multiply the dozens of average passenger-journeys per flight.
We need to back up and ask how we are going to use any figures that we get. If you are planning a trip and are trying to determine whether it is safer to drive or fly on the same trip, then you need to look at fatalities per passenger-mile. What is the meaning of comparing deaths per passenger-journey? I cannot think of a scenario where you would make a decision between driving to the grocery store or flying to New York.
And I suspect that for even a very frequent flier, he or she makes hundreds or even thousands more passenger trips in a car as opposed to an airplane. Unless they are carless in a big city perhaps.
