Excellent point. I vote that we remand this to the OP for resubmitting.
I don’t mind the wreckless drivers – it’s the reckless ones you have to worry about. 
I didn’t know falling elevators were a mode of transportation. I don’t spend much time in the big city though. The falling ones are labelled as such, right?
Heh. Just what I thought reading that. I’d say a submarine sinking in the deep ocean or a zeppelin engulfed in fire are marginally more dangerous than a falling elevator.
Does anyone know how personal aircraft such as the Cessna fall on the danger scale?
It is surprisingly difficult coming up with a way to analyze that in a way that will satisfy people. The most general answer you can give is that single-engine small planes are more deadly than personal cars on a per mile basis but much safer than motorcycles. That varies a lot by the plane and the level of risk the pilot is willing to assume. The sheer number of private planes out there that are many decades old and still in active service is a comforting thought however.
This cable transport across a 900-foot-deep gorge in Guayabetal, Colombia is a candidate. In Colombia, a rope and a prayer (w/ slideshow)
I saw some program that included a segment on this. One of the dangers not mentioned in the article is a woman getting her long hair caught in the pulley.
Balloons don’t have the best record in the world. My w.a.g. would be because any loss of lift is self-accelerating- sinking into denser air compresses the balloon and cuts lift even more.
falling to build up airspeed? Huh? I am pretty certain this is not quite right as the speed must be reduced, drastically, (from orbital speed/energy) to land at ~minimal speed to keep brake damage minimal, on first try as well (no go-round with this). I am fairly confident that at no time does the Orbiter need to gain airspeed in a normal approach/landing (unless there is something unplanned of origin, like bad met data which almost caused one Orbiter to eat dirt, now an infamous Wayne Hale story). Its usually more of a concern to lose just-enough energy (and not a drop more!) initially and not overshoot too far than to have to gain energy/airspeed with no effective/efficient way to turn it into distance and so land short (if that makes sense).
Is the Space Transportation System considered safe if it is not man-rated? Does it not require special ‘permission’ (waivers, per se) to even have any person ride it uphill? Often many, many waivers, iirc, but I am not fully understanding of the ‘waiver’ things. But Shuttle is ‘safe’? Is time spent with ‘engines running’ (particularly those towering solids!) a significant part of the equation-of-safety? Just checking…
The single deadliest form of transportation on a per-capita basis is this
I would guess it’s some offroad recreational vehicle like a dirt bike, a four wheeler, or a snowmobile. They’re frequently driven in dangerous conditions.
And when you drive to the grocery store, is your “destination” your own driveway? No, it’s the store.
I think Chronos had the right idea. The Shuttle’s travel was round trips between the planet’s surface and orbit. Those are the destinations which made its movement purposeful. The repeated circlings of the earth, maintaining orbit, aren’t travel in the same sense. Rocks do the same thing.
Absolutely right.:smack: Thanks SV
Not many people ride horses for transportation anymore, but I’ve heard being a jockey is among the most dangerous professions among the sporting set. Big heavy creatures, little people hanging on for dear life, thundering hooves, thrown shoes, broken legs, …:eek:
How bout this trifecta of danger?
On a per trip, per time traveled, and per distance covered how about BASE jumping?
Human cannonball.
Shuttle landings are off the hook: The rate of descent is insane, the thing is basically falling out of the sky. But here’s the kicker: there’s no “go around”. If the pilot screws up the approach, that’s it. Splat. Check out this amazing video. From 26,000 ft to landing in around two minutes.
I think you win the thread.
I’ll see you and raise a Bangladesh ferry. 
Chronos said:
That doesn’t sound right. Ionizer has it correct, the Shuttle spends the entire reentry trying to lose speed. That’s why there are those giant “S” curves as part of the glide path. It does have a steep glide path. The training airplane they use to practice is a converted jetliner where they throw the engines in reverse.
Ionizer said:
The Shuttle is man-rated. I am not sure what kind of waivers or indemnity clauses astronauts have to sign, if any. I am fairly certain that as part of the job description, they are covered by insurance plans or some government fund. I am sure the candidates are informed as well as anybody on the risks associated.
With regards to “waivers” for the Shuttle Program, these are not the same thing as personal waivers of liability. Rather, these are various levels of organization accepting that some item or feature does not strictly match the requirements as defined in the documentation system. For example, suppose the drawing for an aluminum plate calls out the plate being anodized to protect it from corrosion. However, minor scratching occurs that cuts through the surface finish. It is not possible to reanodize the part. Rather, one can apply a chemical that will bond to the exposed metal and do a similar job (alodyne). Now the drawing does not specify alodyne, it specifies anodize - and the features of each are somewhat different. However, if the intent is purely surface protection and the differences do not matter, then the program can accept that deviation from the drawing and still consider that part “good”. This is handled with a form that is a type of “minor waiver”. Waivers can fall at various levels of decision making depending upon potential effects.
With regards to Shuttle risk analysis, I’m not fully versed on what goes on, but there are different stages of flight and different risk assessments for those stages. Launch has one set of risks because of the SRBs and main engines. Orbit has a different set of risks due to micrometeorites and orbital debris. Reentry has different risks due to things like the plasma generated. Each of those risks is assessed on its own merits, and the design has been intended to mitigate the risks through redundancy of systems and other means.
Lumpy said:
If by “loss of lift” you mean a leak. Balloons have to have an internal pressure at least as great as the external pressure, or it won’t inflate. The lift comes not from a pressure difference, but from weight difference due to the density being less.
If flying a hot air balloon, for instance, you can lose lift because the air cools. That increases density, which means less volume for the same mass of air. But I wouldn’t consider that the surrounding air compressing the balloon.