Until the shuttle enters the atmosphere, its airspeed is zero. Its airspeed increases as the air gets denser.
I’ll meet that with a Filipino ferry.
And I raise you one fancy brand spanking new “unsinkable” ocean liner 
This one of those odd things like child obesity (which is reportedly a major problem in the UK but a lot of people have remarked that there really don’t seem to be many fat children about).
The statistics claim that walking is dangerous and yet over the course of my life I’ve personally known (although not necessarily well) five people who have died in car accidents, and people I know have mentioned many others. I have never known anyone who died whilst walking and I cannot recollect anyone ever mentioning someone they knew who died in this way. Similarly I can clearly recollect hundreds, probably thousands, of reports of people dying in car accidents but only two of three of walkers getting killed. And this despite the fact that the more common accidents (car) are reported less.
Of course, it’s very hard to compare like for like. There are at least four ways of measuring:
- By journey
- By Mile
- By time spent
- By person
His quote said it was per mile. On average, people don’t walk but a tiny fraction as much as they drive. It’s not surprising you don’t know anyone that has died walking unless you happen to hang out with people who all walk 10 miles each way to/from work.
For what it is worth this guy I knew hit and killed a homeless guy walking across the street so that brings the total up to at least 1
Well, the first paragraph said this: " a study that concluded that walking remains our most dangerous mode of transportation" which is much more general than the statistic that followed it. That was what I said seemed incongruous.
As you say, people walk far shorter distances than they drive so using the ‘per mile’ figure for your headline comparison almost amounts to rigging the result. It certainly shouldn’t go unchallenged.
I’m gonna go with travel by hearse.
Typically 50% of the occupants are already dead!
I’m gonna go with travel by hearse.
Typically 50% of the occupants are already dead!
Quite the contrary; it seems to me that using any figure other than “per mile” is rigging the result. By comparison, nobody’s ever died surfing on the surface of a star, but that doesn’t mean it’s safe.
I’m gonna go with travel by hearse.
Typically 50% of the occupants are already dead!
I came here to nominate the Jeepney, m’self.
Hippo
I checked the FARS database and 2008 shows 26,689 vehicle occupants and 4,378 pedestrians killed in 2008, so you six times as likely to know someone who was killed in a car than a pedestrian.
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
The number of pedestrian deaths may be incomplete. I think it only includes people who were killed when there were hit by a motor vehicle.
Hardly.
The per mile figure is almost meaningless because it takes no account of journey length.
For example, if you took 10,000 people who each completed a a 20 mile round trip to work every day and did a quarter mile round trip to go and eat at lunch time and at the end of your sampling 1 person had been killed walking and 10 driving, using the ‘per mile’ method of measuring safety you would come to the ludicrous (for this example) conclusion that driving was 8 times safer than walking.
Obviously you could get all sorts of different results depending on the journey lengths you selected.
That’s a completely pointless comparison since it fails on the basis so not having an adequate sample size.
It seems like a reasonable conclusion to me. If the people had walked to work, roughly 80 of them would have died along the way. That’s a long way to walk, of course, so you could alternatively imagine that if they had driven to lunch, there’s only a 1/8 chance someone would have died. The only way I can imagine coming to any other conclusion is if the danger involved isn’t proportional to the distance traveled for a particular mode of transportation, but I see no reason to think it’s not.
Does it really?
That is, of course, entirely your own affair but I seriously doubt that many people would consider that comparing two entirely realistic uses of each mode of transport and finding that one results in ten times as many deaths as another would lead them to conclude that the one with the 10 times higher fatality rate was less dangerous because if you hypothesised a very unrealistic use of the transport, i.e. people undertaking a 5 hour return journey on foot every day, the figures would be reversed.
And if you really want to understand the absurdity of using the per mile measure, consider that if the people in your sample were each undertaking return journeys from London to Sydney (~20,000) miles, every third person could die in a plane crash and, according to your measure, air travel would still come out safer than driving.
Seems like a perfectly reasonable conclusion to me too. It’s just expressed as a rate (i.e. deaths per distance traveled). It doesn’t “hypothesize” any use of transport, no more than expressing speed as “miles per hour” hypothesizes that you’ll be on the road for 1 hour.
If 1 out of 3 passengers on a London-Sydney-London trip were dying, that’s a fatality rate of 1 per 120,000 passenger-miles. The actual fatality rate for car travel is about 1.1 per 100 million passenger-miles, or almost 1000 times safer than your hypothetical killer airline.
Anyway, what other measure of safety would you propose that’s more “reasonable”? I suppose you could rank it by which mode of transport is most likely to kill an average American, but that is very misleading as well. By that measure, driving is 1000 times safer than skydiving, and cyanide is a safer food than beef.
It’s not reasonable because it compares death rates based upon something that people do, i.e. travel thousands of mile in a car to something the don’t; walk for thousands of miles.
You’re completely missing the point. (Apart from anything else you’ve just compared a made up figure with a real life one.)
I was demonstrating, by taking things to the extreme, how ludicrous it is to use a per mile basis for determining how dangerous a mode of transport is.
The fact that the real figures don’t mean very much because the actual chances of dying are pretty low for any given individual means you need to look at how much sense your chosen method of measurement makes if you vary the figures. And, as I demonstrated the answer is not a lot because if you chose to to travel in a demonstrably lethal aircraft that would kill you every third journey the figure you think is sensible would show that form of travel to be safer than one that would only kill you every 1000 journeys.
I certainly would not limit considerations to how many Americans it killed. :rolleyes:
The only sensible way to gauge such a figure is to base your calculations on typical journey lengths. If you want to assess how safe an activity is you want to know what you chances of survival are as you perform the activity. Rather as you would not say whisky is more dangerous than beer simply on the basis that if you drank if you drank four pints of whisky it would certainly kill you whereas four pints of beer almost certainly wouldn’t.
Of course it takes into account the journey length. That’s what the “per mile” is.
Think of it this way: I have to get from Point A to Point B, and I want to get there as safely as possible. Should I say “Well, people don’t often walk from A to B, so that’s the safest”? Of course not. The distance from point A to point B is some set amount, and I need to travel that distance. So I want something that’s safest per distance.