Why attempt to achieve perfect air safety?

[Rune]

[QUOTE=Dinsdale]
As I understand it, even including 9/11, air travel is far safer than automobile travel by just about any possible measure.
[/QUOTE]
Do you approach all deaths with this attitude? E.g. a bit over 1,000 dead in Lebanon. What’s the big hoopla about? More are killed annually in Ohio. 45,000 dead in Iraq over a number of years. pfeef That the best they can do? Kind pathetic isn’t it? More are killed on French highways every year.

And then there are the spin-off effects. Some have calculate the number of deaths as a result of the dip in the global GNP at about 500,000, when people in the poorer places of Earth were forced down below the line of poverty. Then there is the matter of two wars, which would never have happened if not for 9/11, but we already established you considered them negligible. What do you think would have been the consequences if ten airplanes had been blown up over US cities? I’m sure there are more than a few right-wing Nazi types who bewail that the attacks failed, so the ovine masses didn’t wake up, and they didn’t get their final show down.

@Dinsdale

How unusual am I in regularly being amazed at this ovine response?

And I have to say there exists a special place in my mind for people who consider themselves so superior to the sheep-like masses. But unfortunately you are no more unusual than a pretentious teenager, as this particular opinion of oneself and the bovine masses are about as rare as tits on babes. Take a hike past stormfront and you’ll find loads of buddies who think just like you. And as always, there’s but a small step from thinking oneself superior to the stupid ovine masses – and finding them expendable. Your thread on the positive effects on killing US troops comes to mind.

[Tastes_of_Chocolate]

[QUOTE=PBear42]
Tastes of Chocolate, I was making two points, on one of which Shagnasty has ably amplified. Right, there’s a problem of diminishing returns. For example, as scotandrsn noted, we are at risk for snipers. Would you advocate requiring that all cars be retrofitted with bullet-proof windows? But, frankly, my main point is that we have a wobbly sensitivity to risk. With some things we accept risk as a matter of course, others we think should be risk free. I posit that we should accept reasonable levels of risk in all things and get on with our lives. That’s not suggesting we do nothing, only that we don’t try to do everything. Which, in any event, isn’t possible.
[/QUOTE]

Isn’t that exactly what is currently happening with air travel? Diminishing return is being plotted against inconvenience to travelers.
[ul]
[li]Remove shoes at security - small delay, little hassle[/li][li]No liquids or gels, other then prescription meds and baby formula - some delay, some hassle factor[/li][li]No carry one luggage beyond travel papers - Little delay, big annoyance factor[/li][li]All passengers strip searched and no carry on luggage - Huge delays, annoyance at a level to drive away customers[/li][/ul]
The US has settled at a level between items 2 and 3. The UK dipped into level 3, and is reverting lower.

To your other point, I don’t know about you, but I don’t think anyone I know expects a guarantee of safety when flying. What they do want is a minimization of risk. Inspect airplanes, train pilots, keep detectable threats off the planes. As you said, it’s about reasonable levels of risk. If the level of risk can be lowered via easily implimented changes (no lighters on planes, requiring special seats for children in cars) then it seems it is only prudent to take those steps. I guess I’m confused by the very first sentence in the OP.

Dinsdale

Why do governments spend so much effort and money trying to eliminate all threats to air travel safety?

In no way, is at least the US government attempting to eliminate ALL threats to air travel. It’s the obvious threats to air travel that are being screened out.

And, in the interest of fighting ignorance:

@Shagnasty

One scenario would be that the new security measures interfere with someone’s medication schedule and they die from it (only one of many possible examples).

From the TSA

While we can not provide a comprehensive list of items you may be carrying, you are permitted to bring:

Small amounts of Baby formula and breast milk if a baby or small child is traveling
Liquid prescription medicine with a name that matches the passenger’s ticket
Up to 8 oz. of liquid or gel low blood sugar treatment
Up to 4 oz. of essential non-prescription liquid medications

So anyone dieing from not taking their liquid or gel medication is not the fault of the TSA rules.

[Tastes_of_Chocolate]

[QUOTE=Dinsdale]
Or, since the majority of accidents occur within a mile of home, why not require that everyone park 1.1 miles away from where they live?
[/QUOTE]

:dubious: Did you really just say that? Because, heaven knows, it’s the proximity to your house that is causing those accidents. It has nothing to do with the amount of travel that is done in that range.

If you are going to make quotes like that, you might want to get the numbers right. Per this article
Within 1 mile - 23% of accidents
2-5 miles - 29% of accidents
6-10 miles - 17% of accidents
11-15 miles - 8% of accidents
16-20 miles - 6% of accidents
more then 20 - 17% of accidents
So no, a majority of accidents don’t occur within 1 mile from home.

[Magiver]

[QUOTE=Dinsdale]

Market forces could accommodate folks’ willingness to assume the risk of air travel. Maybe highspeed rail would experience growth. Or a “high security” airline could start up and charge a premium.

[/QUOTE]
That would be a capital(ist) idea if not Darwinian in nature. The people who wish to trade safety for convenience can arrive at their final destination quicker and secure in the knowledge that God is great. Given the choice, I’ll choose (and pay for) the security levels of Air Al.

But in the real world of market forces I would still pay less for a more secure flight because of liability concerns. As any airline pilot can tell you, it’s tough to configure 767’s to land on the 87th floor.

[Dinsdale]

[QUOTE=Rune]
Do you approach all deaths with this attitude? E.g. a bit over 1,000 dead in Lebanon. What’s the big hoopla about?
[/QUOTE]

Funny, but just the other day it was one of my more conservative friends who attempted to “put into perspective” the number of US dead in Iraq, by comparing it to the far greater number of annual US homicide deaths.

Rather than conducting a simplistic numerical comparison of disparate statistics - as you suggest - I acknowledge that just about every activity in life involves some degree of risk. And I think it is a valid matter of discussion to consider the efforts and expenses a government should expend, and the inconveniences it should impose on participants, in an attempt to reduce that risk to or beyond a certain level.

It is a different - tho also interesting to me - discussion of why certain deaths are considered more important than others. A marine is shot in Iraq, an airplane passenger dies in a terrorist plot, and a homeless person dies of exposure on the streets of a US city. Which is more of a tragedy? How much more? Which was more avoidable? The prevention of which should be given more priority by the government?

Thanks for the stats, Tastes of. Looks like I’m going to have to start parking even further from home!