Flying is safer than driving

"In 2020 alone, 30,250 people died while riding in passenger vehicles. Forty-five percent of these were in cars, 34% in light trucks, and 18% on motorcycles.

 
There were 614 serious injuries in the air from 2002 to 2020, an average of 32 per year. Comparatively, Americans suffered about 2.3 million injuries per year in passenger cars and trucks on highways."

https://usafacts.org/articles/is-flying-safer-than-driving/?

Per mile motorcycles are the most dangerous, however, in my opinion, no matter how you travel you are not safe with the latest DEI standards for employment --whether pilots, bus drivers, repairmen, or factory assembly workers. You don't want a diversity hire or union boss guiding your transportation. Merit and skill matter more than ethnic background.

In 2020 although there was a decrease in miles traveled due to the lockdown, there was an increase in pedestrian and bike related fatalities. Another problem our "health" experts didn't think about.

The big three for roadway fatalities:  Alcohol, speed and not wearing a seatbelt.

Ralph Nader--Car and Driver Interview

When you buy a new car, after you do the test drive you do a lot of sitting around in offices with plastic plants or showroom floors with shiny monster SUVs while they pile up the papers you need to sign, even when you pay cash the way we did in November when we bought our 2010 Town and Country. I can't just SIT. I have to be reading or writing, so I did both, and took notes on the Car and Driver interview with Ralph Nader in the September 2009 issue. Maybe you're too young to remember, but Ralph Nader was the consumer crank of my generation who got all the press in the 1960s and 70s. Didn't hurt that he was Hollywood handsome, very photogenic and quirky--he actually lived the lifestyle he recommended for others, as I recall. On auto safety, he says history has redeemed him, and the critics in the government, industry and the media now look like fools. Even the horse chariots in Roman times had a padded dash, he said.

"Everything we’ve gotten so far, we should have gotten years ago. And everything we don’t have, we should have gotten years ago. The first generation of auto safety devices are in play now—you know, seatbelts, airbags, padded dash panels, collapsible steering columns, side protection, head restraints, things like that—but there’s a second generation out there. Part of it is made up of upgrading existing standards that came out in 1968 or so, because they get obsolete. So we need to take that first generation and upgrade them—better collapsible steering columns, stronger side protection, airbags that protect you at higher speeds. Then there’s the second generation, of which most people are not aware, like collision-avoidance systems, much more effective vehicle dynamics in terms of handling and braking—all these should have been phased in back in the 1980s and 1990s. All in all, though, over a million lives have been saved."

When asked what he could have done differently, he responded,

"Well, I’d like to have had a different set of presidents."

But he also tosses in the unions with the automakers as blame worthy, and you can look at the current bailouts and payoffs for health care boondoggles and bennies right up to today to see that he is correct.

"Fuel efficiency, that was the real disaster. Anybody could have seen this coming, and the UAW and GM marched up on Capitol Hill and crushed, year after year, any attempt at fuel-efficiency legislation. And that’s why GM went bankrupt. They did it to themselves."

Then he closes with a quote (paraphrased I assume) from Ross Perot.

" He was talking to some senior GM executives in 1986, and he said here’s a company that doesn’t like its dealers, doesn’t like its workers, doesn’t like its customers—you people don’t even like each other!"

That said--and I do believe auto safety is important--it's not more so than some common sense. Lowering the speed limit to 55 in the 1970s not only saved thousands of lives and billions of gallons of fuel, it made driving far more pleasant and allowed much smoother, more pleasant trips. The decade following 1995 when the speed limits went back up (had been 55 mph), studies show an additional 12,500 people died and about 36,500 injured through 2006, even though overall deaths are going down due to safer cars, more seat belt use, and alcohol crack downs. And health care costs? Gracious, even lives that are saved through safety features, if those people are in an accident the costs to the person, the insurance companies, their investors, the court system in litigation and the state and federal tax system while people are out of work, are billions. Better to get the driver and passengers to their location at "fifty five and alive," but no one wants that any more. The death toll in Iraq and Afghanistan of our brightest and best? Not high compared to our highways. We lose 5,000+ teen-agers (16-20) a year on the highways just because we won't raise the legal driving age from 16 to 18! Their passengers are in danger, too--nearly 5,000 teen passengers were killed in 2006.

Where are our priorities! I can only conclude there is no political advantage to either party or lobbyists or the free market or wing-nuts at either end of the political spectrum to save lives through common sense and raising the legal age to drive.

Air travel has never been safer, but . . .

We can count on more regulations. It is a tragedy that 50 people died in last week's crash near Buffalo, NY. And yet thousands die every year on the highways. . . many because we don't have the will to raise the legal driving age even two years. Auto collisions are the leading cause of death among teens, killing about 4,000 a year. And it isn't just teens. Any person in a car with a teen driver is in much more danger than from birds sucked into airplane engines or ice on the wings. If we did nothing else but forbid teen drivers to have passengers, thousands of lives could be saved. Do those families not grieve? Are those people less important than people who boarded a commuter plane?

"The AAA Foundation analysis shows that from 1995 through 2004 crashes involving 15, 16, and 17-year-old drivers claimed the lives of 30,917 people nationwide, of which only 11,177 (36.2%) were the teen drivers themselves. The remaining 19,740 (63.6%) included 9,847 passengers of the teen drivers, 7,477 occupants of other vehicles operated by drivers at least 18 years of age, 2,323 non-motorists. The analysis also shows that 12,413 of these fatalities occurred in single vehicle crashes involving only the vehicle operated by the teenage driver.

In 1999, 16- and 17-year-old teens driving with no passengers were involved in 1.6 accidents per 10,000 trips, yet the rate rises to 2.3 accidents with one passenger, 3.3 accidents with two passengers, and sharply rises to 6.3 accidents with three or more passengers in the car." More statistics on teen drivers here.

During the last ice storm a teenager wrecked his dad's new red sports car by slamming into the light pole at our condo entrance (it's a 35 mph street but I'm guessing from the damage he was speeding). I think the car was totaled, and it was weeks before the red pieces were cleaned up because the snow plows had buried much of the debris. I hope daddy has learned a lesson, because fortunately the boy survived without serious injuries. The car can be replaced; the child can't be. He will live to drive again--much wiser I hope.

4164

Passengers' Bill of Rights?

You can drive a 747 through the loopholes according to this travel editor. The legislation was introduced by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) to provide the Airline Passenger Bill of Rights Act. I guess we know which sex has to handle a wet, poopy baby who's been crying for four hours, don't we?

The legislation requires airlines to offer passengers the option of safely leaving a plane they have boarded once that plane has sat on the ground three hours after the plane door has closed.

This option would be provided every three hours that the plane continues to sit on the ground.

The legislation also requires airlines to provide passengers with necessary services such as food, potable water and adequate restroom facilities while a plane is delayed on the ground.

The legislation provides two exceptions to the three-hour option. The pilot may decide to not allow passengers to deplane if he or she reasonably believes their safety or security would be at risk due to extreme weather or other emergencies.

Alternately, if the pilot reasonably determines that the flight will depart within 30 minutes after the three-hour period, he or she can delay the deplaning option for an additional 30 minutes.

I've never had to sit on a runway longer than an hour (most recently when our flight was diverted from Shannon to Dublin, Ireland because of fog), but even I can figure out that all you need to do is open and close a door after 2 hours and 58 minutes to get around that 3 hour rule. And the restrooms are already inadequate, so what is "adequate?"