Thank you, Stephen (Black) . . . I love the spirit of your questions, to which my responses follow, below:
>I appreciated David Myers' thoughtful piece on fear of flying (at >www.davidmyers.org/fears). But I've got some queries for him, >especially in view of his header "some facts about fears". > >It's about the facts. I don't question his statistics. However, I >do wonder if they're the right ones. In particular, he notes that >"National Safety Council data reveal that in the last half of the >1990s Americans were, mile for mile, 37 times more likely to die >in a vehicle crash than on a commercial flight". > >That certainly suggests it's irrational to fear flying but not >driving. But it seems to me that the statistic is biased in >favour of flying because flying really laps the miles, unlike >pokey driving. Instead, what really concerns us is the risk per >hour spent in the activity. As we probably spend many more hours >in our cars than in the air, that might go some distance to >whittling the difference down. So how about it, Dave? What is >the risk of death in your car compared with death in an airplane >per hour doing it? I find it curious that the only comparison >we ever see is "mile for mile". Put another way, would you prefer >to choose less death per mile travelled (km up here, of course) >or less death per time spent alive? I've never seen the answer to this very interesting question, though we could estimate it, couldn't we? If flying is, mile per mile, 37 times safer than driving (it was 26 times safer during the 1980s--a time period for which I had earlier obtained the raw data) . . . and if planes travel 18.5 times as fast as the average car (I made this up to create the round number that follows, but isn't this about right?) . . . then, per hour, we're twice as safe on planes . . . yes? (I'm writing this at night, ironically in an airport, so don't trust me.) But when deciding whether we're safer flying or driving to Florida for a holiday isn't it distance, not hours, that matters? Of course, I only presented averages for all people . . . for 16 year olds, accident risks are much higher than for 45 year olds, and for drinking drivers than for nondrinkers. So the averages don't really apply to any one of us. Still . . . > >The second point is that it may not be a fact that air travel is >down due to an increase in fear. True, people fear flying (44% >even before September 11, David tells us Gallup reports). And >certainly some will dread it even more now. But how much more? It >seems to me that the downturn in the economy may be a more >significant factor. When the stock market was booming, companies >were busting out all over, merging here and acquiring there, all >around the world. You can't make big deals by telephone, so life >was sweet for the airlines, especially as the big boys don't fly >economy. > >That was then. No one's jetting to high-level meetings any more, >because no one's doing any business, and the companies are too >broke to afford the airfare anyway. Further, there are massive >layoffs, and that means no one can afford Cancun or Whistler any >more. So my thesis is that we're not foregoing flying from fear >but from failing finances. Hmmm . . . the economy has been slumping for many months, but the airline passenger drop seemed pretty precipitous (and, in fact, has been visible during my travels since the end of September). No lines or waits anywhere. Another interesting issue, not mentioned in my little essay, is what we'll spend to save a life. Risk analysts (whose work I draw upon) have calculated what we spend per life saved through such things as child nutrition, constructing divided highways, vaccinations, etc. My hunch is that we don't want them doing the cost-benefit analysis on the new airport safety measures (including all the gun-toting folks in fatigues). We want to be spared both future horrors such as 9-11 and, to the extent possible, the fear of such devastating and evil events. Hopefully, we won't divert so much of our national attention and resources to airline security that we lose concern for other mammoth concerns, such as for the world's hungry people, for Africa's AIDS victims, and for investing in an environmentally sustainable future. If such diversion were to happen, the long-term effect could be much more suffering and death, albeit with quiet whispers rather than loud bangs . . . and off in a future that today seems so remote. Dave Myers www.davidmyers.org --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
