Fascinating Fact Re 9/11

[st_files]

"...many Americans avoided planes after 9/11 and travelled by road instead. As a result, a team of researchers from Cornell University estimated there were at least 1,200 more deaths on America's roads than there would have been. Some 1,200 people died because they were avoiding what they perceived to be a riskier form of transport, 954 more than who died on the planes used for the terrorist attacks."

[soad]

Flying is one of the safest forms of travel (probably the safest, i'm not into my figures/statistics).

It's when the plane crashes, that it looks really bad.

[mouseymousey]

st_files said:

"...many Americans avoided planes after 9/11 and travelled by road instead. As a result, a team of researchers from Cornell University estimated there were at least 1,200 more deaths on America's roads than there would have been. Some 1,200 people died because they were avoiding what they perceived to be a riskier form of transport, 954 more than who died on the planes used for the terrorist attacks."

From the book Risk?

[st_files]

mouseymousey said:

st_files said:

"...many Americans avoided planes after 9/11 and travelled by road instead. As a result, a team of researchers from Cornell University estimated there were at least 1,200 more deaths on America's roads than there would have been. Some 1,200 people died because they were avoiding what they perceived to be a riskier form of transport, 954 more than who died on the planes used for the terrorist attacks."

From the book Risk?

Nope, from the BBC website today:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8633484.stm

[Landlord]

mouseymousey said:

st_files said:

"...many Americans avoided planes after 9/11 and travelled by road instead. As a result, a team of researchers from Cornell University estimated there were at least 1,200 more deaths on America's roads than there would have been. Some 1,200 people died because they were avoiding what they perceived to be a riskier form of transport, 954 more than who died on the planes used for the terrorist attacks."

From the book Risk?

Interesting book, that. Didn't finish it though, but that says more about me than the book.

[ShadownINja]

soad said:

Flying is one of the safest forms of travel (probably the safest, i'm not into my figures/statistics).

It's when the plane crashes, that it looks really bad.

And a plane can only crash and explode in a fiery ball of flames killing all on board the once.

[10JH]

mouseymousey said:

st_files said:

"...many Americans avoided planes after 9/11 and travelled by road instead. As a result, a team of researchers from Cornell University estimated there were at least 1,200 more deaths on America's roads than there would have been. Some 1,200 people died because they were avoiding what they perceived to be a riskier form of transport, 954 more than who died on the planes used for the terrorist attacks."

From the book Risk?

Great book, would thoroughly recommend it.

[rhinochopig]

Ok here's one.

More people die per day world wide through iatrogenic harm (that's medical blunders to the laymen) than die of Aids (or RTAs or Natural disasters). 10,000 vs 8000 (3,000, 100). This is compared to terrorism which is 20 per day (2005).

Perhaps we should recall the troops and storm the hospitals.

[maser_spyder]

soad said:

Flying is one of the safest forms of travel (probably the safest, i'm not into my figures/statistics).

It's when the plane crashes, that it looks really bad.

Actually, I read an article on this that blew the statistics apart.

Apparently, they take 'safety' on actual mileage of flights, when in fact the most dangerous part of a flight is the take-off and landing, where the accidents happen.

If you take out a bulk of the 'easy' mileage, flying actually works out a lot more dangerous that is normally realised.

The other thing they don't often tell you, is if you're in a plane crash, you're most likely dead. A car accident, most likely not. So taking figures that say 'involved in an accident' can mean a fender-bender, or smashing in to the tarmac from 30'000 feet. Both are counted as an 'accident', but would clearly have different outcomes! It's a fairly easy way of manipulating the data.

Of course a lot of the statistics are collated by agencies funded by airlines, or the airline industry, so you would hear it's the safest way to travel.

I don't know the truth of it, just that there's a lot more to the figures than is commonly realised.

[andy_s]

Super/Freakonomics is good for stuff like that - putting up Christmas tree lights kills far more people than terrorism in the UK over a ten year period...

[djmck30]

maser_spyder said:

soad said:

Flying is one of the safest forms of travel (probably the safest, i'm not into my figures/statistics).

It's when the plane crashes, that it looks really bad.

Actually, I read an article on this that blew the statistics apart.

Apparently, they take 'safety' on actual mileage of flights, when in fact the most dangerous part of a flight is the take-off and landing, where the accidents happen.

If you take out a bulk of the 'easy' mileage, flying actually works out a lot more dangerous that is normally realised.

Taking out the 'easy mileage' is also flawed logic, though. True, if you break it down then it makes sense that takeoff/landing are much more dangerous than the cruise in the middle - but you can't break it down that way as you don't do takeoffs or landings in isolation.

Take a flight from Newquay to Glasgow, for example. If you drove, the risk would be fairly evenly spread throughout the whole journey. By flying this is split up into segments (risky/safer/risky) - but you can't have the safe bits without the risky bits! Ignoring the cruise in the middle makes no sense to me.

[maser_spyder]

djmck30 said:

maser_spyder said:

soad said:

Flying is one of the safest forms of travel (probably the safest, i'm not into my figures/statistics).

It's when the plane crashes, that it looks really bad.

Actually, I read an article on this that blew the statistics apart.

Apparently, they take 'safety' on actual mileage of flights, when in fact the most dangerous part of a flight is the take-off and landing, where the accidents happen.

If you take out a bulk of the 'easy' mileage, flying actually works out a lot more dangerous that is normally realised.

Taking out the 'easy mileage' is also flawed logic, though. True, if you break it down then it makes sense that takeoff/landing are much more dangerous than the cruise in the middle - but you can't break it down that way as you don't do takeoffs or landings in isolation.

Take a flight from Newquay to Glasgow, for example. If you drove, the risk would be fairly evenly spread throughout the whole journey. By flying this is split up into segments (risky/safer/risky) - but you can't have the safe bits without the risky bits! Ignoring the cruise in the middle makes no sense to me.

Yup, you're exactly right. Which is why you really can't compare the 'safest' methods of travel, there are too many different factors involved in each to make a reliable correlation.

My point was, flying isn't as safe as they often say it is. Not to say it's not a very safe way to travel, but just not quite in the way that's portrayed.

[HiRich]

st_files said:

Nope, from the BBC website today:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8633484.stm

This just shows, again, the ease of misusing statistics in risk assessment, whether deliberatley or accidentally. It suggests:

• 1200 more deaths on the roads
• In other words "954 more than who died on the planes used for the terrorist attacks"
• So in this case the other 2,500-odd bankers, secretaries, chefs & waiters, cleaners, firefighters and spooks who were killed in the Towers and Pentagon somehow "don't count"

The BBC has a page that regularly conmsiders misuse of statistics. I wonder if this will come up?

maser_spyder said:

Apparently, they take 'safety' on actual mileage of flights, when in fact the most dangerous part of a flight is the take-off and landing, where the accidents happen...
I don't know the truth of it, just that there's a lot more to the figures than is commonly realised.

This is where it again gets difficult. You can argue that the purpose of planes is travel. Therefore the key figure is "death per million miles". Of course, if you use that, the safest form of transport is... (drum roll)... space travel!

I suspect the info you mention has also been massaged somewhat to make it more media friendly. Plebs like us probably assume "take-off" means the first 20-odd miles and "landing" means final approach. Given how many commercial airliners fall from the sky in what we would consider normal flight, I suspect different definitions are in play, and some short haul flights never even reach normal flight.

[TedMaul]

ShadownINja said:

soad said:

Flying is one of the safest forms of travel (probably the safest, i'm not into my figures/statistics).

It's when the plane crashes, that it looks really bad.

And a plane can only crash and explode in a fiery ball of flames killing all on board the once.

Not true. I saw this series of programmes on TV, can't remember what it was called but it was about a bunch of people who ended up lost on an island after their plane got lost after it lost an engine and lost contact with air traffic control and lost its radios and stuff. Luckily one of them was a doctor or the lost people would have lost some limbs. Or something.

[Rude-boy]

Landlord said:

mouseymousey said:

st_files said:

"...many Americans avoided planes after 9/11 and travelled by road instead. As a result, a team of researchers from Cornell University estimated there were at least 1,200 more deaths on America's roads than there would have been. Some 1,200 people died because they were avoiding what they perceived to be a riskier form of transport, 954 more than who died on the planes used for the terrorist attacks."

From the book Risk?

Interesting book, that. Didn't finish it though, but that says more about me than the book.

It may also have been sitting in my bedside draw for the last 6 months waiting for me to pick it back up...

But yes it is in that book for certain.

[williamp]

So 9/11 was a conspiracy funded by Cornell University just so it can produce "fascinating" studies???

[maser_spyder]

williamp said:

So 9/11 was a conspiracy funded by Cornell University just so it can produce "fascinating" studies???

Or a conspiracy by Larry Silverstein to make a huge insurance claim, funded by people who wanted to lose forever the Enron paperwork?

Depends who you're talking to. We'll never see the end of it, that's certain.

[g3org3y]

Landlord said:

mouseymousey said:

st_files said:

"...many Americans avoided planes after 9/11 and travelled by road instead. As a result, a team of researchers from Cornell University estimated there were at least 1,200 more deaths on America's roads than there would have been. Some 1,200 people died because they were avoiding what they perceived to be a riskier form of transport, 954 more than who died on the planes used for the terrorist attacks."

From the book Risk?

Interesting book, that. Didn't finish it though, but that says more about me than the book.

I thought of Risk as soon as I read that too. Half way through it at the moment (but distracted with another book). Certainly interesting but the author seems to use 5 examples to illustrate every point when just one would do which can make it seem a little repetitive.

[maser_spyder]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Depending what you read (and who you believe!!), 'ol Larry bought the buildings, then spent millions of dollars in extra premiums insuring them against terrorist attacks as well as the normal stuff you get included in skyscraper insurance.

Then a few months later, kaboom.

Personally, I'm as sceptical about this story as I am about the whole thing. It's totally clouded in mystery.

[GTIR]

mouseymousey said:

From the book Risk?

Is that the John Adams book?