Not too terribly long ago I saw a comparison in which various transportation forms were compared in terms of fatalities per million passenger miles. Using that comparison, aircraft do very well, buses do well, trains do OK, cars do poorly, and roller coasters positively suck.
But when you look at the numbers, you can see why: Look at the number of miles travelled by each! Most coaster rides are a half-mile or so; most airline trips are in excess of 200 miles. So I tried an experiment. Using some estimates I estimated the number of trips given for each form of transport and worked out the number of trips per fatality. When I did that, the roller coaster looked to be the safest way to travel, and suddenly airplanes looked dangerous, though still not as dangerous as automobiles.
So, which measurement is more worthwhile for comparison? Miles per fatality or trips per fatality?
--Dave Althoff, Jr.
-----------------
Jeff - Webmaster/Admin - CoasterBuzz.com, Sillynonsense.com
"As far as I can tell it doesn't matter who you are. If you can believe, there's something worth fighting for..." - Garbage, "Parade"
*** This post was edited by supermandl on 2/5/2002. ***
Obviously control is a factor in the cause of the result, but the fact is cars aren't controlled and coasters are, therefore the rates are what they are. The conditions are inherent to the forms of transportions
If you want to get into if wishes were fishes, suppose that coasters had shoulder belts, airbags and controlled crush structures. It doesn't make any sense because coasters are coasters and cars are cars.
The bottom line is this. If we start with big concerns about everything that kills one person per year in the US, we will have 100,000 new programs costing hundreds of billions of dollars to combat insignificant risks.
*** This post was edited by supermandl on 2/5/2002. ***
*** This post was edited by Jim Fisher on 2/5/2002. ***
You must be logged in to post