i.g.batten@batten.eu.org wrote:
>>>> Big, civil, planes are not the only ones to fall out of the sky.
>>
>>> Even with no power, planes do not fall out of the sky.
>>
>> The tale that ends up with "we've lost three engines and we're going to
>> be two hours late, so I suppose if we lose the fourth we'll be stuck up
>> here all day" is actually meant to be a joke.
>
> I'm losing track of your point. You started off, seemingly, comparing
> the risks of the loss of power on a train to the risks of the loss of
> power on a plane.
I asserted that trains were safer than planes. That was my point.
The assertion was based on the fact that the survivability of incidents
of various types was greater for trains than planes. Others, yourself
included have tried to engage me in a different debate, on the basis
that some incidents involving planes are survivable, or that statistics
show planes are pretty safe, but those were not what I was talking
about, nor, in the context of the discussion in which I made the
original point, should anyone have thought they were.
The reason why I made my assertion was connected to a discussion of
whether people should be constrained to book seats on trains in the kind
of way they are on planes. I contend they should not because the nature
of trains and planes is intrinsically different.
I do believe, and if you have reason to disagree it would be far more
useful to attempt to convince me otherwise, since this is the point I
was really talking about, that part of the reason that passengers are
not allowed to stand on planes is the different margin of safety and
different consequences of incidents in the air. As evidence to support
that contention, I adduce the measures that airlines take when
passengers misbehave on planes (I don't mean take bombs on, or pretend
they have; I mean things like when they get drunk and either start
punchups or want to open windows and doors.)
If the above is still not sufficently clear, then perhaps you could
consider a parallel point: I would also assert that nuclear and atomic
weapons are more destructive than conventional ones. It wouldn't alter
the intrinsic nature of the beast to point out to me that actually,
conventional weapons have killed rather more people than the other kind.
I would still be convinced that nuclear weapons were more dangerous.
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p10589952.html
(37 411 at Carlisle, 24 Jul 2004) |