On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 00:28:34 GMT, Chris Tolley wrote:
>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.
That is a fairly worthless measure if trains have far more accidents than
planes.
What matters is injuries/deaths per N miles traveled. |