A major air disaster then suddenly every minor aircraft technical
difficulty starts making the headlines.

This is very much non-news.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7578428.stm

Remember, the most dangerous part of your flight is the drive to and
from the airport.

On a train or aircraft you're statistically about 15 times safer then
when you're in a car.

Road safety is an oxymoron there's hardly any safety culture on the
roads compared to the airline or rail industries.

It is no lie and safe to say, that if the rail or aviation industry
ran our roads you would never see a single transgression of the
highway code.

For the most part, road safety isn't even enforced.

<uk.media.tv.misc>


<1ee03ef8-6eaa-45d3-8135-967ef5ee9214@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>

Its been said that if people knew how thin the sheet metal was on the
outside of the aircraft was - then they wouldnt step foot on it .

Ignorance is bliss :-)

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 18:13:52 +0100, allan tracy
hotmail.com> wrote:

allan tracy wrote:

"Fred X" himki.net> wrote in message
news:op.ugcow2pej3tnem@skynet.wag54gs...

In article <1ee03ef8-6eaa-45d3-8135-967ef5ee9214
@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, thunderbird57303@hotmail.com says...

There's a flaw in this claim: namely, it implicitly asserts that
everyone is an average driver. If I drive mind-numbingly badly, then
I'm far more likely to be killed while driving than if I drive
competently. Strictly statistically, the claim may be true, but on a
per-person basis, it matters how competently I drive. The questions
insurers ask about your accident history and driving experience prove
that.

"allan tracy" hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1ee03ef8-6eaa-45d3-8135-967ef5ee9214@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

It's quite an interesting question actually...Is flying safer than driving?
I see where you are going with the post....but it does pose some problems.
Statistics can be a very skewed way of measuring events, when the playing
field is so unlevel....

Clearly you are far more likely to die in a fatal car crash than in a plane
crash.
But what if.....

You're right to point out that contradiction; it's a fair point but as
you say the word is 'less' not 'no' interference.

I would say that Government is there to protect us from each other but
would draw the line at them protecting us from ourselves.

So there's nothing wrong with law and order or the sort of regulation
that means your safe to drink in a bar, in the event of a fire, but
there's plenty wrong with the fag tax and booze tax that's then
applied.

Sam Nelson wrote:

In message
<1ee03ef8-6eaa-45d3-8135-967ef5ee9214@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
allan tracy hotmail.com> writes

I think it's the nature of the Madrid accident and all the talk of being
burned in the media that has spooked people. Certainly flying at the
speed of a bullet in an aluminium tin full of kerosene does seem a tad
daft at times :-) And I'm usually a good flyer.