[skybrian]

I already understand that you think I'm wrong to make this comparison, but I still don't understand why. Why does it matter that airplanes and cars have many differences (of course they do)? If you die in a crash, you're just as dead.

The reason I'm talking about car safety is that driving or riding in a car is probably the most risky thing that most people do all the time. And yet, we accept the risk. So this seems like a good baseline for what should be considered an acceptable risk.

So I can understand not wanting to encourage airlines you don't like. I also understand wanting to encourage airlines to be safer, because improving safety is a good thing to do.

But that's different from not flying in a certain kind of airplane because you think you might die, while meanwhile taking other risks that are much worse. That's just inconsistent. We're all inconsistent sometimes, but it seems weird to object so strongly to someone pointing it out.

[bronson]

> that driving or riding in a car is probably the most risky thing that most people do all the time. And yet, we accept the risk. So this seems like a good baseline for what should be considered an acceptable risk.

For cars.

I'm very glad the FAA and airlines don't think the way you do about risk. They have their own standards. And it's perfectly consistent.

I sometime commute by skateboard, but I am NOT ok with my airlines or car companies using this choice as some sort of "acceptable risk baseline" for me.

[imtyler]

The comparison isn't wrong, it's nonsensical.

It's like comparing the mortality rate of heart surgery to that of psychotherapy because they're both performed by doctors.

If I died from talking to a therapist then, yes, I would see that as a major problem. The mortality rate of brain surgery wouldn't factor in to my decision making in this regard, because it's unrelated.

If I died on a Boeing aircraft with an inherently dangerous design flaw that makes it relatively more dangerous than other planes then, yes, I would see that as a problem.

The sad fact that driving is more dangerous does not mitigate that... because it's unrelated.

I think you're arguing that the relationship between activities doesn't matter, but when it comes to expectations, I'd argue it's the only thing that matters.

[tkxxx7]

> And yet, we accept the risk. So this seems like a good baseline for what should be considered an acceptable risk.

They are completely different playing fields. In a plane your life is in the hands of a pilot or two and a computer. On the road, the risk is amplified by every other driver.

Also, skies aren't nearly as full of traffic as roads.

There is no 'acceptable baseline' that reaches across fields that isn't zero. I think this is the main point here. I doubt anyone today would consider the number of deaths we experience on the road to be an acceptable risk, either.