[spoonjim]

The 737MAX is safer than a car per passenger mile, but saying that it's safer than "driving" is false unless you assume that both trips are the same distance. This isn't usually how it works. A Californian who refuses to vacation in New York to avoid the 737MAX usually does not drive to New York instead -- they drive to Point Reyes or something nearby, or just don't go at all.

[Closi]

This is true to some extent, although the difference in safety is so large that in the example you are still more likely to die from a car accident on your way to Point Reyes than your flight to New York.

Deaths from car accidents per 100 million miles driven: 1.33

Deaths from plane accidents per 100 million miles by plane: 0.0077

(Note above statistics are from the US)

In your example, California to New York would be approx 3k miles while point Reyes is approx 150-300 miles depending on where you start. A 10-20x longer journey via plane is still an order of magnitude safer.

Per mile, the car is about 200x more dangerous - in fact the usual statistic is that getting on a plane is safer than driving to the airport, not doing the whole distance in the car.

[argvargc]

All of these statistics are too generalised to be useful.

People who fly in planes are generally not flying from every conceivable location on the globe to every other one in an even distribution and randomly using every type of plane available on every carrier. Neither are those driving cars driving from every possible destination to every other in every kind of vehicle etc.

Compare someone exclusively flying back and forth between one wealthy first world country to another on a Dreamliner run vs someone driving an 80's Ford Pinto regularly across treacherous mountain passes in the Andes.

Or the converse (use your imagination).

An important and useful statistic is that one particular, new model of aircraft is tremendously crashy considering the amount of time it's been in service.

It makes sense to avoid travelling on that aircraft, until it can be proven to have a flight-miles/crash ratio more in line with other models. (Which may take a number of years, or decades, especially if people are avoiding it...)

[cryptonym]

What you say is true but coarse statistics doesn't reflect actual situation. You would have to compare 737 MAX deaths per mile to OP car deaths per mile. Maybe taking into account that hopefully OP doesn't speed, drink, text, watch harry potter... Don't know if deaths includes pedestrian or bikes killed by cars, could be irrelevant if you only compare your odds to be alive after journey. I'd also expect a recent car with good safety to have a lower rate than average and maybe 737 MAX higher than average?

[Closi]

Apologies, I thought OP was just talking about flying in general rather than specifically the 737 max but I have re-read and it's clear. I think I just forgot as I was writing the response!

> Don't know if deaths includes pedestrian or bikes killed by cars, could be irrelevant if you only compare your odds to be alive after journey.

I agree this could be debated, but I don't think it's too useful to say "The journey was safer because rather than kill the person travelling it only killed a random pedestrian".