Originally Posted by
Mats
Vanderbilt argues that the social psychology of risk comes into play: auto accidents are so prevalent that they are routine. The statistical rarity of terrorism is what makes it so much more threatening.
There's also a control element. Once you board a commercial flight, you have effectively given up any control of your fate until you de-plane.
On the other hand, drivers can individually choose not to drive drunk, not to drive in a poorly-maintained car, not to drive between 1 a.m. and 5 a.m., not to drive in a blizzard, etc.
I've never fully bought the "flying is safer than driving" argument in part because I have never seen a statistical comparison between the risks of flying to the risks of "safe" driving. I'm not sure that flying is any safer than driving, provided I choose not to drive drunk, don't drive between 1 a.m. and 5 a.m., and maintain my car. Sure, i can't prevent some random drunk guy from t-boning me on my morning commute. But such a large percentage of car fatalities involve either stupid actions (drunkenness) or questionable actions (driving a 3 a.m. on Sunday morning) on the part of the driver himself, that I wonder if eliminating those avoidable risks would tip the safety scale in favor of driving.