Originally Posted by
Efrem
That frequently-quoted statistic is based on several false assumptions. The major one is that your control over your destiny is equal for both. Car statistics include a lot of DUI, a situation I'm never in; other types of distracted driving, which I try to avoid; poorly maintained vehicles, which I don't drive; people who don't wear seatbelts and/or don't have airbags, neither of which affects me; new drivers, which I'm not; elderly/physically impaired drivers, which I'm not (yet); etc. In an aircraft I have no direct control over any of the comparable factors. I'm at the mercy of the airline I chose to fly. Granted, the usual standard of aircraft maintenance, pilot training, etc., is high, but the fact remains that the situations are not comparable. The likelihood of my being involved in an aircraft accident is what the statistics suggest, but that of my being involved in an automobile accident is not.
And yet every two- (or multi-) car collision involves the other driver that has done nothing wrong. I got rearended by some drunk moron while waiting at the light. There was absolutely nothing I could do there - so really it's not such a bad analogy. For the purpose of comparison if you exclude single car accidents and divide the rest by two I am pretty sure it will still be far more dangerous than flying.
(I would still prefer my pilots well rested though...)