Originally Posted by
DenverBrian
I'm not considering at the gate or taxiing in my thinking about aircraft incidents - I'm thinking about takeoff and landing, which is when these devices are prohibited, and I don't buy your "a lot of them have survivors" line. I'm too lazy to go on the web to research it, but even in cases of crashes that have survivors, how many survivors claim they were struck by a laptop during the crash?
If you're going for the "it might happen, so it's better to be safe" argument, then by that logic, you can't fly at all.
A lot of the landing/takeoff incidents have many many survivors - AF at YYZ, OZ at SFO, BA and LON. Even crash landings like UA 232 had a lot of survivors. Lessons are learned from each incident which lead to recommendations that might or might not be implemented.
I think the statistics say flying is safer than other modes of transportation.
At the end of the day, if people choose to interpret reality or bend rules the way they want and it hurts only themselves, then that is fine. Unfortunately, it can hurt or kill others. That is where the problem is.