Some statistics to suggest that we are idiots
 

Each year in the US 1 out of 6800 drivers dies in an auto accident. The rate for airline passengers is 1 in 1.6 million.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc...9/gen99845.htm

There were 733,908,000 "Revenue Passenger Enplanements" 6-2004 to 5-2005

http://www.bts.gov/xml/air_traffic/s...veMonthsSystem

733,908,000 / 3000 = 244,636

So, if 3000 people had been killed in this plot, then

Approximately 1 out of every 244,636 airline passengers would have been killed in 2006 (based on 2004-2005 enplanements).

1 out of every 6800 automobile drivers/passengers is killed.

As usual, we are emphasizing the wrong threat.

well, saving auto accident victims just doesn't get the publicity and the votes as creating hysteria about airline terrorist plots.

Where's the glamor? These politicians have to think about re-election before anything else.

Sure if you look at it from a dry, statistical vantage... But there's the psychological aspect as well, an auto accident is more familiar, the intentions aren't nefarious - with a terrorist attack on the other hand, it's a host of other implications and emotional/psychological responses.

And from what I understand, 1 out of every 1 automobile driver/passenger who tries to drive from the UK to the US is killed. QED, flying is safer!

how about other causes of death and injury, such as rape?

Shouldn't all men be castrated, to prevent the possibility of rape and murder crimes?

Those are highly emotional events also.

As I think about those numbers, I realize that there is a bit of apples-and-oranges to them. Perhaps I need to dig up deaths/automobile TRIP instead of just how many automobile drivers/passengers are killed each year.

Stay tuned.

That's a rather extreme measure, not sure I've encountered the equivelant in regards to airline security as of yet.

Well I think you just have.

Bans on all water, and bans on all carryon luggage.

Take away the tools to do damage, whether it's castration to prevent rapes, or take away all carryons on the plane (nevermind that cargo is still not fully screened).

Definitely. I was quickly trying to think of how many driving trips I've been on, and growing concerned. :p

I'd do it by correcting for average miles travelled annually driving vs. flying. Flying would still come out to be safer but the numbers would have more meaning.

Then we must extend the "liquid" ban to cars also. ALso note that car drivers are not screened before they get in their car. :D

The bigger question is which threat is easier to address? Apart from the statistics on fatalities, it's also important to look at the impact on the economy. People react differently to a catastrophe in the air compared to one on a major highway. The statistics need to be viewed in the context of how society reacts to the problems. If the plot had gone ahead, relatively few people would have died, but there would have been a major impact to the economy.

Flying clearly invokes much more irrational fears than driving. There are people who absolutely won't fly, no matter how many statistics you show them indicating the relative safety of flying versus driving. There seem to be far fewer people who refuse to drive/ride in a car.

It seems many people are willing to accept severe measures which give the perception of security when they fly. I am just not so willing to accept such things.

The thing I find so odd about all this is that so many people hate lower speed limits. There are studies showing how a 55 mph max would save lives and reduce gasoline consumption compared to 65 or 70, but it is very unpopular. Many drivers disobeyed it when it was in effect. The only reason I can think of to hate 55-mph is that it makes travel time take longer.

In the meantime, it appears the majority will accept nearly any sort of hassle at the airport, in the name of security. I suppose if you only fly a couple of times a year, what's an extra hour or two? But if you fly weekly or daily like some business people do, those hours add up to days of productivity lost.

I don't travel much for business, but I do take frequent weekend trips. I use the flight time to catch up on things on my computer or non-leisure reading so I can enjoy my time at the destination as much as possible. If I can't do those things, I will have to change the way I do things. One of the changes will be to fly less. The airlines will not be happy if their most frequent customers start driving more.

All that said, I did hear on NPR today that they are looking at ways to ease the inconvenience, but nothing specific was mentioned.

I don't really buy that research. If speed led to more accidents, then highways like the Autobahn would be the worst roads to drive on.

In fact, it's quite safe, as long as you are aware of the rules and ways to drive on it.

The problem in the US is that no one is taught simple things like the left is for passing. People don't use signal lights appropriately. etc.

To get back on topic...
To calculate this somewhat right we'd have to look at miles traveled as our independent variable. The dependent variable would be # of accidents flying and # of accidents driving.

I did a lot of science fair. ;)

Are you allowing for random error in this equation or are you going to control it? Also what α are you using??? Are you going to control the β or let it control itself?

I did a lot of graduate level statistics ;)