I just finished reading "Traffic," by Tom Vanderbilt. It's a GREAT book; beautifully written, compelling arguments. It discusses topics like traffic jams, driver behavior, road design, and--above all--safety.

The last chapter looks at automobile accidents compared to the risk of terrorism. To put it in perspective: more people die each month in auto accidents than from the September 11th attacks.

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.

Imagine if we took all of the money spent on puffer machines, plastic bags, shoe inspections, and gate screening and spent it on road safety?

Above all, the hassle factor prevents travelers from traveling by air. If the TSA's antics mean that more people will travel by car, they put more lives at risk.

The comparison of 9/11 to auto accidents doesn't work. Accidents are an unfortunate result of normal activity by so many people in such a confined space. He needs to compare criminal activity to criminal activity.

The traffic accident comparison works for fear of plane crashes versus risk of driving to the airport, things like that. But this seems to apples/oranges.

Why? You seem to be implying the lives of victims of terrorism are worth more than the lives of victims of road accidents. Personally I disagree.

Don't think I did that. I certainly didn't mean to. I was pointing out that 9/11 was a deliberate act against people, whereas traffic accidents occur as a result of, well, accidents. So psychological comparisons related to irrational fears would seem to me to be a bit out of whack.

What makes them more frightening is the physical violence involved. People die from all kinds of natural causes, yet those aren't nearly as scary to most people as interpersonal violence and murder, which is interesting because in both cases you end up dead. But street crime, terrorism, etc. seems much scarier.

Sure, but if we took even 10% of the $$ spent in response to 9/11 to improve traffic safety, and used it to it reduce the annual fatality rate by 5%, we would be way ahead. I think those numbers could easily work, we spend next to nothing in most states on driver training, and it shows on the roads.

Each MONTH? The death toll from the 9/11 attacks (~3000 people) is approximately the number of people who die in road accidents every day.

Kudos to Vanderbilt for writing a book about it, but I've been pointing out to the TSA for years that more lives would be saved if they just shut the whole airline security thing down, let terrorists bring down an airliner every month, and the funds saved used to instead bring down traffic fataliities by just 1%. None of the "logic" behind the TSA's priorities makes any sense.

Where? Annual auto fatalities in the US is about 40K to 50K.

Global statistics are hard to find, because not everywhere uses the same criteria/methodology, but it's efforts to persuade people to take the problem more seriously, the UN estimated annual road deaths at around 1,2 million (or an average of a bit over 3K daily) for 2006, IIRC. Can't find the link at present, but a US average of 40 - 50K seems consistent with that number.

flyinbob has a point, but it's all applesauce if you grant that each tax dollar spent on airport security is one tax dollar diverted from a more efficient program.

Fear sells... those in charge need fear to keep their programs going.
Ignore the everyday and worry far-fetched.

OK, if you want to compare "crime" to "crime", about 5,500 young people, ages 10-24, are killed each year in this country due to an act of violence.

Take the money being wasted on the TSA and direct it toward reducing those deaths, as well as traffic deaths.

OK, I really agree with the premise. The problem is where do you put this money so it actually will reduce those deaths, either crime or auto accident? How much safer do people want to be without sacrificing some freedom? This is why TSA sucks. They were given lots of money and no oversight while setting up, so went way overboard with the rules and regulations, and we know the result is we are no more safe today than pre-9/11. So what do you spend money on to make streets safer? Make all roads 10 mph? Stop signs every 50 feet? Video cameras everywhere to "watch" for crime? I'm with you on cutting TSA way back. But how about just giving us taxpayers our money back?

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.

So of those wrecks were accidents but more time then not those wrecks happened because of deliberate actions by the driver, so your arguement is awash.

Trust me i see what happens with aggressive drivers every day, because I end up hauling them, there acts were not a accident they were deliberate. two weeks ago i witnessed a driver who was in a hurry weaving through lanes of traffic end up hitting another car sending it spinning into the wall and then watched the aggressor do a full flip and then roll down the highway landing on the roof, that wreck sent 8 people to the hospital in critical condition requiring 4 to be flown due to head injuries. In the end there where 3 fatalities from the wreck but they werent counted in the stats because they died just a couple of days ago, but there deaths where results of injuries sustained in the accident. Im not going to go into the rest of the details of the accident but the desensitizing of car wrecks is correct as opposed to a airplane being used in the same manner but the end result is the same death, destruction and economic damage.

The Stats on deaths are messed up because they only count DOS (Dead on Scene) totals and not the ones that die, days, weeks later after then event. so that many people dieing on a daily/ weekly basis sound about right and should be in the range of the 9/11 toll.

YMMV, but this is based on in-field experince of what i see every day of my life.