Risks of flying vs driving

R

reachme.here091

#1
#1
genius said:
It's not about saving money, IMHO.

Every thing you do in life has a risk/benefit. Doesn't mean people take rational considerations of risk e.g. person I know who is afraid to fly will drive from NY to Florida every year even tough the risks associated with driving is much higher than flying(4)

The issues being discussed is if the risk of developing colorectal cancer is higher than the risk of having a complication from a colonoscopy.

For example rate of perforation was 0.85 per 1,000 patients(1) There are always risks of general anesthesia; related mortality in patients without relevant systemic disease is low, at 0.4/100 000 (2) There are other risks I haven't listed.

The incidence of colorectal cancer starting after a negative colonoscopy: 0.4% at 3 years, 0.8% at 5 years and 2.3% at 10 years(3)

So you have to decide if the increased risk of going from 5 years to 10 years (2.3%-0.8% = 1.5%) Is worth the complication risk doubling i.e.,you have 2 opportunities if every 5 years vs 1 opportunity every 10 years.

You pays your money, you takes your choice




1. in the four provinces Canada.
2. Cleveland Clinic
3.NIH
4.passengers in cars and trucks were injured at a rate of 42 per 100 million miles traveled. For air travel, it was 0.007 per 100 million
Click to expand...
How about Miles traveled vs per trip? Or per hour of travel between the two modes. Or chances of survival from an incident. Basically this stat that flying is safer vs driving is BS imho.

I digress, sorry for the tangent.
 
genius

genius

#2
#2
reachme.here091 said:
How about Miles traveled vs per trip? Or per hour of travel between the two modes. Or chances of survival from an incident. Basically this stat that flying is safer vs driving is BS imho.

I digress, sorry for the tangent.
Click to expand...
Air miles traveled vs automobile miles traveled has air travel much safer (by orders of magnitude) than automobile travel.
So if thinking you will be driving to Washington DC vs Flying based on safety concerned you couldn't have it more wrong.

The reason that a commercial aircraft death hits all the national news is that it is so rare.
 
R

reachme.here091

#3
#3
Without hijacking the thread, let’s say I take an average 2 car rides per day. That’s 730 rides per year. I take an average 6 flights per year…. What would be my hazard exposure if I only took 6 car rides per year? Or what about 730 flights per year?
 
Monty_monty

Monty_monty

#6
#6
reachme.here091 said:
Without hijacking the thread, let’s say I take an average 2 car rides per day. That’s 730 rides per year. I take an average 6 flights per year…. What would be my hazard exposure if I only took 6 car rides per year? Or what about 730 flights per year?
Click to expand...
You also need an additional factor, number of miles driving to determine the risk

Baseline Stats: Car vs. Plane Fatality Risk (U.S. data)

Car
  • Fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles: ~1.11 (NHTSA)
  • Average car trip: ~7.3 miles (US DOT estimate)

Commercial Aviation
  • Fatalities per 100 million passenger miles: ~0.006 (based on a 10-year average)
  • Average domestic flight: ~1,200 miles

Car travel is ~185 times more dangerous per mile than flying.

Even if you took one flight a day (730/year), your risk would be about the same as your current car risk.
Reducing car rides drastically reduces your annual transportation hazard exposure.

Even massive increases in flights don’t reach the per-mile danger level of typical car usage.

If you switched your 730 car rides to 730 flights, your annual fatality risk would actually decrease slightly.
 
R

reachme.here091

#7
#7
Monty_monty said:
You also need an additional factor, number of miles driving to determine the risk

Baseline Stats: Car vs. Plane Fatality Risk (U.S. data)

Car
  • Fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles: ~1.11 (NHTSA)
  • Average car trip: ~7.3 miles (US DOT estimate)

Commercial Aviation
  • Fatalities per 100 million passenger miles: ~0.006 (based on a 10-year average)
  • Average domestic flight: ~1,200 miles

Car travel is ~185 times more dangerous per mile than flying.

Even if you took one flight a day (730/year), your risk would be about the same as your current car risk.
Reducing car rides drastically reduces your annual transportation hazard exposure.

Even massive increases in flights don’t reach the per-mile danger level of typical car usage.

If you switched your 730 car rides to 730 flights, your annual fatality risk would actually decrease slightly.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the explanation. That makes sense.

Veering into hypothetical here, what about if more people took more fights? Wouldn’t system complexity introduce more risk?
 
C

Chrome Dome

#8
#8
I have flown over 1 million miles, no issues. Driven over 300,000 miles and have been re-ended 3 times, t-boned once, had to go to the ER all 4 times due to whiplash. Driving 95 for a daily commute is the most dangerous activity you can perform.

Your number is up, when it is up, don't worry about it.
 
Monty_monty

Monty_monty

#9
#9
reachme.here091 said:
Thanks for the explanation. That makes sense.

Veering into hypothetical here, what about if more people took more fights? Wouldn’t system complexity introduce more risk?
Click to expand...
Even though per-mile risk of flying is incredibly low, that risk is partially a function of the current system scale and design. If the volume of flights dramatically increased, several factors could introduce new systemic risks, including:

  • Higher passenger volumes = higher exposure surface for malicious actors.
  • Security systems scale too, but risks multiply in high-throughput environments.
  • More complex fleets can also increase the chance of part incompatibility, misdiagnoses, or delays in service.
  • Airlines would need more planes. This might mean:
    • Flying older planes longer.
    • Rushing new models into service (think Boeing 737 MAX issues).
  • Higher flight volume would strain airline maintenance cycles.
    • If corners are cut or inspections are rushed to meet demand, it could increase mechanical failure risk.
  • More flights = more pilots, crew, maintenance staff, and air traffic controllers needed.
    • Larger systems often mean more variation in experience, training quality, or oversight.
  • Gate availability, runway access, ground control — all see higher utilization.
    • Increased chance of runway incursions, ground collisions, or logistical errors.
  • More planes = tighter scheduling = smaller margins for error.
    • Air Traffic Control (ATC) systems could become overloaded, particularly around major hubs.


The current ultra-low accident rate depends on a highly-controlled ecosystem.

If aviation scaled like personal vehicle use (millions of independent users daily), the statistical insulation from rare events could erode.

Risk per flight could rise (even if slightly), especially due to operational stress and infrastructure saturation.

Still, due to redundancy, regulation, and aviation culture, it would likely never reach car-level risks unless major breakdowns occur.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top