Comment by buzzy_hacker

2 days ago

This is addressed in the first paragraph of the article.

> The FAA has one of my favorite examples of thoughtful rulemaking. They haven't banned flying with a baby on your lap, because the extra cost would mean many parents would drive instead. Since driving is far less safe than flying, a ban would lead to more deaths. I'd love to see more of this "all things considered" thinking around bans.

9 comments

buzzy_hacker

Reply
tsunamifury  2 days ago

This is extremely dubious logic with very bad stats.

Vast majority of accidents happen on regular driven known routes not road trips.

I would expect far better from the FAA.

  • abtinf  2 days ago

    > Vast majority of accidents happen on regular driven known routes not road trips.

    It is possible for this to be true while also simultaneously it being true that road trips are more at risk of accidents than regular routes.

  • vablings  2 days ago

    You can't circle around this because simply put per million miles flew the fatality rate is significantly lower than that of driving

    • tsunamifury  1 day ago

      You can depends on the cohorts sizes. Order of magnitude is probably large here tho.

      I somehow doubt when correct in absolute numbers lap infants are saving any lives.

      Run the model in AI on real cohorts and absolute numbers it’s a wash at best and an urban legend at worse. 5 lives saved over a decade. Toothpicks on a plane likely killed more people than that.

      To be clear but the NTSB and the American society of pediatrics have both said the FAAs math here is totally bunk.

  • SkyeCA  2 days ago

    > Vast majority of accidents happen on regular driven known routes not road trips.

    I always heard people say most crashes happen close to home and I never thought twice about what they were actually saying.

    Then one day it hit me: most people don't regularly drive far from home, so of course of accidents happen close to home.