FYI: It’s the summer, and so we see the usual uptick in coverage of shark attacks and other relatively rare events is in the news. This is one of our favorite topics, especially how disproportionate the coverage can be. This contributes to people forming a model of the world that is wildly inaccurate, with a lack of proportionality, and an over-emphasis on recent, emotional events.
Instead of the usual media panic, via Teton Gravity Research comes a more sober analysis of mortality statistics. I have not vetted each data point (Some are confusing), but I am curious if any of the data heads can explain/disprove this approach.
Regards,
Ted
https://ritholtz.com/2019/07/chances-of-dying/#more-229325
Comments
Take transportation fatalities. The graphic shows 1 fatality for every 6,700 automobiles, presumably in service. That appears to be in the right ballpark. Here's a data source showing that in 2017 there were 1.47 fatalities for every 10,000 motor vehicles, or about the same ratio. Are motor vehicles the same thing as cars? Who knows? The page is titled "car crashes and fatalities".
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatality-trends/deaths-and-rates/
So how about comparing fatalities per airplanes in service? According to this Telegraph (UK) article, there are about 23,600 aircraft in service, including passenger and cargo vehicles. The Guardian reports two fatal crashes in 2017. It says that there were five fatal crashes in 2018, plus a fatality during a flight.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travel-truths/how-many-planes-are-there-in-the-world/
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatality-trends/deaths-and-rates/
If even two people died in each of these incidents, then 2017 had a higher fatality rate per airplane (4 per 23,600, or more than 1 per 6,000) than per auto, and 2018 looked even worse. We all know the number of fatalities in crashes is usually more than two deaths; think Lion Air 737 MAX. So fatalities per vehicle are much worse for aircraft than for autos.
I don't know if fatalities per vehicle is a particularly useful statistic. But comparing that for one type of vehicle with fatalities per vehicle hours for another type of vehicle as done in the graphic can't be all that meaningful.
- Good accident analysis from @msf - A possible investment outcome might be that insurers should do very well as auto makers continue to reduce the incidence of accidents with automatic collision avoidance systems. I’ve no doubt this technology will soon be required on all new vehicles. Based on experience with my 2018 Honda, it appears quite effective now in applying brakes and sounding / flashing an alarm at the first sign of impending collision. And, of course, this technology will get better and better. The biggest issue, currently, is that in winter, under certain severe conditions, the radar receiver, mounted in the grille, is rendered inactive by snow accumulation. (*Edited last sentence for clarity.)
- On air safety, modern aircraft design and operational procedures have greatly reduced the incidence of fatal accidents - especially when passenger miles are taken into account. One difficult to solve problem is the issue of suicidal pilots intentionally crashing their own planes with passengers aboard. The link below references one confirmed incidence and two unsolved, but highly suspected instances, of that occurring.
https://qz.com/370575/a-brief-history-of-pilots-deliberately-crashing-planes/
Now, if we can eliminate the a-holes driving at 70+ on I-75 looking at their phone screens and while their vehicle weaves about in the driving lanes. I would arrest them on the spot if I had that power.
Derf
Heat’s dandy - but alcohol’s quicker ... if I remember an old college axiom correctly.
I’ll look into it. But, yep - everything else you mention is heated. The radar dish is about 4x4 inches square and kinda dish shaped which allows crud to collect down inside. Worst problems occur in very heavy wet snow while driving 60-70 mph. I’m guessing the thing is heated, but that it can’t keep up with the rapidity of the snow coming in. In addition, there’s the salt and sand from the pavement that’s being kicked up by other vehicles. (You’ll recall from drinking Margaritas that the salt along the rim doesn’t thaw out along with the ice.)
Well, Derf, that’s the most scientific explanation I can give at this time.
Regards
Does the technology exist today? Likely not in the degree of reliability (under all conditions) necessary. But some day very soon it will. Will 100% of all vehicles be so equipped? That’s a bigger question mark. Look how long it took to require simple things like seat belts and backup cameras. And if vehicle inspections were required everywhere today, half the vehicles on the road up in this area wouldn’t be allowed to operate until repaired. So, in the end, (excuse the reference) it’s the politicians who will decide this.