Author Topic: Anyone been to Italy?  (Read 32158 times)

Offline delalluvia

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,289
  • "Truth is an iron bride"
Re: Anyone been to Italy?
« Reply #80 on: November 02, 2011, 07:36:35 pm »
Why are bank wire transfers so expensive?!?!  It was $45 for each!  >:(


Thank the gods I only have two wire transfers to do for my hotels/B&Bs/Monastery stays.

Offline serious crayons

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,256
Re: Anyone been to Italy?
« Reply #81 on: November 02, 2011, 07:41:21 pm »
Yeah, I've read those numbers before, but the numbers are already skewed if they're comparing airplanes to cars.  They'd have to compare 80+ cars to one airplane to get comparable numbers.  e.g. 68,000 killed in traffic fatalities...were they all in one car?  A bus?

But again, let's talk survivability.  How many cars simply crashed and people walked away, versus how many planes crashed and people walked away?  That's what I'm interested in. 

The statistics I quoted referred to deaths, not accidents. Humans killed, not vehicles crashed.


Offline delalluvia

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,289
  • "Truth is an iron bride"
Re: Anyone been to Italy?
« Reply #82 on: November 03, 2011, 07:20:50 pm »
The statistics I quoted referred to deaths, not accidents. Humans killed, not vehicles crashed.

I know, but that's not what I'm interested in comparing. 

Odds are based on cars on the roads. How many are those per year?  Compared to how many airplanes and people in the air during the same time?  It's not really comparable.

That's what I mean by the numbers being skewed to begin with.

Offline delalluvia

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,289
  • "Truth is an iron bride"
Re: Anyone been to Italy?
« Reply #83 on: November 03, 2011, 07:22:13 pm »
Ah, the joys of reservation making...Alitalia charged me twice for the same flight.  Now I have to dispute one of the charges.  Watch them apologize, say they'll withdraw one and then withdraw both and leave me without a flight.  >:(

Offline serious crayons

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,256
Re: Anyone been to Italy?
« Reply #84 on: November 03, 2011, 07:38:34 pm »
I know, but that's not what I'm interested in comparing. 

Odds are based on cars on the roads. How many are those per year?  Compared to how many airplanes and people in the air during the same time?  It's not really comparable.

That's what I mean by the numbers being skewed to begin with.

Well, you can be interested in comparing whatever you like. But the number of cars on the road at any given time, or people in a plane or planes in the sky -- all that stuff is an irrelevant distraction.

Simple deaths per mile traveled (per person, not per vehicle) is the relevant statistic if you're going to talk about the safety of car travel vs. air travel. And then, to make it even more relevant, subtract the air deaths that take place in small private planes if you're not going to be flying in one because, as I said, they're responsible for the vast majority of deaths.

Those numbers aren't skewed. They're very clear cut. They're the ones you use to figure out, say, if you're traveling from Dallas to Newark by plane vs. by car, which trip is more likely to kill you.


Offline delalluvia

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,289
  • "Truth is an iron bride"
Re: Anyone been to Italy?
« Reply #85 on: November 03, 2011, 09:31:25 pm »
Well, you can be interested in comparing whatever you like. But the number of cars on the road at any given time, or people in a plane or planes in the sky -- all that stuff is an irrelevant distraction.

Simple deaths per mile traveled (per person, not per vehicle) is the relevant statistic if you're going to talk about the safety of car travel vs. air travel. And then, to make it even more relevant, subtract the air deaths that take place in small private planes if you're not going to be flying in one because, as I said, they're responsible for the vast majority of deaths.

Those numbers aren't skewed. They're very clear cut. They're the ones you use to figure out, say, if you're traveling from Dallas to Newark by plane vs. by car, which trip is more likely to kill you.

Look at it this way.  Put as many planes in the sky as there are cars on the road and then tell me if the stats on deaths in plane accidents go up.

Offline serious crayons

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,256
Re: Anyone been to Italy?
« Reply #86 on: November 04, 2011, 12:49:26 am »
Look at it this way.  Put as many planes in the sky as there are cars on the road and then tell me if the stats on deaths in plane accidents go up.

Of course they would. Because there would be more people traveling in planes. Yet still, fewer people would die than die in planes than die in cars. Because proportionately, you're still less likely to die in plane travel than car travel. Cars are more dangerous than planes.

You seem to think I'm getting confused by the fact that people spend more time in cars than they do in planes. Don't worry, I get that. That's why we're not talking total deaths per year. We're not talking total accidents or total vehicles or anything else. We're talking deaths per mile traveled.

If you travel 100 miles in a car, any car, anywhere, at any time, regardless of how many cars on the road or how many people in your vehicle or anything else, you are more likely to die than you are traveling 100 miles in a plane.

Let's try it another way. For simplicity sake, let's say 10 people travel in planes a year, and they each travel 10 miles. So altogether, that's 100 miles. Let's say (hypothetically) that out of those, 1 person dies. Now let's say 100 people travel in cars every year, and they each travel 100 miles. Altogether, that's 10,000 miles. If cars and plane were equally dangerous, then 100 of those people would die, because altogether people are traveling 100 times more in cars than in planes.

But in fact, according to statistics, more than 100 people would die. Because there are more deaths per mile in cars.

Now let's try it still one more way: If people spent exactly as much time in planes as in cars, if there were exactly as many planes as cars, as many people in them, or however else you'd like to equalize it, more people would die in cars.

Plane travel seems more dangerous because you're in the air. But in fact, it's less.


Offline delalluvia

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,289
  • "Truth is an iron bride"
Re: Anyone been to Italy?
« Reply #87 on: November 05, 2011, 12:35:09 pm »
Of course they would. Because there would be more people traveling in planes. Yet still, fewer people would die than die in planes than die in cars. Because proportionately, you're still less likely to die in plane travel than car travel. Cars are more dangerous than planes.

You seem to think I'm getting confused by the fact that people spend more time in cars than they do in planes. Don't worry, I get that. That's why we're not talking total deaths per year. We're not talking total accidents or total vehicles or anything else. We're talking deaths per mile traveled.

If you travel 100 miles in a car, any car, anywhere, at any time, regardless of how many cars on the road or how many people in your vehicle or anything else, you are more likely to die than you are traveling 100 miles in a plane.

Let's try it another way. For simplicity sake, let's say 10 people travel in planes a year, and they each travel 10 miles. So altogether, that's 100 miles. Let's say (hypothetically) that out of those, 1 person dies. Now let's say 100 people travel in cars every year, and they each travel 100 miles. Altogether, that's 10,000 miles. If cars and plane were equally dangerous, then 100 of those people would die, because altogether people are traveling 100 times more in cars than in planes.

But in fact, according to statistics, more than 100 people would die. Because there are more deaths per mile in cars.

Now let's try it still one more way: If people spent exactly as much time in planes as in cars, if there were exactly as many planes as cars, as many people in them, or however else you'd like to equalize it, more people would die in cars.

Plane travel seems more dangerous because you're in the air. But in fact, it's less.

You keep not connecting the dots.  Of course they would, so then that means planes are not proportionately safer, there's just fewer of them flying than cars driving.  Put as many planes in the sky as cars on the roads, or put as few cars on the roads as there are planes in the sky and see what your numbers tell you then.

Offline serious crayons

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,256
Re: Anyone been to Italy?
« Reply #88 on: November 05, 2011, 01:45:53 pm »
You keep not connecting the dots.  Of course they would, so then that means planes are not proportionately safer, there's just fewer of them flying than cars driving.  Put as many planes in the sky as cars on the roads, or put as few cars on the roads as there are planes in the sky and see what your numbers tell you then.

Delalluvia, I feel like you didn't read anything beyond the first two sentences in my previous post. Because after that I count five times that I explained it, five different ways. With examples and everything.

But I'm still not ready to give up! Let's try again: Yes, more people per year die in cars now, and the fact that there are more cars on the road is one factor. But it's only PART of the reason. The other part is that, even if you control for the number of cars vs. planes, driving is STILL more dangerous.

That's why when people analyze these statistics, they DO NOT say, "Oh look, 300,000 people died in cars last year, but only 500 people died in planes, so cars must be 600 times more dangerous than planes."

Nope. They understand that there are more cars than planes, so that comparing deaths per year in each would be comparing apples to oranges.

So instead, they say, "For every 1,000 miles traveled by an American in a car last year, 10 people died. For every 1,000 miles traveled by an American in a plane last year, only 8 people died. So cars are 20% more dangerous than planes." (I'm making up the numbers; the point is that car deaths per 1,000 miles are higher.)

That holds constant the number of total people and total vehicles, so the comparison is apples to apples. The number of cars or vehicles in the road or air no longer affects the compared statistics. And what they find when they control for that is that cars are more dangerous.




Offline delalluvia

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,289
  • "Truth is an iron bride"
Re: Anyone been to Italy?
« Reply #89 on: November 05, 2011, 07:00:33 pm »
 :laugh:

No, no no, I really really read your posts.

It's just you make statements and then try to qualify them, but to me, the qualifiers don't detract from the original fact.

You did it again here with this:

Yes, more people per year die in cars now, and the fact that there are more cars on the road is one factor. But it's only PART of the reason.

I agree.  It is a factor.  But to me, it's the MAIN factor that the stats are skewed.  To me, nothing else will make plane to car deaths per mile stats comparable until that is adjusted.

« Last Edit: November 05, 2011, 11:03:49 pm by delalluvia »