Re: Rail + Safety Records

["trendy rechauffé" <trendy_rechauffe@start.com.au>]

dave pierson <pierson@mail.dec.com> wrote in message
3846D188.6E40@mail.dec.com">news:3846D188.6E40@mail.dec.com...
> Richard wrote:
>
> > Up until fairly recently there was always good ground for the argument
> > that travelling by rail was far far safer than by air.
>
> It would seem to be a local to Australia phenomenon, then.
> Elsewhere, world wide, passenger safety, rail vs air is
> roughly the same for both modes, deaths/mile (per km...)
> basis.  (I've got the numbers...)  I'd assume equivalent
> numbers for Australia re available.  (Cars, autos are roughly
> 10x worse....  Elsewhere, varying from country to country...)
>

Deaths per km figures are meaningless when comparing crash statistics. These
are what airlines use to make them seem safer than they really are.

Aircraft fly greater distances than most other forms of transport per
journey. Most fatalities occur during takeoff and landing. Therefore the
only relevant comparison is deaths per number of journeys.

Only motorcycles have a worse safety record than aircraft. Both are far
worse than motor cars and railways. The airlines wont quote these
statistics, however Boeing uses deaths per journey figures as they are more
meaningful.

bye tr