cdeerinck
Well Known Member
I have always struggled with visualizing the risk of flying compared to something like driving. Tonight I decided to do some research, and quickly came upon a DOT graphic that helped get almost all of the data.
I made one change and re-graphed it. The change was to convert "Injuries per 100 million miles driven" into "Injuries per 100,000 hours driven", by assuming 60 mph in a car. Then you can compare risk per hour between them.
If you think about it, this is not "what is the safest way to get there", as you generally fly much faster than you drive. This is a "how safe is it to be in one" type of comparison.
In a nutshell, we get the following:
All that being said, please don't get complacent. I like to think that GA is safer because the pilots are more careful that the average driver on the road.
I made one change and re-graphed it. The change was to convert "Injuries per 100 million miles driven" into "Injuries per 100,000 hours driven", by assuming 60 mph in a car. Then you can compare risk per hour between them.
If you think about it, this is not "what is the safest way to get there", as you generally fly much faster than you drive. This is a "how safe is it to be in one" type of comparison.
In a nutshell, we get the following:
- Driving is twice as safe in 2013 than in 1990.
- Flying commercial is 6 times safer in 2013 that in 1990.
- Flying commercial is the safest way to travel by hour, even more so by mile.
- Riding in a car is more dangerous that driving.
- GA is more dangerous that commercial flying by 25 times.
- GA is more dangerous that driving a truck by 2 times.
- GA safety is roughly the same in 2016 then in 1990.
- GA is still safer that driving a car by 4.5 times.
All that being said, please don't get complacent. I like to think that GA is safer because the pilots are more careful that the average driver on the road.