undefined | Better HN

0 pointsncallaway6y ago0 comments

Yea, but the parent commenter was discussing the _public's_ risk tolerance for flying.

The fact that life insurance was being sold, meant the flying public _thought_ they were taking significant risks (even if they weren't).

Now, such life insurance would be laughable, which means the public _does not_ think it's taking any risks. The general public's risk tolerance for flying has dropped dramatically.

So, based on that, it seems the example perfectly demonstrates the point. The public thinks flying is much less of a risk now than it used to.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

ksdale6y ago· 1 in thread

Your point is well taken, thank you.

Though, presumably the FAA's tolerance for risk has also dropped tremendously over the past several decades, so I feel like the more relevant comparison is the perceived risk to the actual risk.

Although the public thinks the risk it's taking is much smaller, it still vastly overestimates the danger of flying.

I agree completely that the public thinks flying is a lot safer than they used to, which is a change, but I think they also still really overestimate the danger, which is not a change, and which I believe is borne out by the same evidence provided by the parent, people buying life insurance when it was a bad deal and people continuing to demand that the FAA make flying so much safer than activities like driving that they engage in without a second thought.

I'm also not so sure that a lot of people wouldn't still buy life insurance at the gate if it was available.

jdsully6y ago

The FAA estimated the 737 Max would crash roughly once every 2-3 years. That is 8x more often than the rest of Boeing’s fleet.

This apparently was still within FAA guidelines. I gurantee the flying public’s risk tolerance is lower than that. I know mine is.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse