<p>One <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/24/avoid-air-travel-mh17-math-risk-guide" rel="nofollow noreferrer">sometimes hears</a> that flying is much safer than driving a car, the death/mileage ratio being much lower. This is very plausible, especially in developed countries, and the safety gap widened as time went on and air travel became safer.</p>
<p>However, while most people think they are above average drivers, it is plausible that the risk is not the same for everyone. I am looking for scholarly articles where they build a model for the death/mileage ratio (or a similar indicator) of car travel and account for factors like</p>
<ol>
<li>age of driver/driving experience of the driver</li>
<li>whether the driver was under the influence at the time of the accident</li>
<li>whether the accident was at night</li>
<li>age/quality of the car.</li>
</ol>
<p>I would also include something like country the accident took place in, but I am guessing any such study is likely to be national, not global in scope.</p>
<p>Essentially I would like to know how much at risk a &quot;cautious&quot; driver is, what factors increase risk and by how much.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-03-03T12:12:16.520Z
Interesting question, but how is it on-topic for Economics SE?  Appears more suitable for Travel SE.
Adam Bailey
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-03-03T12:26:27.153Z
@AdamBailey Regressions models? On Travel?
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-03-05T13:03:22.047Z
Why would death per mileage ratio be a good measure of comparing safety? Surely a better measure would be, for example, for one particular person in one particular year, the "probability of death caused from flying " vs "probability of death caused from driving." I don't think mileage should be the independent variable either - *time spent doing those things* is what matters. It doesn't matter how fast the plane is going...
Adam Rubinson
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-03-05T13:26:16.817Z
@AdamRubinson The mileage ratio makes sense if you want to assess the risk of going from city A to city B by plane vs. the risk of making the same trip by car.
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-03-05T13:29:13.933Z
@AdamRubinson >> *a better measure would be, for example, for one particular person in one particular year, the "probability of death caused from flying " vs "probability of death caused from driving."* << This does not deal with the composition effect. In cities, more than 50% of pedestrians who are hit by cars are hit on the crosswalk. This is not because the crosswalk is riskier than crossing at a random point, it is because the vast majority of urban pedestrians are on a crosswalk when they are crossing the road.
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-03-05T13:36:05.630Z
Milage ratio is not the best choice when you compare the same trip. The reason air travel is deemed safe is that milage is a lot higher per flight. If you look at number of flights vs number of car rides the picture looks quite different. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety. See transport comparison in statistics
Alex
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-03-05T13:36:52.677Z
@Alex I am afraid I don't see what you mean. That car trips the ratio is calculated from should be restricted to long trips where air travel would have been an option?
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-03-05T17:54:54.687Z
@Giskard if you're going from city to city and a flight is an option, then the driving distance is substantial which means an increased risk to having a driving accident compared to normal, so flying is probably safer... The main downside to flying rather than driving (e.g. a 6 hour drive) is the carbon footprint...
Adam Rubinson
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-03-05T21:48:35.330Z
@AdamRubinson Thank you for your opinion; as you see in the question, I'm asking for an academic source about risk factors.
Giskard
<reference-request>
Safety: Air travel vs. car travel
Giskard
# Safety: Air travel vs. car travel

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-03-03)

One [sometimes hears](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/24/avoid-air-travel-mh17-math-risk-guide) that flying is much safer than driving a car, the death/mileage ratio being much lower. This is very plausible, especially in developed countries, and the safety gap widened as time went on and air travel became safer.

However, while most people think they are above average drivers, it is plausible that the risk is not the same for everyone. I am looking for scholarly articles where they build a model for the death/mileage ratio (or a similar indicator) of car travel and account for factors like

1. age of driver/driving experience of the driver
2. whether the driver was under the influence at the time of the accident
3. whether the accident was at night
4. age/quality of the car.

I would also include something like country the accident took place in, but I am guessing any such study is likely to be national, not global in scope.

Essentially I would like to know how much at risk a "cautious" driver is, what factors increase risk and by how much.

**Tags:** reference-request

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Interesting question, but how is it on-topic for Economics SE?  Appears more suitable for Travel SE.  
> **username_0**: @username_1 Regressions models? On Travel?  
> **username_2**: Why would death per mileage ratio be a good measure of comparing safety? Surely a better measure would be, for example, for one particular person in one particular year, the "probability of death caused from flying " vs "probability of death caused from driving." I don't think mileage should be the independent variable either - *time spent doing those things* is what matters. It doesn't matter how fast the plane is going...  
> **username_0**: @username_2 The mileage ratio makes sense if you want to assess the risk of going from city A to city B by plane vs. the risk of making the same trip by car.  
> **username_0**: @username_2 >> *a better measure would be, for example, for one particular person in one particular year, the "probability of death caused from flying " vs "probability of death caused from driving."* << This does not deal with the composition effect. In cities, more than 50% of pedestrians who are hit by cars are hit on the crosswalk. This is not because the crosswalk is riskier than crossing at a random point, it is because the vast majority of urban pedestrians are on a crosswalk when they are crossing the road.  
> **username_3**: Milage ratio is not the best choice when you compare the same trip. The reason air travel is deemed safe is that milage is a lot higher per flight. If you look at number of flights vs number of car rides the picture looks quite different. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety. See transport comparison in statistics  
> **username_0**: @username_3 I am afraid I don't see what you mean. That car trips the ratio is calculated from should be restricted to long trips where air travel would have been an option?  
> **username_2**: @username_0 if you're going from city to city and a flight is an option, then the driving distance is substantial which means an increased risk to having a driving accident compared to normal, so flying is probably safer... The main downside to flying rather than driving (e.g. a 6 hour drive) is the carbon footprint...  
> **username_0**: @username_2 Thank you for your opinion; as you see in the question, I'm asking for an academic source about risk factors.  

---

## 0 answers

