<story><title>I stopped to watch kids playing at recess – security was called</title><url>https://reason.com/2022/05/11/kids-playing-at-recess-security-school-safety/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>jonas21</author><text>And you could certainly make the same argument about airliners, which have a death rate &amp;lt;10% that of trains (and &amp;lt;1% that of cars).&lt;p&gt;But if you try to make that argument on HN, a bunch of people will yell at you about how Boeing and the FAA are evil for putting cost savings over safety.</text></item><item><author>Robin_Message</author><text>I make a similar argument for train travel: since the death rate is ~10% that of other forms of transport, if trains could be made cheaper by compromising safety to say 50% of other modes, that would be a net positive as cheaper trains would move people off other, still more dangerous forms of transport.</text></item><item><author>pessimizer</author><text>&amp;gt; I can&amp;#x27;t say &amp;#x27;nothing bad ever happened&amp;#x27;. Obviously it did. But the pendulum has swung far too much the other way now.&lt;p&gt;My counterintuitive mildly-offensive party conversation starter is that I think that the ideal number for childhood deaths by misadventure or accident is a balance between protecting children from stupid accidents and making children stupid and timid by restricting them from doing anything that could result in an accident. If kids are getting into too few fatal accidents, protections for children should be reduced until we get the numbers back up.</text></item><item><author>mgkimsal</author><text>Friend of mine runs a local eatery.  She told her 9-year old son to walk across the street - literally to the candy shop where she knows the owner, and told the kid to do some homework for an hour.  Police brought her son back and threatened to charge her with endangerment or abandonment or something similar.  This was... 2018 IIRC.&lt;p&gt;They live about 1.5 miles from the eatery.  She would let her 9 year old walk home sometimes in good weather - low crime with actual tree-lined suburban streets.  Police apparently threatened her over that as well - that&amp;#x27;s somehow endangering the child too much, and she might be charged with some misdemeanor.&lt;p&gt;I don&amp;#x27;t get it.  Really.  As someone who grew up in the 70s&amp;#x2F;80s... I can&amp;#x27;t say &amp;#x27;nothing bad ever happened&amp;#x27;.  Obviously it did.  But the pendulum has swung far too much the other way now.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>rdtwo</author><text>The Safety cost and even the hull cost is simply not a major contributor to the cost of your ticket. It’s mostly fuel gate fees maintenance and overhead</text></comment>
<story><title>I stopped to watch kids playing at recess – security was called</title><url>https://reason.com/2022/05/11/kids-playing-at-recess-security-school-safety/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>jonas21</author><text>And you could certainly make the same argument about airliners, which have a death rate &amp;lt;10% that of trains (and &amp;lt;1% that of cars).&lt;p&gt;But if you try to make that argument on HN, a bunch of people will yell at you about how Boeing and the FAA are evil for putting cost savings over safety.</text></item><item><author>Robin_Message</author><text>I make a similar argument for train travel: since the death rate is ~10% that of other forms of transport, if trains could be made cheaper by compromising safety to say 50% of other modes, that would be a net positive as cheaper trains would move people off other, still more dangerous forms of transport.</text></item><item><author>pessimizer</author><text>&amp;gt; I can&amp;#x27;t say &amp;#x27;nothing bad ever happened&amp;#x27;. Obviously it did. But the pendulum has swung far too much the other way now.&lt;p&gt;My counterintuitive mildly-offensive party conversation starter is that I think that the ideal number for childhood deaths by misadventure or accident is a balance between protecting children from stupid accidents and making children stupid and timid by restricting them from doing anything that could result in an accident. If kids are getting into too few fatal accidents, protections for children should be reduced until we get the numbers back up.</text></item><item><author>mgkimsal</author><text>Friend of mine runs a local eatery.  She told her 9-year old son to walk across the street - literally to the candy shop where she knows the owner, and told the kid to do some homework for an hour.  Police brought her son back and threatened to charge her with endangerment or abandonment or something similar.  This was... 2018 IIRC.&lt;p&gt;They live about 1.5 miles from the eatery.  She would let her 9 year old walk home sometimes in good weather - low crime with actual tree-lined suburban streets.  Police apparently threatened her over that as well - that&amp;#x27;s somehow endangering the child too much, and she might be charged with some misdemeanor.&lt;p&gt;I don&amp;#x27;t get it.  Really.  As someone who grew up in the 70s&amp;#x2F;80s... I can&amp;#x27;t say &amp;#x27;nothing bad ever happened&amp;#x27;.  Obviously it did.  But the pendulum has swung far too much the other way now.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>antisthenes</author><text>&amp;gt; And you could certainly make the same argument about airliners, which have a death rate &amp;lt;10% that of trains (and &amp;lt;1% that of cars).&lt;p&gt;You can, but it&amp;#x27;s not a fair comparison. 99.9% of deaths of railroad transport is people killed while crossing rails - e.g. pedestrians.&lt;p&gt;If you consider rail &lt;i&gt;passengers&lt;/i&gt; only, it is far lower than airlines and cars, something on the scale of 2-3 people&amp;#x2F;year.&lt;p&gt;Airplanes are cheating in the sense that there are no pedestrians in the air to collide with.</text></comment>