Fuel leak on plane.

[Redbaron]

Railways are safer than air transport in terms of chances of dying - as speedbird083 says, if you are aboard a train that crashes, depending on the size of the train, you have to be fairly unlucky to be killed. If you are aboard an aircraft that crashes, there's virtually no chance anyone will survive (either the initial impact or the almost certain fire if it's on the ground).

[166Driver]

If someone flies regularly, and travels by rail regularly, where do they have the best chance of being involved in an accident?

[Stooopidperson]

Railways are safer than air transport in terms of chances of dying - as speedbird083 says, if you are aboard a train that crashes, depending on the size of the train, you have to be fairly unlucky to be killed. If you are aboard an aircraft that crashes, there's virtually no chance anyone will survive (either the initial impact or the almost certain fire if it's on the ground).

BUT how often are plane crashes compared to rail crashes?

If I were to use your(or speedbird) method of calculation, then cars would be the safest since if a car crashes, only 5 people would be killed, not hundreds.

But the problem is that there are many car accidents a day...

[ianmanson]

what do you consider a crash?

[Speedbird083]

When Windows doesn't boot properly.

[Redbaron]

If I were to use your(or speedbird) method of calculation, then cars would be the safest since if a car crashes, only 5 people would be killed, not hundreds.

No - cars are not the safest by my method - I am calculating the chances of dying as a percentage if you are involved in a crash - not total numbers. If we take a fairly serious accident, i.e. head on collision between two trains on a high-speed mainline or cars on a motorway, which do you think has a higher average risk of dying per passenger? Obviously a car, because out of 4(or however many are in the car), you would expect at least the two in the front to die - that's a 50% risk of dying. On a train, taking some of the worst accidents as an example, the chance of dying is no higher than 20% on average, and less that 5% on a large intercity train.

BUT how often are plane crashes compared to rail crashes?

True, plane crashes are less common (in this country at least), but still one average plane crash kills enough people as all the average rail crashes per decade, so the figures aren't as far apart as many people imagine for the last few decades!

[166Driver]

How about calculating deaths per carriage? What if you were sitting in the front carriage if the train was involved in a head-on crash? I don't know where most of you were in 1999, but that Paddington disaster was quite horrific, comparable with a plane crash.

[ianmanson]

so the figures aren't as far apart as many people imagine for the last few decades!

Well the wonderful Dept of Transport have put a figure on it (in this country). This prooves that planes are safer than trains

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/d ... 26309.hcsp

[Speedbird083]

We have been blessed with a rather good safety record in this country in aviation. I think the majority of accidents since the 80s have been cargo flights, noteably Korean Air... which explains a lot.

Such a shame I can't fly to uni, short of getting the Boulmer Seakings out. Will have to risk life and limb on the Tyne & Wear Metro. The risks I take.

Paddington was indeed horrific and, interms of what actually happened, so was the Selby disaster but its a testament to the design of the trains that the fatalities were relatiely low, particularly with the Selby crash.
Was the GNER 91 at the head or the tail of the Selby crash?
The locomotives must play a significant role in absorbing a lot of energy in a collision. I guess the death tolls might've been significantly higher if DMU/EMU had been involved.

[Redbaron]

The DVT was leading at Selby I think.

[Stooopidperson]

so the figures aren't as far apart as many people imagine for the last few decades!

Well the wonderful Dept of Transport have put a figure on it (in this country). This prooves that planes are safer than trains

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/d ... 26309.hcsp

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/d ... 6309-1.gif

Strange that while car/van accidents are so high, bus and coach accidents are low!

[jimbob]

so the figures aren't as far apart as many people imagine for the last few decades!

Well the wonderful Dept of Transport have put a figure on it (in this country). This prooves that planes are safer than trains

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/d ... 26309.hcsp

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/d ... 6309-1.gif

Strange that while car/van accidents are so high, bus and coach accidents are low!

Shows we must be better drivers than car/van/lorry drivers, lol.
Yes it does seem odd.

[martinhodgson]

Probably as you require an advanced driving licence to drive vehicles over a certain length/weight - thus coaches and trucks require a special licence for which extra training will be done. Wheras Mr White Van Man will be on a standard driving licence.

[jimbob]

Probably as you require an advanced driving licence to drive vehicles over a certain length/weight - thus coaches and trucks require a special licence for which extra training will be done. Wheras Mr White Van Man will be on a standard driving licence.

Shows one thing though, most accidents involving bus's go unreported as just at my depot, I have seen 5 bus's smashed up to the point you think it couldn't be repaired & it has been & thats just in the last 6mths, 2 of which were the same driver responsible!