mcgillianaire: (Default)
mcgillianaire ([personal profile] mcgillianaire) wrote2010-05-05 01:15 pm

Volcanic Ash Shuts British & Irish Airports AGAIN!

My dad is on a flight to Heathrow. He was a bit worried listening to the Beeb this morning, but from most reports it shouldn't affect London. Several airlines have cancelled blocks of flights across the UK. I don't think we'll see a return to the six days last month when about 95,000 flights were cancelled at a cost to the the airlines of more than $1 billion. In light of this, it's worth thinking about whether there is a limit to the price of safety. Peter Singer, an Australian professor of bioethics at Princeton University has written about this in The Guardian:
    "Indeed, in closing their skies, European governments seem to have given safety absolute priority over everything else. Yet none of them act on that principle in other areas. Some 3,000 people die on the world's roads every day. Cutting speed limits to, say, 10km per hour would prevent most accidents and save many lives. We don't do it, because we give safety a lower priority..."
It's a very interesting and thought-provoking article. It got me thinking, what price would you put on safety? $1.5 million? $5.8 million?

[identity profile] loganberrybunny.livejournal.com 2010-05-05 03:04 pm (UTC)(link)
Prof Singer makes a good point, but then people don't tend to be logical about these things. Look at the number of (stereotypically) Daily Mail readers who demand that even one child harmed, ever, through the negligence of a social worker should result in mass sackings and the resignation of the government - but who simultaneously object violently to restrictions on smoking in public buildings and workplaces.

That said, I think air travel is a bit of a special case. People don't become terrified of travelling by road if there's a coach crash in fog on the M1, but a single plane crash that might, perhaps, possibly be linked with this ash cloud would be devastating in terms of public reaction. If the public accepted a plane crash or two every year, then this wouldn't be the case - but they expect aviation to have higher standards than anything else.

[identity profile] mcgillianaire.livejournal.com 2010-05-06 11:36 am (UTC)(link)
>but then people don't tend to be logical about these things
Very true and good example. Should've thought of that. And you're right air travel is a special case. "If the public accepted a plane crash or two every year" - says it all!