Dan Thompson wrote:
"I tend to think this IS a sound argument" This is about the flimsiest
"argument" I've ever seen written, that additional safety equipment, on
balance, makes people less safe because they become more cavalier about
taking risks. It assumes that the people involved are not intelligent
enough to understand the scope of safety benefit and risk reduction being
provided. You must hang around a dumber group of pilots and airplane owners
than I do.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but this is a documented fact. The
insurance companies found this out with antilock brakes. They initially
gave discounts for cars so equipped ... until they found that the loss
rate was actually higher for ABS equipped cars. A study determined that
the issue was that drivers were driving more aggressively in poor
weather as they thought the ABS would save them.

Now, I tend to think the average pilot is a cut above the average
driver, but we're all still human and all too often do crazy things.
Just look at the most significant causes of accidents: fuel exhaustion,
flight into IMC for VFR pilots, buzzing, etc. Almost all are due to
poor judgement and, yes, simple stupidity in many cases. If all pilots
were as intelligent as you claim, then accidents in these categories
would be near zero, and mechanical failure would be the predominant
cause of accidents. Just isn't so my friend.


Matt