![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|