"Andy Fogg" wrote in message
...
Obviously distance travelled is a key issue and I do understand the need
for
an 'apples and apples' comparison. However, in the UK we have been
averaging 18 GA accidents a year (which icludes higher risk types such as
autogyros and balloons) compared to a steady 3,500 deaths a year through
road traffic accidents.

Those are absolute rates. They are meaningless without considering the
exposure to the risk. Which, of course, is what this entire thread is
about, basically.

18 fatal GA accidents per year would be a very big problem if there were
only 18 GA flights each year.


Only a serious statistician could make any
meaningfull comparisons from these different forms of transport but I do
think that things should be kept into perspective. i.e. if you are
concerned about accidental death where could your efforts save the most
lives GA or car?

It depends on who you are. If you are a person who will never fly in an
airplane, but who spends a lot of time on the highway, you will invest your
efforts in saving lives in cars. If you fly more than you drive, you
probably care more about GA fatal accidents.

The question isn't about where should safety measures be implemented. It's
about relative comparison of safety for various activities (motorcycling and
flying, in particular).

The analysis is, of course, very different if you're a person in charge of
public policy rule-making and budget-writing where you have to decide where
to invest your efforts. But that's an entirely different conversation than
the one we're having here.

Pete