Hacker News Reader

Comment by FussyZeus | Hacker News Reader

We can ban things because there's too much of a chance of things going wrong? It's travel via aircraft, I think John Q. Public can probably fairly well assess what might go wrong, and more to the point, it's none of the FFA's business. If I go on a plane and I die crashing into some guys house, we have legal frameworks in place to handle all of those events. Why do we need more on top?

View on HN

>We can ban things because there's too much of a chance of things going wrong?

Yes. This is literally how public safety works.

Then let's talk safety. Every pilot in the sky has spent thousands of dollars learning how to handle that craft, compared to most drivers have spent, what, $150, assuming they went for Driver's Ed. They then spent a magnitude more money on the plane, had it inspected so they could fly it, and will be piloting it in the atmosphere where they have a much greater chance of running into an angel than another aircraft en route to a planned destination that everyone within a thousand miles can look up. Compare that to Uber or hell, even driving your own car and tell me which is safer.

> piloting it in the atmosphere where they have a much greater chance of running into an angel than another aircraft en route to a planned destination

Shall we compare the number of aircraft-angel collisions to the number of aircraft-aircraft collisions?

Sure, as long as you're willing to discount accidents involving air shows or other activities that involve planes flying intentionally close together. In normal flight circumstances, planes are intentionally kept miles apart and even when they do get close, communication between the vehicles to assure that doesn't happen is not only possible, your pilot in question would be fined if he weren't doing it.

Empirically that isn't always the case. Often rent-seekers who stand to profit from various regulations have far more influence on public policy than "safety" does.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com