Hacker News Reader

Comment by dragonwriter | Hacker News Reader

> The extra time & hassle required to get through security (and the fact that only passengers can go through) means that some people drive instead of fly.

I suspect it leads to more people not travelling at all (or much shorter distances) and net saves lives in both the relatively immediate travel sense and even moreso in the broader analysis including net carbon emissions and their effect in climate change.

(It is still a mix of corrupt corporatism and authoritarian conditioning that should be ended for that reason.)

View on HN

I'm not sure I disagree. I don't have numbers but, anecdotally, you sure hear a lot of "But flying is such a hassle" which is sorta true but not sure how much more than it's ever been especially if you're willing to pay a bit more. I'm not sure how many people translate that into "So I'll just drive 1,000 miles instead."

In Europe (and the US Northeast Corridor), I do favor trains to avoid going to and dealing with airports, but they're no panacea either. And I say this as someone with the various passes that make flying easier.

I can drive for 5 hours, or take the 1 hour flight. The one hour flight has a total time of over 5 hours when you include getting to the airport, clearing security and getting bags at the other end. Plus I will not have a vehicle. For one person the cost is probably a wash, for two or more driving will be cheaper. 1000 miles does tip towards flying. Under 300 miles driving is going to be way less hassle to drive.

It has very little to do with security though. I usually go through security in 5 minutes at my home airport. I do leave a lot more time than that partially because my car company sort of insists on it. (Of course, the car company is another cost.)

Honestly, it would be faster and possibly cheaper for me to drive to Manhattan than take the train--in which case security doesn't enter in at all. And certainly for two people. But I hate driving into Manhattan.

From what airport? I arrive an hour early. You're arriving 4 hours early?

The math does pencil out for Boston to New York. I'd be an hour to my local airport, arrive 2 hours in advance (could cheat a bit with an early flight--it's taken me almost 2 hours to get into Boston near rush hour--especially given basically a commuter flight but a good hour drive in), probably an hour for a shortish flight, baggage claim (if relevant), then transportation into the city.

Were I amenable, which I'm generally not, could probably drive 4 hours from my house into the city. (Almost always take the train.)

International trains have security too nowadays. In fact they're trying to feel an awful lot like planes...

It is what it is. Governments can't risk the bad publicity of a terrorist attack. A car accident doesn't even make the news.

While I don't disagree and I think a lot of it is just nonsense security theater, it is probably worth noting that incidents of airline terrorism have fallen completely off the map in this new regime.

Not sure how old you are but bombings and hijackings of airplanes were just kind of a common fact of life when I was a kid and I was there on 9/11 as well.

There's at least some element of Chesterton's fence that could come into play here.

Locking the cockpit doors and beaching the social contract that no one gets hurt in a hijacking stopped it, not TSA.

The trade-off here is that there's at least one instance where a protocol gap and a locked door led to intentional CFIT (Germanwings 9525)

The biggest difference to hijackings post 9/11 has nothing to do with pre-boarding security: Locking the cockpit door.

> Not sure how old you are but bombings and hijackings of airplanes were just kind of a common fact of life when I was a kid and I was there on 9/11 as well.

The period where hijackings were “common” (an exaggeration even then) ended around the time the first airline security screening requirements were adopted, about 30 years before 9/11 and (and just a little bit before I was born, and I am in my 50s.)

Airline bombings were NEVER common in the US (there are three I can find reference to, the most recent in 1962 and the others in 1933 and 1955.) They have been more of an issue internationally, but obviously US screening rules have done fuck-all about that, and they have continued.

I suspect it doesn't.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com