2.1. Roald Dahl's Diary and Personal Experience

Here is another interesting data, interesting fact, there is a diary written as by Roald Dahl on BOY, the tales of childhood, let us look what he is talking about, it is maybe 80 years before or in 1920’s okay. He is saying that I can remember very clearly the journeys I made to and from the school because they were so tremendously exciting, the excitement centred around my new tricycle. I rode to school on it every day with my eldest sister riding on hers. No grown-ups came with us. All this you must realize, was in the good old days when the sight of motor-car on the street was an event, and it was quite safe for tiny children to go tricycling and whopping their way to school in the centre of the highway.

Roald Dahl, a well-known author, shared his childhood memories about traveling to school on a tricycle in the 1920s. He highlights the excitement of these journeys, especially because he rode alongside his sister without any adults. This time was characterized as a simpler era when cars were rare, making the roads presumably safer for children to ride their tricycles in the streets.

Imagine a child today excitedly biking to school, feeling free and independent. Just like Dahl with his tricycle, today's children often find joy in their journeys, though parents might be more cautious now considering how busy streets can be.

So, what is that he is going and coming from school and home by tricycle, not only that he has the experience that he used to go through highways. So, tricycle on highway and that is very enjoyable, very safe. Do you believe in 1920’s, the roads were more safer than today, tricycle on road was much safer than today? If it is so, let us that look at data, we told that okay, a road is risky, if there are more casualty. But, here is the road accident of children in 1922, every year 736, whereas in 1986, this is only 358, so the child road death rate per motor vehicle has fallen by 98%, unbelievable!

Dahl reflects on his experiences of riding through highways on his tricycle, suggesting it was both enjoyable and safe at the time. However, the question arises whether roads in the 1920s were actually safer than today. To explore this, Dahl presents data showing a significant drop in the child road death rate from 736 deaths per year in 1922 to just 358 in 1986, indicating that modern transportation has become statistically safer for children.

Think about how much safer cars and roads have become with better design, traffic signals, and safety regulations. It’s like comparing an old wooden roller coaster—exciting but risky—to a modern one designed with advanced safety features that greatly reduce the chances of accidents.

But this person is saying that it was tremendously exciting but quite safe, is it really so, then come to believe the scientists or the general people, it is not a matter of believing, but how I have to tell him that scientific estimation is saying a different story?.

Dahl grapples with the contradiction between personal experience and scientific data. Although he found his childhood journeys exciting and safe, statistics tell a different story about present-day safety. This highlights an important distinction between subjective experiences and objective data, raising the question of whose views we should trust—ordinary people's lived experiences or scientific assessments.

Consider someone who feels safe walking alone at night in their neighborhood. Their personal experience may lead them to believe it’s safe, yet crime statistics could suggest otherwise. This illustrates the difference between individual perception and broader data.

How I can convince him, Mad Cow disease in 2003, you know, somebody said that scientists focus on danger that consumers on the whole cow. When because of mad cow disease, when the Japan government ban importing US beef in Japan, the US agricultural undersecretary wrote this quote 'in fact, the probably getting out of your automobile and walking into the store to buy beef has higher probability than you will hit by an automobile than, then the probability of any harm coming to you from eating beef.'

Dahl uses a historical example of the Mad Cow disease scare in 2003 to illustrate how risks can be misrepresented. The U.S. agricultural undersecretary highlighted that going to buy beef posed a lower risk than the act of driving to the store. This example emphasizes how public fears about certain risks—like eating beef during a health scare—can differ from the actual statistical risks involved.

This is similar to the fear many people felt during the COVID-19 pandemic about going to the grocery store. While the fear of contracting the virus was strong, experts often indicated that the statistical chances of catching it were lower than other everyday risks, like driving to the store.

So, Peter Sandman, on the other hand is saying that risk that actually upset people are completely different than the risks that kill people.

Dahl references Peter Sandman, who points out an important distinction: the risks that cause public concern (emotional responses) are not always the same as those that lead to fatalities (statistical realities). This suggests that societal fears often do not align with actual danger levels.

For example, many people fear flying because of dramatic news stories about plane crashes, yet statistically, flying is much safer than driving. The emotional impact of seeing a crash can overshadow the overwhelming data showing the safety of air travel.

--