3.2. Understanding Risk Discrepancies

But here is the question; which one told me; which one you feel is more risky, going by air or going by road, which one actually more risky? Yes, you were right, I know, most of the people think that going by air is risky than by road. But actually, data is very opposite; aviation is one of the safest medium of transport; mode of transport so, by air is much safer from the point of accident rate or casualty rates than by road.

In this chunk, we have a scenario where people are asked to choose which mode of travel they feel is riskier: flying by air or driving by road. Most individuals tend to believe that air travel is riskier. However, statistics show that this perception is false; in fact, flying is much safer than driving when looking at accident and casualty data. The data indicates that air transport has a significantly lower accident rate compared to road transportation, countering the common belief that flying is more dangerous.

Imagine you are at a party where everyone believes that the roller coaster is more dangerous than the Ferris wheel. If you were to look up the statistics, you would find that roller coasters have a very low accident rate compared to Ferris wheels. This situation is similar to how people perceive air travel as more dangerous than road travel without examining the facts.

But people have actually very different perceptions, people want to avoid by air than by road also, when you are talking about estimating data, do we have enough data; if there is some accident, some earthquake happened in Ghana in Western Africa, can we get this data; road accident data, can we get it? No, can we really depend on the statistics that we are coming from many developing countries; basically, no, it is not well documented.

This chunk discusses how perceptions of safety can vary based on the availability and quality of data. In regions with less documentation and statistical record-keeping, such as in many developing countries, it is difficult to obtain reliable data about road accidents. This lack of data can lead to misjudgments about the actual risks involved in traveling by road as opposed to air. Consequently, there is uncertainty in estimating risks because of inadequate data in certain parts of the world.

Think of trying to compare the safety of two neighborhoods based on crime statistics. If one neighborhood has thorough reporting and detailed statistics while the other has barely any records, you would likely overestimate the safety of the neighborhood with less data, simply because you don’t have complete information.

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.

In this section, we reflect on Roald Dahl's childhood and his adventures riding a tricycle to school in the 1920s. Dahl recalls how thrilling these journeys were, suggesting that traveling by road at that time felt much safer and was seen as normal. It raises questions about how perceptions of safety can change over time, particularly as roads have become busier and more dangerous with the increase in vehicles.

Consider how children today might view biking to school. In some areas, parents may feel it is unsafe because of traffic, while decades ago, it was common and seen as a normal part of growing up. This shift in perception demonstrates how cultural contexts influence our understanding of risk.

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! 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?.

In this chunk, a startling statistic reveals the decline in road accident rates for children over the decades. In 1922, there were 736 child road deaths associated with motor vehicles, while by 1986, this figure had dropped to just 358, marking a 98% decrease. This data presents a conflict between personal recollections of safety from earlier times and scientific evidence showing substantial improvements in safety over time. It challenges the notion that the past was safer than the present, emphasizing the importance of believing in data rather than relying solely on anecdotal experiences.

This situation is similar to how older generations often say that things were better in their day, like how television content was more wholesome. However, when we look at ratings and content regulations over the years, we might find that standards have improved for safety and appropriateness, creating a situation where empirical data disputes lived experiences.

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

Peter Sandman's statement highlights a crucial distinction in understanding risk. He points out that the risks that alarm or disturb people often differ from those that pose real threats to life. For example, people may fear shark attacks or plane crashes disproportionally despite these events being statistically rare, while everyday risks like driving or crossing the street have far higher incidences of fatalities but receive less attention. This highlights how our emotional responses to risk can be more powerful than the objective realities of those risks.

Imagine the fear surrounding getting vaccinated. Many people feel anxious about potential side effects, despite vaccines being statistically much safer than the diseases they prevent. This fear, which is often based on emotional responses and media coverage, illustrates how risk perception can skew awareness away from actual dangers.

--