xkcd #2940: Modes of Transportation ( sh.itjust.works )

xkcd : Modes of Transportation

https://xkcd.com/2940

Explain xkcd #2940

Title Text:

My bold criticism might anger the hot air balloon people, which would be a real concern if any of them lived along a very narrow line directly upwind of me.

alt-text:

A chart that categorizes various modes of transportation based on their practicality and danger level:

Zone of Practicality:

  • Trains
  • Airliners
  • Boats
  • Walking
  • Cars
  • Scooters
  • Bicycles

Zone of Specialty and Recreational Vehicles:

  • Motorcycles
  • Helicopters
  • Light aircraft
  • Go karts
  • Skateboards
  • Rollerblades
  • Skis
  • Unicycles
  • Sleds
  • Bumper cars

?????:

  • Hot air balloons

“Hot air balloons are the optimal mode of transportation, if your optimization algorithm has a sign error.”

MonkderDritte ,

With helicopters it's more that they're expensive than unsave.

kerrigan778 ,

They are also significantly more dangerous than an airplane though. The skill and speed needed to cope with an engine failure is a lot less forgiving and helicopters nearly always spend more time at lower altitude. Also the number of mechanical failures that result in everybody aboard essentially guaranteed dying is higher in a helicopter. Especially vs a small airplane with a parachute (parachute systems on helicopters are extremely rare especially due to altitude requirements)

Turun ,

This is wildly dependent on infrastructure. Both for the convenience and danger axis.

cucumber_sandwich ,

But hardly for hot air balloons

Turun ,

Yeah, the joke and alt text are delivered quite nicely.

Swedneck ,
@Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

motorcycles should 100% be in the zone of practicality, especially with modern sleek electric ones.

skateboards should be the bridge between practical and recreational, provided you have sensible infrastructure and short distances they have distinct benefits.

skis and sleds just need snow to make sense

Shialac ,

I think the existence of car drivers increases their danger level massively

brbposting OP ,

Apparently alcohol as well as it is involved in something like 50% of motorcycle fatalities.

Swedneck ,
@Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

it annoys me to no end how motorcycles and mopeds are viewed as dangerous, when every single time you hear about people being hurt on them it's because they're fucking idiots who tried to do a backflip infront of a semitruck

Jentu ,

Horses are technically more dangerous to ride than motorcycles. It’s just that motorcycles attract a kind of people who like doing backflips in front of a semi truck.

Swedneck ,
@Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

sure but that applies to everything, if you want to be safe then the only time you should ever be on a road is inside a bus.

Dagwood222 ,

You can be a skilled rider and still and a fall. More likely is that an unsafe car driver will do something that causes an accident.

thebestaquaman ,

I'm here to say that if there's snow, skis win on practicality. Almost every winter, there's at least one day when you will have some people skiing to work in Oslo, a city of 700 000 inhabitants, with a metro system. Because when there's 10 cm of snow in the streets, skis are the quickest and easiest way to get anywhere.

schnurrito ,

Hot air balloons are a very useful mode of transportation if your goal is to take aerial photographs from them (although admittedly nowadays you could also use drones). It's always a question of what you want to achieve.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Aerial_photographs_from_hot_air_balloons

brbposting OP ,

Interesting, that's the closest thing I've seen to a personal photo album on Wikipedia.

schnurrito ,

It is Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia. That is where most of the images used on Wikipedia and other WMF projects are stored. It has categories for nearly everything under the sun.

Michal ,

I cant believe bicycles and scooters are perceived as more dangerous than cars. They're slower, offer better visibility, and kill way less people.

awesome_lowlander ,

Less dangerous to others, but more dangerous to the users themselves, I suppose.

onion ,

Because of cars

awesome_lowlander ,

Not only. I live in Norway, where pedestrians have right of way and drivers are extremely careful. Discounting the risk from cars, there's still more personal danger to users of scooters as opposed to cars. If you have an accident on a scooter, you'll get scrapes, bruises, broken bones. As compared to a car, where unless you've really screwed up, you're unlikely to take any injuries at all.

Source: scooter user who HAS broken bones

floofloof ,

The chart needs a third dimension: danger to you, danger to others, and convenience for travel.

Cryophilia ,

I think most normal people can understand the difference intuitively without needing it spelled out.

MindTraveller ,

Driving a car makes it more likely for your species to go extinct. Infinitely more dangerous than a bicycle.

14th_cylon ,

your beef is with internal combustion engine, not with the car.

MindTraveller ,

Shame this comic doesn't draw a distinction

zeekaran ,

Replace every single ICE with a BEV. Still plenty of beef.

Jentu ,

Microplastics from heavy vehicles scrubbing away their tires is a bigger issue than tailpipe emissions, which is why tailpipe emissions are the only thing focused on with regards to regulatory standards. Can’t have people thinking BEVs are similar/worse for the environment than a small car.

14th_cylon ,

ok, that's fair, never thought of that...

brettvitaz ,

I just saw a pedestrian get hit by a person on a bike and end up with a concussion. Bicyclists don’t give a fuck about others

jol ,

They are more dangerous exactly because of the existence of cars. Cars are a small fortress that makes others less safe while keeping its contents safer. Unless they hit another fortress.

Michal ,

That only makes sense if you cycle among cars, but that makes cars dangerous, not bikes. If you remove cars out of equation by cycling on pavement or cycle route, the danger is gone.

Pedestrians get hit by cars all the time yet walking is rated the safest.

jol ,

Pedestrians don't get hit by cars quite as much as cyclist, proportionally to their number, because cyclists are right in the street sharing the space with cars, trucks and buses. Cycling on the sidewalk is not allowed, and cycling lanes are often very dangerous. I understand that this chart is talking about danger to the passengers, not to others.

brbposting OP ,

If you remove cars out of equation by cycling on pavement or cycle route, the danger is gone.

If you remove air out of the equation the danger of helicopters are gone

jaybone ,

Even if there were no cars, I imagine biking is still less safe than walking. Just like running is less safe than walking.

jol ,

I'm almost afraid to ask where you've been walking.

sheogorath , (edited )

A mere fender bender on a car might be a life or death situation if you're riding a motorcycle.

Hmm. It seems that Sync posted my draft comment 😔

Michal ,

Well try getting hit by a car while walking. According to this xkcd you'll be the safest.

ealoe ,

Hit a pothole going 25mph in your car. Hit the same pothole going 25mph on your scooter. I'll come visit you in the hospital after the scooter one and we can talk about how cars are obviously safer.

I ride an electric scooter, all it takes is one crack in the road that I'm less than prepared for and I'm going down hard.

brbposting OP ,

I wonder what kind of scooter most people pictured when reading the comic

https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/3b4b0738-dde8-4a1a-bd88-a05d382e9aa4.jpeg

https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/1d5c9f0c-30e8-4ab1-9b35-04569e472988.jpeg

https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/20f865c4-da52-40df-a785-baeeb24eb4d3.jpeg

ealoe ,

That is a good point, mine is the second variety, electric one similar to the ones you see littering any major Urban area waiting to be rented. Although even the largest scooter is still far less safe over a pothole or around a rainy curve than a car, typical accident in the car you mess up the car and get a bruise from the airbag, but a typical scooter accident can be a lot more gnarly.

Snowpix ,
@Snowpix@lemmy.ca avatar

I own an electric scooter very similar to the second one pictured (minus the RGB) so that's what I was thinking of.

tyler ,

I think most people in the USA refer to the third item as a moped, which only gives you two categories for scooter. Scooter and electric scooter, and then moped and electric moped.

Snowpix ,
@Snowpix@lemmy.ca avatar

The roads are shit here. So badly cracked that I vibrate violently when I try to ride my scooter over them at like 10km/h. And that's while dodging potholes.

JayObey711 ,

Heeeeell no. I had I minor fall on a scooter last week. I slipped at medium speed because of an uneven wet floor. I'm still fucked up and can't walk properly

Skates ,

Tell you what, you drive your bike into a car and maybe the concussion will change your thinking enough to make it believable that bikes are more dangerous.

We're not rating danger for the damn planet here. It's obviously danger for the user - that's the one who's buying the product. Why would anyone care about the safety of others over their own safety?

zbyte64 ,

Why would anyone care about the safety of others over their own safety?

As long as I can slice vegetables using my car door I don't give a damn about pedestrians.

Skates ,

I will literally shit inside any human being I don't personally know (and some that I do know) if it makes my life 0.02% more comfortable. What's your point?

zbyte64 ,

Oh I think you made the point better than me. As it is written somewhere, live by the sword die by the sword. I hope you enjoy your bowl of shit.

brbposting OP ,

The tone and content of this message indicate a severe lack of empathy and a high degree of self-centeredness, verging on sociopathic tendencies lulz, you know how to underscore a perspective right there! I wonder if that is a brand new sentence…

No need to indulge but since you got me thinking about self interest and empathy:

If you had the opportunity to gain an extra hour of sleep the next time you wanted it, but in return, someone you don't know would experience moderate discomfort for ten years. Would you be willing to make that trade-off?

Skates , (edited )

We're talking about me now? No. Of course not. Just like I wouldn't knowingly buy a car whose making process involves some random people being shit inside of. I find hyperbolic exaggerations funny and I like to use them for making a point.

The point was - you don't purchase things for others, you purchase them for yourself. A car can be a major money spender - you buy it because it gives YOU safety, and it's silly to act like you're a bad person for spending your money in a way that benefits you. But some Knights of the Broken Tire are out here pretending like they're damn selfless, like they spent all their house money on housing the homeless not their own family, and like they chose to carry that 2 year old through traffic on a bycicle, not a fucking minivan. Fuck right off with this hypocritical shit. It's okay to want the safety of yourself and your family, that's how the entire world works. You're not gonna get blamed for buying a car, drop the selfless, holier-than-thou act, nobody's buying it.

ripcord ,
@ripcord@lemmy.world avatar

I find hyperbolic exaggerations funny and I like to use them for making a point.

Good way to distract from and undermine your points, as in this case.

zbyte64 ,

I have it on good authority they got banned for abusing the report feature, so I guess we'll never know how they might respond.

lunarul ,

kill way less people

I believe the danger axis is about danger to the passengers, not others

Mighty ,
@Mighty@lemmy.world avatar

why are scooters practical and motorcycles not? I only ride a motorcycle. any distance too long for bycicle or inconvenient with public transit, I take my motorcycle.

Michal ,

Looks like only because they're presented as dangerous. Convenience - wise they're still the same. Practicality seems to be defined here as a balance between danger and convenience.

Baguette ,

The graph does say its practical, its just also more dangerous than a scooter

Edit: oh you meant in the zone of practicality, not the y axis convenient for travel. The zoning i feel is pretty subjective

snaggen ,
@snaggen@programming.dev avatar

The fact that airplane travel is safer than cars is a myth invented to promote airplane travel.
Well, it is not fully a myth, but to get to that result they measure per mile, and that greatly favor airplane travel.
If you instead measure how likely you are to die on your next trip, then the dangers of airplane travel will significantly exceed car travel and other means of transportation.

Electricblush , (edited )
@Electricblush@lemmy.world avatar

This is complete horseshit.

Are you aware how many flights take place every day?

Vs

How many fatal accidents pr flight?

The fact is that almost every time a fatal accident happens in a (commercial) plane anywhere in the world, you hear about it. Because if a plane crashes a lot of people die in one dramatic (and rare) event.

Fatal car accidents litteraly happen every minute of every day. Almost none of them go on the news. (Cause reporting them all would be impossible).

Let me also post some sources, since you did not:

https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/

https://www.icao.int/safety/iStars/Pages/Accident-Statistics.aspx/
Air traffic: (3187 fatalities over 10 years)

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/road-traffic-injuries
(1.19 million people every year die on the road)

snaggen ,
@snaggen@programming.dev avatar

I think you underestimate the number of trips per car per day. Most people will take more trips by car per month than they will fly for their lifetime.
In Sweden , a country of 10 million, we have about 150 people killed per year from car accidents, yet most adults travel by car daily.
That is millions of trips per day, and only half a death.

Electricblush , (edited )
@Electricblush@lemmy.world avatar

Sweden , a country of 10 million, we have about 150 people killed per year from car accidents

Yes, and how many die every year from plane crashes in sweden?

If we take a relatively big plane (450 passengers) as an example. One has to fall out of the sky every 3. Years to match the car accident number...

3186 deaths over 10 years
VS
1.19 million every year.

(This is globally. Sweden and Norway(where i live) will naturally have pretty radically lower numbers then globally when it comes to road safety.)

But look at that air travel number again: 3186. Over 10 years. Globally.
Commercial Air travel is fucking safe.
Its horrible for the climate. But its safe.

Whatever way you slice those numbers it comes up air travel i safer.
Feel free to find actual statistics that contradict me. :)

snaggen ,
@snaggen@programming.dev avatar

Just check the stats
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety#Transport_comparisons

Electricblush ,
@Electricblush@lemmy.world avatar

From your own source:

Since 1997, the number of fatal air accidents has been no more than 1 for every 2,000,000,000 person-miles[c] flown,[citation needed] and thus is one of the safest modes of transportation when measured by distance traveled.

So I guess this is the point you are trying to make?

Turun ,

You can argue that "per person miles" is a better metric, but that is completely orthogonal to their initial claim.

snaggen ,
@snaggen@programming.dev avatar

Well, what I want to know is "Am I going to die today?". The distance traveled is irrelevant to answer that question. The only reason to add that to the equation is to make air travel look safer.

Electricblush , (edited )
@Electricblush@lemmy.world avatar

I honestly think you are showing a fundamental lack of understanding of statistics.

"Per trip" is a horribly poor metric. Because there is a fundamental difference between a trip down to the store, or a cross country trip, even with a car. Also it would be extremely dependent on where you are going, where you live etc. etc.

For the discussion to have any meaning you have to abstract it to a metric that makes sense for all people, or else you would have to also figure in where you usually travel, how good a driver you are etc etc etc.

At that point its a completely meaningless semantics exercise because for instance taking a plane to work is not realy valid for me since i live in the same city as i work... Or lets do it the other way around: If i need to go to Spain tomorrow, its safer for me to fly then to drive there. (This is based on your own sources)

snaggen ,
@snaggen@programming.dev avatar

But per mile measurement for flying implies that every mile of a flight is equally dangerous, but the truth I'd that it is most dangerous to start or land, which is a per trip occurrence. The take off and landing is equally dangerous whether you travel a long or short distance in between.

Electricblush ,
@Electricblush@lemmy.world avatar

Yes, and?

The point of distance is to take it into aggregate, for both modes of transport.

This is in fact the exact point i am making.

Per trip measurement implies that every trip (regardles of time or distance traveled) has equal danger.

NoRodent ,
@NoRodent@lemmy.world avatar

It's still a terrible metric to compare the safety of modes of transport and the Wiki article just below the table explains it well:

The first two statistics are computed for typical travels by their respective forms of transport, so they cannot be used directly to compare risks related to different forms of transport in a particular travel "from A to B". For example, these statistics suggest that a typical flight from Los Angeles to New York would carry a larger risk factor than a typical car travel from home to office. However, car travel from Los Angeles to New York would not be typical; that journey would be as long as several dozen typical car travels, and thus the associated risk would be larger as well. Because the journey would take a much longer time, the overall risk associated with making this journey by car would be higher than making the same journey by air, even if each individual hour of car travel is less risky than each hour of flight.

If people made similar trips with cars as they do with airplanes, cars would lose in the per journey metric big time.

snaggen ,
@snaggen@programming.dev avatar

Of course cars would loose if you tried to use it to travel across the Atlantic...

Electricblush ,
@Electricblush@lemmy.world avatar

If you are traveling across the Atlantic to get from Los Angeles to New York i would argue that you are traveling the wrong way...

Electricblush ,
@Electricblush@lemmy.world avatar

Very interesting 🤔

And your point about metrics is pretty spot on.

In the end it becomes an exercise in trying to find the metric that best supports your argument.

We have also been jumping around a bit on geographical limitations. And in for instance Scandinavia, the original premise might be closer to real due to better road safety.

I think implying some sort of myth or ruse is missing the mark hard on this subject.

NoRodent , (edited )
@NoRodent@lemmy.world avatar

I think I get what the guy is trying to say. Per journey, air travel might indeed end up being statistically less safe (how many times a year an average person flies vs. how many times they drive their car) but of course the question is whether that particular metric is any useful. Surely if you replaced all airplane trips with car trips, more people would die.

This Wikipedia article contains a table, which if true, confirms it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety#Transport_comparisons

If you sort it by Journeys, you'll find that 117 people die in an airplane per billion journeys, while only 40 die per billion car journeys. But the article points out exactly what I said before.

Funny example that illustrates how important the choice of metric is, is the Space Shuttle which is statistically incredibly unsafe per journey (17,000,000 deaths per billion journeys) and even per hours (only skydiving coming first by a small margin) but is safer than bicycles and only twice less safe than cars per distance traveled because of those insane distances it covers in orbit.

Edit: Not that I do not know whether the table counts only commercial flights or all airplane/helicopter journeys. And also the statistics is pretty old (1990-2000) and only covers the UK, so you may still be right and commercial air travel in the last decade might be safer per journey than cars globally. Can't find a better statistics.

brbposting OP ,

What’s the benefit of measuring per trip versus per passenger mile?

snaggen ,
@snaggen@programming.dev avatar

Per trip is more in line with how people think about danger. Like, am I going to die on this trip?

Electricblush ,
@Electricblush@lemmy.world avatar

I would think real statistics would be more interesting then peoples emotions when talking about what is actually dangerous.

snaggen ,
@snaggen@programming.dev avatar

And the question is am I going to die on this trip? And there the real statistics are pretty clear, cars are safer.

Electricblush , (edited )
@Electricblush@lemmy.world avatar

I sort of answered this somewhere else but i will reiterate.

Using this metric you are sort of assuming all trips are equal.
No matter how short, or long you are assuming the base danger is the same. This means that driving 100 meters is just as dangerous as driving for a whole day. (See what the problem is?)

And if we look at this premise in isolation: "Am i going to die on this trip"?
If the trip is 100m, then a plane is probably out of the question either way.
And if the trip is to a different country.. then hey, look at that, the sources you cited come into relevance (where pr distance a plane is safer) and you would have to calculate the danger of completing that specific trip in a car VS flying that distance with a plane.

You are generalizing on terms that make no sense, since "total number of trips" in cars include all manner of different scenarios of some times extremely varying degree of danger. So in order to have data that is statistically relevant and in any form comparable you have to choose a different metric.

So to answer the question again "Am i going to die on this trip?" or to extrapolate "should i drive or fly on this trip", if you cant use generic statistics, the answer will be "it depends. You have to calculate danger for the trip specifically".

Zidane ,

It took me too fucking long to figure out what an "airuner" was...

davidgro ,

Keming.

Hamartiogonic ,
@Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz avatar

relevant xkcd

Jolteon ,

Not sure I'd put unicycles as being safer than bicycles.

magic_lobster_party ,

It’s probably there because you don’t reach as high speeds on a unicycle

Dave ,
@Dave@lemmy.nz avatar

I'd guess it's because unicycles are used in a much narrower range of circumstances. Few people are being hit by cars commuting to work on a unicycle, nor are there many mountain-unicyclists getting injured.

Sidyctism ,

Which honestly just speaks for the insane amount of training mountain-unicyclists have done

Dave ,
@Dave@lemmy.nz avatar

You joke (I think?), but the people I know that do unicycling (including mountain-bike style unicycling, and unicycling Himalayan trails, and crazy stuff like that) do do an insane amount of training 😆

Sidyctism ,

I was joking, but i guess now i know what im gonna watch on youtube next

teft ,
@teft@lemmy.world avatar

You’d have to. Anyone who mountain bikes regularly knows how much work it is to climb some trails with 500% gear range. I can’t imagine the work involved with a single gear to climb on some trails. Brutal.

Dave ,
@Dave@lemmy.nz avatar

This is probably another reason why unicycles are less dangerous. People I know that do mountain biking end up in hospital from time to time from coming off at speed, speed on most unicycles is probably a lot lower. Though I thought geared unicycles existed?

Turun ,

There are basically no unsafe ways to get off of a unicycle. You can fall in any direction and just end up standing next to your unicycle. Compare that to a bicycle "over the handle bars"-accident.

my_hat_stinks ,

Bicycles more dangerous than cars? I guess I must have missed all the stories about people being run over by bikes.

Armok_the_bunny ,

I think it means more dangerous to use, not more dangerous to be around.

slipperydippery , (edited )

Unless you have pepper infrastructure.

Edit: sorry that's not true, see this from the Netherlands:

Voor het vierde jaar op rij kwamen meer fietsers (270; 39%) dan inzittenden van personenauto's (194; 28%) om in het verkeer. De meeste doden in het verkeer vallen onder ouderen: in 2023 waren 375 (55%) verkeersdoden 60 jaar of ouder. Kinderen (0-14 jaar) komen juist relatief weinig om in het verkeer; in 2023 waren dat er 20 (3%).
Het risico om te overlijden in het verkeer, het aantal verkeersdoden per afgelegde kilometer, is het ho ogst voor gemotoriseerde tweewielers. Het risico voor brom- en snorfietsers en motorrijders is ongeveer dertig keer zo hoog als het risico voor inzittenden van een personenauto. Voor fietsers en voetgangers is het overlijdensrisico respectievelijk acht en zes keer zo hoog als voor auto-inzittenden, in de periode 2012-2021.

Translation:

For the fourth year in a row, more cyclists (270; 39%) than passenger car occupants (194; 28%) were killed in traffic. Most traffic fatalities occur among the elderly: in 2023, 375 (55%) traffic fatalities were 60 years or older. Children (0-14 years) are relatively rarely killed in traffic; in 2023 there were 20 (3%). 
The risk of dying in traffic, the number of traffic fatalities per kilometer travelled, is highest for motorized two-wheelers. The risk for moped and light-moped riders and motorcyclists is approximately thirty times higher than the risk for passenger car occupants. For cyclists and pedestrians, the risk of death is eight and six times higher, respectively, than for car occupants, in the period 2012-2021.

https://swov.nl/nl/factsheet/verkeersdoden-nederland

brbposting OP ,

Bike on pedestrian violence is an epidemic!

I see what you mean about net safety and not just thinking about the operator of the mode of transport. Will look into this later.

https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/78979f10-20d3-4f59-8b02-324e595482d9.jpeg

Zehzin ,
@Zehzin@lemmy.world avatar

Also, bikes more dangerous than unicycles?

tobogganablaze ,

I've never seen some ride a unicyle on a road in regular traffic, which is where most of the danger of riding a bike is.

NoRodent ,
@NoRodent@lemmy.world avatar

Do those electric unicycles without a seat count? Because those are weaving through traffic at insane speeds all the time where I live.

tobogganablaze ,

Oh wow, never seen one of these. No idea.

notaviking ,

Are hot air balloon not like super safe, last accident I think was a guy that made his own DIY hot air balloon but before that it has been relatively safe. I think America has only seen like less than 800 deaths total.

If the comic put in zeppelins...

SpaceNoodle ,

You'd need to normalize the number to deaths per balloon ride.

ealoe ,

Only three people died last year playing Russian Roulette, must be pretty safe! /s

Dayroom7485 ,

The placement of „Skis“ in this will trigger every Scandinavian I know. Should definitely be in the top left.

brbposting OP ,

Trust you on that but will ski across the pond to check and be sure

Viking_Hippie ,

I'm from the Scandinavian country WITHOUT mountains and with less snow and am as such not triggered.

You don't know me, though, so I guess your statement might still hold true 😁

Hagdos ,

Scandinavia is their zone of specialty

khapyman ,

Even us close to Scandinavia get triggered. There aren't that many practical ways to get around at winter. Skis work when feet don't.

Hamartiogonic ,
@Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz avatar

Unicycles are clearly more dangerous than skis.

howrar ,

In Canada too. It's not that common, but also not out of place to see people doing their regular commute on skis.

hobovision ,

Cross country ski vs downhill ski

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • [email protected]
  • All magazines
    •