Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex
I think we should just have a general policy of saying that so long as the terrorism-related death rate is less than 0.001% (or whatever number) then current security measures are acceptable.
Quantify the level of acceptable risk and then accept that risk when it happens. That's the big problem I see behind all the stupid security. People say they're willing to accept a certain level of risk but then when the negative possibilities actually happen they end careers demanding to know why it wasn't prevented.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonliner
Inspired by Alex's comment, how about this for a T-Shirt:
Priorities
If terrorists hijack and crash one plane per week
You would still be 2.7 times more likely to be killed crossing the street. |
Exactly!
We suffer the deaths of children due to auto accidents(about 20,000 a decade between the ages of 2 - 14 in the United States alone) with barely a batting of an eye; sure, we pass seatbelt and child safety restraint laws and drinking laws and traffic safety corridors, etc......but when it comes right down to it no one is willing to do the one thing that would prevent nearly all of these deaths (cut all speed limits to one third). We find, as a society, that getting there in a third the time is worth the lives of 20,000 kids( not to mention the lives of another quarter million plus adults on top of that).