Frustrated with Airline Security? Try These.

[Ghoulish Delight]

As overboard as airline "security" has become, the last time I traveled by Amtrak I was shocked at how little security there was. Namely, zero. No metal detectors, no baggage screening, you were actively encouraged to leave your bags unattended. And this was post-Madrid bombing.

I don't know whether to be shocked that there hasn't been an incident involving a train yet, or extra annoyed at the airport kabuki because there hasn't been an incident involving a train yet.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

Except that Amtrak is already making plans....

Just Wow, Amtrak has a lot of stops at stations that are not even manned....I just don't see how they can keep all those stops open if they try to do airport type security for the train.

I wonder, if they do somehow figure out how to secure the trains will they move on to city buses; taxis; elevators? Will each and every one of us have to report to a block captain before leaving our home for work each day?

Sometimes I wonder if the terrorists have already won

[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.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

What makes me think of the word "flabbergasted" is that the scanners have not been fully tested for safety. Have.Not. Eff that.

Originally Posted by JWBear

1) I'm not a liberal.

Um, what?

[Disneyphile]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

Sometimes I wonder if the terrorists have already won

The point of terrorism is to change everyday lifestyles and invoke fear, so yes, they have.

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.

But, with the way we're now doing things, we should have 4-way traffic lights at every intersection, including little residential side streets.

[Moonliner]

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.

I say use the death rate for traveling by car as your metric. As long as I have a better chance of getting killed driving to work than from a terrorist I'm good.

Of course that would decimate the mutil-billion dollar security industry as well as toss an entire government oligarchy out on it's keister.

[Ghoulish Delight]

My dad has a rule of thumb when observing traffic control options outside of major intersections. "Every stop sign represents a past accident at that intersection. Every traffic light represents a past fatal accident."

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by Disneyphile

The point of terrorism is to change everyday lifestyles and invoke fear, so yes, they have.

.

I think that's more of a checklist item along the way rather than the actual goal.

[CoasterMatt]

The TSA is to flying as DRM is to videogames.

[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.