Why The New TSA Rules Will Kill People
Claire Berlinski points out at Ricochet that our new policy of "sexually assaulted until proven innocent enough to fly" is going to cause more people to drive. Per the stats on driving versus flying, the more they drive, the more they'll die:
This simple, obvious logical point about transportation safety--quite separate from any arguments about civil liberties and decency--seems entirely to escape everyone who keeps babbling on about how we all just need to stop whining and sacrifice for the higher good of the public. Al Qaeda would have to take down a jumbo jet every day to make the risks of flying equal to those of driving. So if you want to save American lives by means of social engineering and government humiliation, make mandatory groin examination the condition for getting a driver's license, not boarding a commercial aircraft.







My snarky side keeps rearing its ugly head. Will I be allowed to sexually assault back. I think the next time I travel thru the states I thin taking a nice Viagra before security check in would be fun. Plus with my own learing, soft whispering and a few eyebrow raises I think I might get waved thru!
John Paulson at November 16, 2010 6:40 AM
You've inspired me to consider pulling a "When Harry Met Sally" at the airport.
MonicaP at November 16, 2010 6:48 AM
I've actually been wondering, given the safety statistics, how many people will die as a result of flight aversion caused by the TSA.
On the lighter side of things, my wife says she wants to wear a strap-on and go through the groping, I mean, "enhanced pat-down" procedure.
Dwatney at November 16, 2010 7:47 AM
Dwatney, your wife is going to give the TSA screener the Willies!
Old RPM Daddy at November 16, 2010 9:08 AM
Ridiculous measures, meaningless deaths, yep, sounds like a government idea.
Robert at November 16, 2010 9:30 AM
John, that's too fricking funny.
William (wbhicks@hotmail.com) at November 16, 2010 10:12 AM
Anyone wondering how often the TSA flunkies thenselves have to be checked?
lujlp at November 16, 2010 10:51 AM
I've decided the next time I fly I will tape tin foil to my chest that reads:
"Fuck off you perverts"
Makes me smile just thinking about it.
-Julie
JulieW at November 16, 2010 11:29 AM
...so how're they going to handle someone transgendered?
SwissArmyD at November 16, 2010 1:20 PM
And we have spent $3 trillion (CBO's number) fighting terrorists in Iraqistan, and another $1 trillion a year for our military-VA-foreign policy archipelago.
And now we learn terrorists are just mosquitos?
And the proctologists at the TSA are wasting our time?
The War on Poverty
The War on Drugs and now
The War on Terrorism
Really they are the Wars on Your Pocketbook ( and groins).
BOTU at November 16, 2010 1:29 PM
So true...i have driven from the SE PA area (outside Philadelphia) to the following areas this past year:
Birmingham, AL -- 13 hours
Boston, MA-- 6 hours
Hilton Head, SC -- 12 hours
and Richmond, VA -- 5 hours
And that was before the "Touching Sensitive Areas" folks began this madness. Riskier?... perhaps. But i choose the music, the cigars, and the time of departure.
Not as extreme as it sounds- i am 70-90 minutes from Philly airport, plus time to wait on security, etc... Actually now i quite like to travel this way - and anything under 12 hours is a guaranteed drive! (Used to be four hours, but the range keeps increasing as the TSA bs and baggage fees grow.
par4LK at November 16, 2010 2:34 PM
Come fly er Comply with me...
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2010/11/comply-with-me.html
It is rather amusing that the TSA is now investigating that guy in San Diego and the civil suit would be for $11k now not 10k, "penalty has gone up".
Sio at November 16, 2010 2:42 PM
Always remember the first principle of government, nicely expressed by
Rahm Emanuel, Obama's former Chief of Staff.
========
You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that, it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.
========
Emanuel doesn't just like solving a problem. Problems handed to government are always an excuse to expand the power and prestige of government, and to increase the taxes collected to fund the government.
The TSA is over-defending against visible, political threats. They are not smart or motivated enough to do things more efficiently, or to guide the public to a rational evaluation of threats. So, the expense for "security theater" grows without limit, as real safety remains constant. They are always fighting the last threat.
A bureaucrat has only one fear, that he will seem to allow the same mistake twice and be fired. He can make any number of different mistakes without penalty.
- -
The Brains of TSA
12/21/08 - Econlog.Econlib.org by David Henderson
-- econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/12/the_brains_of_t.html
========
When Charley and I tell a story of poor thinking, we almost never name the person, but here I'll make an exception. This high-level manager was Kip Hawley, head of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). [See why at the link]
========
- -
The security expert Bruce Schneier has collected some links to his interesting posts about the TSA and airline security.
-- schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/12/schneier_on_60_1.html
Andrew_M_Garland at November 16, 2010 3:15 PM
Driving is so much more dangerous than driving, but I'm glad the TSA doesn't monitor our cars and roads.
DaveG at November 16, 2010 3:42 PM
It's a good question. I just looked up data from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics on "revenue passenger miles" flown last year. This is defined as total number of paying passengers x the miles flown by each passenger. Last year, there were 540M domestic revenue passenger miles flown. (I'll ignore international since, for most of the international-flight destinations, driving isn't an available option.)
Let's say for sake of argument that the TSA policy results in a 20% substitution of driving miles vs. flying miles for the next year. Now, there will be differences in routing in driving vs. flying: if you're driving from Louisville to Pittsburgh, you are unlikely to do so via Atlanta. On the other hand, for longer trips, direct highway routes are often not possible and a nonstop flight is shorter in terms of miles traveled. So as a simplification I'll say that those two factors cancel out, and that driving miles are roughly equivalent to flying miles in the aggregate. So, taking our 540M number from 2009, the TSA causes 104M more miles to be driven this year.
How many more fatalities is that? Surprisingly, for the past decade, the rate of highway fatalities is only 1.5 per 100M miles drive, per the Census Bureau. So the additional fatalities caused by the TSA would be insignificant even if no one flew at all. I know, it seems counter-intuitive to me too. The key is: according to the Census Bureau numbers I'm looking at, there were 3.03 *trillion* miles driven in the U.S. in 2007 (the latest year for which they have the numbers). So an additional 104M doesn't add much to the total of miles driven; it's not even 1%.
I keep thinking that I'm overlooking something here. I'd welcome someone else taking a look at it. I'll post the links to the data I used. Here's the link to the revenue passenger miles table:
http://www.transtats.bts.gov/Data_Elements.aspx?Data=3
I'll post the link to the Census Bureau data in the next post.
Cousin Dave at November 16, 2010 5:32 PM
Link to the Census Bureau driving data:
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s1069.pdf
Cousin Dave at November 16, 2010 5:33 PM
Spinal Tap knew how to do it years ago...
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoID=1808790779
Mark at November 16, 2010 6:09 PM
Leave a comment