Fly the Safe Skies
2002 was as safe as possible for flying, reports the AP.
Is it surprising that this story doesn't get much ink?
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
pills - that's government efficiency for ya.
Nick - not surprising at all. Of the good, the bad, and the ugly, today's news media tend to ignore the good, lend token coverage to the bad, and give primary focus to the ugly. You won't hear a peep about anything suggesting air travel is safe, yet the instant there is a plane crash or other aviation problem, you can count on plenty of media coverage. Not that the media shouldn't cover these things, as they are clearly newsworthy. But the lack of coverage of the good in this case is the primary reason why many people who feel very safe driving their car on the highway are scared to fly.
Why did this come out this week? Does it really take 6 months to add these up?