Do horrific accidents change the way we travel?
June 6th 2007 08:08
I ask the above question in response to the terrible train and truck collision in Kerang, Victoria yesterday. It got me thinking, do things like that make us think about going by train, or whatever mode it may be.
In respect to aeroplanes, I think one crash probably doesn't stop most of us flying, but it may make us think twice about a certain airline. I blogged about Qantas last week, passing on results from Choice showing it wasn't especially a well liked airline, but safety counted for a lot, and Qantas' safety record is very good.
In terms of the trains though, I don't think it will change too much. Country trains tend to attract a sort of passenger, who doesn't have the option of choosing a different type of travel. This is my theory - people who travel on country trains either like the train trip, receive so many trips per year as part of their pension or health care card status or don't have air services. For example if you are living in a country town, the train may stop, but if you don't want to catch a train and can't drive, you can't get the plane instead. Whereas in a city, flying is quicker and just about as cheap.
So when an accident like this happens, you don't have people changing across to air travel, because it isn't a viable option. You might have people not travelling as much on the train, but that is because they aren't travelling, not because of another option, at least in most cases.
There may be those that disagree...?
In respect to aeroplanes, I think one crash probably doesn't stop most of us flying, but it may make us think twice about a certain airline. I blogged about Qantas last week, passing on results from Choice showing it wasn't especially a well liked airline, but safety counted for a lot, and Qantas' safety record is very good.
In terms of the trains though, I don't think it will change too much. Country trains tend to attract a sort of passenger, who doesn't have the option of choosing a different type of travel. This is my theory - people who travel on country trains either like the train trip, receive so many trips per year as part of their pension or health care card status or don't have air services. For example if you are living in a country town, the train may stop, but if you don't want to catch a train and can't drive, you can't get the plane instead. Whereas in a city, flying is quicker and just about as cheap.
So when an accident like this happens, you don't have people changing across to air travel, because it isn't a viable option. You might have people not travelling as much on the train, but that is because they aren't travelling, not because of another option, at least in most cases.
There may be those that disagree...?
| 26 |
| Vote |
Add Comments
Read More
