Definitely, I don't think aircraft can be beat on a fatalities/distance basis given not just their sheer distance covered by their uniformity and professional standards of maintenance. There are still plenty of ancient elevators around, and plenty that don't receive the upkeep they should (granted that's always been an issue for a lot of general infrastructure). That said elevators are still pretty safe, and are you sure that "due to" part is appropriate to use in a passenger perspective thread?
>There are around 30 deaths due to* elevators in the US each year*
I last looked at it many years ago so I don't have current sources, but the numbers presented by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics and Consumer Product Safety Commission indicated that around half the deaths (14/30 at that point) were those working near or with elevators, not the passengers. That is of course an important issue, but it's also a different one then in-use operational safety mechanisms, and I don't think airline rates cover on the ground maintenance deaths either. That stats I remember from around 5 years ago were that there were something like 900,000 elevators operating in the US and about 18 billion trips a year. So in terms of "get on the moving box, arrive safely" they still look pretty good.
All this is US centric granted, it wouldn't surprise me if there are countries where elevator deaths are much lower, though then again I'm sure there are places where maintenance is worse too. Aircraft are somewhat unique from a safety perspective in terms of not just themselves but the entire system built up around them worldwide.
> I last looked at it many years ago so I don't have current sources, but the numbers presented by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics and Consumer Product Safety Commission indicated that around half the deaths (14/30 at that point) were those working near or with elevators, not the passengers. That is of course an important issue, but it's also a different one then in-use operational safety mechanisms, and I don't think airline rates cover on the ground maintenance deaths either.
Sure, but I decided it didn't really matter since I don't think that people in the US even average 100m in an elevator every day, so even if only one person died every year aeroplanes would still be safer.
The other option for "safest vehicle" I considered was spacecraft. Even though they have a high mortality-per-journey I thought that maybe they travelled so far that they would come out looking pretty good per-mile. But, as it turns out, the moon isn't far enough away.
>There are around 30 deaths due to* elevators in the US each year*
I last looked at it many years ago so I don't have current sources, but the numbers presented by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics and Consumer Product Safety Commission indicated that around half the deaths (14/30 at that point) were those working near or with elevators, not the passengers. That is of course an important issue, but it's also a different one then in-use operational safety mechanisms, and I don't think airline rates cover on the ground maintenance deaths either. That stats I remember from around 5 years ago were that there were something like 900,000 elevators operating in the US and about 18 billion trips a year. So in terms of "get on the moving box, arrive safely" they still look pretty good.
All this is US centric granted, it wouldn't surprise me if there are countries where elevator deaths are much lower, though then again I'm sure there are places where maintenance is worse too. Aircraft are somewhat unique from a safety perspective in terms of not just themselves but the entire system built up around them worldwide.