So unfortunatley I ended up seeing some of the televisisual daily mail Tonight with trevor macdonald and I got into a bit of a debate with my family. Basically a woman who was involved in the paddington rail crash is now scared witless about trains (although she did actually get on one during the program)
So is this still an irrational fear? I said yes, others said no. Trains are pretty safe, certainly safer than cars which she didn't have a problem with. I guess this also transfers to arachnophobics who've survived a poisonous spider bite, 7/7 survivors scared of the underground. Your opinions….?

To be afraid of trains, the objects, would be irrational. Being frightened to go on a train after being involved in a fatal crash is a justifiable fear.

Logially yes, she's completely irrational, train travel is still significantly safer than car travel for example. However are brains are rather complex and not always particularly rational so for her it's probably a very genuine fear that's going to need help to overcome. It's probably a very old defense machanism, something horrible happens somewhere / doing something and the brain's self-protection says avoid the situation so it doesn't happen again.

It's a rational fear. I.e. it's perfectly rational with her experience to be fearful of trains, irrespective of objectively how dangerous they are.

I have a fear of frogs, frogs generally can't kill you but i'm scared of them, that's irrational

this woman was involved in a train crash that killed people, it's a rational fear as there is a connection between trains and death.

Justifiable maybe, understandable certainly, but still irrational I think. Plenty of people on here have crashed their brains out and injured themselves but still go out riding once they've mended.

moth yuuuuk
they just freak me out big time
beuuuurk

phobia is generally defined as an irrational – eg frogs above.
This is more like post traumatic stress disorder whereby due to her life experience she is scared of trains. Yes they are safe but as she crashed she wont go on one. Rational mind V experience.
Which wins?
So imagine you are on your bike and you crash (sorry you only do full body dabs dont you 😉 ) how would you be next ride? Same thing really except she can easily avoid trains in every day life I assume.

It's clearly irrational in my view, because the fear level is not in proportion to the threat level. I have an irrational fear of heights (because it's very unlikely I'll fall off something tall, especially when roped on) but I probably have an irrational lack of fear of being smashed to bits in my car or on my bike.

A rational person would assess the risk and be as wary as that risk dictates. An irrational person sees some risk and perceives it to be higher than it is.

possibly her fear is not of the trains as such but of the same thing happening again

possibly her fear is not of the trains as such but of the same thing happening again

Still irrational. Tiny risk, big reaction – irrational.

If you cycled to work and got hit by a car pretty badly one day and spent a few weeks in hospital with broken bones would you be so keen to ride on the road again, or would you choose to get to work some other way which you felt was safer ?

Kev

would you choose to get to work some other way which you felt was safer ?

Not a great example for me anyway, train would be safer (and easier for me) and I have been hit by cars (not bad tho) and still commute. besides thats a rational "which is safer" decision, the woman in question did not have a problem with statistically more likely to get you injured(i think) car travel.

I mentioned PTS last night junkyard forgot to include that in OP

Yes it's irrational. Her chances of been involved in another rail crash are not any greater. It is of course though, a completely understandable fear.

But she had clearly thought about going on a train and decided not to (because of past experience) which would make it rational.

Whether it's 'rational' or not rather depends on your definition.

For example, if 'rational' is based on the statistics of all train users then it's not a rational fear.
However, if it's based on an individuals own experience only, then is could be considered rational.

Which is the best strategy for survival?

I guess it depends on if you think of rationality as an abstract process or one bounded by human experience.

But she had clearly thought about going on a train and decided not to (because of past experience)

What past experience ………. that trains crash ? If she was prepared to take the risk before, then it would irrational not to take the risk now. She is at no greater risk.

@glenh spooky coincidence!