The scientists Tversky/Kahneman received a Nobel Prize for risk perception a few years ago. They came to the conclusion that our risk perception is distorted: large risks are perceived smaller and small risks are rather greater. For some time now I have been thinking about buying a new car. Not for comfort reasons, but for safety reasons. Now I have determined that only 7% of the accidents occur in the road traffic. Incredible 72% of the accidents occur. (See e.g. http://www.vobs.at/rk/hms/schueler.unfaelle.pdf) Accident hazards occur much more frequently in very different areas of life than in road transport. Therefore, one would have to take countermeasures there first. If, for example, I spend 15,000 euros for a safe car, although the risk in road transport represents only 7% of the total risk of accidents, I would also have to pay to reduce the remaining risks. n invest. (i.e. exactly 154.000 euros in reducing the dangers in the house, in leisure time or in sports) Therefore, it makes no sense to invest so much money in a safe car. Does the whole security technology for the most part rely on a false or irrational probability perception of drivers? Do we fight dangers that play a more subordinate role in our lives, while we do not consider the real causes of death? I am perplexed.