Here's a case of rationalists misinterpreting risks based on data. Driving is a risk I accept. Being mugged or assaulted by someone on fentanyl with limited police or law enforcement on public transport is a risk that I cannot account for.

> Driving is a risk I accept. Being mugged or assaulted by someone on fentanyl with limited police or law enforcement on public transport is a risk that I cannot account for.

Why the difference? Maybe you feel like you're more in control of what happens when you're driving? But realistically however safely you personally drive, you'd still be at risk of being driven into by someone else (and there's a parallel breakdown of the rule of law where uninsured, unlicensed drivers are everywhere nowadays) and there's not much you can do.

You can't compare getting raped to getting in a car crash. This line of argument is ridiculous.

Right. I don't understand their thinking process here.

I would rather get raped than die. Most people would.

Edit: Actually, now that I think about it, what cases are you talking about where people get full on raped on public transit? That seems vanishingly rare, if at all extent.