I used the getting in a car example because it is one that we are all likely to be familiar with and that is known to have a very high risk (your odds of dying as a result of a car accident in your lifetime are around 1 in 84).

However, you do bring up a good point that getting by without ever getting in a car is close to impossible. So, let's move on to another example then. How about riding a bike? Surely, it is possible to go through life without doing that. Riding a bike presents serious risks for a very small benefit.

What about Skateboarding? Roller Skating? Skiing? playing a sport? camping? climbing trees? mountain climbing / rapelling? diving? swimming? There are countless examples available of activities with only a very minor benefit, serious and well documented risks of severe life changing consequences, that we still choose to roll the dice on.

Should a person who rides a bike with a child be barred from calling himself a boylover? How dare he take a risk like that with a child! What about the person the scoutmaster who takes the kids rapelling? There's a risk of serious injury and death associated with that, how dare he?!

Thus, this all brings us right back to where we started. Your view is based entirely on a belief for which all you have is easily disputed anectodal evidence (the belief that the risk of harm is great).

I'm not saying it is wrong for you to have that belief. But I do think it is wrong that, despite lacking any evidence for your belief, you are quick to condemn anyone who disagrees with your view and acts based on their own belief.