That's true for virtually everything. Most drivers have no idea how much danger they are in or may cause since our tests are a joke. Put them on a skid pad and/or autocross course (TireRack had a defensive driving AutoX program), and then they might start to learn about the vehicle dynamics.
Most drivers have a reasonable estimate of how common and serious car crashes are, since we drive and know people who drive and therefore have firsthand and secondhand experience with the matter
The same probably can't be said for most skydivers (I assume most are first timers ticking off a bucket list item.)
By that same logic the skydiver had a reasonable estimate of how dangerous it was based on the stereotypical view of the activity (and his prayer before doing it).
The point isn't about if you think something is dangerous, but how dangerous it is. There are a bunch of near accidents and minor accidents because people fail to realize their limitations and the vehicle dynamics. I constantly see people texting, tailgating, and not understanding the law (right of way isuses). Many people are wildly overconfident, showing they don't really know the risks and engage in risky behavior that they aren't even aware of.
Stereotypes probably aren't a good basis for reasonable estimates. The average "I would never skydive" person probably severely overestimates the risks. Somebody who does decide to skydive... I can't say. But unless they looked up the statistics I think it's fair to say they have less information about it than an average driver.
Also, drivers know all about near misses. Their propensity to near miss is based off their knowledge that major accidents are quiet infrequent for most drivers (most will never be in a life-threatening crash, and minor crashes are a "once in several years" occassion for most drivers.)
"Stereotypes probably aren't a good basis for reasonable estimates."
Yet stereotypes are exactly what you're talking about when it comes to anecdotal evidence in your prior comment. Most people don't think about the what ifs, or possible outcomes. They're making stereotypes based on the experiences they do have. Stuff like how dangerous driving in the snow is if your a southerner or a northerner.
"Also, drivers know all about near misses."
I've seen some rather oblivious drivers who didn't realize how close they came to injury or death. The statistics for either activity isn't particularly helpful because individual scenarios can be wildy different.
Personal experience aren't stereotypes. Stereotypes about skydiving by somebody who has no experience and knows nobody with any experience are not comparable to having said experience. I think you're being very silly here because you gave an axe to grind against cars.
I don't have an axe to grind against cars. I'm usually commenting in defense of cars. However, improving the driving tests could improve safety. Most crashes are the result of poor judgement or a lack of understanding the rules.
"Personal experience aren't stereotypes."
How do you think stereotypes start? It's personal experience coupled with group think. A perfect example is how people think nice sunny days are safer for driving. Yet in reality they are risky because people pay less attention and drive faster than in the rain. So yes, there are common stereotypes of the safety of various conditions.
I'm from the UK, but took my driving test in California. The California test did feel like a joke - it lasted 15 minutes and involved 3 left turns, 3 right turns, 3 crossings of an intersection, reversing in a straight line and parking in a bay.
The UK driving test takes more than twice as long and involves way more maneuvers - though it looks like they've dropped three point turns and reversing left around a corner according to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_driving_test#Ma...
Oops! For what it's worth, I interpreted GGP in a way that was clearly wrong in hindsight. I thought they meant "our vehicle safety tests are a joke". I edited the GP.
