Even with access to meaningful statistics (which I agree 99% of pax don't have and don't want) it would be very difficult to make a sensible choice of airline based on safety issues. For example, if I want to fly LHR-JFK, I can choose between four major carriers all with excellent safety records - safety isn't going to be a consideration in my choice. Even if there was an airline operating from STN that could somehow guarantee my safe arrival (as opposed to the let us say 1 in 10^8 chance of a fatality flying from LHR), it would actually be more dangerous for me to use it because I would have to traverse an extra 80 miles of the M25 in order to do so. Very similar arguments apply if I want to fly LHR-DUS or anywhere within Europe.
Now consider flights where safety might be a greater concern - I would like to fly from London to Jakarta. I can fly direct with Garuda or via FRA with LH. I've no wish to slight Garuda, but their safety record is probably worse than Lufthansa. However, apart from the inconvenience and time lost in an intermediate stop, the indirect route involves twice as many takeoffs and landings (you can see I wasn't a trained actuary for nothing, can't you
). Since these are the most dangerous (relatively speaking) part of any flight, it may well be that the Garuda option is the safer.
Phew - hope that helps,
Slasher