Originally Posted by Pozidrive
..and wrong?
I did not comment on my opinion of Tourist's argument, but as you ask a direct question, NO. He is perfectly correct in the way he is defining risk in terms of probability and consequence. You may not like or agree with his application of this definition to a particular event, but in making your argument you (and others here) are confusing the definition of a statistical function with feelings generated by an emotive event. For example, it is unfounded to state that people died as a result of a risk, therefore basis of the risk was wrong. The definition of the risk would have predicted that there was a probability of deaths, therefore the basis of the risk was correct.
Tourist is also correct in his generalised assessment of the level of risk associated with flying in general and with flying displays in particular. The hazard may be large, but the risk is small. Conversely, the risk with driving is relatively large. Both are borne out by data.
So, as I said, he has been pretty clear and consistent. In answer to your question, no, he is not wrong in his explanation of risk, nor in the way he has applied the definition to this event. Your argument with his position appears to be far more emotive than factual.
As Lonewolf has illustrated, the other argument is what people see as their ability to assess risk and their willingness to accept the level of risk they perceive. That is a different issue. In considering that, you might start with the fact that for many years, millions of people have barely questioned the risk associated with air shows. Following this event, hundreds are suddenly shouting about unacceptable risk. Perception changes with events, the extant risk does not. The AAIB report is no proof of the level of risk, it is purely a level to facilitate reducing the risk.