A common argument I've heard in the past few years is that terrorism concerns are overblown because fewer people die in terror attacks than in car accidents. This guy makes that argument, even though he is trained in the use of mathematics and should see the absurdity of it. The deaths per minute and the deaths per square foot from terrorism both grossly exceed those of traffic accidents. And you can say the government hasn't been as draconian in its approach to traffic accidents, but that isn't because they don't want to be. Many bureaucrats would like to take away everybody's ability to drive.
Also, we don't see how harshly the government imposes auto safety on us since most of the time a disproportionate burden falls on the manufacturers. Any safety idea, from airbags to ABS, becomes required by regulators. The government could do more to cut down on on-the-road factors, but the general public wouldn't like how that occurs, since it ranges from lower speed limits to higher taxes for roads. The city in which I live tried to restrict all sorts of distracting behavior, from talking on cell phones to eating while driving. It did not go over well. Instead, all most governments do for the most part is ratchet up enforcement in areas people are willing to accept, such as seat belt usage and drunk driving.
What's more, the comparison between traffic deaths and terrorism is looking at the wrong area of transportation. The better comparison is between air travel and terrorism. After all, air travel is regulated by the federal government and constant vigilance in this area has reduced major domestic airplane crashes to zero in the past few years. In fact, the worst air disaster in the past 20 years was due to...terrorism.