A common argument against counter-terrorism measures is that more people are killed each year by road accidents than by terrorists. Whilst this point may be true, it is a false analogy and a red herring argument against counter-terrorism. It also ignores the fact that counter-terrorism deters and prevents more terrorist attacks than those that occur. However, for current purposes let us assume that more people do die from road accidents than would have died from prevented or successful terrorist attacks.
Whenever we travel in a car, most people are aware that there is a small but finite risk of being injured or killed. Yet this risk does not keep us away from cars. We intuitively make an informal risk assessment that the level of this risk is acceptable in the circumstances. In other words, we consent to take the risk of travelling in cars, because we decide that the low level of risk of an accident does not outweigh the benefits of car transport.
On the other hand, in western countries we do not consent to take the risk of being murdered by terrorists, unless we deliberately decide to visit a terrorist-prone area like Syria, northern Iraq or the southern Philippines. A terrorist attack could occur anywhere in the West, so unlike the road accident analogy, there is no real choice a citizen can make to consent or not consent to the risk of a terrorist attack.
The Consent to risk fallacy omits this critical factor of choice from the equation, so the analogy between terrorism and road accidents is false.