Is there a cherry picking without intention and/or selectivity?

I often hear argument, especially when someone is afraid to fly, that statistics show that flying is much safer than lets say driving. While I understand that in general it might be true, wouldn't it be a fallacy to use the argument while talking to a specific person in a specific region? A person in that region might have only a bad airlines with old airplanes, inexperienced controllers, difficult terrain and runway, different laws etc. while they could have fairly good traditions of driving, good roads and quality cars.

It seems like cherry picking; but what if it is hard to get separate flying data/auto data for just the region? It doesn't seem to be a fallacy of deliberately excluding data(cherry picking), but fallacy of just not having or knowing of more specific data and using more general instead.
Is that still cherry picking? Doesn't cherry picking imply selected evidence?

Also is it correct to always simply compare flying in a commercial airline data with ANY kind of driving data. For example in driving data results are included all the non-professional drivers, drivers who are not tested for alcohol, drugs, fatigue in work place, much wider age and health range etc. Wouldn't it be more correct to compare commercial airline data to commercial bus and train company data?

What would be this fallacy?

Hi Nor,

You make a good point that the rule "flying is safer than driving" is a general rule, referring to commercial flight and standard (non-professional) driving. "Cherry picking" is deliberately selecting data that supports a conclusion or belief while ignoring other data. So it would all depend on how the argument is phrased. For example:

Flying is safer than driving, so you are better off flying if safety is your primary concern.

This is fine—no fallacy. A general argument is being made and as a general argument, it makes sense. Unless the person was saying this is ALWAYS the case, then they would be guilty of the If the person were to justify this rule by citing examples that only supports the rule rather than research and data that supports the general rule, then yes, cherry picking. They arrived at the correct conclusion but in the wrong way. In other words, they were right for the wrong reason.

If someone were to say,

Well, what about driving across a small town in a charter bus versus flying through IRAQ in a small propeller plane painted as an American Flag?

Then I would say this person is either simply being ironic or, if they are serious, we would need to ask them what is their point. If the point is to show that there are exceptions to the general rule, then fine. If their point is that the general rule is flawed because there are exceptions, then they are simply wrong.

Flying is safer than driving, so you are better off flying if safety is your primary concern.

Yes I understand that it's a general argument. BUT as I said when someone is talking to specific person in specific situation is it correct (from logical stand point) to cheer up and encourage someone using this kind of general data?
Let's say this person usually use great bus company on quality road and now has to fly in snowstorm at night with small companies' (which had some previous problems) older plane and land in very difficult runway. This is not an absurd almost impossible situation like Iraq example. These kind of situations are common in some places and even affect the overall statistics. What does the use of GENERAL rule is really helping the person? In his/her case statistics are absolutely different. Actually if there is choice he might be better off choosing train or bus instead.

So is there a fallacy to using GENERAL data in specific and clearly distinguishable case?