It seems to revolve around the fact that 'people commuting to work are more dangerous than 1 car stopping on the freeway'.
The article then proceeds to explain why this is so:
> 'No human is a perfect driver. Every time we get into our cars, instead of cycling or taking public transportation, we add risk to those around us.'
> 'We often see cars on the side of the road. Few accidents are caused by such cars. Sure, they add risk, but so do people abruptly changing lanes.'
The problem with this is that, obviously, the act of stopping the car in the middle of traffic needs to be _added_ to the risk that the security researchers involved have been generating the whole year round. Instead the author seems to compare the security risk of this incident with the risk an average driver generates in a whole year.
And even if it didn't the author's example is also a fallacy of relative privation. The fact that other things are more risky than stopping a car on the freeway, does not mean that it is not dangerous.
Pretty ironic that the author fails in his own analysis while talking about 'proper "risk analysis"'.