What's interesting here is that it's a very specific, narrow form of control. The driver of the car feels in control, because they're operating the motor vehicl

What's interesting here is that it's a very specific, narrow form of control. The driver of the car feels in control, because they're operating the motor vehicle, yet on the macro scale, they're operating a motor vehicle because of a whole host of other decisions outside their control. For most people, they don't have the option to not operate a motor vehicle and still live where they do, work where they do, etc. Likewise, the road construction and design operates a powerful influence on how they drive and how others drive around them, as well as how safely they can navigate to their destination - this too is out of their control. Regulations on the construction and maintenance of vehicles they and others on the road drive are also out of their control, but affect the environment in which the driver operates, and rules around who can drive and under what conditions similarly are not in the driver's control. The driver of the car exhibits control over only the narrowest and most immediate circumstances of their condition, and yet that veneer of control is sufficient for the majority of observers to put the blame nearly entirely on the driver for the outcome of their trip, absolving or ignoring the numerous other systems and decisions made which put them in circumstances in which accidents are alarmingly frequent. The article covers suicide, and here too the veneer of control at the point of action hides the entire complex environment in which someone dies of suicide - the social, economic, and political landscape that creates the conditions in which a former service member takes their life is not strictly personal, but we insist on treating it as such, because at the point of action, it is indeed the individual who commits the act.