Yes, but it is wrong to compare the current measles infection rate with MMR vaccines to the autism rate. If you remove Measles vaccination, the figures will return to much, much higher rates of infection in a short space of time. To use your prior analogy, it would be using crash statistics from an SUV-free highway to argue for or against the introduction of SUVs. You can't use the current measles infection rate to make valid arguments to removing vaccines. The correct comparison is the pre-vaccination measles infection and death rates, which are probably 20 times higher.
Besides, a 'claim in the media' of 1 in 150 isn't a strong enough number for this debate.
I'm not debating the merits of MMR vaccines or arguing against vaccination. I'm not even making a statistical argument.
All I'm saying is that the decision of people who forgo vaccination is often a justified rational belief, even if it is incorrect. Keep in mind that most parents know a child with autism and very few know a child who died from MM or R.
While driving, it is rational and justified to believe that the vehicle's speed is 60mph when the speedometer reads "60mph." However, if the speedometer is miscalibrated your belief is incorrect.
It cannot be said that being anti-vaccine is a justified rational belief when it has an unjustified irrational basis. It is justified and rational to believe you're going 60mph when the speedometer says so because we all have experience with the reliability of speedometers, even though it's possible to be incorrect.
To use a different analogy, imagine I believed carpet was lava and stepping on it would burn me and break my mother's back. While this would explain why I'd avoid stepping on carpet, it would hardly be accurate to describe it as a justified, rational belief.
Besides, a 'claim in the media' of 1 in 150 isn't a strong enough number for this debate.