Yes, yoy are. But so what? You're not hurting me with your weirdness, so go hard,

Not necessarily. Depends a lot of the reason behind your choice. Propeller aircraft are usually slower and more noisy, so if those are your reasons, then that's fair enough.

They are, however, generally also smaller and turboprops are great for short flights, so they have their niches.

I fly both relatively often. My local airport is serviced exclusively by DH Dash-8, so I take those flights to get to the much larger regional airport around an hours hop away.

If you can't see the propeller spinning, how do you even know the engine is working?

Sounds like your basing this on a new tech vs. old tech? Not looking at safety rates?

You can achieve airspeed at 35 mph in a small enough craft. A propeller plane is simply slower. Airplanes as a whole are extremely safe. Turbulance is normal and not a sign of the aircraft failing.

I mean that style of plane is better for the environment. I would understand a small like 4 seat prop plane. But jets have no better chance of staying aloft than an ATR-72. As long as they are maintained at the same level as the jet.

If you are flying over water, avoid single engine planes.

ATR72 looks like a twin.

Answering the titular question, I personally don't find it weird that someone might avoid certain types of aircraft, in the same way that some people strongly prefer certain aircraft. For example, the big windows and the more-comfortable pressurization of the Boeing 787 is appealing for some. But alternatively, some might prefer the modern Canadian design of the Airbus A220.

Objectively speaking, though, propeller planes is a very wide category, and I'm curious which specific aspect you want to avoid. Piston-powered propeller craft are basically non-existent in commercial passenger airline service, with the exception of small "puddle jumper", 15-seat air taxi services. Such airplanes tend to be loud and also use leaded gasoline -- hilariously still called "low lead" despite apparently having more lead additive than what motor gasoline had in the 1980s.

Then there are turbo prop aircraft, like the ATR-72, which are basically a propeller taking power off of a jet engine core. No lead here, and noise is slightly less bothersome due to continuous jet combustion, but the sound of the propeller remains. Though this is offset by the lower cruise speeds, so less "wind noise".

If perhaps the concern is about propeller failures, bear in mind that commercial passenger aviation is exceptionally safe, across all aircraft types. The propulsion method is small-fries compared to the backend support and logistics of an airliner and ATC, plus having two pilots, and all manner of other things which blend into the background but are essential for safety. Pretty much only the elevator would be safer than air travel, even accounting for some rather unfortunate recent incidents here in USA airspace.

That said, I would be remiss if I didn't mention that propeller and jet fan failures have had fatalities in living memory, with a notable event being the blade ejection of a Southwest Boeing 737 that pierced the fuselage and partially ejected a passenger.

Overall, I personally have zero qualms about commercial passenger propeller aircraft, and up until the Boeing 737 MAX fiasco, most people did not care at all which type of airplane they were boarding. Since that event, booking websites added filters to allow excluding specific types of aircraft by model. But I've not seen one which excludes by propulsion type.

Turboprops are no less safe than your typical turbo engine. If that's your concern, then I would suggest reading up on how they work just to ease your mind a bit. They are loud AF though. If that's your issue, then ANC work well, but outside of that, a different flight may help.

A320 seat configuration is 3-3. ATR-72 is 2-2. I'd take a guaranteed not-middle-seat any day.

The ATR-72 has jet engines. It's just that the turbine spins a prop instead of compressing air for direct combustion.

The biggest indicator of safety is if you're flying to/from Newark.

Why do you avoid them?

Yes, because there is really no reason to avoid either I can understand having a preference or a dislike for props, but not really to avoid them.

Unless, of course, you clarify why.

So if we're being real, a jet engine is basically a super high rpm propeller that's enclosed in a cowling. If anything the stress it's under makes it more prone to failure. I could see avoiding single prop aircraft, which for pretty much all passenger flights would be propeller driven. But honestly any aircraft would be fine for me provided it has an experienced human pilot and at least 2 engines.

I know at least one person like that. They won't outright avoid prop planes, and they know its illogical, but the idea of flying on one still makes them nervous.

Jet engines are enclosed in a cowling that is designed to handle the engine coming apart. The smallest defect in a jet engine's turbine blades can mean it detaches or deforms, which then causes further damage that will be injested by the engine.

Propellers have free access to the cabin but are subjected to far less forces than the blades of a jet engine, so their failure is less likely, even if damage is undetected.

Do with that what you will.

I love me an old Embraer with propellers. More legroom and more overhead luggage space.