"Gary L. Drescher" wrote

Rather than per hour, perhaps a more fair metric would be "fatality
rate per effective distance traveled". Even in my slow Cessna 172 a
good rule of thumb is that I can get from point A to point B about 3
times faster than driving. On safety grounds alone, it might tip the
balance in favor of GA over driving.

It doesn't, though. If you do a google search for the previous threads here
on this topic, you'll find data that has been cited to support the
conclusion that the fatality rate per hour is around 15 times greater for
GA, and per mile it's around 8 times greater for GA. By either measure, GA
is roughly an order of magnitude more dangerous.

OK thanks for the stats, sobering though they might be. But: consider
that planes generally get from A to B in more of a straight line than
cars (thus my words "per effective distance traveled" quoted above and
the factor of 8 you cite becomes more like 4 or 5. Then the fact that
a 172 is statistically one of the safest planes around, and maybe
we're talking close to a wash in safety between driving and flying?

Jim Rosinski
N3825Q