The problem is that the 172-pilot's motivation doesn't match the threat. Why is that, you ask? Because of inadequate information about the threat, primarily.

I don't understand what you are saying.

If an F16 were flying full bore on a head-on collision course with a
172, it may well be that the F16 pilot's superior training and superior
eyesight could pick out the 172 in enough time. To expect the same
thing of a 172 pilot, who merely passed a class III exam, and has not
had training in high speed combat is ludicrous.

For this reason and others like it (including the VFR visibility
minima), there is a speed limit in the 172's normal territory: 250
knots, or the slowest safe speed in your aircraft, whichever is higher.
If military pilots have a sterile area where they can play, these
limits need not apply, since they are superior pilots with superior
eyesight, superior training, and superior experience. But it's like
driving 90 mph. Do it on the highway or the race track, but don't do it
on a residential street. And don't call a residential street a highway
for your convenience, and then blame the kid playing ball in the street
when you smash him at 90 mph.

It comes down to training and the emphasis placed on the problem by the FAA (very minimal, in both instances).

Partly. If the 172 pilots were trained to military standards, we could
probably raise the speed limit. But there's be no pilots left who have
the AMUs to pay for it.

The fact that by choosing to fly a 172 the pilot severely limits his ability to visually clear the airspace is fodder for another thread.

All aircraft have blind spots. Airliners aren't known for great
visibility either.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.