Bob Moore wrote:

"Back_To_Flying" wrote

I have also seen a few more reports concluding the same. So one could
conclude that driving is still much more dangerous than flying
regardless of age group. Do you have proof of the opposite? Then show
me your source.


The current issue of "Flying" magazine addresses the issue and
provides the documentation that they used.
As I recall, their conclusion was that flying presented 200-300
times the risk that driving did, contrary to what we have all
been led to believe.

That seems like a very high ratio. This comparison of fatality
rates per million hours of a wide variety of activities puts the
ratio at a little over 30 to 1:
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/comparat.html
based on a study by a group that develops risk models for the
insurance industry.
But the relatively high risk per hour is mitigated by the fact
that even avid GA pilots won't usually fly for as many hours as
avid motorists (or motorcyclists) given practical constraints like
cost, availability, and convenience.
As others have mentioned the statistical figures such as those
given above from Failure Analysis Assoc. necessarily lump together
pilots with very different abilities and risk-aversion. But even
based on this statistical average risk you could fly for an hour
every day from age 20 to age 70 and your chances of dying from
an aviation accident would still only be about one in four.