The comparison I mentioned was for fatality rates per mile. Fender benders are seldom fatal, so taking them out wouldn't have much of an effect.
Those fender benders at slower speeds are still adding to the mileage total which dilutes the picture and a butt load of miles are piled up every day at slow speeds in major cities. There's a vast difference in death risk between driving 20 miles a day by doing it at 30 mph through a city (like where I live in DC/metro area) and driving 20 miles a day on a highway at 75mph.
Same for GA. There's a vast risk difference between VMC in a fixed gear single in the south and IMC in a twin in Alaska.
The only point is, all these "per mile" estimates are almost useless to judging individual risk within a given situation. As a pilot, you can mediate a lot of risk built into the statistics just by what type of plane you fly, conditions, terrain, etc.
BTW, the 5x more dangerous stat is actually conservative. I've seen studies say 16x more dangerous then driving. In reality, it's either a lot more dangerous then that or a lot less dangerous, as flying has so many more variables you can actively adjust vs. driving to mitigate risk.
I don't think making your argument that complex would be very persuasive to company risk managers.
My argument had nothing to do with persuading anyone. It was my opinion of how variable the situation is for the benefit of our discussion.
But to play off your post, maybe you could just point out the # of GA fatalities that include IMC flight, twin engine planes, and HP airplanes...all things you could presumably agree to not take part in fairly easily.