My brother once told a concerned parent (whose son he was taking hiking in the "wilderness" (John Muir trail) for a few days) that the most dangerous part of the trip would be the drive there and back.
All joking aside about a person's driving skill, I believe my brother was almost certainly correct in that statement. Of course, to get real precise you'd have to compare the exact area/type of driving vs. the exact area/type of wilderness exploration. In general though, I'm sure my brother's thoughts are valid.
My question is: does statistical evidence exist to back it up? I'm sure there are statistics for how many hours, on average, a person will be a driver or passenger in a car before they are maimed or killed. But are there the same statistics, for comparison purposes, for wilderness trekking?
IOW: which activity would more likely be life-threatening: walking the Pacific Crest Trail, or driving across the country for the same period of time (same hours per day, same months)?