Except that population stats are not valid for any individual except the average one, who probably doesn't exist.
If I have an engine failure, and I see loads of nice looking fields (which frankly is the case most of the time when flying in half decent wx) and somebody tells me the chance of killing myself in a field landing is 5%, and the chance of killing myself under the chute is 3%, I will still go for the field landing.
Perhaps with a "decision height" equal to the min chute activation height...
It's like the stats about flying being similarly risky to motorcycle riding. With about 100k miles on bikes, in the 1970s and 80s, I don't buy that at all. Bikes are much more risky to the careful rider because most bike deaths are (and always have been) caused by a car driver - often in a manner where the car driver gets away with it. With all the half blind drivers, and many crazy drivers, I wouldn't ride a bike now if you paid me for it.
The other thing is that if I land smack down vertically with a say 20G shock under a chute, and the plane is salvaged and repaired, I will still want to chuck away all the avionics, but the insurance company isn't going to pay for that.
Many people say that the instant your engine stops, the plane is the property of the insurance company. That is actually true only if you are a self fly hire flyer (whatever happens you can stick a finger up and walk away) or in very narrow circumstances (engine failure at night, above "impossible" terrain, above a forest, above a low overcast/fog) but the rest of the time an aircraft owner will be considering his flying future which is likely to be impacted by a really stupid aircraft write-off decision.
I consider myself to be an average pilot, but given a decent starting height I would hope to be able to do a field landing, in the same way I can fly a glide approach onto a 18m wide runway, etc. And if I am not established on a nice "final" at the chute decision height, I will pull the chute.