I ask my non aviator friends if they have their car brakes serviced every 100 hours of driving. They obviously don't, but they still depend on them as a critical safety device every intersection.
I think there is too much maintenance on aircraft. Humans are willing to wear any risks associated with something if the utility is high enough.
-Living in Latrobe Valley next to a smoke factory [tick]
-Accepting a giant liquid chemical storage facility near major populations [tick]
-Standing room + No seatbelts on a train/bus [tick]
-Smelling that nice benzene, cancer-causing fumes at petrol stations [tick]
Ok the list is endless, yet the utility/safety/legislation is unbalanced with aviation. I'd like to see a study pair up flying experience/currency improving safety against lesser maintenance standards, like getting rid of TBO's and doing maintenance by inspection (oil analysis, etc). On a tangent, what kind of stupid idea is it pulling a new engine to pieces after ~2000hrs, then adding that rebuild risk to what could have otherwise been a nice working engine for another 2000hrs+.
My hypothesis would be that making aviation cheaper, thus encouraging more flying and experience would be equally as safe per million hours flown. And if not, divide by a utility score so if the productivity and usefulness increase from more flying rates, then we should be willing to accept the same safety standards as a motor vehicle, public bus or train in GA.