Based on your opinion and reluctance to use this technology I was interested in how many forced landing out of 100 you personally think would be survivable by yourself in a Cirrus over average UK terrain?
You are asking the wrong person the wrong question.
Thank goodness private flying isnt the sole domain of the high hours commercial or private pilot. If it were it would be dead. The reality is most private pilots are low hours relatively infrequent flyers.
The fact is a forced landing in a single requires a reasonable level of skill and currency. On the other hand a chute pull requires only a good understanding of the procedure. In that regard on average it represents a more reliable option for most pilots than a forced landing.
The most telling view I take from this thread is the dichotomy between the "professional" pilot contributors and the "others" here and else where. I think we need to be realistic. As I said earlier the average PPL cant afford to fly twins, they dont fly hundreds of hours a year and they are challenged on their flying budget. Ok, it might be great if they did fly a lot more hours but they dont, and, if we were all required to, their would be no GA.
So it is about using technology in the best possible way to make the environment as safe as possible. We know we should check the oil and we know we should do all sorts of other pre-flight checks but, being human, we dont, or at least we are not as thorough as we always should be. I dont make that comment as an excuse, but as a reflection of the human condition. So hopefully we gradually will see aircraft that automate more of these functions. Unfortunately it has been slow to happen. Consider for one moment the automotive industry; air bags, I have sensor that warn me if the oil is low, or the tyre pressure is less than recommended - and why not. In my view these are all safety enhancements.
I embrace change. The Aztec has a critical engine, I am left pumping gear and flaps, it has six levers, cowl flaps, props that dont sync, and then the new - the DA42 has props that self sync, no pumps, no cowl flaps - you get the idea. Does the first aircraft make me a better pilot? Maybe it makes me better at demonstrating my ability to manipulate a more complex environment, but it introduces more risks, more elements I might fail to control as well as I should, more reason to remain very current.
So I think the average PPL will stand a better chance of a happier outcome landing under chute. I dont think the average private pilot is capable of flying a twin and I am not even convinced that the average light twin necessarily is a significant contribution to safety. I dont think you can compare the level of risk with CAT because GA is incapable of obtaining the same standard.
Edited to add as to Mary's question I think Cirrus really tried to design an aircraft that was as safe as possible. The undercarriage is welded because upy downy undercarriage introduces another risk - a risk of it not working, and risk of the pilot forgetting to use it, all for not a huge aerodynamic advantage, the chute was from the same recipe book, as was single lever operation, air bags in the seat belts, accurate fuel gauges etc. However they wanted the aircraft to be quick but reasonably fuel efficient. At the moment there is the catch 22 - you cant ignore that in GA terms a quick, slippery and capable aircraft still requires the pilot to keep up more so than the average spam can, and it still requires the pilot to remain that little bit more current. That could be the element Cirrus forgot, or at least the training industry, insurers and pilots forget. The balance has been pretty much addressed. Most pilots flying high performance singles are receiving better training and are now better pilots - inevitably there will always be the exceptions.