I've enjoyed reading this thread. Everyone with the best intentions and few able to agree on how to improve the situation.
My thoughts: The reason it is hard to agree on a way forward is we are all so different in our experiences and our skills, our decision making processes, our attitudes and our risk tolerance. It would be a bit like getting everyone to agree on the ideal level of social welfare that a country should have, it won't happen because we are all from different backgrounds.
A middle ground is the end result.
Bang for buck has been mentioned about NTS and simulators, maybe that's a good starting point. Giving people a method of assessing risk is a good idea in my mind. It's only recently that Airline pilots have been given formal training in this area and it can be very useful in some circumstances if people embrace the idea ( attitudes again).
Eg, at the planning stage it might look like this ;
Risk= probability x consequence
4. = very low x catastrophic
"Righto, let's stick with the plan to head off for the weekend"
Then airborne with shelving cloud pushing down around 500ftt into heavy rain and rising terrain along the route it might change to
9 = moderate x catastrophic
" Righto that's not acceptable to me, we'll divert to Wollongong call the others from there"
For some people a framework for assessing risk like that will seem cumbersome and won't work for them operationally. For others, it will provide clarity and confidence to their decision making. The thing is, it is cheap to teach and free to implement. Everyone runs their own method anyway but very few can tell you how it works or have any idea if it is in line with what those around them think.
Add to that a frame work for making a decision once the risk has been assessed and we might get somewhere on the NTS side.
A good few PPLs would enjoy applying the method to driving and all sorts of other activities in their daily lives as well until it becomes a natural process that takes but a second.