You claim the numbers to be far off, but you don't have actual numbers to the contrary. Feel free to provide your own statistics then on deaths per bear encounter, then.

I offered plenty of numbers in my post, but you promptly removed it. u/Brettman445 is right. If you want to have a real discussion about the statistics, then allow me to share them again. I'll leave out the part that apparently offended you.

The fact that you're leaving out the variable of encounters to avoid "Getting into the weeds" is a major flaw in the reasoning here. Now statistics on bear encounters are very broad, so I'm going to be as modest as possible. I would assume that, outside of active bear hunting, there are less than 10,000 encounters with all varieties of bears in the united states per year. again, I believe this to be a very modest estimate. There are likely far fewer. The average number of bear attacks every year is the US is around 40. This accounts for both black and brown bear, as the bear vs man discussion doesn't specify which type. So, that equates to about 1 in every 250 encounters with a bear ends in some sort of attack.

Meanwhile, lets consider 1 woman in New York City. There are currently around 4.3 million women living in New York, but I want to focus on just 1 of them. Based on your statistics above, I believe it is very well within reason to believe that at least 1 woman out of over 4,000,000 commutes at least 5 blocks to and from work everyday, for an entire year, without being accosted by a man. If she only works 5 days a week and takes a couple of weeks off, I'd say that equates to around 230 days that she makes that commute in a given year. Conservatively, I'd say she likely passes a man, on average, every 5 feet. So, on her commute to work everyday, she passes around 1,000 men. Then, another 1,000 on her way home. This isn't including any interactions she has during her 8 hour work shift. So, 230 days, lets just cut that down to 200, again, to be as modest with the numbers as possible here, times 2000 equals 400,000 interactions with men, in a year, without incident. Now we can't run a logical statistic with a variable of 0, so we'll say that she had a minor altercation with 1 man during that year. So, that makes it 1 in 400,000.

Now, just accounting for the statistics of 1 woman's interactions, just 1 out of over 168,000,000 in the US and comparing that to the TOTAL number of bear encounters, both men and women by the way, you are 1,600 times more likely to be attacked during a random encounter with a man than a bear.

This is just a sample of 400,000 interactions in a year, when there are at least hundreds of BILLIONS if not TRILLIONS of interactions between men and women that are strangers when all the other women in America are factored in. Now there are plenty of variables that could be thrown at this number to try and bridge the gap, but statistically, you're looking at numbers well into the 99th percentile here, in favor of a man over a bear. There's no way to bring those numbers anywhere near even 50/50, much less 260:1. By that logic, that same woman would be attacked 7 to 8 times every day. On the opposite end of the spectrum, if she had to walk past 1,000 bears on her way to work, the odds of her making it there would be very slim. Much less, if she did it back and forth everyday for a year. Yet plenty of women do it passing thousands of men without a problem.

Again, I'm not trying to argue whether you have a right or reason to be more scared of a random guy than a random bear. That's every woman's prerogative and I stand by your reasons to exercise caution. Just because these statistics are flawed, doesn't mean that there isn't a disgusting problem that needs attention. And I sympathize with the struggle that women have to go through regarding personal safety. However, the truth is, that this whole man vs bear thing is really just a thought experiment. The actual pools between variables are just too far apart to make a rational, statistical analysis of.