ORIGINAL: swooper
This thread seems based on the assumption that most modeler-built models are stronger and safer than most ARFs. I think that assumption is questionable.
First, most hazards are the same for ARFs and non-ARfs. Poor assembly, poor setup, ill-advised choices of servos, batteries, engines, etc., careless and unskilled operation are all the same for all models. Lots of models are flown in damaged condition until something fails and they crash.
Next, is there that much difference between ARFs and non-ARFs? The assumption is that most ARFs are faulty and most non-ARFs are well-built. We've bought shiploads of ARFs and how many have proven faulty? I've seen some owner-built planes that were downright scary, it was a relief to see them rekitted. Consider the number of kits that are the builder's first kit. How many of those are truly well-built?
My point is that I don't see a significant difference between ARFs and non-ARFs from a safety viewpoint.
You almost have it right the first time! Your comments about the potential hazards of kit built stuff and damaged birds are right on target. I have seen a new built at home bird show up at the flying field that allowed me to see daylight through the fuselage, but that was one of the worst cases. However, there have been too many ARF/RTF's with serious deficiencies the average modeler would not have been able to see, much less fix. Those are the problems I was intending to address as those are the things that impact the new guy who bought his bird more than if he had built it.