Let me preface this by saying that I'm a man and I too would choose the bear.
That being said the statistics you shared are not an apples to apples comparison because humans are more often in touch with humans than with bears, so the fact that we get attacked way less by bears than by other humans is to be expected even if bears were the most violent aggressors out there. To kind of put it in perspective think about the opposite, how many times have you been close to a human and the human hasn't attacked you, then compare that to encounters with bears and it quickly becomes obvious that an encounter with a bear is statistically a lot more dangerous than an encounter with a human, because people meet with hundred if not thousands of humans on a daily basis, and only get attacked by one of them periodically, whereas if humans were encountering hundreds or thousands of bears daily the number of attacks would be way higher.
Which is not to say that you shouldn't choose the bear, like I said before I would choose the bear, but the reason for me is that bears are likely to be more predictable, if a bear decides to attack me I'm fucked, if a human decides to attack me I have a chance of survival, but the likelihood that the bear would attack me is easy to calculate, as long as I'm not threatening him and he has some food, we should be good. on the other hand the likelihood that the human will attack me is completely random, some people will have a 0% chance, while others will have a 100%. So it's like asking would you prefer to play Russian roulette with the normal rules (1 bullet) or with a random 0-6 bullets? I personally would go for the 1 bullet, because while I can get 0 bullets on the other way I might also get 6 bullets.