more accurate would be "risk aware"
"Risk-aware" and "Risk-averse" are two totally different concepts. The former means what it says, and the latter relates to the preparedness of an individual to expose themselves to ('accept') a risk of a perceived magnitude of which they are 'aware'.
One sees the considerable variation in risk-averseness (the corollary of which is 'risk-taking') at both ends of the spectrum. Nearly everyone who climbs mountains, jumps off cliffs or voluntarily (e.g. as a journalist) goes into a war zone are very 'risk-aware' but, nevertheless, if they are pretty 'risk-taking' (i.e. not risk-averse) they still do those things. At the other end, everyone knows that airliners do occasionally crash (and has some notion of how rare that is) and that doesn't stop most people travelling in them, but there are nevertheless a very small number who are so risk-averse that they won't.
Topically, this is seen fairly dramatically with Covid-19. Everyone is 'aware' of there being a risk, and most have at least a rough idea of the level of that risk. However, the degree of 'averseness' to the perceived level of risk varies dramatically - and I see that even within my own circle of 'family and friends', as you probably do as well.
Over the years and decades, there has been a lot of work done in relation to "risk-averseness", with many attempts to estimate/measure it in individuals - perhaps surprisingly, quite a lot of it in relation to the financial industry (concerning attitudes to 'investment risks'). However, everything to do with "risk-averseness" (or the opposite) pre-supposes that the individuals concerned are "risk-aware".
That there is considerable variation between individuals as regards risk is, I suppose, a case of "Viva la difference" - at least, until it becomes very extreme (e.g. the person happy to play 'Russian roulette' or the one unprepared to cross any road).
Kind Regards, John