Well, you asked if I was arguing against improving safety when compared to fatality rates for any activity.

But for me to have made that argument, I’d have to have said that there is no rate of fatality that would justify improving safety. So, I was asking if you think that’s true:

Does no threshold for the rate of any cause of death justify improving safety?

But I sucked at wording it clearly. That’s on me.

In short, no, I’m not arguing that. Really, I was just clarifying what the person you responded to was saying. I’m not making an argument either way.

Does no threshold for the rate of any cause of death justify improving safety?

Well, nothing is 100% safe, and we allow plenty of things that are demonstrably unsafe to continue. So if you compare bike-car collisions against say, firearm suicides in the US, you’ll see that bike-car collisions aren’t that bad.

The fundamental argument is that nothing is totally safe, but some things are safer than others.

More like if you contextualize the incidents of bicycles and pedestrians with cars, you might realize they’re safer than you think. This is absolutely false for cars and pedestrians though in America at least.

Exactly

What’s particularly strange about it is that it doesn’t really serve any purpose for a vast majority of people aside from a government-approved official statement that someone finds their in-laws unbearable.

That’s a pretty good purpose. Everybody can save face by taking part in bureaucracy. That sounds like I’m being facetious, but I’m serious. Think about the alternative: avoiding them awkwardly all the time or telling them to screw themselves directly, which will engender negative feelings. At least with the bureaucracy, the sentiment gets filtered through a impartial, uncaring medium.

The maximal use case! That’s a good way of thinking about it!

I’m struggling with my SO to buy a reasonable house in a high cost of living area. They want a massive 2000 Sq ft monstrosity because we plan to have a kid soon, and I’m thinking 1500 is more than enough. They’re reasoning it’s we need space for each other and entertaining. My reasoning is I want to eat out at the nearby fantastic restaurants nearby more often and buy cheese and wine and stuff.

Maybe it’s my interest in economics, but American life is so expensive in part because Americans are willing to spend a shit ton of money because they think they’re supposed to. It’s like we’re all enamored with the idea that bigger and more is better just because someone said so. And then we complain about things being unaffordable like corporations aren’t trying to fleece us for all we’re worth.