And some people now argue that disc brakes on road bicycles are more dangerous because you learn that you can brake later and more suddenly. I.e You will more frequently approach the limit of friction between the (very narrow) tyre and the road.

>And some people now argue that disc brakes on road bicycles are more dangerous

Some people argue that the Earth is flat. That doesn't mean they have a good point.

The morons you're referencing probably think cars should all go back to drum brakes and bias-ply tires so people think more about brake fade and tire grip. It's an idiotic argument. Disc brakes on bikes are better in every way, except weight (they add about 1 pound, maybe). Reducing performance available to a cyclist doesn't make any sense at all; you never know when you're going to need to stop suddenly in the real world.

I had not heard that one. I always thought the main argument against disc brakes on road bikes was they they aren't good for long descents where you're riding the brake for long periods of time... due to heat fade or whatever.

Of course both things could be true...

>I always thought the main argument against disc brakes on road bikes was they they aren't good for long descents where you're riding the brake for long periods of time... due to heat fade or whatever.

No, you have it the other way around. Rubber brake pads on wheel rims fade with heat; disc brakes are able to dissipate far more heat, and are basically essential for long descents.

The only valid argument against disc brakes on bikes is that they weigh a little more (maybe 1 pound). I suppose you could also argue that brake fluid is more trouble to deal with than a cable, and certainly not as easy to jerry-rig, but hundreds of millions of cars use hydraulic brakes without any trouble these days, and I wouldn't want to have jerry-rigged brakes anyway.