goodgrieving

There’s no bright line. You’re just saying “my understanding of risk is correct, and yours is not”.

As an example, driving is a very avoidable risk. Owning or spending significant time around pool, too, especially with small children. Nevertheless many would say these are “everyday risks”.

One way it’s closer to the prisoner’s dilemma than an arms race is that everyone would be safer (the ostensible point of larger vehicles) whereas in an arms race if your goal is victory you don’t care that everyone is safer if you all give up your guns — the point is exactly to harm your enemy without them harming you.

The sign said “no vehicles in the park” it didn’t say “and by the way use a specific and pedantic definition of vehicle”. Bicycles are not vehicles to many people; others would disagree. That’s rather the point, and it’s not a vacuous one.

I really hate to break this to you, but in no case would I see a sign that said “no vehicles” and hesitate to ride my bicycle right past it. If it applied to bikes, it would say so. This doesn’t take vast knowledge nor is it a flex, I’m saying this is uniformly what I would expect cyclists in all US cities in which I’ve lived to understand as well.