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”.
What about having airbags? or driving a bigger car than everyone else? or not driving faster than 15, 30, 55, 70? Or not driving at night? Or in the rain or snow?
I always wear a setbelt and when I climbed was roped in, but to claim these generally acceptable risk mitigation techniques aren't subjective is just claiming your beliefs are everyone's beliefs. That's not true.
A seatbelt wearing is very similar to sitting in a the seat of a car. Using ropes is very different from no ropes. Rope failure is probably more common than seatbelt failure so the safety margin difference may not be as great.
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.
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.
That's fine - and I would ignore the sign too but that wasn't the question being asked in this quiz. It explicitly said do you consider a bicycle a vehicle and it is a vehicle by law nearly everywhere.
Many roads nowadays have a "one way only - bicycles excepted" to indicate the road is a one way road but bicycles are an exception to the rule and there's a contraflow bike lane. Most parks that have a no vehicles allowed sign is likely to have a bicycle excepted sign underneath.
Bicycles are vehicles and there is no ackshully that will change that. If you're trying to win an argument with the technicality that everyone would ignore a "no vehicles" sign on a bike that isn't an argument that disproves a bike is a vehicle. All it shows is that a bike is a special vehicle with special rules and exemptions to "no vehicle" signs.
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.
> by the way use a specific and pedantic definition of vehicle
There is no pedantry in calling a bicycle a vehicle. It's obviously a vehicle - it's entire purpose is to be a lightly-mechanized means of transit! Now if we see a sign in a park that says "no vehicles" many people - using our cultural knowledge and context - will interpret the intent of the sign as a reference to "[motorized] vehicles".
Those people are wrong. It's as simple as that. In the eyes of the law bikes are vehicles nearly everywhere. It's settled and not up for debate or discussion.
I believe the entire point of the exercise is to demonstrate people will argue that the sky isn't blue.
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”.