My point is that people fixate on one source of danger (ex: cars), decide, correctly or incorrectly, that this factor is not as significant in their area, and use that as an argument for why their cat specifically should be allowed to go outside. But the rest of the dangers are still there. Some might even be worse-for example an area with low car traffic might attract more feral cats, which are dangerous themselves. Plus the whole idea that some outside dangers is better than lots of outside dangers is weird to me, when you have the option to cut it down to no outside dangers. Most cats, with work, patience, and effort from their humans, can adapt to living happily inside only, and if that doesn't seem like an option, harness training solves those problems (or if you have the skills or money to build one, an outdoor catio).I object to this. People who believe that their situation is safer do not necessarily believe it is perfectly safe. They make a judgment call. You can disagree with the judgment call, but you seem to be claiming that they can't accurately evaluate if their situation is safer than average. For example, only one of my cats is ever anywhere near the cul-de-sac street we live on, and he immediately scoots if a car approaches (usually into the top area of the storm drain). By contrast, yesterday I was driving on a busier street, and some cat appeared to recklessly time a busy street to cross it. Yes, my cat is safer than that cat. Not perfectly safe, but safer.