And yet, regulators across the world (US, Europe, Canada, China, Japan) allow its continued sale and use. Maybe they’re right and HN is wrong? How would you reconcile conservative regulators not taking action while participants here carry on about how unsafe it is? Inaction by one regulator might be explained, but all of them? Occam's razor leads us to a tolerance for the risk exposure, not a conspiracy.

It appears that it has to be proven dangerous, not foolproof, due to the driver still being responsible and assuming liability for its use, and that burden has not been met by critics.

Edit: I’m appealing to, broadly, transport safety professionals across various governments and continents (in aggregate) versus randos on an Internet forum. That seems like a pretty solid strategy from a risk perspective, as your risk math isn’t impacted by failures at a single regulatory body, nor by a layman without the professional body of domain knowledge that might be missing something critical.