Regarding the 'more trips, more safely' mantra - though I take Skydancer's point about 'safe' not being a good word because it implies that there is 'danger', my own point about using 'low risk' rather than 'safe' with trainees was prompted much more by wanting to use relative rather than absolute terms.
Telling trainees that something will 'make them safe' is just misleading. Saying that something (like staying out of the doorzone) will make them safer or 'more safe' isn't so problematic to me, though overall the terminology of 'low risk' is better.
So more trips MORE safely more often I don't think is so problematic - whereas telling people to, for example, 'only make safe trips' (I made that up, but some road safety pamphlet may well advocate such a 'strategy') is to use just the kind of language I think should be avoided.
Regarding the 'more trips, more safely' mantra - though I take Skydancer's point about 'safe' not being a good word because it implies that there is 'danger', my own point about using 'low risk' rather than 'safe' with trainees was prompted much more by wanting to use relative rather than absolute terms.
Telling trainees that something will 'make them safe' is just misleading. Saying that something (like staying out of the doorzone) will make them safer or 'more safe' isn't so problematic to me, though overall the terminology of 'low risk' is better.
So more trips MORE safely more often I don't think is so problematic - whereas telling people to, for example, 'only make safe trips' (I made that up, but some road safety pamphlet may well advocate such a 'strategy') is to use just the kind of language I think should be avoided.