Comparing "100% safe" vs the danger cars represent is so ridiculous I have to question if you're kidding? We're talking 40,000 people killed every year in the US alone on account of traffic accidents. And you're talking about grapes and crayons?
And swimming pools are pretty dangerous though? There are around 4,500 drowning deaths per year in the US, so on the order of 10x fewer than due to car accidents, but still quite a lot.
GP is the one who argued “not 100% safe” as evidence of inherently unsafe.
I agree with you that it’s a comically wrong threshold, which is why I offered that series that was progressively more safe but never 100% safe as examples against that line of reasoning.
Make the threshold "won't kill you 99.9% of the time, even if you have little to no training at that specific activity" then. Is that specific enough for you to engage meaningfully with the conversation at hand, and show why you think driving is at the same side of this threshold as eating grapes or using crayons?