However, I've always had this hunch that if you were going to actually quantify the percent of times in which the stopping time difference between a rim brake and disc brake actually was the deciding factor in serious cycling accidents, my guess is it's very very very low. That is, my guess is the car appears so suddenly it doesn't matter what brake you have, or the accident would have overwhelmingly been best prevented by approaching the intersection differently to begin with, or it doesn't involve another vehicle at all, but instead involves loss of cyclist control.

I guess it's not so much the disc brakes I take issue with, it's how new bike markets seem to lurch from one new component type to another so completely without serious weighing of actual costs and benefits in use. So you end up in this situation where new bikes all have disc brakes without rim brakes even being much of an option anymore. Even when people are interested in them and have legitimate reason, the dynamics of the bike market is such it pushes them away from it.

I guess I feel like something is different about the current bike market compared to other markets I'm familiar with. It feels to me like there's this market pressure due to various factors (bike manufacturers, sellers, cycling community discussion dynamics) toward some form that's hyperoptimised for use cases that aren't realistic in general. Maybe this has always been the case -- the skinny tires of the 1980s were pushed using unrealistic theories and test conditions -- but my sense is it's getting worse overall.

Don't reward companies that want to push disc brakes (for instance) as a reason to ditch something that fits your purposes.

It's easy to cherry pick scenarios where a piece of tech would save you over the alternative, but life is holistic. We can adapt. The first step is to decide that it is worth trying to.