[vacri]

At some point, you have to expect personal responsibility. If there weren't any safety signage at all, then there'd be more sympathy. But when you actively reject safety signage that is there to help you, then you're the one who is rejecting the care of others. In that case, why waste sympathy on those people who took those risks and rejected the a priori help?

This isn't a complex sociopolitical scene like an underclass of drug-users trying to escape from their hellish reality, where cause and effect are hard to disentangle. It's people on holiday assuming that they're special and the safety signage doesn't apply to them. It's pretty straight-forward.

[Baeocystin]

I think there is a reasonable argument to be made that part of the problem is over-encompassing safety rules in general, to the point that so many can be safely ignored (hello, Prop 65 in California) that it leaves people numb to the fact that some are real.

I am not sure how far I would take that line of thought, but I do think there's something to it.

[anigbrowl]

I agree that wrapping everything in safety warnings is no more effective than doing without them and expecting everyone to rely on some unspecified common sense.