> A case of people changing their behavior even though cities aren’t more dangerous isn’t really a counterexample
It wasn't presented as a counterexample, it was presented as grounds for doubting the mechanism for the effect you describe.
Increased danger -> increased perceived danger -> behavior which attempts to mitigate danger is a nice theory, but it relies on deltas in perceived danger corresponding to deltas in actual danger.
If deltas in perceived danger that manifestly do drive behavior are driven by processes that are independent of actual danger, your argument no longer makes sense.
It wasn't presented as a counterexample, it was presented as grounds for doubting the mechanism for the effect you describe.
Increased danger -> increased perceived danger -> behavior which attempts to mitigate danger is a nice theory, but it relies on deltas in perceived danger corresponding to deltas in actual danger.
If deltas in perceived danger that manifestly do drive behavior are driven by processes that are independent of actual danger, your argument no longer makes sense.