Reread my last sentence? It is entirely orthogonal to my point. I don't think a citation is needed because think it should be obvious that gatekeeping operations involving flammable liquids to people paid to do it (with some modicum of safety training) is at least marginally an increase in safety. Again, it doesn't matter how much you think it increased safety nor if you agree that it's maybe subtle/slight shift in safety was "warranted", it can still be for safety reasons that the regulations were adopted.

You claim it increased safety. You repeat this claim in your last sentence, qualifying it with "marginal." It seems central to your point, not orthogonal.

> I think it should be obvious that [Oregon mandatory gas attendants law] ... is at least marginally an increase in safety.

I don't agree that it's obvious and doesn't need substantiation. Note that I am not disagreeing with your claim, just asking for substantiation.

I included relevant information to why I felt it "obvious": incentives (wages), training. That's the entire extent of what I feel relevant to discuss with regards to my wider argument. It's not my job or intent to defend how much increased safety it applies, or to save you from googling whatever supporting information you are actually looking for. I'm only arguing that Oregon given information they had at the time believed it to be in part a safety measure. Again, the correctness of that belief (especially at the time) is "obvious", and the actual "magnitude" of safety gained is irrelevant to any claim I am making and starts to move the debate out of context.