A bloke I know who used to build bike frames says that only steel is reliable, though I guess moly comes under that.
And yes I expect flack for my comments. But they are all true!
Sometimes I wonder if you aren't just having fun with us by the use of self-satire. Other times, I'm sure of it.
Honestly, you have just about enough knowledge of bikes to be dangerous and most of that is out-dated.
Modern carbon frames can be made for any environment. If you want a 600 gram frame that's good for, maybe, 5-10,000 km, they exist. If you want a 1.5 kg frame that you can ride forever, they exist, too. Carbon frames can be made very stiff or quite compliant, it all depends on the application.
Modern AL frames come in a little over their carbon counterparts (1.5-2.0 kg), but are equally strong. With hydroformed tubing and really intense engineering, they've been able to make AL frames ride every bit as nice as carbon, it's just a bit heavier (and much cheaper).
Modern Steel frames get to about the same weight as AL bikes. Some of the tubesets are really high-end in terms of their metallurgy. They're essentially the finest steel alloys in existence and they have complex tube shapes. If these were introduce in the 1980's, AL would have never happened. Again, the bikes can be made stiff and responsive or more compliant with a better ride. It depends on the application. Steel frames are largely from boutique builders.
Brakes on a road bike suck. Shimano probably does the best job, but it's no easy task. They're trying to haul down a bike with a caliper that is at an absolute minimum weight. If you've ever ran well set up disc brakes on a bike, you know they work an order of magnitude better than a rim brake. Caliper, Canti, V, whatever....they all suck compared to a good hydraulic setup. A good cable disc setup still beats a rim, it's just not quite as nice as a Hydro. The biggest differences are grip effort and modulation. On a disc you can use 1 or 2 fingers and slow at your max. With a rim brake, you may be using your whole hand. You can still lock the tires, but your ability to control the bars and modulate lock-up goes to ****.
Riding on public roads is dangerous, but largely because motorists have their attention pulled in 10 different ways and they kill innocents. Yes, bikes will inconvenience a car at times, like when you have to get across lanes for a left turn (or right for you in Oz). Most of the time when a cyclist gets hit it's because the car has drifted into the bike lane. There is simply no excuse for this and it should be treated as manslaughter. The other problem is bikes riding on the wrong side of the street and getting hit for doing so. You can't blame the cars for that.
I learned about longitudinal load transfer on a bike. Initially (i.e. as a FSAE kid), I was under the impression that spring rates had something to do with the magnitude of weight transfer. I was mistaking cause/effect. Anyway, I had blown up my car engine and was riding a friends bike to and from school. The rear brake could be applied maximum without locking the rear. However, as I started applying the front, the rear tire would lock. Hmmmm, I thought. Then I started moving my weight back to get the rear rolling again. There were no real springs in play, so light bulbs started dimly glowing.
Bikes are a lot of fun, but I've shifted my riding away from the road and towards mountains. In the dirt, you might get dinged up a bit, but you're not likely to get any real damage if you ride within yourself. On the road we get a lot of people in my area killed for simply trying to exercise. I don't need to be a statistic.