It is the "head in the sand" attitude so prevalent in GA - like the map+stopwatch being the "proper way" to navigate.
There's more than an element of truth in that statement, IMHO.
Getting back to the "Private Flying" related topic (rather than a debate on the finer points of complex collision avoidance systems fitted to the big stuff), how do we address the broadening spectrum of GA?
There is no "one size fits all" any more, the majority of UK GA aircraft are paragliders, paramotors, hang gliders, powered hang gliders, microlights, gliders etc, yet we continue to think in terms of what might be best applicable to conventional light aircraft.
Like the road system, we have to get used to the fact that our airspace has to accommodate an extremely broad range of aircraft types. It seems we are struggling to determine how best to do that in Class G.
Some of the debate here has highlighted that we have a similar problem in this sort of airspace to we have on some rural A roads. We have heavy transport stuff vying with the equivalent of bicycles for use of the same bit of space. Some are, unfortunately, behaving a little like Mr Toad, assuming that they have a right to inconvenience or endanger others because they have a bigger/faster/heavier/more expensive machine. Both have widely varying views as to "rights" yet both are legally equals. No one would suggest making all rural A roads motorways, just to keep bicycles and horses off them, so we shouldn't try to do the same with Class G.
Until we accept that Class G is to be shared equably, without imposing burdens on one or more category of user that are unreasonable, then we will continue to have endless arguments and continue (regrettably) to fly into each other on (thankfully) rare occasions.
VP