Cyclic my point was not to trash other opinions, but to point out the difference between something that looks dangerous, vs something that doesn't look dangerous but in fact results in an accident, and to point out that its not just the thing itself that is relevant, but also the way its perceived that effects the overall safety. So the very fact that something looks dangerous acts in its favour, because folk will be paying attention.
Yes it's true that just because something has yet to cause an accident in the 35 yrs or so of the N Sea, doesn't mean it won't in the future. However there is also an argument that perhaps its things that have repeatedly shown themselves to be accident causes, that should be addressed as the priority.
However, exposure as well as severity should be considered and the very fact that an operation (night bow decks for example) is fairly uncommon is again in its favour because the frequency of exposure is low, and the risk of complacency therefore also low.
Lets not have any concept of "safe" or "unsafe" please - there is no such thing, only a sliding scale of grey in between.