I understand the metaphor’s not exact in every single way, nor is it meant to be. I mean, walking across would be a lot easier than using a bicycle. Actually, crawling across would be better still….
The idea is to form a visceral mental image and imagine what it would feel like and how one would succeed or fail.
You are taking this far too literally.

The point is that faced with a situation that invokes our instinctual fears, giving into these fears tends to worsen our situation. A quick look at real life tells us it’s far from absurd to suppose we’ll come against unpleasant situations we can’t avoid. Actually, that ‘s pretty much situation normal.

Consider:

-investors who panic and jump out of a market when prices are low instead of when they are high.

-a person who can’t swim panicking, thrashing frantically, keeping away the swimmer sent out to rescue them, quickly gulping in water instead of holding breath.

-a panicking soldier who tries to flee out in the open instead of keeping behind cover.

I guess your main objection here is about the coercive element in this scenario.

Consider:

-A person who opts for car travel out of fear of air travel. (cars much more dangerous.)

The person avoids a perceived chasm by choosing a route that seems much more innocuous on the emotional visceral level. This person has made the wrong choice when it comes to maximizing safety.

The instinctual reaction to being thousands of feet up in the air, knowing that if something does go wrong, however unlikely, we’re pretty much dead can be pretty intense.
The fearful appearance of this chasm thus clouds our judgment when one would be better off crossing.

OR the said person can choose to never travel anywhere again in their life using any form of transportation…
To entirely avoid the chasm and avoid risk one would very nearly need to avoid life itself. For most people this isn’t a real choice. We have bodies that require food and shelter. We have a strong inbuilt desire to go
out and connect with other human beings.

So I ask then is the ‘free’ situation a true or more realistic representation as you seem to suggest?

fear seems to work very well to me in most more “free” situations, and your example more or less the exception that proves the rule.

Only when we dont listen to our fears we find ourselves panicking, because we entered there where were telling ourselves not to go.

anyway, thanks for the blog