There's actually a lot of people who want actual, experimental data to back a language's claims about safety. A subset of them use C and C++. I occasionally argue with them about safety benefits of other languages. They demand more proof than the design, esp field data. I do keep stuff like this as experimental evidence that will add up for such empiricists over time. Although, I prefer controlled experiments where you teach amateurs C, modern C++, and Rust over a specific time followed by testing (esp fuzzing) of their code to test the safety claims. Run it in a dozen different places to see if results are consistent.
There's also folks that just study these things to identify patterns in problems created, prevented, or detected (at what effectiveness) in various languages and techniques in software development. Along similar vein, each bug report also provides (in theory) a test case for automated tools that detect bugs. It's very important to have a huge, diverse pile of code to test those tools with. That's because each one's algorithms might have blind spots missing bugs. The more code and bugs we have, the better we can assess those algorithms' accuracy. And then build better algorithms. :)
There's also folks that just study these things to identify patterns in problems created, prevented, or detected (at what effectiveness) in various languages and techniques in software development. Along similar vein, each bug report also provides (in theory) a test case for automated tools that detect bugs. It's very important to have a huge, diverse pile of code to test those tools with. That's because each one's algorithms might have blind spots missing bugs. The more code and bugs we have, the better we can assess those algorithms' accuracy. And then build better algorithms. :)