By inappropriate comfort
level I meant that the pilot may have a false sense of security
because he thinks the controller is responsible for more than he
really is.

I understand what you're saying, I simply think this is one of those
situations where the national airspace system is poorly designed. It's
a bug. We have lots of people here making the point that this is a
well known, documented bug - and they are right. It's still a bug,
though, not a feature, and I think that Jay correctly identified it as
such, even if I don't agree with his solutions.

The national airspace system is full of those bugs. For example, you
might reasonably think that if you fly a published instrument approach,
with current plates and NOTAM's, equipment that meets the
specifications and passes the required operational checks, and you fly
the approach to well within PTS standards that means you shouldn't have
to worry about hitting any obstructions. You might think that - but
you would be wrong. It's a bug. This disconnect between authority and
responsibility in Class D is also a bug.

I'm
speaking specifically of VFR pilots, all of whom were taught that ATC
does not provide separation in the air for VFR aircraft in the Delta,
but many have "forgotten".

And I'm saying they have "forgotten" because it's just not a reasonable
situation to give the controller authority to tell the aircraft where
and when to fly without giving him the responsibility for separating
them. It's a situation that's guaranteed to cause problems for pilots,
so when pilots have problems with it, it's worth going beyond asking
whether they know the rules, and question whether those rules are
reasonable. The solution for a quirky system is not training in
dealing with the quirks - it's fixing the quirks.

Michael