It struck me that the phrase "better safe than sorry" is somewhat illogical, or perhaps more accurately, it is so logical and obvious that it seems to carry no meaning at all.
My problem with this phrase is that is compares two things (being safe, and being sorry), one of which is obviously good, while the other is obviously bad. Clearly, being safe is better than the "base state", which in turn is better than being sorry. This is in contrast with another common phrase "prevention is better than cure", in which both prevention and cure presumably carry some cost, and the costs are compared in a very logical manner.
Could someone please explain why "better safe than sorry" makes sense? (assuming that it does)