Elephant's feet promotes an efficient mode to get across a road but could increase risk to cyclists that are not risk adverse.
Elephant's feet on a protected bike lane have bike signals, so that cyclists cross only when cars have the red light on the cross road (think Pandora). So it's only unsafe if the cyclist ignores the signal (which is stupid) or a car either blows the red light or turns right on the red (which is why they're banned). Admittedly the last one is an issue, with vehicles not being used to the no-right-on-red condition, but with the signage and red light, it's much less likely they will be turning right than at an intersection with just painted bike lanes, and if they do turn right, it's usually slow after stopping.
Elephant's feet on unprotected bike lanes simply guide cyclists through the intersection. It's not encouraging them to go, since they already are going alongside traffic in the painted bike lanes and have a green light at the intersection. They do provide a bit of extra emphasis for drivers that there is a bike lane there, which can reduce the risk of a right hook. But the cyclist behaviour isn't changed in this case by the elephant's feet markings.
Elephant's feet at a trail crossing (i.e. Galloping Goose) will usually have a stop or yield control on the trail, so the onus is on the cyclist there. Sometimes the stop control is on the road, but this should only be on low volume roads.
I'm sorry, i just can't think of any way in which the elephant's feet, when designed and installed properly, would increase risk to a cyclist. Unless you're talking about that they encourage cycling at all, in which case i guess yeah, it's safer to sit at home then use an elepant's feet crosswalk.