We introduce SteeringSafety, a systematic framework for evaluating representation steering methods across seven safety perspectives spanning 17 datasets. While prior work highlights general capabilities of representation steering, we systematically explore safety perspectives including bias, harmfulness, hallucination, social behaviors, reasoning, epistemic integrity, and normative judgment. Our framework provides modularized building blocks for state-of-the-art steering methods, enabling unified implementation of DIM, ACE, CAA, PCA, and LAT with recent enhancements like conditional steering. Results on Gemma-2-2B, Llama-3.1-8B, and Qwen-2.5-7B reveal that strong steering performance depends critically on pairing of method, model, and specific perspective. DIM shows consistent effectiveness, but all methods exhibit substantial entanglement: social behaviors show highest vulnerability (reaching degradation as high as 76%), jailbreaking often compromises normative judgment, and hallucination steering unpredictably shifts political views. Our findings underscore the critical need for holistic safety evaluations.