NIP arrived. 934

Following up to Mark Foster and Brimstone

Yesterday I hit the Uni of Berlin posting limit of 100 a day, so I am going to do a summarised answer after reading all new posts and including answers to any points raised other than the facile ones like "can you count?".

Accident "an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury" (new Oxford dictionary)

It doesn't matter how much you want it to be otherwise, the word accident does not preclude there being blame. An accident is an incident that was not intentional. Nothing in the word accident implies that there is no blame. End of story.

Dangerous or hazardous road danger "a person or thing that causes or is likely to cause harm or injury". (New Oxford dictionary) Inanimate objects are specifically mentioned. hazard "danger or risk" Hazard appears to mean much the same as danger, I am happy to use either or hear what the difference between the two words might be. On the BBC news this am it was reported that "the space shuttle was endangered by loose insulation tiles" an example of danger caused by an inanimate object. I see it has been acknowleged that a road with diesel fuel on it dangerous, but that the danger lies in the diesel, diesel oil is as inanimate as the road, but is acknowledged as dangerous. Therefore an unusually slippery road is dangerous, its impossible to accept that as true and at the same time deny roads can be dangerous. To say that any danger can be traced back to a human cause is facile, the adjective "dangerous" is attached to the object causing the danger.

Can poor road design be dangerous in itself. Lets take an notional example. road from A to B (as anybody been to this place B, so many people seem to be sent there?) drivers and vehicles remain the same. It is a three lane road with the centre lane shared by both direction for overtaking. It is rebuilt as a motorway standard dual carriageway. All other thing staying the same will accidents increase or decrease? Answer "Yes" or "No" please.

Many older roads did indeed evolve rather than be directly designed, I do not see how this fact alters anything except for absolving local authorites from blame in instances of dangerous layout.

Are guns tools or weapons? (A) tool "a device or implement, especially one held in the hand, used to carry out a particular function" (B) weapon "a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage"

If anybody thinks definition A is a better description of a gun than B they are in cloud cuckoo land. If anyone thinks leaving guns lying around isn't dangerous they are in a world of semantic pedantry rather than the real world. The primary purpose of a gun is to kill or maim something, references to starting pistols, target shooting, gun collecting etc do not change this. The fact that I acknowledge guns as weapons and regard them as dangerous in no way implies that I have an irrational fear of weapons, something which the US gun lobby has invented a word for, which I forget, but that doesnt actually exist in the real world. (Please regard "gun" as including ammunition and any other components needed to make it function, for the sake of brevity)

Blame or constructive investigation? Your motivator, as stated by you, in wishing to redefine these words is to put greater emphasis on drivers taking responsibility for their actions. I have no objection to drivers taking responsibility for their actions, however, blame culture, as we have seen on the railways, can get in the way of finding out what went wrong and correcting it. I have no interest in attaching blame to individuals in such cases, the important thing is to establish what went wrong and take steps that might stop the same mistakes causing disaster in the future. Human beings will always make mistakes, blaming them will not stop this, what is needed are things like safer road design that take account of human frailty. We need to improve driving *before* people have a crash, blame will not achieve that.

Are there degrees of danger and is something only dangerous if it always results in accidents? It seems this argument has been conceded.

Is a road safe without cars? Is a car safe without roads? Are cars safe without drivers? Are drivers safe without roads?

This is total bollocks.

Road safety is about the interaction of road, driver and car, road and car can be designed more or less safely, drivers can (through experience, training and atbreastude) drive more or less safely. It is possible to have accidents without a road, in the case of farm vehicles or off roaders, but its an irrelevance when considering road design.

-- Mike Reid