Following up to Mark Foster
only in your opinion, the authorities quoted earlier by others think otherwise, I seem to remember you said "you didn't care"?
You go 99% of the way to saying the same, but refuse to use the word dangerous.
NIP arrived. 938Following up to Mark Foster whoops, didn't realise there was more below the historic "potential hazard" agreement! Eh? The dangerous roads would be (say) the 10% with the most accidents. My objection is to those...
when its accident rate is higher than other roads will do fine for me, as other posters have pointed out.
they are relatively safe, I don't suggest otherwise. I am quiet relaxed about our rather low accident rate, its you who are not. I also do not suggest that its the roads that are the major cause of accidents, so telling me about the "arseholes" who drive on them badly is beside the point, although I don't think all the people who have accidents are "arseholes", many are average people with average driving skills who make an error of judgment, its human frailty I'm afraid. Anyway, if you are happy to describe the roads as "safe" you cannot argue with someone calling some of them "dangerous" in the way you have, they are the two faces of the same coin, if they are inanimate and therefore cant be dangerous, they cant be safe either.
a road from A to B drivers and vehicles remain the same. It is a three lane road with the centre lane shared by both directions 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.
NIP arrived. 939were saying : But why does that make *the road* dangerous? Surely if *the road* was dangerous, crashes would happen on a grimy winter's monday morning, too...
The fact you hold the opinion and type it in capitals does not make it true, buttertation is pointless here.
indeed. -- Mike Reid
