Following 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 who misuse language for whatever purpose. I don't see people thinking "accident" does not include fault. "whose fault was the accident?" is a common enough question, I never heard anybody respond "what do you mean, it was an accident".
I would never say its "just an accident", neither do the police, neither do insurance companies, nobody I know used the sort of comments you allege they do. Look at the new corporate mandissolution charge for negligence in accidents. Accidents are serious.
OK, then I can call them "dangerous"
so the road becomes less dangerous. Sorry, less potentially dangerous. What difference does it make saying "dangerous" to "required a greater degree of care to negotiate safely". Say that mouthful to someone and they will say "oh, you mean its dangerous, why didn't you say so?"
NIP arrived. 939were saying : But why does that make *the road* dangerous? Surely if *the road* was dangerous...
OK, I'll give you that one :-)
Yes, I think so, we have been round everything several times, I'm getting dizzy. I don't think anything remains unsaid, good argument, you're wrong of course! :-) Time to do the things I should have been doing instead of wasting time on usenet! And be carefull with that chainsaw and machine gun, they are dangerous things! -- Mike Reid
