were 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?
But The Road Has Not Changed.
The Road Cannot Be Intrinsically More Dangerous, Because The Road Has Not Changed.
The Use Of The Road Has Changed, Which May Affect The Number Of Accidents Upon The Road, But That Is Not The Road Itself Becoming More Dangerous.
The Only Thing That Has Changed Is the Pattern Of USE Of The Road. Which Is The Sole Responsibility Of The Users.
Why is this so difficult?
An analogy.
Look at this chainsaw sat here.
I bought it from a tree surgeon, who's been using it for five years without a single mishap.
NIP arrived. 940Alternatively, look at it as a single system. It consists of tarmac with markings, junctions, signs, pedestrians, cars, bikes, lorries, police cars, pavements, etc. A "dangerous road" is a section of that system (i.e...
If I fire it up and get some mates around to do a bit of gardening, resulting in one of us chopping a leg off, what made the chainsaw become more dangerous?
Nothing.
The chainsaw remained just as "safe"-"dangerous" as before. It was the user that presented the danger.
My chainsaw is, of course, purely hypothetical because I know damn well that a chainsaw in my hands would be dangerous. Yet the same chainsaw in somebody else's hands is perfectly safe. The chainsaw is not dangerous. I am.
