Alternatively, 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. a road) which, when taken as part of the system (not as an inanimate piece of tarmac) where users (in general) have an increased risk of injury.
The distinction is artifical because despite being separate words they are an integral part of the system. There is no point in having roads without users. There is no point in discussing the safety of a road without users. There is no way to have a "road user" without a road.
As an analogy (I bet I regret this):
Take a computer that is in control of (say) a nuclear weapon. buttume this computer lacks all security, and has a crap user interface.
Is the computer dangerous? Without user intervention, nothing bad will happen. Say the user clicks the wrong button by mistake and starts world war 3 without even being asked for confirmation.
Who's fault is WW3? You would obviously say it's the user's, they clicked the button, it's their responsibility.
OTOH, despite the fact that the inanimate(ish) computer didn't do it itself, the design of the computer would have been a major contributory factor.
The computer (as a part of the system) had a dangerously bad design.
NIP arrived. 941sounding much like they were saying : I have driven in Greece. Without having an accident. We got off the boat at Igoumenitsas, drove across the mountains via Meteora to nr Mt Olympus, then...
Equally, roads can be dangerously badly designed without actually having the capability to kill anyone directly.
It will help YOU to understand why people say, "there is such a thing as a dangerous road" if you realise that there is no benefit in treating the road and its users separately. They are a system.
-- David Taylor
