Yes.
They are claiming that the physical characteristics of the road are such, that if they were to drive down a "safe" road they would not crash, whilst if they were to drive down a "dangerous" road they would crash.
NIP arrived. 946Brimstone But the normal usage of a road is to carry traffic. An empty road isn't a normal situation in the UK unless you close it to all other traffic. Clearly...
You are claiming that if they were to drive down a road "safely" they would not crash, whilst if they were to drive down a road "dangerously" they would crash.
The entertaining part of this argument is YOU ARE BOTH RIGHT.
Except that because you (Mark) wish to blame the driver rather than letting them blame an inanimate object, you refuse to accept that a road's design can be dangerous (or perhaps "more potentially dangerous than necessary", to be excessively pedantic).
I, OTOH, don't wish to blame anyone or anything (driver or tarmac), the courts, insurance companies, and drivers' consciences can do that.
I will simply state that a road (yes, a physical bit of tarmac) can be designed in such a way that few crashes occur ('safe') or it can be designed in such a way that many crashes occur ('dangerous').
Which bit of this do you disagree with, exactly?
Presumably, the meaning of one of the words. In that case, subsbreastute which ever word you wish that means to you what the above means to me, and I'll be happy.
-- David Taylor
