That's your buttertion, not mine.
That's your buttertion, not mine. I think your (and others) view of the meaning of the word "dangerous" is overly restricted. If it only ever applied in the case of human error, there'd be no real need for the word.
IMO, a "dangerous" object is one that requires care to use safely. Using it unsafely is a dangerous action. A dangerous object cannot do anything harmful itself, but when used dangerously harm can easily occur.
This is still just a semantic argument about the meaning of the words. Either side could be right without affecting road safety. The point is that people who crash do not want to blame themselves. Educating them that (almost) no matter what, it's their fault, does not require the word "dangerous", never mind removing the phrase "dangerous road" from the language. The fact that it's not a valid excuse does not make it invalid -- it still means what it means.
Much like "I'm late for work" is no excuse for speeding. However police officers have not yet campaigned to remove "late" from the English language, because it IS true, just irrelevant.
The danger comes from the unknown. If everyone knew the outcome of every action, ever, there would be no danger. An action would either result in harm, or not. This would be known and there would be no danger.
NIP arrived. 950The psychology of it isn't that it feels more dangerous or risky. It's that nobody knows who belongs where and so there...
The road may be empty, but that is unknown. Given that, the road is dangerous. Since the road may be empty, the dangerous place is the road (since there is nothing else to be dangerous).
Danger is a risk of harm occurring, not the guarantee of harm occurring.
NIP arrived. 948So why are you still arguing the same pooe that the road can be dangerous. Good. It doesn't though does it. It simply allows...
-- David Taylor