NIP arrived. 959Mark Foster I think there has to be a component of layout geometry involved that makes some...
Christian McArdle
NIP arrived. uU|G*dfHK8Zr48 958I gave you an example. You choose to ignore it. Who says it doesn't reach them? If the news report had said that the driver had royally screwed up through poor observation and the result...
You're still having difficulty in understanding what some of us are on about aren't you? I'll try to help.
With current language usage it is common for people to say that the cause of a collision is-was a "dangerous road" when in reality the road is inanimate, it simply sits there with all it's markings and other paraphanalia.
The argument that I and others are proposing is that instead of a supposed "dangerous road" being blamed that the emphasis is changed to encouraaging people to accept their own fallability and the likelihood that they will foul up and that they should observe the road ahead more and take greater care when negotiating the variable hazards thereon.
As Mark has posted elsewhere in this thread, there was a news report of a collision on a road that had been improved. A car driver pulled out of a side turning into the path of an oncoming lorry and was hit. The reporter apparently said that the road continued to be dangerous with no mention of the behaviour of the driver whose ill-timed manouvre was the direct cause.
The road played no part in the incident (other than by being there and being used for its intended purpose), the behaviour of the driver pulling out of the side turning did, how is it the road that is "dangerous"?