Following up to Adrian
this the crux of things.
NIP arrived. uU|G*dfHK8Zr48 980Technically yes. Yes. You noticed the changed conditions, adapted your driving appropriately and deliberately induced a skid which you controlled to your advantage. Job done. They, on the other hand, failed to notice...
We are arguing about what words means in an environment where some people continually go back to statements about its the driver is to blame. They do this in a thread where nobody is saying other than drivers are to blame. In their enthusiasm to establish blame they want to change "danger" to be not the hazards a driver encounters but the mistakes a driver makes, they want to redefine "accident" as other than an unintentional incident. I think the statement by Adrian:-
rather sums up the problem. Nobody is blaming the road, yet person after person butterts the obvious "the roads not to blame" as if that makes one iota of difference to what "danger" or "accident" means.
NIP arrived. 979I believe that it will. I honestly believe that if you change the way roads and crashes are described and reported it can and will ultimately lead to...
One last time "danger" has nothing to do with blame.
Anyway, as always, a long argument has clarified views, when we started I was not totally convinced that the danger lay in the inanimate objects unless reckless driving was present, I am now much clearer. Driving is a process of encountering hazards-dangers and by good driving avoiding accidents, those who wish to believe special meaning for these words are welcome to write a special dictionary and use it. I will stay in the real world. Bye for now. -- Mike Reid
