NIP arrived. 986

I think we are essentially in agreement.

Except that because you don't want people to be able to weasel out of things you're saying the use of the road is the danger, rather than the road itself.

The road itself never causes the accidents, the drivers do. The road could be improved to reduce the number of accidents that occur, so, IMO, the road could be safer (meaning that currently, it is dangerous).

Obviously, it is inanimate, after all. However, if their use has an inherent danger, I would say that "a dangerous road" is equivalent to "a road which is dangerous to use", it's just semantics.

Also, if alterations to the road can affect the danger present in the use of the road... surely the road itself has some "danger" buttociated with it. Otherwise the only possible way to reduce the danger buttociated with using the road would be driver training.

Although training can reduce the danger, it can never eliminate it.

(Similarly, improving the road can never eliminate it either)

Reword it to insult the incapable drivers if you like. I'm trying to say the same thing. Surely it's a good thing to reduce the skill required to safely travel along a road, if possible?

Certainly, some people have entirely predictable "accidents" due to "dangerous roads", then proceed to absolve themselve of all blame because of that.

That doesn't change the facts that:

It's their fault that they crashed, and they could have avoided it had they the skill and care required.

It was an accident as they did not plan it, nor did they expect it. (Perhaps you could argue they should have expected it and therefore they were negligent, I'm not sure which word you'd use to replace "accident" though)

The road could be improved to reduce the likelyhood of an accident.

-- David Taylor