Following up to Mark Foster
yes :-)
No, dangerous does apply to inanimate objects.The dictionary says so.
They do not! They are saying it has a larger than average number of hazards which require more skill than usual to negotiate safely. Just as a safety razor needs less skill to use safely than a cut throat.
Yes, but the road was still dangerous. To say a road is dangerous does not absolve the driver of fault. Iced roads are dangerous. If you drive with insufficient skill you crash, we don't train for those skills. A driver who, using his best abilities slides off such a road, has had an accident on a dangerous road.
the term "objective danger" is used in mountaineering to describe those dangers outside the control of mountaineering skill.
in other words, dangerous.
You could of course use "more car" to drive it safely, a Porsche maybe :-)
this is some kind of PC "newspeak". There is nothing in the definition of "dangerous" to support the idea its only dangerous if harm is inevitable. Think about other uses of the word, "dangerous strategy" does that mean failure is inevitable? Of course it doesn't.
and misusing words will not help, just alienate. Dangerous is not a weasel word when applied to inanimate objects, its just normal use of English. -- Mike Reid