Thank you.
Of course you are. Nowhere does it say that the road features in question are fallen trees, faulty traffic lights or sudden holes in the road.
Well, if 10% of accidents are caused by holes appearing in roads I'd say there must be some EXTREMELY dangerous roads out there.
But you're still missing the point. I am not attempting to claim that dangerous roads CAUSE accidents. If you could stop your obsessive "dangerous roads are just a cop out" train of thought for just a moment, consider this:
People who use roads can die due to their use of the road. Sure, the cause of their rest is most likely going to be a dangerous driver (or a falling rock). They still would't have died then without being on the road.
That, in my mind, makes the road dangerous.
Of course, EVERYTHING is dangerous. That's why bouncy castles have been banned by a council somewhere, conkers have been banned from schools and so on.
It's all a matter of risk management. If a road can be re-designed in such a way that less comptent drivers can, on average, negotiate it more safely than before, then why not? Why not call the original design a "dangerous road" and the later design a "safer road".
The level of risk at which the road can be described as dangerous is debatable, and irrelevant -- it's all relative to the context.
If you remove "in question" your entire post is meaningless, since you're responding to a point I never made.
Surely a road with a giant hole in it, or trees falling on it IS a dangerous road, even with your strange (to me) beliefs?
-- David Taylor
