Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
not constitute a dangerous condition. The undisputed evidence establishes that, on the date of the accident, southbound drivers at the limit line of the railroad crossing had an unobstructed view of the tracks to the northwest despite the configuration of the intersection. Thus, there was no substantial risk of injury to drivers using due care while crossing the railroad tracks. See Cal. Gov’t Code § 830(a) (“ ‘Dangerous condition’ means a condition of property that creates a substantial ... risk of injury when such property or adjacent property is used with due care in a manner in which it is reasonably foreseeable that it will be used.”); id. § 830.2 (defining non-dangerous condition); see also, e.g., Chowdhury v. City of L.A., 38 Cal.App.4th 1187, 45 Cal. Rptr.2d 657, 661-63 (1995) . Appellants’ expert declarations do not raise
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that condition included an intended if dangerous cycling of a traffic light
B. holding that police officers are entitled to conduct an investigatory stop of a motorist if they have reasonable suspicion that the motorist has committed a traffic violation
C. holding that an intersection with inoperative traffic signals due to a power outage was not a dangerous condition as a matter of law because the city could not be charged with foreseeing that a motorist using due care would speed through the intersection without heed to inoperative traffic signals
D. holding that the public entity was not required to modify or improve intersection based on changing use
E. holding that an improper traffic control device may create a dangerous condition for which the governments immunity from liability is waived
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.