R S Z Auerbach uses similar reasoning to be matir walking behind a woman in the street since it is common for women to be in the street these days
nothing similar about it a) he doent say "times have changed and the halacha doesnt apply" he says the mechaber says pagah and when its not a situation of pagah it would maybe be muttar. that would be then as well as now if there was a situation then that it would have been common it would be muttar he is clearly saying that the mechaber says that the halacha was based on a situation and if that changes then the halacha would change
b)he clearly doesnt rely on this for a heter he adds another heter and then says for a mitzva its muttar
c)the isur is olso by ones wife like rashi explains its a genai, when chazall give a reason its easier to say the reason doesnt apply so maybe the hallacha doesnt apply
but when chazal tell us one who choose a path where he can be
nichshal is a rasha that never changes like rashi explains the gemara ו שלא היה לו לקרב אלא להרחיק מן העבירה דקיימא לן
(חולין לף מל הרחק מן הכיעור
Yet you were quite willing to call people reshaim
אדם קורא לחבירו רשע יורד עמו לתוך חייו
i think i made myself pretty clear that i was in response to the idea of going to agt that would constitute the case of the gemara calling him a rasha. you were asking somthing entirely different, can he be considered a
ones if he is going that way due to a shortcut. meaning you are saying there can be three different cases either he needs to be at point b or he needs to go this way to get to point b, but the third scenario that he want to walk this way just cuz he njoys walkining on the sefas of the nehar i am certain is asur he would not be called a
ones and say
ones rachmana .. going to agt is comparred to the third scenario