Guilty till proven innocent

[Livetoride]

With a 10% increase of cyclists per year, this or something like this is a great idea. Its worked in a few countries in Europe and might just help everyone on the roads.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-n ... 6270267854

[rkelsen]

In an ideal world I'd love to see this, but will it solve anything in reality?

[Mulger bill]

Sounds like a nicely provocative headline, comments are gonna be epic

[Livetoride]

In an ideal world I'd love to see this, but will it solve anything in reality?

My thoughts are, that once this is in effect and a number of motorists have been charged/penalized for their actions and it has a direct effect on their livelihood and/or finances then yes it would sink in that they need to be more understanding, patient, aware etc of cyclists. I think most not all but most people learn something when it affects their financial state, if they know they will be fined, gain points or the other extremes, most folks will think twice..

[grasshopper]

In an ideal world I'd love to see this, but will it solve anything in reality?

Strict liability was a fundamental part of the change in attitudes in Europe, where drivers are so polite. Unlike us, they didn't just build separate infrastructure and leave it at that. They provided legislative and other support over several decades. There's a short 1:30 video about it here.

[Livetoride]

In an ideal world I'd love to see this, but will it solve anything in reality?

Strict liability was a fundamental part of the change in attitudes in Europe, where drivers are so polite. Unlike us, they didn't just build separate infrastructure and leave it at that. They provided legislative and other support over several decades. There's a short 1:30 video about it here.

Great video and it's simple but logical and fair. They've also had a massive reduction in cyclist V motorist accidents and deaths. So yes this CAN be done, it's a case of whether the gov can be bothered to get the ball rolling. Channel 7 (I know, a sensationalist 'news' outlet) had pole on whether the road rules should be changed to protect cyclists, 71% said YES...

[grasshopper]

Great video and it's simple but logical and fair. They've also had a massive reduction in cyclist V motorist accidents and deaths. So yes this CAN be done, it's a case of whether the gov can be bothered to get the ball rolling. Channel 7 (I know, a sensationalist 'news' outlet) had pole on whether the road rules should be changed to protect cyclists, 71% said YES...

Yes, for me strict liability is the big game-changer; it's cheaper and faster than infrastructure, it makes the roads safer for all users, and it works everywhere. I love how that guy on the video explains it.

[RonK]

The legal systems in those European countries mentioned hold no such general legal principle as the presumption of innocence. Before the courts in those countries innocence has to be proven regardless of the charge. This is not some special law made to protect cyclists - its just the normal application of law in those countries.

There is a widely held misconception that the presumption of innocence is universal. It's probably from watching too many tv courtroom dramas. I had a little chuckle when I read posts about Contador's drug hearing, where many posters claimed he was innocent until proven guilty. Wrong, he had to prove his innocence, and he could not do that.

However, in English and Australian law and democracy, presumption of innocence is a fundamental legal principle, although there has been argument that legislation enabling on-the-spot fines is in fact a reversal of the burden of proof.

Whatever, I don't think it likely that the fundamental legal principle can be overturned in Australia. And despite riding almost exclusively on the road myself, I wouldn't support it and neither I think would most thinking Australians support a change that strikes at the heart of law and democracy as we know it. No doubt stronger legislation and penalties are needed to protect cyclists, but this is not the right way to go about it.

[grasshopper]

However, in English and Australian law and democracy, presumption of innocence is a fundamental legal principle, although there has been argument that legislation enabling on-the-spot fines is in fact a reversal of the burden of proof.

And 'reverse onus' is precisely how a senior lawyer says it can be implemented in Australia. We already accept on-the-spot fines on the word of the issuing officer or authority. Parking fines anyone? Similarly, DUI and speeding info are accepted as proof of offence (whereas the thread title might mislead a bit).

Whatever, I don't think it likely that the fundamental legal principle can be overturned in Australia. And despite riding almost exclusively on the road myself, I wouldn't support it and neither I think would most thinking Australians support a change that strikes at the heart of law and democracy as we know it. No doubt stronger legislation and penalties are needed to protect cyclists, but this is not the right way to go about it.

I don't believe you have to overturn any legal principle. Let alone get all melodramatic about the end of life as we know it. More rules being ignored is not the answer. I find it difficult to argue against driving safely so that you do not run in to unprotected souls. We are not playing dodgems.

[exadios]

The legal systems in those European countries mentioned hold no such general legal principle as the presumption of innocence. Before the courts in those countries innocence has to be proven regardless of the charge. This is not some special law made to protect cyclists - its just the normal application of law in those countries.

There is a widely held misconception that the presumption of innocence is universal. It's probably from watching too many tv courtroom dramas. I had a little chuckle when I read posts about Contador's drug hearing, where many posters claimed he was innocent until proven guilty. Wrong, he had to prove his innocence, and he could not do that.

However, in English and Australian law and democracy, presumption of innocence is a fundamental legal principle, although there has been argument that legislation enabling on-the-spot fines is in fact a reversal of the burden of proof.

Whatever, I don't think it likely that the fundamental legal principle can be overturned in Australia. And despite riding almost exclusively on the road myself, I wouldn't support it and neither I think would most thinking Australians support a change that strikes at the heart of law and democracy as we know it. No doubt stronger legislation and penalties are needed to protect cyclists, but this is not the right way to go about it.

You are quite wrong when you say, "The legal systems in those European countries mentioned...". I quote article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union which is certainly binding on those countries mentioned:

Article 48. Presumption of innocence and right of defense

1. Everyone who has been charged shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
2. Respect for the rights of the defense of anyone who has been charged shall be guaranteed.

The presumption of innocence was introduced by the Code Justinian (if not before) and has been reaffirmed in subsequent European law. For instance Article 9 of Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, 1789.

The strict liability laws that exist in some European countries do not equate to "Guilty till proven innocent". The elements of the offense must still be proven beyond doubt by the prosecution. I can see no philosophical or legal reason why they should not be introduced in any jurisdiction of Australia

[high_tea]

AFAIK the European laws are about a presumption of civil fault. If anyone knows of criminal strict-liability laws relating to vulnerable road users, I for one would be interested to hear about them. There's a thread entitled "Vulnerable Road User" legislation, where I've tried, pretty unconvincingly TBH, to summarise what's out there.

[John Lewis]

There is already I believe precedent for reverse onus legislation in Western Australia and I think also the Northern Territory.
One of the laws in WA is in relation to proceeds of crime. There is also another which I think is to do with motor accidents .
Some time back ifI recall aright Alannah Mactiernan, an MP at the time, and a keen cyclist tried to have vulnerable user legislation introduced here in WA but it was defeated.

John

[exadios]

There is already I believe precedent for reverse onus legislation in Western Australia and I think also the Northern Territory.
One of the laws in WA is in relation to proceeds of crime. There is also another which I think is to do with motor accidents .
Some time back ifI recall aright Alannah Mactiernan, an MP at the time, and a keen cyclist tried to have vulnerable user legislation introduced here in WA but it was defeated.

John

I think the problem with those examples is that they are not part of the criminal code.

[high_tea]

Nor do they have anything to do with vulnerable road users. Anyway, it's one thing to dream up some new law (my pet law is colliding with a vulnerable road user - an offence with no fault element), quite another to look at what's already been done.

Also, may I ask people to cite the laws they are talking about. Some of us are deranged enough to mread statutes. It's ever so helpful to have the citation right there

[rkelsen]

Whatever, I don't think it likely that the fundamental legal principle can be overturned in Australia. And despite riding almost exclusively on the road myself, I wouldn't support it and neither I think would most thinking Australians support a change that strikes at the heart of law and democracy as we know it. No doubt stronger legislation and penalties are needed to protect cyclists, but this is not the right way to go about it.

I don't believe you have to overturn any legal principle. Let alone get all melodramatic about the end of life as we know it.

But it's exactly the kind of response the article was trying to provoke. The Hun is full of such quality journalism.

[David_G]

Nor do they have anything to do with vulnerable road users. Anyway, it's one thing to dream up some new law (my pet law is colliding with a vulnerable road user - an offence with no fault element), quite another to look at what's already been done.

Also, may I ask people to cite the laws they are talking about. Some of us are deranged enough to mread statutes. It's ever so helpful to have the citation right there

Colliding with anybody with a vehicle is already covered by the road law.
Getting the colliders prosecuted or just made to pay for their errors is the thing that's problematic.


A situation where the cyclist/pedestrian/smaller/vulnerable road user/ vehicle is absolved of responsibility wouldn't be progressive IMO.
It would lead to drivers of Smart cars suing drivers of Toyotas who could sue drivers of Falcons, who could sue 4WDs who could sue etc etc.
Maybe they could call it the Dr Seuss legislation?

[exadios]

Nor do they have anything to do with vulnerable road users. Anyway, it's one thing to dream up some new law (my pet law is colliding with a vulnerable road user - an offence with no fault element), quite another to look at what's already been done.

Also, may I ask people to cite the laws they are talking about. Some of us are deranged enough to mread statutes. It's ever so helpful to have the citation right there

Colliding with anybody with a vehicle is already covered by the road law.
Getting the colliders prosecuted or just made to pay for their errors is the thing that's problematic.


A situation where the cyclist/pedestrian/smaller/vulnerable road user/ vehicle is absolved of responsibility wouldn't be progressive IMO.
It would lead to drivers of Smart cars suing drivers of Toyotas who could sue drivers of Falcons, who could sue 4WDs who could sue etc etc.
Maybe they could call it the Dr Seuss legislation?

The term "Strict Liability", and the article,refer to the criminal code. You are talking about civil law. I think it is important not to confuse the two.

[high_tea]

Colliding with anybody with a vehicle is already covered by the road law.
Getting the colliders prosecuted or just made to pay for their errors is the thing that's problematic

Colliding with someone is not an offence as such. I defy you to show me an Australian law that says it is, let alone one without a fault element.

[David_G]

Nor do they have anything to do with vulnerable road users. Anyway, it's one thing to dream up some new law (my pet law is colliding with a vulnerable road user - an offence with no fault element), quite another to look at what's already been done.

Also, may I ask people to cite the laws they are talking about. Some of us are deranged enough to mread statutes. It's ever so helpful to have the citation right there

Colliding with anybody with a vehicle is already covered by the road law.
Getting the colliders prosecuted or just made to pay for their errors is the thing that's problematic.


A situation where the cyclist/pedestrian/smaller/vulnerable road user/ vehicle is absolved of responsibility wouldn't be progressive IMO.
It would lead to drivers of Smart cars suing drivers of Toyotas who could sue drivers of Falcons, who could sue 4WDs who could sue etc etc.
Maybe they could call it the Dr Seuss legislation?

The term "Strict Liability", and the article,refer to the criminal code. You are talking about civil law. I think it is important not to confuse the two.

No I'm not talking about civil law, I'm talking about the road traffic act. My memory of it is that you're not allowed to hit anyone when you're in charge of a vehicle. Nearly (maybe all) of the laws regarding when to give way, or when to proceed, or when to proceed after giving way are tagged with the phrase "when safe to do so".
So if you've crashed into some one or something it couldn't have been safe could it?
That would mean whoever hits whoever both parties are liable, maybe only marginally for one and majorly for the other, but the combined percentages of culpability add up to 100. If the minor contributor didn't put in their 1% there would be no crash.
Saying all that I don't know how a cyclist can be even 1% liable when they are crashed into by vehicles when riding along the road legally, so maybe the vehicle is then 100% liable, which would put us back to square one and that is that the law is already there to deal with drivers in those circumstances where they driven into a dangerous situation.

Colliding with anybody with a vehicle is already covered by the road law.
Getting the colliders prosecuted or just made to pay for their errors is the thing that's problematic

Colliding with someone is not an offence as such. I defy you to show me an Australian law that says it is, let alone one without a fault element.

Like I've written above, if you're driving and you hit something with your vehicle, you've broken at least one road law so it must be an offence.

[high_tea]

By which reasoning running down jaywalkers is legal. Luckily it's not, but the relevant offences have a fault element. An offence without one would be easier to prove. That's what the fuss is about.

[David_G]

By which reasoning running down jaywalkers is legal. Luckily it's not, but the relevant offences have a fault element. An offence without one would be easier to prove. That's what the fuss is about.

I don't know where you work out that running down a pedestrian is legal.

[high_tea]

It doesn't necessarily involve a breach of the Road Rules, which is what I assumed you meant by "the road law". There are other laws, sure, but they are harder to prove in court; they require the driver to be at fault, criminally so. The result of this is that it's harder to successfully prosecute collisions with vulnerable road users than some people, me included consider ideal. It's not impossible, and part of the problem is that society takes people getting hurt in traffic accidents essay too lightly, a problem which changing the law won't help.

I think, though, that the driver of a motor vehicle.is morally obligated to do their very best to avoid collisions with those who are more vulnerable, regardless of who is to blame. I think there's something to be said for making this a law. The current law doesn't reflect this obligation; a driver need only obey the Road Rules and not be at fault.

[find_bruce]

Like I've written above, if you're driving and you hit something with your vehicle, you've broken at least one road law so it must be an offence.

That's an interesting view of the law David - you must be the ideas man of your family.

Are you able to tell us what section of the road law has been breached, or is it just the vibe of the thing ?

[The 2nd Womble]

Here is clearer explanaition of Strict Liability as applied by the Dutch:

http://hembrow.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/ ... y-not.html


Some people outside of the Netherlands have a huge interest in "Strict Liability".

To many cycling campaigners, this looks like a "solution" to a problem which they experience on a daily basis. They want more respect and this appears to be a way to achieve it.

What the law does, in very rough terms, is to give drivers of motor vehicles the financial responsibility in the event of a crash with a more vulnerable road user. In itself, this is a good idea. It results in cyclists who are hurt in crashes being compensated by the driver of the heavier, faster, vehicle which brings the danger. However, the importance of this law is often wildly overstated across the English speaking world.

"Strict Liability" is known in the Netherlands as "art. 185 WVW" of the Dutch law. Simplified explanations of the law can be found here and here. There is no short snappy phrase for it in Dutch because this is no more than an obscure part of the law which most people take little interest in. People don't talk about this on a regular basis, any more than they do about other obscure parts of the law. Most people are not aware that the law here is different from elsewhere.

Strict Liability has, at best, a very small role to play in keeping cyclists in the Netherlands safe.


Does this mother think it's safe for her children to cycle here because "strict liability" offers financial compensation should a car hurt her children, or could it have something to do with the existence of that cycle-path ?
How has "Strict Liability" been mis-understood ?
Changing legal liability doesn't in itself change how the streets feel. The lack of cycling in other countries is not due merely to worries about a lack of compensation for remaining family after a family member has been crushed by a truck. Rather, people are scared to cycle due to worry about being crushed by a truck in the first place. This change of law does not in itself encourage a higher rate of cycling. That was never its purpose.

In addition, how the law works is somewhat different to what many people outside the Netherlands have been told. Drivers are not held 100% liable for all crashes with cyclists. That would be quite unreasonable as there are many reasons why drivers might not be wholly responsible.

The law draws a distinction at the age of 14 years. In a collision with a cyclist or pedestrian aged under 14, a motorist is likely to be held to be responsible. However, a cyclist or pedestrian who is older than 14 years of age is expected to know how to behave on the streets and is likely to be held at least partly responsible in the event of a crash. If they're behaving recklessly then they can instantly expect at least 50% of the blame for any collision. An adult pedestrian dressed in black and crossing a road without looking can expect to be held to be liable for damage to a motor vehicle which hits him. That is what the law makes clear.

It's also important to realise that this law is only concerned with material damage and financial responsibilty. For example, if children are hit by a car in the Netherlands, the drivers insurance can never try to claim for compensation from the family of the victim. It could also help to determine who pays for repair or replacement of an adult's bicycle which has been run over by a truck. However, this law is not concerned with allocating blame, or with imprisoning bad drivers.

When did this law come into force ?
Article 185 came onto the statute here after there was a majority cycling culture. The law as it stands now dates from the 1990s when cycling in the Netherlands already looked like this. It is not at all realistic to expect to be able to introduce such a law to protect cyclists, especially to a higher degree than they are protected in the Netherlands, in countries where cyclists are a minority.

Introducing such a law to protect children is another matter, but note that in the Netherlands this law came into force twenty years after the environment started to change to protect children.

Does it have an effect on the behaviour of Dutch drivers ?
I've read comments from enthusiasts of this law along the lines of how its introduction in their country would remove the excuse of "I didn't see him" as a "get out of jail free card" for motorists. However, this is a misunderstanding of what the law is for.

Like most countries in the world, the Netherlands has a rule by which a driver whose car collides with the rear of a car in front is normally held to be responsible for the collision. The threat of being held liable has not eliminated rear end crashes either in the Netherlands or any other country. Such crashes are rarely intentional. It is a human failing that results in crashes like this occurring. The "strict liability" law in the Netherlands is very similar. It also has not had an appreciable effect on the rate of crashes between drivers and cyclists as these also are not intentional. All it has done is to make clear where financial responsibility lies after damage has been caused.

It is very rare that a more severe punishment results in less crime. If it did, then we might expect that the USA having capital punishment for murder in most states might have eliminated murders in the USA. However, the USA has an intentional homicide rate of 4.8 per 100000 people in comparison with a rate of just 0.87 per 100000 in the Netherlands, where there is no capital punishment. There is no direct relationship between punishment and behaviour. Other factors are involved.

We need to understand that few drivers set out with the intention of crashing into a cyclist. Rather, the environment that they find themselves in makes this more likely in some places than others.

Often drivers don't "see" cyclists because cyclists are in places on the road where the driver doesn't expect them to be, where the driver is not looking, where they are difficult to see, or where they can be easily missed due to other distractions. For instance, sometimes it is necessary to look in many directions simultaneously in order to cross a junction safely. That's not just an overseas problem, but is also specifically a problem at the most dangerous junction in the Netherlands.

So what really does keep Dutch cyclists safe ?
If we can engineer roads in a way that takes human failings into account and which results in crashes, injuries and deaths being less common then this is a far more reliable way to improve safety than any amount of punishment after the event.

The really important principle in road design from the Netherlands which is worth campaigning for is Sustainable Safety. This emerged in the 1990s at almost exactly the same time as "Strict Liability" but has received nowhere near as much attention outside of the Netherlands. These days it is the principle of design by which Dutch roads and streets are made to be easy to use, self-explanatory and safe by default, preventing crashes from occurring.

Sustainable safety isn't only for cyclists, but also for other road users including drivers. It's a good part of the reason why Dutch roads are very safe for all road users. Not only is the experience of cycling in the Netherlands different from elsewhere. For a driver, Dutch roads are different to roads in Germany, Belgium, France or the UK. They're a pleasure to drive on. Very easy to use, and as a result, very safe.

For example, at traffic lights here, whether for cyclists, pedestrians or for drivers, if you have a green light then you can go. You don't get cars coming in the opposite direction also with a green light, or turning across you.

This is a different concept of road safety to that in use elsewhere in the world

Sustainable Safety and Campaigning
While it's virtually impossible to get support for "Strict Liability" in most countries because it is seen as a measure to promote the rights of a minority above those of a majority, Sustainable Safety is good for everyone. It not only increases safety for cyclists, but also for every other road user. Because of this, campaigning for sustainable safety to become a principle of road design in other countries has a good chance of mass support.

Not only is Sustainable Safety far more achievable than "Strict Liability", but with its proven record of improving the safety of the Dutch it's also much more likely to have a positive effect on the safety of cyclists, pedestrians and drivers in other countries than is a misinterpretation of a minor Dutch law.

David Hembrow.

One of the fundamental reasons why Sustainable Safety improves the safety of every road user is that it keeps interactions between different road users, and particularly different types of road users, to the absolute minimum. Without interactions you have fewer chances for mistakes to be made and fewer chances of collision. You can see this in Mark's film below, which is followed by his description of sustainable safety:



Sustainable Safety
Sometimes campaigners and traffic engineers in other countries have trouble understanding Dutch traffic reports. These reports are not always very clear whether they are about separated cycling infrastructure or not. An example: some months ago there were misunderstandings about Fietsbalans (“Cycling balance”) reports that do indeed not clearly state where separated cycle paths were meant. This even led to the mistaken understanding with some ‘anti-infrastructuralists’ that cycle paths were “irrelevant”. But to the Dutch their system is so obvious that it isn’t necessary to specifically mention those separated cycle paths. So what are the principles of the Dutch underlying system?

Sustainable Safety is the name of the Dutch approach to achieve a better road safety (“Duurzaam veilig” in Dutch). The main objectives of this vision are preventing severe crashes and (almost) eliminating severe injuries when crashes do occur. It was introduced and quickly adopted by all road managers in 1992 and has since been very successful. In 2005 it was revised and extended. The approach began with establishing that the road system was inherently unsafe. The goal was to fundamentally change the system by taking a person as a yardstick. The physical vulnerability of a person, but also what a person can and wants to do (humans make mistakes and don’t always follow rules) were to be guidelines for design. There is now an integral approach to the road system which refers to ‘human’ (behaviour), ‘vehicle’ (including bicycles!) and ‘road’ (design). Roads and vehicles must be adapted to the human capabilities and the human has to be educated enough to be able to operate a vehicle on a road in a safe manner. The approach is pro-active, it wants to remedy gaps and mistakes in the traffic system before crashes occur. So Sustainable Safety is about a lot more than just infrastructure.

Sustainable Safety is based on five principles:
Functionality (of roads)
Homogeneity (of mass, speed and direction of road users)
Predictability (of road course and road user behaviour by a recognisable road design)
Forgivingness (of both the road and street environment and the road users)
State awareness (by the road user)
The principles are based on scientific research and theories from traffic engineering, biomechanics, and psychology. Since the 2005 revision the principles are also based on infrastructure, vehicles, intelligent transport systems, education and enforcement of laws and regulations.

1. Functionality of roads
To the Dutch the most ideal situation is when roads and streets have only one single purpose. To achieve this mono-functionality a hierarchy of roads was introduced.
Through Roads for high volumes of fast traffic on longer distances.
Local Access Roads from which end destinations can be reached.
Distributer Roads which connect through roads and local access roads.
All Dutch streets and roads have been classified (under a legal obligation) and are or will be re-designed to the Sustainable Safety principles by the road managers. This led to areas where people stay (residential areas and areas for shopping/sporting/theatre etc.) and designated space used for the flow of traffic in order to transport people from A to B. Under the Dutch vision these functions cannot be mixed.

2. Homogeneity of mass, speed and direction of road users
Large differences in speed and mass of different road users in the same space must be eliminated as much as possible. Road users can best be forced to travel at lower speeds by road design. This works better than with signs. If crashes occur at lower speed differences they cause a lot less damage to the most vulnerable road user. Where speed differences cannot be eliminated types of traffic must be separated. On roads with higher speeds road users travelling in opposite directions should be separated by a division as well, to further eliminate conflicts. Cycle paths and pedestrians are always separated from these through roads, following the principle of homogeneity of mass as well as speed. Because of this principle the Dutch will never implement a combined bus/cycle lane as is common in some other countries. Instead there are bus lanes separated from other motorised traffic because the mass of cars and buses do not match either. Eliminating crossing movements is possible with roundabouts because on roundabouts traffic flows in less conflicting directions than on an ordinary traffic junction.

3. Predictability (of road course and road user behaviour by a recognisable road design)
Road design should be so consistent that road users instantly understand what they can expect and what is expected of them on a certain type of street or road. The road design itself gives information about the type of road/street. If the street is paved with bricks, there are parked cars and the street is shared with cyclists and gives access to homes, the road user will instantly know and feel this is a 30km/h (19mph) local access street. However, if the road has two carriageways separated by a median, there is no parking and cyclists have their own cycle paths, it is clear to the road user that this is a through road.

4.Forgivingness (of both the road and street environment and the road users)
Humans make errors and willingly or unwillingly break rules. This is a given that cannot be changed. So roads and streets should be designed in such a way that this natural human behaviour does not lead to crashes and injuries. An example is a shoulder with a semi-hard pavement. A road user coming off the main road will not crash immediately, the semi-hard shoulder will give this road user the ability to get back to the main carriageway. Forgivingness towards other road users is enhanced when road design leads to a predictable behaviour of road users. A result of this principle is that motorised traffic sometimes gives priority to cyclists even if they don’t have it. Because it is so clear where the cyclists want or need to go the motorist anticipates their behaviour and gives the cyclist more room than he or she is legally obliged to, often to the surprise of especially foreign cyclists.

5.State awareness (by the road user)
This principle is about the ability of road users to assess their own capabilities to perform tasks in traffic. This has to do with understanding vehicle operation and knowing how speed changes the behaviour of the vehicle to understand what speed is safe in a certain situation. But it also has to do with the assessment of speeds of other traffic users to estimate crossing times for instance. These abilities can be improved by education but there are limits, for instance when road users are children or elderly.

Results of Sustainable Safety
Many countries have seen a considerable drop in traffic injuries and deaths since roughly the 1970s. Reasons were the introduction of seatbelts, drunk-driving laws, helmet laws for motorcyclists and mopeds, car cages and airbags. But in the Netherlands

[The 2nd Womble]

Appologies for the sheer length of the Post but it's worth the read