Special Report: Walkable Streets

Province Suggests Reducing Speed Limit, Victim-Blaming Ensues

We don't accept "blaming the injured" as a sufficient response for workplace injuries. Why is it okay on our streets?

By Nicholas Kevlahan
Published February 05, 2015

I was surprised to read this column on Tuesday by the Toronto Star's Martin Regg Cohn on the Ontario Government's proposal to reduce the provincial unsigned speed limit to 40 km/h.

Yes, slowing down saves lives, in theory. But you can have too much of a good thing - after which you get diminishing returns in the real world.

The truth is that we risk death every time we step out onto the road - especially while staring stupidly into a smart phone, or letting our children cross the street without first teaching them to stop talking and start looking (both ways, and then a third or fourth time just to be sure).

This is pretty shocking, especially as he seems to assume there is something magical about 50 km/h in terms of efficiency and that the cost in lives is worth whatever convenience this speed confers.

Why is it that in every other sphere of life, Canadians are super risk-averse - no tobogganing, wear a helmet when cycling, don't let children out by themselves - but by far the biggest source of preventable death and injury is treated as obviously worth it.

And, predictably, the discussion about pedestrian safety quickly focuses on the least dangerous part of the interaction, those damn inattentive pedestrians. Cohn writes:

This isn't about blame the victim. It's about accident prevention.

But immediately follows it with straightforward victim-blaming:

The more we perpetuate the fiction that speed is the sole culprit, the less personal responsibility pedestrians will take for staying safe.

As expected, virtually every reader comment blames the victims and moans about the risks of un-timed lights or lower speed limits for pollution and safety.

Now the Hamilton Spectator seems to be following its sister publication in deciding that the most important cause of pedestrian and cyclist deaths and injuries isn't drivers or road design, but rather inattentive pedestrians and cyclists.

[T]here's another factor in the safety equation — pedestrians and cyclists. By the nature of their mode of transport, both are bound to be on the losing end of a collision with several tonnes of glass, plastic and metal travelling at even moderate speeds. Knowing that, you would think the average pedestrian and cyclist would always be on the defensive, always aware and scanning the environment for threats. But drive in Hamilton or Burlington's downtown, and see how many people don't take that common sense advice. They wander across intersections, heads down, ear buds implanted, unaware of their surroundings. Or they ride their bikes oblivious to rules of the road, putting themselves and others at risk.

At least they allow that there might be some merit in lowering the default speed limit in urban areas, citing the Ontario Coroner's Report on Pedestrians and the World Health Organization's World Report on Traffic Injury Prevention.

However, they also insist that the solution involves telling pedestrians to be more careful, an opinion that seems to be based entirely on the impressions of drivers annoyed by pedestrians and cyclists. There is no attempt to check whether these impressions are actually correct.

Likewise, there is no attempt to check how other places have managed to lower pedestrian injury rates. There is no reference to the fact that Hamilton is one of the most dangerous places in Ontario to be a pedestrian or a cyclist. Surely pedestrians in Hamilton are not uniquely inattentive compared to pedestrians in other Ontario cities.

Street design has been found to be a very important factor in safety. As the Ontario Coroner's Report [PDF] noted:

Pedestrians struck by a vehicle travelling in zones where the posted speed was less than 50 kilometres per hour accounted for 5 percent of the total of pedestrian deaths. The evidence from this study demonstrated that when struck in zones where posted limits were 50 kilometres per hour or greater, death became a far more common outcome, with 67 percent of the deaths occurring on roads where posted vehicle speeds were beyond 50 km/hr. (For the remaining 28 percent of the deaths, the speed limit was unknown or was not relevant to the circumstances of the collision.)

The basic fact is that train-and-blame - telling people to be more careful - doesn't work. The system iteself must be modified to minimize the risk that dangerous motor vehicles pose to vulnerable road uers.

Why does every attempt to reduce the appalling number of pedestrian and cyclist injuries and death always end up with a chorus of victim-blaming and the conclusion that nothing really can make a difference unless the victims start behaving better?

According to the 2012 City of Toronto study Road to Health: Improving Walking and Cycling in Toronto [PDF]:

[H]igh injury and fatality rates are closely tied to walking and cycling conditions in North America. For example, cyclists in North America are twice as likely to be killed and eight times more likely to be seriously injured than cyclists in Germany, North American cyclists are three times as likely to be killed and 30 times as likely to suffer serious injuries than cyclists in the Netherlands.

Are German and Dutch cyclists just more attentive than North American cyclists? Perhaps not:

A review of 19 traffic-calming initiatives in four European countries found that injuries caused by collisions for all road users fell by 41-83 percent, while fatalities dropped by 14-85 percent (Preston 1995). After 30 km/h zones were introduced in London, these zones experienced a 42 percent reduction in fatalities (Grundy et al. 2009). In 1988 the Town of Baden, Austria restricted speeds to 30 km/hr to about 75 percent of its road network. This and other measures reduced the rate of casualties by 60 percent (WHO 2004).

Despite Cohn's protestations to the contrary, lowering the speed limit - and changing street designs to be uncomfortable to drive at dangerous speeds - actually reduces both the number and severity of injuries.

In contrast, I'm not aware of any evidence that exhorting pedestrians and cyclists to "pay attention" has made any significant difference. Let's actually look at the design and attitudes of places that have low rates of injury, and policies that have achieved results, like Sweden's Vision Zero initiative.

We don't accept "blaming the injured" as a sufficient response for workplace injuries. Why is it okay on our streets?

Nicholas Kevlahan was born and raised in Vancouver, and then spent eight years in England and France before returning to Canada in 1998. He has been a Hamiltonian since then, and is a strong believer in the potential of this city. Although he spends most of his time as a mathematician, he is also a passionate amateur urbanist and a fan of good design. You can often spot him strolling the streets of the downtown, shopping at the Market. Nicholas is the spokesperson for Hamilton Light Rail.

39 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By fmurray (registered) | Posted February 04, 2015 at 22:46:22

Great article, Nicholas.

I was surprised when I read the editorial today in The Spec too, and the implication that accidents between cars and pedestrians are always the pedestrian's fault -- ditto for cyclists, those damn reckless idiots!

Thanks for calling them out.

Permalink | Context

By IanReynolds (registered) | Posted February 05, 2015 at 03:57:52 in reply to Comment 108732

This was my first thought as well. You could basically replace "pedestrian" with "cyclist" and get the exact same crap that's been spewed by everyone lately. When someone drives drunk it's a "bad apple" but when a pedestrian or cyclist gets hit it's "pedestrians and cyclists."

I've been hit by a car three times in my life, on foot, and two of them would have been significantly worse if I hadn't been aware of my surroundings, as I've learned to be. Though according to this article, my being aware of drivers should have prevented me from being hit so I guess it's my fault.

Two of the three times I've been hit were in crosswalks, while I had the walk signal. The third was a parking lot from someone not paying attention. I guess these are all my fault too.

Permalink | Context

By RobF (registered) | Posted February 05, 2015 at 10:14:25 in reply to Comment 108742

This was my first thought as well. You could basically replace "pedestrian" with "cyclist" and get the exact same crap that's been spewed by everyone lately.

Not to be nit-picky, because i get the gist of what you are saying, but not "everyone" is spewing this crap ... quite a few of us are calling it out and pointing out the illogic of blaming pedestrians and cyclists for unsafe designs and speed limits that are hostile to everyone but drivers. It actually weakens our position when we over-emphasize the representativeness of comments found on the Spec.

I'm always reminded of a meeting held in the North End after 30 km/h was implemented ... a fair number of people who spoke vented against the change and the traffic calming devices being installed (bumpouts and chokers). One old-timer stood up and said: "sure kids get hit by cars in the North End, but that happens everywhere." His friend got up and said: "turn that "3" to an "8", and i'd be happy." Only a few people spoke in defense of the changes, but at the end when there was a show of hands to determine roughly how people felt about the traffic plan it turned out the room was divided. At least as many people favored 30 km/h and the traffic calming changes as where opposed. I think of that every time i read the Spec and see the "it's a war on the car" comments in relation to bus-lanes, the Cannon cycle-track, or urbanism in general.

Permalink | Context

By IanReynolds (registered) | Posted February 05, 2015 at 14:30:26 in reply to Comment 108753

By everyone I meant the "They're committing war on cars" crowd. Sorry about that.

Permalink | Context

By RobF (registered) | Posted February 05, 2015 at 17:50:49 in reply to Comment 108765

No apology needed. It was just an observation/comment. I think the shrillness of the "war on the car" argument is actually a sign that we (the complete streets, cities are for people side) have traction and are slowly winning. The tipping point hasn't been reached, and many of "us" are still too reliant on our cars. But the shift is happening, if haltingly here in Hamilton.

Permalink | Context

By IanReynolds (registered) | Posted February 06, 2015 at 15:09:09 in reply to Comment 108771

I'm definitely too reliant on my car. I used to love cycling but don't do it anymore because I don't feel safe here.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted February 04, 2015 at 22:49:43

It's funny - the Canadian online world seems to have a knee-jerk rage against the idea of lower inner-city speed limits, coming up with lots of elaborate justifications for why it's a bad idea, in spite of the well-established science.

Conversely, let's look at the righteous fury against the "anti-science" anti-vaxxers. It's just funny that the same people laughing and looking down their noses at how the anti-vax movement can't understand how vaccines save lives... you suggest to them that slowing down cars could also save lives and suddenly they switch to doublethink "omg we just need to better-educate pedestrians!"

Permalink | Context

By IanReynolds (registered) | Posted February 05, 2015 at 03:59:48 in reply to Comment 108733

They're like some sort of gay-marriage NIMBY combo. Like when they hate gays and it's wrong until their child is gay then they have seen the light. It'll take each one of them getting hit by a car to see the truth.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By AnjoMan (registered) | Posted February 04, 2015 at 23:34:19

His argument about risk is so bogus --- he is essentially saying that he is willing to risk the lives of others for the benefit of his own top speed of driving. If his argument made any sense he would be justified in also calling for an increase in the speed limit.

Coincidentally I was listening to this Strong Roads podcast and the point was made that when it comes to risks posed to people who drive, we go to extreme lengths to make sure they are safe, going so far as to design roads so that even if people drive 40 over they will not put themselves at risk, and if they do happen to drive drunk they will most likely not die as a result, since we remove trees and barriers. Conversely, when there is risk posed to those who walk we respond by building obstacles and trying to enforce that they do what is opposite to common sense --- e.g. expecting them to walk 500 feet just to cross the road.. Wethen blame them when they are hurt or killed while doing what makes sense --- taking the shortest path from A to B.

Comment edited by AnjoMan on 2015-02-04 23:38:18

Permalink | Context

By RTHS (registered) - website | Posted February 05, 2015 at 12:37:25 in reply to Comment 108735

"expecting them to walk 500 feet just to cross the road.. Wethen blame them when they are hurt or killed while doing what makes sense --- taking the shortest path from A to B."

Wouldn't obeying the rules and acting safely within the framework of provided infrastructure in order to preserve your well-being present as a better example of "what makes sense?"

Permalink | Context

By AnjoMan (registered) | Posted February 05, 2015 at 16:22:11 in reply to Comment 108761

Wouldn't obeying the rules and acting safely within the framework of provided infrastructure in order to preserve your well-being present as a better example of "what makes sense?"

No. How is my well-being served by having to walk 10 minutes to travel 40 feet? It makes me angry and resentful that I have to waste all that time doing something that makes no sense for me so that someone in a car can travel the same distance in 5 seconds. Is it good for me to be angry and resentful about an obviously stupid and unaffordable design which is actually costing me other good things that I might enjoy if our city could afford them? I don't think so. Does it make sense for me to wait on a broken sensor at a traffic light until a car comes along and triggers it, when I can see that its safe for me to cross despite what the red light says? I don't think it does.

The 'rules' and 'provided infrastructure are broken, and pedestrians don't necessarily gain anything out of following them. The infrastructure is designed to frustrate those who don't use cars in order to provide a disproportionate benefit to people who are operating cars. The rules are not actually designed to keep me safe, but to keep people driving cars safe, and to keep cars moving as quickly and efficiently as possible.

And to top it all off, even if I do follow the rules I could still pay the price for someone else's failure to observe the rules of the road, while they see very little consequence. If I die on the road, the papers will call it an 'accident', even if it was caused by someone else breaking the rules. People will pity me, but they will question only whether I was partially to blame, and not whether system of roads made my death inevitable.

Permalink | Context

By mikeonthemountain (registered) | Posted February 05, 2015 at 17:13:19 in reply to Comment 108768

Space crossing far enough apart, and mid-block crossings will be inevitable and necessary. Those are exactly the kinds of crossings that are highest risk for the least mobile.

Space crossings even farther apart, and everyone, fit or not, will run across the street wherever.

Vote down a higher density coverage of courtesy crossings, witness the result, more people running across the street according to their own discernment.

We keep fighting solutions, keep wondering why human nature does not change, keep ... having the same conversation until the heat death of the universe. Predictable!

Comment edited by mikeonthemountain on 2015-02-05 17:15:32

Permalink | Context

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted February 05, 2015 at 13:54:30 in reply to Comment 108761

The "framework of provided infrastructure" is obviously not working.

Permalink | Context

By Anon (anonymous) | Posted February 05, 2015 at 15:16:40 in reply to Comment 108762

And if anyone is to be inconvienced let it be the pedestrians......afterall they don't pay taxes and/or can't afford cars or enter fictitous statement here......

Some 40 watt bulb commented in the Spec yesterday re: the Cannon St. bike lanes taking 50 minutes a year from him being with his family or some such nonsense. Why is it that the only people whose time has any value or whose lives deserve any cosideration of convenience at all are car drivers?

This city is sad. Flat out sad.

Permalink | Context

By mikeonthemountain (registered) | Posted February 05, 2015 at 15:38:11 in reply to Comment 108766

Cannon St. bike lanes taking 50 minutes a year from him being with his family or some such nonsense

You're going to get comments like that in any city in any newspaper. Remember, there is a non-trivial number of literal textbook psychopaths among us, who view their own lives as some epic movie and view other people as objects of either utility or inconvenience. Some people, and you've heard them, wish for a plague to decongest their commute. Provided, of course, they and their loved ones survive, it's everyone else they want gone from the earth.

The key differences lie in whether or not policy is set according to such comments.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By AnjoMan (registered) | Posted February 05, 2015 at 09:09:43

I wonder if the author would tell a grieving family that their loved one died under someone's car because 'they were probably using earbuds or something. What's sad is that he implicitly implies that the deaf and hard of hearing shouldn't be using our roads. My grandmother wears an 'earbud' (hearing aid) but she shouldn't walk on the street?

WWe need ti design our streets to be forgiving, so that when people make mistakes --- whether it's someone in a car or someone on foot --- they don't have to pay with their lives.

Comment edited by AnjoMan on 2015-02-05 09:10:07

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By matthewsweet (registered) | Posted February 05, 2015 at 10:17:25

As has been pointed out astutely by others, the people who are getting killed while having the temerity to walk around are NOT the young absent-minded cartoon characters portrayed in these articles, but are rather senior citizens trying to cross the road as best they are physically able. Hell, forget about the less physically able, the most recent pedestrian fatality in Hamilton was a senior who was a MARATHON RUNNER out for a stroll with his wife.

But hey, who cares about facts.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mikeonthemountain (registered) | Posted February 05, 2015 at 11:54:07

At least it's not this bad over here.

Anecdote time. When traffic backed up into an intersection yesterday, I waited before the intersection, like you are supposed to, until the jam ahead moved up. An impatient lady in a minivan wrapped around me and stopped in the middle of the intersection, with the hand already flashing, and risked gridlocking everybody else, just so a law-abiding bicycle wouldn't cause her to miss a light cycle. Bicycle and pedestrian haters are hilarious hypocrites. They're also the ones who are dangerous. "The driver was not injured" gets mentioned every time someone is mowed down.

Canadians are super risk-averse - no tobogganing

Not Canadians, just Hamilton. Don't worry, Rick Mercer has already joined the rest of the country in mocking the best place to raise a child. Maybe international shame will help the kids have fun again.

Good article on lowering speed limits. I continue to advocate lower in city, higher on highway. Not surprised it's not well received though.

Comment edited by mikeonthemountain on 2015-02-05 11:59:49

Permalink | Context

By misterque (registered) - website | Posted February 06, 2015 at 21:53:56 in reply to Comment 108759

Those videos are completely insane. There are more than 17 of them. That is crazy brave of those kids. This is unlikely to happen hear because the police would arrest the protesters in seconds flat.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Connie (registered) | Posted February 06, 2015 at 15:39:09

I was crossing Main St one day with the light, until the walk sign went off halfway across. I was too slow for buddy in the big commercial truck turning onto Main who screamed at me to hurry up. Arthritis wouldn't let me. He honked and yelled and pulled up to within a foot of me.

There's some real !@$&!#! pigs driving out there.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mikeonthemountain (registered) | Posted February 06, 2015 at 22:08:25

would arrest the protesters in seconds flat

Haha good one. Russian roads are on the list of things I don't envy. Here it would not get as far as a protest. A 911 call would have the drivers arrested almost immediately. Some of those women would be doing jail time. First world problems - vehicles park in bike lanes - they don't literally drive over pedestrians on walkways as a matter of fact. We have made progress! A few more generations of social development and we'll reach Europe in multimodal road sharing ;)

Comment edited by mikeonthemountain on 2015-02-06 22:09:27

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By LOL_all_over_again (registered) | Posted February 11, 2015 at 21:00:55

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

By while(1){} (anonymous) | Posted February 11, 2015 at 22:26:23 in reply to Comment 109062

it has been explained to you endless times. is this a schtick or are you really this stupid?

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted February 11, 2015 at 21:09:50 in reply to Comment 109062

Hamilton police stats show over 85% of pedestrian/cyclist - vehicle collisions are the fault of the car driver. Onto the next strawman

Permalink | Context

By show me (anonymous) | Posted February 11, 2015 at 21:50:38 in reply to Comment 109063

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

By LOLOLOLOLOLAZY (anonymous) | Posted February 11, 2015 at 22:32:00 in reply to Comment 109064

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

By notlloyd (registered) - website | Posted February 11, 2015 at 22:38:27 in reply to Comment 109068

And you do?

Permalink | Context

By reality bites (anonymous) | Posted February 11, 2015 at 22:44:26 in reply to Comment 109072

just calling it as I see it with all these sock puppets. guess your own medicine doesn't taste so great, huh

Permalink | Context

By notlloyd (registered) - website | Posted February 11, 2015 at 22:48:48 in reply to Comment 109073

Reminds me of grade two. "I know you are but what am I?"

Permalink | Context

By notlloyd (registered) - website | Posted February 11, 2015 at 22:54:39 in reply to Comment 109074

Oops, sorry. I did not know what a sock puppet was so I had to look it up. so you are saying that Show Me is really the lol guy. and you are really the lololol guy. So both of you are really sock puppets. Ok, now I get it and I was just wasting my time.

Comment edited by notlloyd on 2015-02-11 22:55:07

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted February 11, 2015 at 22:03:55 in reply to Comment 109064

I just googled 'hamilton police stats pedestrian car collisions' and the 2nd return is a Spec article with some of the data. Google searches are pretty neat.

Permalink | Context

By notlloyd (registered) - website | Posted February 11, 2015 at 22:35:12 in reply to Comment 109065

Thanks for that. Awesome statistics. In one report to 2010, rates of injuries and fatalities have decreased by over 66% since 1985. See http://www.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/E8EE...

2009 for example had 2 pedestrian fatalities. To be fair there have been higher numbers since in several years but as a percentage of overall population the numbers have declined dramatically in the last 30 years.

I have heard the word strawman bantered about here a lot and am reminded of my university statistics prof who said that 100% of zero is still zero. (This begs the question: who is the strawman?) These RATES of injury as it relates to fault are really statistically insignificant.

Comment edited by notlloyd on 2015-02-11 22:40:02

Permalink | Context

By lurnding (anonymous) | Posted February 11, 2015 at 22:59:19 in reply to Comment 109070

Woah, a 66% decline? That's huge! Except from your own cited study:

"As a result of the introduction of self-reporting, there has been a significant decrease in total number of collisions reported by Police officers, and the statistics in this report reflect this. This is to be expected, as the onus for reporting minor collisions was shifted from the police officers to the general public. However, a parallel decrease in injury collisions was also noted in our statistics. This change was expected as all injury collisions are still categorized as requiring police reports. There are no obvious background factors which we can identify as causing a year-to-year reduction in injury collisions. We must, therefore, conclude that the change to reporting centres is also responsible for the statistical change in injury collisions. "

"The rate of collisions involving injury or fatality shows a modest but consistent decline from 1990 to about 2004-5 (Exhibit 1.5), with a relatively constant trend from 2004-5 to the present. "

In some places, death rates above zero are not tolerated. Here though I guess a constant rate of death and injury is the cost of convenience!

God forbid we should attempt to lower it, you might be late for work!!!

Permalink | Context

By notlloyd (registered) - website | Posted February 11, 2015 at 23:09:23 in reply to Comment 109076

Reasonable intervention is always warranted. Unreasonable intervention, that which will not affect things in a statistically significant way, may or may not be useful. IOW if you can spend $1000.00 to reduce a risk by 99.9% but would have to spend $1,000,000.00 to reduce it by the further .1 %, arguably it may not be worth it to spend the extra million. It may or may not have anything to do with getting to work on time.

Your argument is like saying it is justified to spend a billion dollars if one person will be saved from an MI by widening every street to put in a dedicated ambulance lane.

(BTW these studies were found on Jason's advice, not mine)

Comment edited by notlloyd on 2015-02-11 23:11:19

Permalink | Context

By lurnding (anonymous) | Posted February 12, 2015 at 09:15:46 in reply to Comment 109077

PUH LEASE. A billion dollars? Ha. HAHAHA. Let's not get concerned about diminishing returns til we are investing even 100th of that on bike and pedestrian infrastructure. Or even 1000th!

(BTW I was not commenting on the studies I was commenting on your cherry picking)

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By some numbers (anonymous) | Posted February 11, 2015 at 22:34:12

• 33% of fatally injured pedestrians acted in a manner
which caused or contributed to the crash;
Pedestrian
Death Review
Office of the Chief Coroner for Ontario
A Review of All Accidental Pedestrian Deaths in Ontario
From January 1st, 2010 to December 31st 2010
• 33% of fatally injured pedestrians were struck by a driver
who had committed a traffic infraction prior to the crash;
• 60% of pedestrians were killed at night or during dim
light conditions when they were not seen by drivers; and
• 40% of fatally injured pedestrians had been drinking.9
• Crossing Against the Signal: Fatalities occurred involving a
pedestrian crossing against the signal in 12% of the deaths.
• Mid-block Crossing: 31% of pedestrians who were struck were crossing at mid-block locations at
uncontrolled crossings where pedestrians must wait for safe gaps in traffic to cross the roadway.

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted February 12, 2015 at 08:48:14 in reply to Comment 109069

Permalink | Context

By some numbers (anonymous) | Posted February 12, 2015 at 13:13:05 in reply to Comment 109079

Ontario Coroners Report 2012

Pedestrian
Death Review
Office of the Chief Coroner for Ontario
A Review of All Accidental Pedestrian Deaths in Ontario

I'll take a first person report

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By CharlesBall (registered) | Posted February 12, 2015 at 10:36:25

A little off topic here, but the bigger story for me is that the Wynne Government explicitly stated before the election that reducing municipal speed limits was not on their radar screen and merely months into the new government they miraculously change their mind.

That tells me that the government knows that the vast majority of people oppose a reduction in speed limits, but in order to save their ass they are not brave enough to put the issue before the electorate.

This from the same Government that panders to the insurance industry.

Blaming the victim is classic insurance rhetoric. Like why do we have a $30,000.00 deductible. Or why if you are hit by a drunk driver in Ontario and break your leg and it heals you can't even sue unless the damage is permanent and serious. And even if it is permanent and serious they take away $30,000.00 from your claim - for what; To modify your behaviour so you won't walk while drunks are driving?

Comment edited by CharlesBall on 2015-02-12 10:42:55

Permalink | Context

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to comment.

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds