deletions | additions       diff --git a/section_Introduction_While_the_broad__.tex b/section_Introduction_While_the_broad__.tex  index 5d7f3a1..0e98dee 100644  --- a/section_Introduction_While_the_broad__.tex  +++ b/section_Introduction_While_the_broad__.tex 
...
\section{Introduction}  While the broad concepts behind road design and signalisation are universally recognized for the sake of road user mobility between regions of the world---e.g. to accommodate visitors---specifics of intersection design philosophy and signalisation differ significantly between North America and Europe. This is not surprising given that the United States and Canada are not signatories of either the 1949 Geneva Protocol on Road Signs and Signals or the 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals which codify road signalisation throughout nearly all of Europe and much of Asia. Instead, intersection design in the United States and Canada, and much of the Pacific, is based off of on  the 1935 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Design differences are especially striking regarding traffic control at intersections without traffic lights. While European design tends to favour a limited use of stop signs in favour of yield signs, or no signalisation or other forms of explicit control at all, North American design favours two- and four-way stop signs almost exclusively. In fact, in general, yield signs in North America are used exclusively for slip lanes or merges, and never to control square intersections directly. Given the yielding nature of the roundabout design, it is unsurprising to learn that roundabout adoption has been very slow in North America. While roundabouts are a relatively new phenomenon in North America, they have existed in the United Kingdom since 1966 where the modern design of the roundabout was first conceived (at the Transport Research Laboratory).  However, roundabouts are beginning to flourish across North America, against the prevailing stop-sign-predominant intersection design philosophy. Thus, studying this discrepancy in road design philosophy and resulting road safety record is especially relevant today given that many North American road users may not be familiar with fully unsignalised (no traffic lights or stops signs) intersection design that the roundabouts introduce and this has been sighted cited  as short and medium-term issue to overcome with further implementation of roundabouts in North America \citep[e.g.][]{Retting2007}. To this end, there exists a need to study any differences in driving culture between the two continents, whether that difference is induced, or latent. In this work, an international, microscopic comparison of road user behaviour between a sample of road users selected from North America (specifically Québec) and from Europe (specifically Sweden) is performed using surrogate safety methods. Studying driver behaviour at roundabouts between these two regions is particularly relevant given that both regions share several climatic, environmental, demographic, and level of development similarities, and that, unlike many other types of road designs, roundabouts in North America have been directly transplanted from the first European designs \cite{NHCRP_2010} and in practice are functionally similar. The choice of using surrogate safety methods for this analysis was made to solve several issues related with historical accident data collection and comparison between jurisdictions, and, furthermore, offers much greater insight into road user behaviour and collision mechanisms \citep[][]{Tarko_whitepaper_2009}.