This page is not a forum for general discussion about Automotive safety. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Automotive safety at the Reference desk. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 April 2019 and 5 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mjanssens92.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 15:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Sorry if I am just dumb and ignorant, but the distinction between active and passive safety in this article is just plain wrong. I have quickly read majority of the sourced articles but I have absolutely nowhere found the statement that the seatbelt is an element of active safety. The distinction between active and passive safety is plain and simple - it is between crash avoidance and minimizing injuries once the crash has happened anyway. I haven't bothered to find sourced for this for too long - but I found this one, where it is written plain and simple: http://www.crashtest.com/explanations/safety/index.htm I will wait for a couple of days and if nobody will argue the opposite, I am going to change the article myself. — —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.235.179.170 ( talk) 14:40, 2009 March 23 (UTC)
Wait, wait, don't yield. This is not a battle. Wikipedia is a coöperative project, not a competitive or combative one. You've raised the very valid point that the present language is not adequate to convey the definitions clearly. Let's work on developing better text. I'll start brainstorming on it after dinner; right now I gotta go eat! — Scheinwerfermann T· C 23:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Car_Care/Notes_From_The_Road/Safety_System_Definitons.aspx http://www.audiusa.com/us/brand/en.html, etc. Tanja-Else ( talk) 23:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I've gone through, read the entirety of both of your responses, read through the relative wikipedia section under automotive safety, and read ALL of the respective sources (previously five) to the debate of active vs. passive safety. Thusly, since I have been following automotive safety for over a decade and already knew the correct answer, though wanted to verify; I have gone back to the article and corrected it accordingly. My opinion, based on reading everything humanly possible related to the debate and having majored in Mechanical Engineering in pursuit of an automotive safety career?! Scheinwerfermann's wrong. Period. Active safety is hands-down 100% the systems in a vehicle that work to PREVENT or AVOID an accident. Passive safety systems help protect occupants in the event of a crash. Simple as can be. I mean, I did an independent study on automotive safety in high school. High school. The supporting articles that duly didn't even support the statements, of both passive safety being relative to crashworthiness and seat belts being declared as active (also incorrectly sourced as the articles blatantly said the opposite) have been removed. Seatbelts are passive safety. Period. That's why they are part of the supplemental restraint system (SRS), restraining a passenger in the event of a crash. What part of the physical restraint of someone's being results in the avoidance of a crash? None. This argument of active being defined by user input is absurd. Sorry to be so mean but this is just ridiculous. The user that stated that the car companies themselves use the very definition of active vs passive that we are defending is correct; it's not to dumb down concepts for consumers. If anyone would like to debate this further, feel free to email me at lightinthedarkness87@gmail.com That's my secondary email so it may take me a while to respond, but this is case closed as far as I'm concerned. AutonomousCars09 ( talk) 11:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
We have here a long article that will get longer as its gaps are filled in and its scope is expanded. If we're not careful to keep focused on the topic of auto safety, the article will get diluted with material that belongs in Car accident, Road safety, Speed limit, or other articles. At best, this will mean reduplicated effort. At worst, the quality of all affected articles will be degraded. With an eye towards keeping these articles on their related but individual development paths, I have removed a couple of sentences that are better covered in Car accident, and have moved the assertion related to driving with the flow of traffic, together with its Solomon Curve link, to the relevant section of Car accident. — Scheinwerfermann T· C 21:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
A graph showing fatality rates in various countries over the last few decades would help explain the data, rather than only a few numbers scattered in tables and prose. -- Beland ( talk) 06:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
There appear to be some good resources in these two sections. Per WP:EL and WP:CS it's better if they're provided as actual references supporting assertions in the article, not just a list at the end of the article. We ought to look through 'em, get rid of those that are superfluous and/or spurious, and incorporate the valuable ones as references to the maximum practicable degree. — Scheinwerfermann T· C 15:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Is it just me, or do all the safety tests give useless data? "Insurance losses by make and model" gives what insurance companies actually have to pay out for injuries. The safest vehicles here do not match the safest vehicles in crash test ratings - so cars optimized for the ratings may be much more dangerous than those with bad ratings but good real results.
Look at actual medical losses for 2011 Ford Escape Hybrid which has a combined very low test score - "CONCERN: Worst 10% for 2011-12". Now look at real-world insurance losses Ford Escape Hybrid does much better on personal injury than the vast majority of vehicles, the exact opposite of what the safety tests would have you believe.
How many people are being injured or killed due to buying vehicles they researched and thought "safe"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.253.116 ( talk) 06:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
This section is outdated, as these sites no longer function. 88.148.84.87 ( talk) 20:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Automobile safety. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Automobile safety. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
The Automobile safety#History section is non-neutral with respect to multiple reliable sources. Currently the Automobile safety#History section is little more than a chronology of the introduction of auto safety features, with little or no narrative or context. The Automobile safety#History section non-neutrally gives the reader the false impression of the spontaneous arrival of safety features, as if delivered by a benevolent auto industry.
Conspicuously, non-neutrally, absent from our project's coverage of the history of auto safety are highly significant actors and events, including:
Respectfully request collaboration on the neutrality of this section. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 15:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
HughD, please review WP:BRD. You made a bold change but the content you added was not appropriate. The list in question is a list of safety devices or legislation. The Pinto related material you are trying to add is not a device or a regulation. You have not shown how the various Pinto related material lead to improved safety. Please don't add the material again until others support your changes. Springee ( talk) 18:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Contended addition to the 1960s subsection of the History section of Automobile safety:
On November 30, 1965, the book Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-In Dangers of the American Automobile, by 32-year-old lawyer Ralph Nader, was published, and was a best seller in nonfiction by spring 1966. In February 1966, U.S. Senator Abraham A. Ribicoff asked Nader to testify before a Senate subcommittee on automotive safety. According to The New York Times, the Encyclopædia Britannica, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives at the time John William McCormack, the United States Department of Transportation, and others, Nader and Unsafe at Any Speed helped the passage of the 1966 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the first significant automobile safety legislation in the U.S.
Nader, another poor boy, rose to national hero status on the critic's side of America's car wars. His 1965 best-seller Unsafe at Any Speed focused on the appalling accident record of Chevrolet's Corvair and was largely responsible for the congressional passage, in 1966, of the nation's first reasonably stringent auto safety law.
Few drivers could imagine owning a car these days that did not come with airbags, antilock brakes and seatbelts. But 50 years ago motorists went without such basic safety features. That was before a young lawyer named Ralph Nader came along with a book, "Unsafe at Any Speed," that would change the auto industry. It accused automakers of failing to make cars as safe as possible. Less than a year after the book was published, a balky Congress created the federal safety agency that became the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration — an agency whose stated mission is to save lives, prevent injuries and reduce crashes...In September 1966 — about 10 months after the book was published — President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, requiring the adoption of new or upgraded vehicle safety standards, and creating an agency to enforce them and supervise safety recalls.
On this day in 1965, 32-year-old lawyer Ralph Nader publishes the muckraking book Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-In Dangers of the American Automobile. The book became a best-seller right away. It also prompted the passage of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, seat-belt laws in 49 states (all but New Hampshire) and a number of other road-safety initiatives.
Unsafe at Any Speed, investigative report on U.S. automobile safety published in 1965 by consumer advocate Ralph Nader, who was then a 31-year-old attorney. Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-in Dangers of the American Automobile excoriated the American automotive industry, based in Detroit, for its prioritization of style and design over consumer safety. Nader's book eventually became a best seller and helped spur the passage of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in 1966, the country's first significant automobile safety legislation.
Breaking into the traffic safety inertia was the publication in November 1965 of "Unsafe At Any Speed," a book written by Ralph Nader a 32-year-old Connecticut lawyer who had served as a consultant for the Department of Labor and a Senate subcommittee in 1964–65. House Speaker John W. McCormack (D Mass.) Oct. 21, 1966, credited the final outcome of the traffic safety bill to the "crusading spirit of one individual who believed he could do something…Ralph Nader."
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |agency=
ignored (
help)Nader's advocacy of auto-safety issues, helped lead to the passage of the 1966 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. This legislation sought to reduce the rising number of injuries and deaths from road accidents by establishing federal safety standards for American-made vehicles, including safety belts.
Auto safety legislation was also partly the result of the publication of Ralph Nader's book, Unsafe at Any Speed, which acted as a catalyst for turning the auto safety movement into a legislative force.
The legislative branch had focused on driver behavior and road design until Ralph Nader (1965) and others convinced Congress that many of the 50,000 annual auto deaths resulted from unsafe car designs. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in 1966, one year before Ford began designing the Pinto, produced America's first significant federal auto regulation.
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)Systematic motor-vehicle safety efforts began during the 1960s...In 1966, passage of the Highway Safety Act and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorized the federal government to set and regulate standards for motor vehicles and highways, a mechanism necessary for effective prevention.
Signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson on 9 September 1966, this act created the first mandatory federal safety standards for motor vehicles.
Contended content is highly noteworthy and relevant. Very, very obviously Ralph Nader is a very noteworthy actor, and the publication of Unsafe at Any Speed and Nader's congressional testimony, very noteworthy events, in the history of automobile safety. The exclusion of this content is a very severe violation of our project's neutrality pillar. The section non-neutrally gives the reader the false impression of the spontaneous arrival of safety features as if delivered by a benevolent auto industry. This is a prose article, not a list article. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 17:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose: This isn't a question of RSed material. I would agree that Nader's inflammatory book did a lot to bring safety to the minds of the consumer. However, the list in question, as has been pointed out already, is a list of safety features and regulations. For example, the first car with shoulder belts, the first car with ABS, the first mandate for seatbelts in cars etc. The political events (and Nader's book is a political event in this context) which resulted in these changes are not part of the list in question. It appears that the editors of this article have largely avoided the political aspects of the topic and focused on the technologies and regulations. I see no reason to change that now. Thus a strong objection to inserting the material into the list and a cautionary objection for inclusion in general. Generalized inclusion should only occur after group input as to how such information/events should be integrated into the article. Springee ( talk) 17:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose This is a simple list of safety features and when they became common, and it is not restricted to the United States. Anmccaff ( talk) 18:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Should not material on the impact of a single book such as Unsafe at Any Speed be more properly covered in the article on the book? It seems a bit excessive devoting an entire history section to it. Dimadick ( talk) 21:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't seriously minde the mention of a book, when it is relevant to the subject. But an entire historical section devoted to just that may be excessive. And the sources which you summarize seem to be missing from the article on the book, which has a shorter section on "Industry response". Dimadick ( talk) 22:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Ignoring the issues with the actual text that was added (overcite, peacock) the addition of this material opens up a number of other issues. Why does "history" start in 1965 when many of the critical safety innovations occurred before that? Why focus so much attention on the book vs the organization that it helped to launch? Do we have room in the article to expand every topic to include the back story of the technology or regulation? Do we want to introduce that level of politics into what was previously an uncontroversial article? An article about auto safety could reasonably include the political backdrop behind various regulations etc. However, if we are going to expand the article to include such information it needs to be done with a plan derived from consensus. If Hugh feels this information is a must have in the article I would suggest proposing what changes we should make. We did Bold, Revert and now it's time for Discuss. Springee ( talk) 01:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
HughD, please review WP:BRD so we can build a consensus before you add new material to an section of the article that is currently being questioned by several editors. In addition to the above concerns with the entire section, your edit here is not adequately sourced [3]. Your addition makes a specific claim, "was the first mandatory federal safety standards for motor vehicles." but two of your three sources suggest that isn't true. The only source that does support your edit is the Encyclopædia Britannica. I don't think it is considered a very reliable source given that it contradicts the other two sources. Springee ( talk) 15:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
HughD, the wholesale movement of content and changing of section headings without discussion is not conducive to consensus building. Please explain your plan before continuing. Springee ( talk) 17:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Propose roll back In addition to questionable content edits, the historical list is getting chopped up with out talk page discussion and despite requests for discussion. I propose rolling the article back to this edit [4]. Changes to the nature and content of the "history" section should be done with group input given the group attention. Pinging other editors for input. @ Anmccaff:, @ Arthur Rubin:, @ Dimadick:, @ NickCT: Springee ( talk) 18:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Support. This is looking like a WP:COATRACK for Ralph Nader fans. Anmccaff ( talk) 18:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Some of the contents in the "history" section seem to have no sources at all and should probably also be checked for accuracy. For example: "Effective on new passenger cars sold in the United States after January 1, 1964. front outboard lap belts were required." and "Effective in 1966, US-market passenger cars were required to be equipped with padded instrument panels, front and rear outboard lap belts, and white reverse (backup) lamps."
None of this is supported, changes in law or industry standards are not explained and the geographic scope is still very limited. HughD might be a bit overenthusiastic about explaining Ralph Nader's impact on the industry, but the article does need changes and sourcing. Dimadick ( talk) 18:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Rollback completed. I retained the 16:00, 29 April 2016 and later edits. This is not an endorsement but those edits were outside of the contested area. Springee ( talk) 01:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Please see WP:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#History_of_automobile_safety_and_Ralph_Nader. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 18:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
HughD, Again please do not continue to add material after people have replied as you did here [6] and here [7]. As you have been told, this can create a false sense of what people said and/or were replying to. After the fact material should be clearly indicated. Springee ( talk) 16:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
HughD, rather than just tagging older article content, why not try to find supporting links? If your intent is to HELP the article finding supporting information is far more productive than just tagging every non-controversial fact. This comes across revenge tagging. Springee ( talk) 21:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
A history section is appropriate in any article whose subject is not history itself but includes history. More specifically, this subject is of interest to our WP:WikiProject Medicine, which includes some style guidelines WP:MEDMOS, which recommends a "History" section. Twice in the last two days a section tag "off-topic" has been added to the Automobile_safety#History section. What is the basis in policy or guideline for tagging the history section of this article as off-topic? Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 20:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Please do not section blank without consensus. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 01:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
HughD, please do not revert changes against consensus. It is clear from the replies of
NickCT,
Anmccaff and
Arthur Rubin (as well as myself) that both your insertion of the Nader material and your splitting of the list into two sections has not been supported by other editors.
Dimadick supported your concern with the lack of citation tags. That information has been retained. Now please propose, discuss and only make changes AFTER group buy in.
Springee (
talk)
01:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
This piece summarizes some of the disagreements with Nadrocentric model of the universe. HughD, if you can show signs that you understand some of the concepts there, it will make for some common ground and actual collaboration. By this I do not mean that I'd expect you to agree, but only to acknowledge there's an entire part of the population, often far more expert than Ralph's Krew on automotive subjects, who disagree fundamentally about many of the ideas you take as given. Anmccaff ( talk) 01:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
We are asked not to edit article space to attempt to teach an editor a lesson.Either take that back, or take it to ANI, where it will lead to a boomerang. That is, simple and plainly, mendaciously poisoning the well. Anmccaff ( talk) 16:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
(Undid revision 718484375 by Anmccaff (talk) no edit summary, unexplained removal of highly relevant content and multiple noteworthy reliable sources) updated since my last visit (undo
That looks very much like an untruth, @ HughD:. There's extensive discussion by others before you again tendentiously added this material. You do not appear to have effectively participated in the discussion, perhaps, but there's little anyone else but you can do about that. Anmccaff ( talk) 21:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Contended content:
On September 9, 1966 U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the first mandatory federal safety standards for motor vehicles.
Sources:
Few drivers could imagine owning a car these days that did not come with airbags, antilock brakes and seatbelts. But 50 years ago motorists went without such basic safety features. That was before a young lawyer named Ralph Nader came along with a book, "Unsafe at Any Speed," that would change the auto industry. It accused automakers of failing to make cars as safe as possible. Less than a year after the book was published, a balky Congress created the federal safety agency that became the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration — an agency whose stated mission is to save lives, prevent injuries and reduce crashes...By the spring of 1966, "Unsafe at Any Speed" was a best seller for nonfiction...In September 1966 — about 10 months after the book was published — President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, requiring the adoption of new or upgraded vehicle safety standards, and creating an agency to enforce them and supervise safety recalls.
Unsafe at Any Speed, investigative report on U.S. automobile safety published in 1965 by consumer advocate Ralph Nader, who was then a 31-year-old attorney. Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-in Dangers of the American Automobile excoriated the American automotive industry, based in Detroit, for its prioritization of style and design over consumer safety. Nader's book eventually became a best seller and helped spur the passage of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in 1966, the country's first significant automobile safety legislation.
Signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson on 9 September 1966, this act created the first mandatory federal safety standards for motor vehicles.
Nader, another poor boy, rose to national hero status on the critic's side of America's car wars. His 1965 best-seller Unsafe at Any Speed focused on the appalling accident record of Chevrolet's Corvair and was largely responsible for the congressional passage, in 1966, of the nation's first reasonably stringent auto safety law.
What is the basis in policy or guideline for removing this relevant content and multiple noteworthy reliable sources? Hugh ( talk) 21:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Are you saying your command of the subject is so thin that you can only discuss it by creating straw men and arguing with them? It would certainly appear so. What are the odds that someone researching the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act would only find references centered on Ralph Nader? Looking, for example, at Google Scholar, not a bad place for an overview, a search on this legislation gets only one hit mentioning Nader in the first 20 abstracts...oddly enough, a piece written by "R. Nader." On the other hand, I see several decent cites evaluating the effectiveness of it, and several explaining the politics of it. Lot of good cites there, yep. "The Struggle for Auto Safety" and "Driving Forces" might be good cites here, for instance. One's a little dated, but it captures quite well the failure of Nader's model, except perhaps as a job-creation scheme for lawyers. Anmccaff ( talk) 06:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Again, stop using essentially dishonest techniques of argument if you don't wish to be seen as essentially dishonest. I obviously don't see your selected cites as "a neutral, relevant, well-sourced contribution." That's the essential problem, they ain't. They're tendentious, semi-relevant, and lazily sourced cites; that's not even one out of three, since their relevance is peripheral, not central. Anmccaff ( talk) 06:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Automobile safety. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://secure.srgint.com/home.aspxWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Automobile safety. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://secure.srgint.com/home.aspxWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) B dash ( talk) 00:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Automobile safety →
Automotive safety – This article is not limited in scope to "automobiles", but deals with the broader category of
motor vehicles. Common usage when referring to the broader category is to use the word "automotive", and thereby I proposed this move. In any case, Google Books results show
many more results for "automotive safety" than "
automobile safety". "Car safety" is also a possibility, but this article deals with a broader category of vehicles, in my opinion, as stated above.
RGloucester —
☎ 19:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)--Relisting.
Dekimasu
よ!
20:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
*Oppose: The term "Automobile" does cover the broader topic. Hence why we talk about the automobile companies even though they also manufacture cars, trucks etc. There is no reason for RGloucester to continue to run around Wikipedia and change titles from "Automobile" to "Cars" or "automotive" simply because the editor doesn't like the word "automobile".
Springee (
talk) 19:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC) See below
Springee (
talk)
23:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm striking my opposition to this change. I've been persuaded that "Automotive" makes sense when used as an adjective or adverb. It would then make sense to move the primary topic "Car" back to "Automobile". That would create a more harmonious "Automobile" and "Automotive" naming scheme. This is especially true when dealing with the high level article titles as well as the categories associated with automotive topics. It also would align our primary topic name, "Automobile" (vs car) with sources like the Encyclopedia Britannica (see link above). Finally, it would address the discrepancy that we see with the article "Car" covering topics related to SUVs, pickup trucks etc. This would have to be decided by a separate RfC vs this request to rename. Springee ( talk) 23:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
But I must add, I find "Crouch, Swale"'s antics here are appalling, basically co-opting this RM to push an agenda. Changing "automobile" to "car" is not part of this proposal, and his persistent "IDHT" and "ILDI" behaviour has all but derailed this RM. I would suggest that all of his entries be struck, save for one '!vote' or comment that is on point with the current proposal, (if one exists), to recorded as part of the final consensus. Other than that, "Crouch, Swale" should not participate any further. This really is one of the worst, most blatant details I've ever seen. - wolf 05:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
"Hey guys, how about we make it 'cars'?", "I think it should be cars!", "Let's change it to cars, ok?", "I want 'cars'!", "Cars, cars!, CARS!".. Then you have the nerve to tell me to "take it up elsewhere"...?
Wow. Oh, and uh... 'no'. I said all I've needed to say. I'm sure you still have plenty more to add, but I'm done here. 19:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
"Hey guys, how about we make it 'automobiles'?", "I think it should be automobiles!", "Let's change it to automobiles, ok?", "I want 'automobiles'!", "Automobiles, automobiles!, AUTOMOBILES!".. I count 13 of my signs but Springee has 22! At Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 26#Category:Cars I have 10 signs but Springee has 19 and RGloucester has 34! similarly at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 November I have 10 but RGloucester also has 10 and Springee has 26.
The current text claims:
Blinding lights can be blinding, and it is hard to see any of these things when you can't see anything except flashing, or multiple flashes, and pain. I realize I'm more sensitive to these lights than most people, but even if most people are less sensitive, don't they have some trouble seeing when blinded? 108.51.205.136 ( talk) 00:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
A robot has classified a group of changes as "very poorly written, poorly referenced changes": https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Automotive_safety&diff=988183863&oldid=988158916
Only the group of changes has been rated and not each individual change.
So I assume a detailed analysis could help to see which change might be of interest and which might not. My comments are in the comment column:
Size | Change size | Change summary | Change status | Comment |
---|---|---|---|---|
76,225 bytes | +164 | Automated cars | undo Tag: Reverted | This change moves automated cars from introduction summary into a dedicated section. I am not sure to understand why it was reverted by the robot. |
76,061 bytes | +27 | →Issues for particular demographic groups | undo Tag: Reverted | Is driver behavior a part of vehicle safety? I assume it its a question of vocabulary. |
76,034 bytes | +144 | →Unused safety features: Other unused safety features | undo Tag: Reverted | Looks like good faith truism but it is "very poorly written, poorly referenced changes". |
75,890 bytes | +56 | →Other safety measures | undo Tag: Reverted | This is related to TPMS but not sourced. The edit looks like good-faith. According to a TPMS provider, "Tyre pressure monitoring systems (TPMS) are an important vehicle safety feature legislated in many countries around the world. Since its initial adoption in 2008 in the United States (TREAD Act) the legislation quickly spread in different countries including the EU member states, South Korea, and Japan. " I do assume that vehicle safety is a part of automotive safety. However, I believe a reliable source could be welcomed. |
75,834 bytes | +74 | →Teenage drivers: capacity | undo Tag: Reverted | That's also a "very poorly written, poorly referenced changes" as detected by the robot |
75,760 bytes | +137 | →Teenage drivers: Geneva convention: a driver in a foreign country should be 18 | undo Tag: Reverted | That's just a "very poorly written, poorly referenced changes" as detected by the robot |
75,623 bytes | +104 | →Infants and children: In the same rearward facing child restraint might be forbidden where there is a not deactivable airbag. | undo Tag: Reverted | The topic of rearward facing child restraint with airbag might be of interest. On Internet, some in Australia says "Never put a rearward facing child restraint in the front seat due to the high risk of injury from an airbag." Other in Europe say "Warning labels now have to be fitted in cars to avoid the installation of rearward facing child restraints and in some cars there is now provision for automatic detection of child restraints and out of position occupants or a manual switch to disconnect the passenger airbag system." |
75,519 bytes | +60 | →Safety trends: Old data, before Brexit | undo Tag: Reverted | There was 28 EU members before Brexit. This is not true anymore. How to deal with it? |
75,459 bytes | +21 | →Safety trends: citation needed | undo Tag: Reverted | This change challenge the poorly source assertion which suggest (the US) has "technological advances". Is there a contradiction here? Can the US be — in the same time — in advance in safety and late in safety result? |
75,438 bytes | +682 | →2010s: ====2020s==== | undo Tag: Reverted | This change introduces the 2020 decade and the year 2021. There are some references but the year 2021 might be too recent to be dealt with by wikipedia, because wikipedia should focus on topics yet dealt with by other encyclopedias. |
74,756 bytes | +57 | Better TOC + centuries | undo Tag: Reverted | While hiding the table of content is a poor solution, this change provides a more detailed table of content. However it comes with a grouping of decades into centuries. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Automotive safety. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Automotive safety at the Reference desk. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 April 2019 and 5 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mjanssens92.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 15:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Sorry if I am just dumb and ignorant, but the distinction between active and passive safety in this article is just plain wrong. I have quickly read majority of the sourced articles but I have absolutely nowhere found the statement that the seatbelt is an element of active safety. The distinction between active and passive safety is plain and simple - it is between crash avoidance and minimizing injuries once the crash has happened anyway. I haven't bothered to find sourced for this for too long - but I found this one, where it is written plain and simple: http://www.crashtest.com/explanations/safety/index.htm I will wait for a couple of days and if nobody will argue the opposite, I am going to change the article myself. — —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.235.179.170 ( talk) 14:40, 2009 March 23 (UTC)
Wait, wait, don't yield. This is not a battle. Wikipedia is a coöperative project, not a competitive or combative one. You've raised the very valid point that the present language is not adequate to convey the definitions clearly. Let's work on developing better text. I'll start brainstorming on it after dinner; right now I gotta go eat! — Scheinwerfermann T· C 23:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Car_Care/Notes_From_The_Road/Safety_System_Definitons.aspx http://www.audiusa.com/us/brand/en.html, etc. Tanja-Else ( talk) 23:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I've gone through, read the entirety of both of your responses, read through the relative wikipedia section under automotive safety, and read ALL of the respective sources (previously five) to the debate of active vs. passive safety. Thusly, since I have been following automotive safety for over a decade and already knew the correct answer, though wanted to verify; I have gone back to the article and corrected it accordingly. My opinion, based on reading everything humanly possible related to the debate and having majored in Mechanical Engineering in pursuit of an automotive safety career?! Scheinwerfermann's wrong. Period. Active safety is hands-down 100% the systems in a vehicle that work to PREVENT or AVOID an accident. Passive safety systems help protect occupants in the event of a crash. Simple as can be. I mean, I did an independent study on automotive safety in high school. High school. The supporting articles that duly didn't even support the statements, of both passive safety being relative to crashworthiness and seat belts being declared as active (also incorrectly sourced as the articles blatantly said the opposite) have been removed. Seatbelts are passive safety. Period. That's why they are part of the supplemental restraint system (SRS), restraining a passenger in the event of a crash. What part of the physical restraint of someone's being results in the avoidance of a crash? None. This argument of active being defined by user input is absurd. Sorry to be so mean but this is just ridiculous. The user that stated that the car companies themselves use the very definition of active vs passive that we are defending is correct; it's not to dumb down concepts for consumers. If anyone would like to debate this further, feel free to email me at lightinthedarkness87@gmail.com That's my secondary email so it may take me a while to respond, but this is case closed as far as I'm concerned. AutonomousCars09 ( talk) 11:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
We have here a long article that will get longer as its gaps are filled in and its scope is expanded. If we're not careful to keep focused on the topic of auto safety, the article will get diluted with material that belongs in Car accident, Road safety, Speed limit, or other articles. At best, this will mean reduplicated effort. At worst, the quality of all affected articles will be degraded. With an eye towards keeping these articles on their related but individual development paths, I have removed a couple of sentences that are better covered in Car accident, and have moved the assertion related to driving with the flow of traffic, together with its Solomon Curve link, to the relevant section of Car accident. — Scheinwerfermann T· C 21:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
A graph showing fatality rates in various countries over the last few decades would help explain the data, rather than only a few numbers scattered in tables and prose. -- Beland ( talk) 06:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
There appear to be some good resources in these two sections. Per WP:EL and WP:CS it's better if they're provided as actual references supporting assertions in the article, not just a list at the end of the article. We ought to look through 'em, get rid of those that are superfluous and/or spurious, and incorporate the valuable ones as references to the maximum practicable degree. — Scheinwerfermann T· C 15:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Is it just me, or do all the safety tests give useless data? "Insurance losses by make and model" gives what insurance companies actually have to pay out for injuries. The safest vehicles here do not match the safest vehicles in crash test ratings - so cars optimized for the ratings may be much more dangerous than those with bad ratings but good real results.
Look at actual medical losses for 2011 Ford Escape Hybrid which has a combined very low test score - "CONCERN: Worst 10% for 2011-12". Now look at real-world insurance losses Ford Escape Hybrid does much better on personal injury than the vast majority of vehicles, the exact opposite of what the safety tests would have you believe.
How many people are being injured or killed due to buying vehicles they researched and thought "safe"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.253.116 ( talk) 06:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
This section is outdated, as these sites no longer function. 88.148.84.87 ( talk) 20:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Automobile safety. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Automobile safety. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
The Automobile safety#History section is non-neutral with respect to multiple reliable sources. Currently the Automobile safety#History section is little more than a chronology of the introduction of auto safety features, with little or no narrative or context. The Automobile safety#History section non-neutrally gives the reader the false impression of the spontaneous arrival of safety features, as if delivered by a benevolent auto industry.
Conspicuously, non-neutrally, absent from our project's coverage of the history of auto safety are highly significant actors and events, including:
Respectfully request collaboration on the neutrality of this section. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 15:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
HughD, please review WP:BRD. You made a bold change but the content you added was not appropriate. The list in question is a list of safety devices or legislation. The Pinto related material you are trying to add is not a device or a regulation. You have not shown how the various Pinto related material lead to improved safety. Please don't add the material again until others support your changes. Springee ( talk) 18:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Contended addition to the 1960s subsection of the History section of Automobile safety:
On November 30, 1965, the book Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-In Dangers of the American Automobile, by 32-year-old lawyer Ralph Nader, was published, and was a best seller in nonfiction by spring 1966. In February 1966, U.S. Senator Abraham A. Ribicoff asked Nader to testify before a Senate subcommittee on automotive safety. According to The New York Times, the Encyclopædia Britannica, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives at the time John William McCormack, the United States Department of Transportation, and others, Nader and Unsafe at Any Speed helped the passage of the 1966 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the first significant automobile safety legislation in the U.S.
Nader, another poor boy, rose to national hero status on the critic's side of America's car wars. His 1965 best-seller Unsafe at Any Speed focused on the appalling accident record of Chevrolet's Corvair and was largely responsible for the congressional passage, in 1966, of the nation's first reasonably stringent auto safety law.
Few drivers could imagine owning a car these days that did not come with airbags, antilock brakes and seatbelts. But 50 years ago motorists went without such basic safety features. That was before a young lawyer named Ralph Nader came along with a book, "Unsafe at Any Speed," that would change the auto industry. It accused automakers of failing to make cars as safe as possible. Less than a year after the book was published, a balky Congress created the federal safety agency that became the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration — an agency whose stated mission is to save lives, prevent injuries and reduce crashes...In September 1966 — about 10 months after the book was published — President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, requiring the adoption of new or upgraded vehicle safety standards, and creating an agency to enforce them and supervise safety recalls.
On this day in 1965, 32-year-old lawyer Ralph Nader publishes the muckraking book Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-In Dangers of the American Automobile. The book became a best-seller right away. It also prompted the passage of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, seat-belt laws in 49 states (all but New Hampshire) and a number of other road-safety initiatives.
Unsafe at Any Speed, investigative report on U.S. automobile safety published in 1965 by consumer advocate Ralph Nader, who was then a 31-year-old attorney. Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-in Dangers of the American Automobile excoriated the American automotive industry, based in Detroit, for its prioritization of style and design over consumer safety. Nader's book eventually became a best seller and helped spur the passage of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in 1966, the country's first significant automobile safety legislation.
Breaking into the traffic safety inertia was the publication in November 1965 of "Unsafe At Any Speed," a book written by Ralph Nader a 32-year-old Connecticut lawyer who had served as a consultant for the Department of Labor and a Senate subcommittee in 1964–65. House Speaker John W. McCormack (D Mass.) Oct. 21, 1966, credited the final outcome of the traffic safety bill to the "crusading spirit of one individual who believed he could do something…Ralph Nader."
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |agency=
ignored (
help)Nader's advocacy of auto-safety issues, helped lead to the passage of the 1966 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. This legislation sought to reduce the rising number of injuries and deaths from road accidents by establishing federal safety standards for American-made vehicles, including safety belts.
Auto safety legislation was also partly the result of the publication of Ralph Nader's book, Unsafe at Any Speed, which acted as a catalyst for turning the auto safety movement into a legislative force.
The legislative branch had focused on driver behavior and road design until Ralph Nader (1965) and others convinced Congress that many of the 50,000 annual auto deaths resulted from unsafe car designs. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in 1966, one year before Ford began designing the Pinto, produced America's first significant federal auto regulation.
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)Systematic motor-vehicle safety efforts began during the 1960s...In 1966, passage of the Highway Safety Act and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorized the federal government to set and regulate standards for motor vehicles and highways, a mechanism necessary for effective prevention.
Signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson on 9 September 1966, this act created the first mandatory federal safety standards for motor vehicles.
Contended content is highly noteworthy and relevant. Very, very obviously Ralph Nader is a very noteworthy actor, and the publication of Unsafe at Any Speed and Nader's congressional testimony, very noteworthy events, in the history of automobile safety. The exclusion of this content is a very severe violation of our project's neutrality pillar. The section non-neutrally gives the reader the false impression of the spontaneous arrival of safety features as if delivered by a benevolent auto industry. This is a prose article, not a list article. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 17:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose: This isn't a question of RSed material. I would agree that Nader's inflammatory book did a lot to bring safety to the minds of the consumer. However, the list in question, as has been pointed out already, is a list of safety features and regulations. For example, the first car with shoulder belts, the first car with ABS, the first mandate for seatbelts in cars etc. The political events (and Nader's book is a political event in this context) which resulted in these changes are not part of the list in question. It appears that the editors of this article have largely avoided the political aspects of the topic and focused on the technologies and regulations. I see no reason to change that now. Thus a strong objection to inserting the material into the list and a cautionary objection for inclusion in general. Generalized inclusion should only occur after group input as to how such information/events should be integrated into the article. Springee ( talk) 17:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose This is a simple list of safety features and when they became common, and it is not restricted to the United States. Anmccaff ( talk) 18:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Should not material on the impact of a single book such as Unsafe at Any Speed be more properly covered in the article on the book? It seems a bit excessive devoting an entire history section to it. Dimadick ( talk) 21:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't seriously minde the mention of a book, when it is relevant to the subject. But an entire historical section devoted to just that may be excessive. And the sources which you summarize seem to be missing from the article on the book, which has a shorter section on "Industry response". Dimadick ( talk) 22:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Ignoring the issues with the actual text that was added (overcite, peacock) the addition of this material opens up a number of other issues. Why does "history" start in 1965 when many of the critical safety innovations occurred before that? Why focus so much attention on the book vs the organization that it helped to launch? Do we have room in the article to expand every topic to include the back story of the technology or regulation? Do we want to introduce that level of politics into what was previously an uncontroversial article? An article about auto safety could reasonably include the political backdrop behind various regulations etc. However, if we are going to expand the article to include such information it needs to be done with a plan derived from consensus. If Hugh feels this information is a must have in the article I would suggest proposing what changes we should make. We did Bold, Revert and now it's time for Discuss. Springee ( talk) 01:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
HughD, please review WP:BRD so we can build a consensus before you add new material to an section of the article that is currently being questioned by several editors. In addition to the above concerns with the entire section, your edit here is not adequately sourced [3]. Your addition makes a specific claim, "was the first mandatory federal safety standards for motor vehicles." but two of your three sources suggest that isn't true. The only source that does support your edit is the Encyclopædia Britannica. I don't think it is considered a very reliable source given that it contradicts the other two sources. Springee ( talk) 15:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
HughD, the wholesale movement of content and changing of section headings without discussion is not conducive to consensus building. Please explain your plan before continuing. Springee ( talk) 17:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Propose roll back In addition to questionable content edits, the historical list is getting chopped up with out talk page discussion and despite requests for discussion. I propose rolling the article back to this edit [4]. Changes to the nature and content of the "history" section should be done with group input given the group attention. Pinging other editors for input. @ Anmccaff:, @ Arthur Rubin:, @ Dimadick:, @ NickCT: Springee ( talk) 18:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Support. This is looking like a WP:COATRACK for Ralph Nader fans. Anmccaff ( talk) 18:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Some of the contents in the "history" section seem to have no sources at all and should probably also be checked for accuracy. For example: "Effective on new passenger cars sold in the United States after January 1, 1964. front outboard lap belts were required." and "Effective in 1966, US-market passenger cars were required to be equipped with padded instrument panels, front and rear outboard lap belts, and white reverse (backup) lamps."
None of this is supported, changes in law or industry standards are not explained and the geographic scope is still very limited. HughD might be a bit overenthusiastic about explaining Ralph Nader's impact on the industry, but the article does need changes and sourcing. Dimadick ( talk) 18:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Rollback completed. I retained the 16:00, 29 April 2016 and later edits. This is not an endorsement but those edits were outside of the contested area. Springee ( talk) 01:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Please see WP:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#History_of_automobile_safety_and_Ralph_Nader. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 18:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
HughD, Again please do not continue to add material after people have replied as you did here [6] and here [7]. As you have been told, this can create a false sense of what people said and/or were replying to. After the fact material should be clearly indicated. Springee ( talk) 16:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
HughD, rather than just tagging older article content, why not try to find supporting links? If your intent is to HELP the article finding supporting information is far more productive than just tagging every non-controversial fact. This comes across revenge tagging. Springee ( talk) 21:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
A history section is appropriate in any article whose subject is not history itself but includes history. More specifically, this subject is of interest to our WP:WikiProject Medicine, which includes some style guidelines WP:MEDMOS, which recommends a "History" section. Twice in the last two days a section tag "off-topic" has been added to the Automobile_safety#History section. What is the basis in policy or guideline for tagging the history section of this article as off-topic? Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 20:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Please do not section blank without consensus. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 01:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
HughD, please do not revert changes against consensus. It is clear from the replies of
NickCT,
Anmccaff and
Arthur Rubin (as well as myself) that both your insertion of the Nader material and your splitting of the list into two sections has not been supported by other editors.
Dimadick supported your concern with the lack of citation tags. That information has been retained. Now please propose, discuss and only make changes AFTER group buy in.
Springee (
talk)
01:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
This piece summarizes some of the disagreements with Nadrocentric model of the universe. HughD, if you can show signs that you understand some of the concepts there, it will make for some common ground and actual collaboration. By this I do not mean that I'd expect you to agree, but only to acknowledge there's an entire part of the population, often far more expert than Ralph's Krew on automotive subjects, who disagree fundamentally about many of the ideas you take as given. Anmccaff ( talk) 01:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
We are asked not to edit article space to attempt to teach an editor a lesson.Either take that back, or take it to ANI, where it will lead to a boomerang. That is, simple and plainly, mendaciously poisoning the well. Anmccaff ( talk) 16:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
(Undid revision 718484375 by Anmccaff (talk) no edit summary, unexplained removal of highly relevant content and multiple noteworthy reliable sources) updated since my last visit (undo
That looks very much like an untruth, @ HughD:. There's extensive discussion by others before you again tendentiously added this material. You do not appear to have effectively participated in the discussion, perhaps, but there's little anyone else but you can do about that. Anmccaff ( talk) 21:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Contended content:
On September 9, 1966 U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the first mandatory federal safety standards for motor vehicles.
Sources:
Few drivers could imagine owning a car these days that did not come with airbags, antilock brakes and seatbelts. But 50 years ago motorists went without such basic safety features. That was before a young lawyer named Ralph Nader came along with a book, "Unsafe at Any Speed," that would change the auto industry. It accused automakers of failing to make cars as safe as possible. Less than a year after the book was published, a balky Congress created the federal safety agency that became the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration — an agency whose stated mission is to save lives, prevent injuries and reduce crashes...By the spring of 1966, "Unsafe at Any Speed" was a best seller for nonfiction...In September 1966 — about 10 months after the book was published — President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, requiring the adoption of new or upgraded vehicle safety standards, and creating an agency to enforce them and supervise safety recalls.
Unsafe at Any Speed, investigative report on U.S. automobile safety published in 1965 by consumer advocate Ralph Nader, who was then a 31-year-old attorney. Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-in Dangers of the American Automobile excoriated the American automotive industry, based in Detroit, for its prioritization of style and design over consumer safety. Nader's book eventually became a best seller and helped spur the passage of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in 1966, the country's first significant automobile safety legislation.
Signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson on 9 September 1966, this act created the first mandatory federal safety standards for motor vehicles.
Nader, another poor boy, rose to national hero status on the critic's side of America's car wars. His 1965 best-seller Unsafe at Any Speed focused on the appalling accident record of Chevrolet's Corvair and was largely responsible for the congressional passage, in 1966, of the nation's first reasonably stringent auto safety law.
What is the basis in policy or guideline for removing this relevant content and multiple noteworthy reliable sources? Hugh ( talk) 21:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Are you saying your command of the subject is so thin that you can only discuss it by creating straw men and arguing with them? It would certainly appear so. What are the odds that someone researching the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act would only find references centered on Ralph Nader? Looking, for example, at Google Scholar, not a bad place for an overview, a search on this legislation gets only one hit mentioning Nader in the first 20 abstracts...oddly enough, a piece written by "R. Nader." On the other hand, I see several decent cites evaluating the effectiveness of it, and several explaining the politics of it. Lot of good cites there, yep. "The Struggle for Auto Safety" and "Driving Forces" might be good cites here, for instance. One's a little dated, but it captures quite well the failure of Nader's model, except perhaps as a job-creation scheme for lawyers. Anmccaff ( talk) 06:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Again, stop using essentially dishonest techniques of argument if you don't wish to be seen as essentially dishonest. I obviously don't see your selected cites as "a neutral, relevant, well-sourced contribution." That's the essential problem, they ain't. They're tendentious, semi-relevant, and lazily sourced cites; that's not even one out of three, since their relevance is peripheral, not central. Anmccaff ( talk) 06:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Automobile safety. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://secure.srgint.com/home.aspxWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Automobile safety. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://secure.srgint.com/home.aspxWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) B dash ( talk) 00:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Automobile safety →
Automotive safety – This article is not limited in scope to "automobiles", but deals with the broader category of
motor vehicles. Common usage when referring to the broader category is to use the word "automotive", and thereby I proposed this move. In any case, Google Books results show
many more results for "automotive safety" than "
automobile safety". "Car safety" is also a possibility, but this article deals with a broader category of vehicles, in my opinion, as stated above.
RGloucester —
☎ 19:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)--Relisting.
Dekimasu
よ!
20:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
*Oppose: The term "Automobile" does cover the broader topic. Hence why we talk about the automobile companies even though they also manufacture cars, trucks etc. There is no reason for RGloucester to continue to run around Wikipedia and change titles from "Automobile" to "Cars" or "automotive" simply because the editor doesn't like the word "automobile".
Springee (
talk) 19:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC) See below
Springee (
talk)
23:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm striking my opposition to this change. I've been persuaded that "Automotive" makes sense when used as an adjective or adverb. It would then make sense to move the primary topic "Car" back to "Automobile". That would create a more harmonious "Automobile" and "Automotive" naming scheme. This is especially true when dealing with the high level article titles as well as the categories associated with automotive topics. It also would align our primary topic name, "Automobile" (vs car) with sources like the Encyclopedia Britannica (see link above). Finally, it would address the discrepancy that we see with the article "Car" covering topics related to SUVs, pickup trucks etc. This would have to be decided by a separate RfC vs this request to rename. Springee ( talk) 23:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
But I must add, I find "Crouch, Swale"'s antics here are appalling, basically co-opting this RM to push an agenda. Changing "automobile" to "car" is not part of this proposal, and his persistent "IDHT" and "ILDI" behaviour has all but derailed this RM. I would suggest that all of his entries be struck, save for one '!vote' or comment that is on point with the current proposal, (if one exists), to recorded as part of the final consensus. Other than that, "Crouch, Swale" should not participate any further. This really is one of the worst, most blatant details I've ever seen. - wolf 05:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
"Hey guys, how about we make it 'cars'?", "I think it should be cars!", "Let's change it to cars, ok?", "I want 'cars'!", "Cars, cars!, CARS!".. Then you have the nerve to tell me to "take it up elsewhere"...?
Wow. Oh, and uh... 'no'. I said all I've needed to say. I'm sure you still have plenty more to add, but I'm done here. 19:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
"Hey guys, how about we make it 'automobiles'?", "I think it should be automobiles!", "Let's change it to automobiles, ok?", "I want 'automobiles'!", "Automobiles, automobiles!, AUTOMOBILES!".. I count 13 of my signs but Springee has 22! At Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 26#Category:Cars I have 10 signs but Springee has 19 and RGloucester has 34! similarly at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 November I have 10 but RGloucester also has 10 and Springee has 26.
The current text claims:
Blinding lights can be blinding, and it is hard to see any of these things when you can't see anything except flashing, or multiple flashes, and pain. I realize I'm more sensitive to these lights than most people, but even if most people are less sensitive, don't they have some trouble seeing when blinded? 108.51.205.136 ( talk) 00:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
A robot has classified a group of changes as "very poorly written, poorly referenced changes": https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Automotive_safety&diff=988183863&oldid=988158916
Only the group of changes has been rated and not each individual change.
So I assume a detailed analysis could help to see which change might be of interest and which might not. My comments are in the comment column:
Size | Change size | Change summary | Change status | Comment |
---|---|---|---|---|
76,225 bytes | +164 | Automated cars | undo Tag: Reverted | This change moves automated cars from introduction summary into a dedicated section. I am not sure to understand why it was reverted by the robot. |
76,061 bytes | +27 | →Issues for particular demographic groups | undo Tag: Reverted | Is driver behavior a part of vehicle safety? I assume it its a question of vocabulary. |
76,034 bytes | +144 | →Unused safety features: Other unused safety features | undo Tag: Reverted | Looks like good faith truism but it is "very poorly written, poorly referenced changes". |
75,890 bytes | +56 | →Other safety measures | undo Tag: Reverted | This is related to TPMS but not sourced. The edit looks like good-faith. According to a TPMS provider, "Tyre pressure monitoring systems (TPMS) are an important vehicle safety feature legislated in many countries around the world. Since its initial adoption in 2008 in the United States (TREAD Act) the legislation quickly spread in different countries including the EU member states, South Korea, and Japan. " I do assume that vehicle safety is a part of automotive safety. However, I believe a reliable source could be welcomed. |
75,834 bytes | +74 | →Teenage drivers: capacity | undo Tag: Reverted | That's also a "very poorly written, poorly referenced changes" as detected by the robot |
75,760 bytes | +137 | →Teenage drivers: Geneva convention: a driver in a foreign country should be 18 | undo Tag: Reverted | That's just a "very poorly written, poorly referenced changes" as detected by the robot |
75,623 bytes | +104 | →Infants and children: In the same rearward facing child restraint might be forbidden where there is a not deactivable airbag. | undo Tag: Reverted | The topic of rearward facing child restraint with airbag might be of interest. On Internet, some in Australia says "Never put a rearward facing child restraint in the front seat due to the high risk of injury from an airbag." Other in Europe say "Warning labels now have to be fitted in cars to avoid the installation of rearward facing child restraints and in some cars there is now provision for automatic detection of child restraints and out of position occupants or a manual switch to disconnect the passenger airbag system." |
75,519 bytes | +60 | →Safety trends: Old data, before Brexit | undo Tag: Reverted | There was 28 EU members before Brexit. This is not true anymore. How to deal with it? |
75,459 bytes | +21 | →Safety trends: citation needed | undo Tag: Reverted | This change challenge the poorly source assertion which suggest (the US) has "technological advances". Is there a contradiction here? Can the US be — in the same time — in advance in safety and late in safety result? |
75,438 bytes | +682 | →2010s: ====2020s==== | undo Tag: Reverted | This change introduces the 2020 decade and the year 2021. There are some references but the year 2021 might be too recent to be dealt with by wikipedia, because wikipedia should focus on topics yet dealt with by other encyclopedias. |
74,756 bytes | +57 | Better TOC + centuries | undo Tag: Reverted | While hiding the table of content is a poor solution, this change provides a more detailed table of content. However it comes with a grouping of decades into centuries. |