This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
This is just a little comment to the map... I have recently been at Malta, and they do not drive on the right side of the road... It is an old British colony, and they still drive on the left side. I have no idea how to change this, so I hope, that someone will se this message and correct it
hmm- romans actually wore thier swords on the right (exccept for officers)until they switched from the short gladius to the longer cavalry style spatha which made it impractical. The greeks also used often even shorter swords, although i am not certain which side they were worn on. Does this cast doubt on the ancients-walked-on-the-left-to-allow-easy-sword-acess theory? The standard roman sword technique was underhand stabbing at the groin and gut, suiting the short gladius. wouldn't this mean you would actually want the opponant on your non-sword side (left)? This would seem to be confirmed by the fact that the romans fought left (shield) side forward. When greaves were still worn, they were typically worn only on the left.
Actually, on second thought, perhaps when fighting shieldless, as travelling swordsmen would be (shields were usually only military and also very large and heavy) , maybe you would present your right side to the opponant rather than your left, to keep your distanc since you have nothing to protect yourself. This would be especially true of road-wariness, where you would probably want to distance yourself and defend against the threat rather than score an efficient and ruthless quick kill.
In the Myths and Miscellaneous Facts section, it states "Approximately one quarter to one third of the world's traffic travels on the left-hand side of the road". Unless someone has stats on vehicle numbers, I would have thought the best way to come up with a figure like this would be by population. On a population basis, this should clearly be "Approximately one third ..." and the figure of one quarter seems to be belittling the significance of the number of people who do actually drive on the left.
On a related note, the statement "It is commonly asserted that left-hand traffic is a singularly British custom." needs to be justified. Asserted by whom? Not the 34% who drive on the left, for a start. Probably very few people within 10,000 km of where I live (NZ). This could well be a local phenomenon rather than a global one, and needs to be watered down. I have no doubt that there are some people who feel or believe this, and maybe quite a lot in some countries, but I do doubt that it is globally common. Pedrocelli 02:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Robsas 15:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I have created a version of the map using SAS/Graph, and it has html charttips (hover text) that show the name of the countries, and it's left/right handedness when you hover your mouse over them:
http://robslink.com/SAS/democd28/driving.htm
I think the html charttips are a useful addition, and would encourage this map to be used instead of (or in addition to) the SVG map.
All you need is the html file (see link above), and then put the following gif file in the same directory. (the html displays the gif file, and then defines the hotspot areas for the charttips):
http://robslink.com/SAS/democd28/driving.gif
You have my permission to use this map, and I'm willing to make changes/corrections/enhancements to it from time to time.
Here is a page describing exactly where I got my data about left/right countries, and what assumptions I made:
http://robslink.com/SAS/democd28/driving_info.htm
Robsas 15:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Are bicycle brakes reversed between countries driving on opposite sides? In the US, the rear brake is mounted on the right handlebar, but in Tanzania it's on the left. This makes sense, as you need the other hand to signal a turn across traffic, and if you're reduced to one brake, rear gives you the best handling. Is this general, or just coincidence? kwami 09:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
But you signal with the hand that faces traffic: If you ride on the left, you signal with your right arm, and if you ride on the right, you signal with your left arm. At least, that's the rule in the US (where you may ride on the left on a one-way street).
I've never ridden a bike in the US with the brakes reversed: On all, the right-hand brake controlled the rear brake. However, when I let people ride my bike in Tanzania, they almost inevitably crash the first time they use the brakes - they've never been on a bike with that configuration before. So here are two countries with different traffic directionalities corresponding to clear differences is brake setup. Now, nearly all Tanzanian bikes are made in China, as are a good number of US bikes (Schwinn, for example). So China must be selling right-rear bikes to the US, and left-rear bikes to Tanzania (or more likely East Africa). kwami ( talk) 09:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
taiwan drives on left not right yet the diagram colours taiwan red, which is right thus a mistake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.6.250.250 ( talk) 02:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Spain is included in both the right and the left lists in the "which side do trains operate on" part in the trains section. It is stated that trains operate on the right (except for metros), and that they operate on the left. Which is it? I think that in keeping with the other western European countries, trains in Spain keep to the left (except for metros), and that this section should be updated. Can anyone with concrete information clarify this? -- 70.75.0.236 14:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the trains in Spain keep to the right as evidenced by this video about the AVE high speed train:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=QC4YBHoaWfY
As far as metros are concerned, I really don't know but I'm trying to find info on that right now. Haku8645 ( talk) 05:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm a bit confused by the section on the Channel tunnel. It says, in the paragraph about the proposed road-traffic implementation, that "This being the case, vehicles travelling to France would keep to the right and vehicles travelling to the UK would keep to the left." But, France and the UK are in opposite directions, meaning that both sets of vehicles would in actuality be trying to keep to the southwest side of the tunnel... a practical impossibility. Am I reading this wrong, or does this need to be fixed? -- Darkwind ( talk) 09:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Someone has attempted to make uncited POV claims about the "correct" layout for instruments on RHD vs LHD vehicles 3 times now. Normally this would lead to being suspended. Can we have this discussion here first please? Your logic would dictate that my superbike should have a different layout of instruments, brake or gear levers when I ride on the "other" side. They are considerably more demanding to ride (and keep points off your licence) than, say, a Fiat Panda 8-). Ephebi 17:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I have replaced the vague descriptor "driving on the left or right" with a properly encyclopædic, noun-based article title ("Traffic directionality"). See Traffic. -- Scheinwerfermann ( talk) 18:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
You should check for double redirects when you move a page, and fix them. Ewlyahoocom ( talk) 03:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not seeing a double-redirect. Can someone please describe what's wrong? -- Scheinwerfermann ( talk) 05:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I've requested a citation for this use of the word "directionality". To my mind, the directionality of traffic is the direction in which it is going (forward or backwards; downtown or to the suburbs, etc.), not the side to which it is keeping. Google and Google books seem to support this. If the less intuitive meaning is truly "in wide use in the industries involved" then a citable source should be easy for you to add. Thanks -- jnestorius( talk) 10:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the present discussion could accurately be characterised as "Wikipedia making up" a general term, for there's no requirement that article titles themselves be supported by references the way assertions within articles must be. Rather, it's up to editors to name articles so as to describe the contents accurately, concisely, and with a minimum of ambiguity. These questions of accuracy, conciseness, and ambiguity are what we're currently discussing.
Wikipedia's naming convention policy calls for the use of nouns (e.g. "traffic handedness") rather than verbs (e.g. "driving on the left or on the right") when reasonably possible — and it would seem to be reasonably possible in this case, in that we could leave the article as it presently is, we could change it to "traffic handedness", we could use your "left and right hand traffic" idea, or we could pick another noun-based option not yet discussed. That said, if consensus develops to return to "driving on the left or on the right", it does conform with the Wikipedia naming convention's preference for the gerund form of the verb phrase. — Scheinwerfermann ( talk) 13:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Citations provided, though I must admit your tone seems perhaps a bit more abrasive and brusque than might be warranted in this discussion. I'm curious what you might've done instead of endorsing Right- and left-hand traffic had I not provided citations. — Scheinwerfermann ( talk) 23:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, no harm done, and I agree that talk page discussions can in some cases be nothing but endless tailchasing, but I wish you will please try to assume good faith, for an end-justifies-means explanation for impatience is unlikely to gain you much traction in the event a dispute will break out in some future talk page discussion. Or at least just don't admit you consider the end to justify the means! ;-)
So: Right- and left-hand traffic is on the table. What do we think of simplifying this to Traffic handedness? The former isn't nearly so awkward as Driving on the left or right was, but the latter is more concise and can reasonably be considered a stylistic variant. Compare Right- and left-handed people, Right- and left-handedness, and Handedness.
Whichever we settle on, there'll obviously be redirects from Right-hand traffic, Left-hand traffic, Right-hand drive, Left-hand drive, Traffic handedness, etc., so accessibility won't be an issue. (L4 header added to simplify this phase of the discussion) — Scheinwerfermann ( talk) 23:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
— Scheinwerfermann ( talk) 00:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Me too. We have achieved clear (if typically rough) consensus, so I have moved the page. I checked for double-redirects and didn't find any. — Scheinwerfermann ( talk) 17:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
There looks to be a reversion battle brewing, so I'm taking it here. The image to the right is intended to show traffic driving on the left, per the information provided by User:Mellisa Anthony Jones. However, I am inclined to agree with User:CZmarlin that the image does not clearly show such. Traffic may be keeping left, but the only way I can explicitly discern that is by looking at the yellow pavement markings (and even then, who's to say that India uses yellow as a centerline -- Britain does not). The only vehicles I can see are those approaching the photographer -- they consist of through and left-turn movements. I cannot identify any obvious indication that traffic is keeping left -- surely there are better images for placement at the introduction of this article. -- Bossi ( talk • gallery • contrib) 01:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
There are still a number of places in Sweden where certain roads have been left with left-hand traffic solutions What does that mean? As is often the case, the word "solutions" seems to be being used as a buzzword when something simpler would be better. 86.143.48.55 ( talk) 03:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
What side of the road do they drive on in Chung Ying Street? One side of the road is in China and the other side of the road is in Hong Kong? 203.115.188.254 ( talk) 09:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Theoretically it would be a one way street, but if for some reason the implied direction was inconvenient, the two sides might have agreed on an alternative arrangement? I actually heard that this street is too narrow to support motor vehicular traffic, but that doesn't mean that a theoretical answer to the question doesn't exist. Unfortunately when I was there a few years back, this street was strictly off limits as it was in a forbidden zone that was in turn within the closed area. George Smyth XI ( talk) 20:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
This article frequently makes refference to a country/state called Ireland, IRELAND IS NOT A COUNTRY. Ireland is an island upon which sit 'the Republic of Ireland (Éire)' and 'the Kingdom of Northern Island', part of the UK. In many places this article Implies that Ireland is a single country governed from Dublin and I find it offensive.( Morcus ( talk) 14:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC))
Morcus is right. The term 'Ireland' is too presumptuous because it ignores the fact that part of Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. The program should be changed to make the linked word automatically state the full name 'Republic of Ireland'. ( 203.99.236.13 ( talk) 07:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC))
The Republic Of Irelands Official name is Éire an not Ireland because its a loaded term that implies ownership of Northern Ireland. NI is a Kingdom as is Great Britain (England and Scotland. Not Wales) which combined form The UK. Incase your wondering Wales is A principality and Technically a dependancy of England until 1707 when it became a dependancy of GB. The Part you've quoted is only unambiguous to someone who understands how the division of Ireland Works and i know for a fact that many people outside the UK and especially in the Americas recognise the Whole island as a single State.( Morcus ( talk) 15:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC))
The use of Ireland with the suggestion of Statehood is Inncorrect and is an attack on the sovereignty of HM's government in westminister over NI as it implies A single state occupies the whole island. the Term is wrong givern the circumstance and shouldn't be used. To my mind it would be like refering to spain as Iberia or north Korea as Korea.( Morcus ( talk) 22:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC))
Just to bring everyone up to date with the saga in Samoa, yesterday the opposition party challenged the bill in parliament and, after a heated four-hour debate, the challenge was defeated. So it looks like Samoa's officially going to switch! I've put an extra clause in the Samoa section mentioning this, and changed 'If the switch goes ahead' to 'When' for the sake of consistency. I'm hoping that after the third parliamentary reading, for the sake of procedure, we'll get an official date announced so I can go ahead and look into booking flights! Haku8645 ( talk) 12:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
The official date for the switch is now 07 September 2009 at 6.00am local time. Mark your calendars people!
Haku8645 (
talk)
00:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
While Canada does indeed drive on the right now, the history cited in the article is not quite correct. Until about 1890, all of Canada drove on the left, just like the rest of the British Empire. I have seen photos from Winnipeg (1880s), Edmonton (1880s, 1890s, 1900s), and Toronto (unsure of date) showing left-handed traffic. Winnipeg may have been the first to switch (about 1895?), but other locations were slower; Edmonton, for example, did not switch till 1912. (See the books Winnipeg's Electric Transit and Edmonton's Electric Transit for many of the photos I am referring to here.) While Vancouver, BC and Halifax, NS may have been the last parts of Canada to switch, they were not alone at an earlier time. -- Dmacgr 22 ( talk) 07:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Under United States, it says that traffic moves on the left in the El Monte Busway in California with a citeneeded. I can confirm that this is true, having seen it with mine own eyes today, but I'm not sure how to confirm it. I do have a bit of photographic evidence, though I'm not sure it's clear enough or citeable enough. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The article has a footnote saying:
It should be noted, of course, that some of these former British colonies ceased to be colonies and became independent before the advent of motor vehicles, e.g., the United States and Canada.
Why is this relevant? Driving on the proper side of the road was also important in the age of the horse carriage.
My guess is that -- like many other people -- the author of the footnote believes that rules about right- or left-hand traffic were introduced in the age of the motor car.
Unless someone can explain why the information in the footnote is relevant, I suggest that it be removed.-- Oz1cz ( talk) 14:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't really mind if an article begins "x is a term that refers to...", but I do think it's a little inelegant - certainly I wasn't factually inaccurate and I'm glad the vehicular traffic thing wasn't put back for the same reason. What I do find rather odd is an assertion that 34% drive on the left, but 28% drive on the left by road length. It makes absolutely no sense. Either people drive on the left or they don't, you can't drive on the right by road length but on the left for other purposes. Obviously the statement has nothing to do with a proportion but refers to a proportion of the world's roads. -- Lo2u ( T • C) 12:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
(Reduce indent) Schweinwerfermann, it might have been more constructive to discuss the reasons for your edits here instead of making what looks to me like a personal attack.
To illustrate my point, Australia covers about 5% of the world's land area but contains only 0.03% of the world's population. Obviously, it would be absurd for me to say: "Only 0.03% of the world's population is Australian. By land area 5% are Australian”. Nor does the fact that a third of the world’s oil exports are from Arab countries mean that “by oil production, a third of the world’s population is Arab”. Please try to appreciate that what you were attempting to write didn’t make sense and try to understand why I thought it necessary to turn this muddle into something a little more logical when I came across it and why I was disappointed to see exactly the same, patently nonsensical, wording restored, without any proper explanation.
On the subject of your post, I have reverted precisely once. At that point, upon finding that the version I disliked had been put back, I did indeed take the signal to discuss; in fact I haven’t edited the page since. You make it sound like I was I was refusing to discuss my reasons while making the same edit several times, which isn’t the case. NFH didn’t think it necessary to initiate a discussion or to reply to my post. At no point has he even attempted to explain what was factually inaccurate in my edit, which repeated the source almost word for word, and yet you haven’t called him uncooperative. Please understand that short, curt edit summaries are a consequence of constraints on space and they’re unavoidable when reverting. Those making them don’t usually intend to cause you offence. This edit summary is not especially rude, certainly not as much as this. If, as you say, you find it difficult to show good faith then that is your problem, not mine. If you want to discuss the matter further, please leave a polite message on my talk page. From now on let’s stick to discussions about the article on this page. -- Lo2u ( T • C) 15:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
The opening paragraph begins with an assertion that the rule "is so fundamental to transport that it is sometimes referred to as the rule of the road". This rather puzzled me when I first read it, not because I doubt it can be referred to as this, but because as I have always understood it, that term also has a rather wider meaning and isn't quite a synonym. None of the online dictionaries I can find mention right/left hand drive regulations specifically:
1. Merriam Webster: " a customary practice (as driving always on a particular side of the road or yielding the right of way) developed in the interest of safety and often subsequently reinforced by law ; especially : any of the rules making up a code governing ships in matters relating to mutual safety"
2. American Heritage: "A set of customary practices, especially for the operation of a motor vehicle, boat, or aircraft, established to promote efficiency and safety. Often used in the plural."
3. Infoplease: "any of the regulations concerning the safe handling of vessels under way with respect to one another, imposed by a government on ships in its own waters or upon its own ships on the high seas."'
4. 1913 Webster: "That which is prescribed or laid down as a guide for conduct or action; a governing direction for a specific purpose; an authoritative enactment; a regulation; a prescription; a precept; as, the rules of various societies; the rules governing a school; a rule of etiquette or propriety; the rules of cricket."
At the moment the wording of the sentence isn't bad but it misleadingly gives priority to a very narrow meaning for a term whose meaning is usually much broader. I accept this made a catchy title for a book and I accept too that it deserves prominence but I don't think it should be bolded, I think the "so fundamental" wording is over the top. The term isn't the rule of the road, rather it is one of several very fundamental rules that might be termed this. I don't think it should be used ein the article as if it's a synonym. It might refer, for example, to a rule that traffic on minor roads should give way to those on major roads or that cars overtaking should give priority to oncoming traffic. --
Lo2u (
T •
C)
23:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
"The Mishna[6] records that the Kohanim in the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem would ascend the altar on the east (right) side and descend on the west (left)." Can someone explain the relivance this has to road traffic?-- Prophesy ( talk) 10:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
This is just a little comment to the map... I have recently been at Malta, and they do not drive on the right side of the road... It is an old British colony, and they still drive on the left side. I have no idea how to change this, so I hope, that someone will se this message and correct it
hmm- romans actually wore thier swords on the right (exccept for officers)until they switched from the short gladius to the longer cavalry style spatha which made it impractical. The greeks also used often even shorter swords, although i am not certain which side they were worn on. Does this cast doubt on the ancients-walked-on-the-left-to-allow-easy-sword-acess theory? The standard roman sword technique was underhand stabbing at the groin and gut, suiting the short gladius. wouldn't this mean you would actually want the opponant on your non-sword side (left)? This would seem to be confirmed by the fact that the romans fought left (shield) side forward. When greaves were still worn, they were typically worn only on the left.
Actually, on second thought, perhaps when fighting shieldless, as travelling swordsmen would be (shields were usually only military and also very large and heavy) , maybe you would present your right side to the opponant rather than your left, to keep your distanc since you have nothing to protect yourself. This would be especially true of road-wariness, where you would probably want to distance yourself and defend against the threat rather than score an efficient and ruthless quick kill.
In the Myths and Miscellaneous Facts section, it states "Approximately one quarter to one third of the world's traffic travels on the left-hand side of the road". Unless someone has stats on vehicle numbers, I would have thought the best way to come up with a figure like this would be by population. On a population basis, this should clearly be "Approximately one third ..." and the figure of one quarter seems to be belittling the significance of the number of people who do actually drive on the left.
On a related note, the statement "It is commonly asserted that left-hand traffic is a singularly British custom." needs to be justified. Asserted by whom? Not the 34% who drive on the left, for a start. Probably very few people within 10,000 km of where I live (NZ). This could well be a local phenomenon rather than a global one, and needs to be watered down. I have no doubt that there are some people who feel or believe this, and maybe quite a lot in some countries, but I do doubt that it is globally common. Pedrocelli 02:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Robsas 15:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I have created a version of the map using SAS/Graph, and it has html charttips (hover text) that show the name of the countries, and it's left/right handedness when you hover your mouse over them:
http://robslink.com/SAS/democd28/driving.htm
I think the html charttips are a useful addition, and would encourage this map to be used instead of (or in addition to) the SVG map.
All you need is the html file (see link above), and then put the following gif file in the same directory. (the html displays the gif file, and then defines the hotspot areas for the charttips):
http://robslink.com/SAS/democd28/driving.gif
You have my permission to use this map, and I'm willing to make changes/corrections/enhancements to it from time to time.
Here is a page describing exactly where I got my data about left/right countries, and what assumptions I made:
http://robslink.com/SAS/democd28/driving_info.htm
Robsas 15:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Are bicycle brakes reversed between countries driving on opposite sides? In the US, the rear brake is mounted on the right handlebar, but in Tanzania it's on the left. This makes sense, as you need the other hand to signal a turn across traffic, and if you're reduced to one brake, rear gives you the best handling. Is this general, or just coincidence? kwami 09:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
But you signal with the hand that faces traffic: If you ride on the left, you signal with your right arm, and if you ride on the right, you signal with your left arm. At least, that's the rule in the US (where you may ride on the left on a one-way street).
I've never ridden a bike in the US with the brakes reversed: On all, the right-hand brake controlled the rear brake. However, when I let people ride my bike in Tanzania, they almost inevitably crash the first time they use the brakes - they've never been on a bike with that configuration before. So here are two countries with different traffic directionalities corresponding to clear differences is brake setup. Now, nearly all Tanzanian bikes are made in China, as are a good number of US bikes (Schwinn, for example). So China must be selling right-rear bikes to the US, and left-rear bikes to Tanzania (or more likely East Africa). kwami ( talk) 09:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
taiwan drives on left not right yet the diagram colours taiwan red, which is right thus a mistake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.6.250.250 ( talk) 02:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Spain is included in both the right and the left lists in the "which side do trains operate on" part in the trains section. It is stated that trains operate on the right (except for metros), and that they operate on the left. Which is it? I think that in keeping with the other western European countries, trains in Spain keep to the left (except for metros), and that this section should be updated. Can anyone with concrete information clarify this? -- 70.75.0.236 14:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the trains in Spain keep to the right as evidenced by this video about the AVE high speed train:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=QC4YBHoaWfY
As far as metros are concerned, I really don't know but I'm trying to find info on that right now. Haku8645 ( talk) 05:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm a bit confused by the section on the Channel tunnel. It says, in the paragraph about the proposed road-traffic implementation, that "This being the case, vehicles travelling to France would keep to the right and vehicles travelling to the UK would keep to the left." But, France and the UK are in opposite directions, meaning that both sets of vehicles would in actuality be trying to keep to the southwest side of the tunnel... a practical impossibility. Am I reading this wrong, or does this need to be fixed? -- Darkwind ( talk) 09:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Someone has attempted to make uncited POV claims about the "correct" layout for instruments on RHD vs LHD vehicles 3 times now. Normally this would lead to being suspended. Can we have this discussion here first please? Your logic would dictate that my superbike should have a different layout of instruments, brake or gear levers when I ride on the "other" side. They are considerably more demanding to ride (and keep points off your licence) than, say, a Fiat Panda 8-). Ephebi 17:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I have replaced the vague descriptor "driving on the left or right" with a properly encyclopædic, noun-based article title ("Traffic directionality"). See Traffic. -- Scheinwerfermann ( talk) 18:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
You should check for double redirects when you move a page, and fix them. Ewlyahoocom ( talk) 03:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not seeing a double-redirect. Can someone please describe what's wrong? -- Scheinwerfermann ( talk) 05:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I've requested a citation for this use of the word "directionality". To my mind, the directionality of traffic is the direction in which it is going (forward or backwards; downtown or to the suburbs, etc.), not the side to which it is keeping. Google and Google books seem to support this. If the less intuitive meaning is truly "in wide use in the industries involved" then a citable source should be easy for you to add. Thanks -- jnestorius( talk) 10:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the present discussion could accurately be characterised as "Wikipedia making up" a general term, for there's no requirement that article titles themselves be supported by references the way assertions within articles must be. Rather, it's up to editors to name articles so as to describe the contents accurately, concisely, and with a minimum of ambiguity. These questions of accuracy, conciseness, and ambiguity are what we're currently discussing.
Wikipedia's naming convention policy calls for the use of nouns (e.g. "traffic handedness") rather than verbs (e.g. "driving on the left or on the right") when reasonably possible — and it would seem to be reasonably possible in this case, in that we could leave the article as it presently is, we could change it to "traffic handedness", we could use your "left and right hand traffic" idea, or we could pick another noun-based option not yet discussed. That said, if consensus develops to return to "driving on the left or on the right", it does conform with the Wikipedia naming convention's preference for the gerund form of the verb phrase. — Scheinwerfermann ( talk) 13:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Citations provided, though I must admit your tone seems perhaps a bit more abrasive and brusque than might be warranted in this discussion. I'm curious what you might've done instead of endorsing Right- and left-hand traffic had I not provided citations. — Scheinwerfermann ( talk) 23:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, no harm done, and I agree that talk page discussions can in some cases be nothing but endless tailchasing, but I wish you will please try to assume good faith, for an end-justifies-means explanation for impatience is unlikely to gain you much traction in the event a dispute will break out in some future talk page discussion. Or at least just don't admit you consider the end to justify the means! ;-)
So: Right- and left-hand traffic is on the table. What do we think of simplifying this to Traffic handedness? The former isn't nearly so awkward as Driving on the left or right was, but the latter is more concise and can reasonably be considered a stylistic variant. Compare Right- and left-handed people, Right- and left-handedness, and Handedness.
Whichever we settle on, there'll obviously be redirects from Right-hand traffic, Left-hand traffic, Right-hand drive, Left-hand drive, Traffic handedness, etc., so accessibility won't be an issue. (L4 header added to simplify this phase of the discussion) — Scheinwerfermann ( talk) 23:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
— Scheinwerfermann ( talk) 00:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Me too. We have achieved clear (if typically rough) consensus, so I have moved the page. I checked for double-redirects and didn't find any. — Scheinwerfermann ( talk) 17:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
There looks to be a reversion battle brewing, so I'm taking it here. The image to the right is intended to show traffic driving on the left, per the information provided by User:Mellisa Anthony Jones. However, I am inclined to agree with User:CZmarlin that the image does not clearly show such. Traffic may be keeping left, but the only way I can explicitly discern that is by looking at the yellow pavement markings (and even then, who's to say that India uses yellow as a centerline -- Britain does not). The only vehicles I can see are those approaching the photographer -- they consist of through and left-turn movements. I cannot identify any obvious indication that traffic is keeping left -- surely there are better images for placement at the introduction of this article. -- Bossi ( talk • gallery • contrib) 01:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
There are still a number of places in Sweden where certain roads have been left with left-hand traffic solutions What does that mean? As is often the case, the word "solutions" seems to be being used as a buzzword when something simpler would be better. 86.143.48.55 ( talk) 03:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
What side of the road do they drive on in Chung Ying Street? One side of the road is in China and the other side of the road is in Hong Kong? 203.115.188.254 ( talk) 09:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Theoretically it would be a one way street, but if for some reason the implied direction was inconvenient, the two sides might have agreed on an alternative arrangement? I actually heard that this street is too narrow to support motor vehicular traffic, but that doesn't mean that a theoretical answer to the question doesn't exist. Unfortunately when I was there a few years back, this street was strictly off limits as it was in a forbidden zone that was in turn within the closed area. George Smyth XI ( talk) 20:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
This article frequently makes refference to a country/state called Ireland, IRELAND IS NOT A COUNTRY. Ireland is an island upon which sit 'the Republic of Ireland (Éire)' and 'the Kingdom of Northern Island', part of the UK. In many places this article Implies that Ireland is a single country governed from Dublin and I find it offensive.( Morcus ( talk) 14:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC))
Morcus is right. The term 'Ireland' is too presumptuous because it ignores the fact that part of Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. The program should be changed to make the linked word automatically state the full name 'Republic of Ireland'. ( 203.99.236.13 ( talk) 07:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC))
The Republic Of Irelands Official name is Éire an not Ireland because its a loaded term that implies ownership of Northern Ireland. NI is a Kingdom as is Great Britain (England and Scotland. Not Wales) which combined form The UK. Incase your wondering Wales is A principality and Technically a dependancy of England until 1707 when it became a dependancy of GB. The Part you've quoted is only unambiguous to someone who understands how the division of Ireland Works and i know for a fact that many people outside the UK and especially in the Americas recognise the Whole island as a single State.( Morcus ( talk) 15:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC))
The use of Ireland with the suggestion of Statehood is Inncorrect and is an attack on the sovereignty of HM's government in westminister over NI as it implies A single state occupies the whole island. the Term is wrong givern the circumstance and shouldn't be used. To my mind it would be like refering to spain as Iberia or north Korea as Korea.( Morcus ( talk) 22:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC))
Just to bring everyone up to date with the saga in Samoa, yesterday the opposition party challenged the bill in parliament and, after a heated four-hour debate, the challenge was defeated. So it looks like Samoa's officially going to switch! I've put an extra clause in the Samoa section mentioning this, and changed 'If the switch goes ahead' to 'When' for the sake of consistency. I'm hoping that after the third parliamentary reading, for the sake of procedure, we'll get an official date announced so I can go ahead and look into booking flights! Haku8645 ( talk) 12:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
The official date for the switch is now 07 September 2009 at 6.00am local time. Mark your calendars people!
Haku8645 (
talk)
00:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
While Canada does indeed drive on the right now, the history cited in the article is not quite correct. Until about 1890, all of Canada drove on the left, just like the rest of the British Empire. I have seen photos from Winnipeg (1880s), Edmonton (1880s, 1890s, 1900s), and Toronto (unsure of date) showing left-handed traffic. Winnipeg may have been the first to switch (about 1895?), but other locations were slower; Edmonton, for example, did not switch till 1912. (See the books Winnipeg's Electric Transit and Edmonton's Electric Transit for many of the photos I am referring to here.) While Vancouver, BC and Halifax, NS may have been the last parts of Canada to switch, they were not alone at an earlier time. -- Dmacgr 22 ( talk) 07:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Under United States, it says that traffic moves on the left in the El Monte Busway in California with a citeneeded. I can confirm that this is true, having seen it with mine own eyes today, but I'm not sure how to confirm it. I do have a bit of photographic evidence, though I'm not sure it's clear enough or citeable enough. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The article has a footnote saying:
It should be noted, of course, that some of these former British colonies ceased to be colonies and became independent before the advent of motor vehicles, e.g., the United States and Canada.
Why is this relevant? Driving on the proper side of the road was also important in the age of the horse carriage.
My guess is that -- like many other people -- the author of the footnote believes that rules about right- or left-hand traffic were introduced in the age of the motor car.
Unless someone can explain why the information in the footnote is relevant, I suggest that it be removed.-- Oz1cz ( talk) 14:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't really mind if an article begins "x is a term that refers to...", but I do think it's a little inelegant - certainly I wasn't factually inaccurate and I'm glad the vehicular traffic thing wasn't put back for the same reason. What I do find rather odd is an assertion that 34% drive on the left, but 28% drive on the left by road length. It makes absolutely no sense. Either people drive on the left or they don't, you can't drive on the right by road length but on the left for other purposes. Obviously the statement has nothing to do with a proportion but refers to a proportion of the world's roads. -- Lo2u ( T • C) 12:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
(Reduce indent) Schweinwerfermann, it might have been more constructive to discuss the reasons for your edits here instead of making what looks to me like a personal attack.
To illustrate my point, Australia covers about 5% of the world's land area but contains only 0.03% of the world's population. Obviously, it would be absurd for me to say: "Only 0.03% of the world's population is Australian. By land area 5% are Australian”. Nor does the fact that a third of the world’s oil exports are from Arab countries mean that “by oil production, a third of the world’s population is Arab”. Please try to appreciate that what you were attempting to write didn’t make sense and try to understand why I thought it necessary to turn this muddle into something a little more logical when I came across it and why I was disappointed to see exactly the same, patently nonsensical, wording restored, without any proper explanation.
On the subject of your post, I have reverted precisely once. At that point, upon finding that the version I disliked had been put back, I did indeed take the signal to discuss; in fact I haven’t edited the page since. You make it sound like I was I was refusing to discuss my reasons while making the same edit several times, which isn’t the case. NFH didn’t think it necessary to initiate a discussion or to reply to my post. At no point has he even attempted to explain what was factually inaccurate in my edit, which repeated the source almost word for word, and yet you haven’t called him uncooperative. Please understand that short, curt edit summaries are a consequence of constraints on space and they’re unavoidable when reverting. Those making them don’t usually intend to cause you offence. This edit summary is not especially rude, certainly not as much as this. If, as you say, you find it difficult to show good faith then that is your problem, not mine. If you want to discuss the matter further, please leave a polite message on my talk page. From now on let’s stick to discussions about the article on this page. -- Lo2u ( T • C) 15:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
The opening paragraph begins with an assertion that the rule "is so fundamental to transport that it is sometimes referred to as the rule of the road". This rather puzzled me when I first read it, not because I doubt it can be referred to as this, but because as I have always understood it, that term also has a rather wider meaning and isn't quite a synonym. None of the online dictionaries I can find mention right/left hand drive regulations specifically:
1. Merriam Webster: " a customary practice (as driving always on a particular side of the road or yielding the right of way) developed in the interest of safety and often subsequently reinforced by law ; especially : any of the rules making up a code governing ships in matters relating to mutual safety"
2. American Heritage: "A set of customary practices, especially for the operation of a motor vehicle, boat, or aircraft, established to promote efficiency and safety. Often used in the plural."
3. Infoplease: "any of the regulations concerning the safe handling of vessels under way with respect to one another, imposed by a government on ships in its own waters or upon its own ships on the high seas."'
4. 1913 Webster: "That which is prescribed or laid down as a guide for conduct or action; a governing direction for a specific purpose; an authoritative enactment; a regulation; a prescription; a precept; as, the rules of various societies; the rules governing a school; a rule of etiquette or propriety; the rules of cricket."
At the moment the wording of the sentence isn't bad but it misleadingly gives priority to a very narrow meaning for a term whose meaning is usually much broader. I accept this made a catchy title for a book and I accept too that it deserves prominence but I don't think it should be bolded, I think the "so fundamental" wording is over the top. The term isn't the rule of the road, rather it is one of several very fundamental rules that might be termed this. I don't think it should be used ein the article as if it's a synonym. It might refer, for example, to a rule that traffic on minor roads should give way to those on major roads or that cars overtaking should give priority to oncoming traffic. --
Lo2u (
T •
C)
23:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
"The Mishna[6] records that the Kohanim in the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem would ascend the altar on the east (right) side and descend on the west (left)." Can someone explain the relivance this has to road traffic?-- Prophesy ( talk) 10:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |