This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Traffic collision article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Traffic collision.
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 17, 2005 and August 17, 2006. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 January 2019 and 8 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Xicong Liu.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 11:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
DemonBarberTodd commented, "Too many refrences to statistics of the U.S. Like most people who use wikipedia I am not an American."
The result of the proposal was move to
Traffic collision.
Anthony Appleyard (
talk) 10:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
There have been several discussions in the past few years regarding this article's title — as can be seen by [
title|reviewing them], preponderance of opinion has been to change the title to something along the lines of Motor vehicle collision or Traffic collision or Vehicle collision or something else that does not involve the word "accident". I believe we must make this change to bring the article title in line with Wikipedia's requirement for adherence to the
neutral point of view.
Past discussions have narrowly missed consensus by getting sidetracked in quibbles over whether "accident" or "collision" is the more common term, but that's really not the relevant question. Both terms have currency and most any English speaker knows they refer to the same kind of event. The critical key difference is that collision is a neutral term — it means two or more objects striking each other, regardless of the cause, blame, or intent of whoever might've been in control of whatever objects collide. "Accident" is not a neutral term, for it denotes an unintentional and/or unpredictable and/or inadvertent collision. Some collisions are unintentional, unpredictable, and/or inadvertent, but some are not. So, all accidents relevant to this article are collisions, but not all collisions are accidents. Therefore, collision — and not "accident" — is the noun we need in this article's title. As for the rest of the title, as has been mentioned in past discussion, we'd best not restrict it to cars or even to motor vehicles (think of horses and bicycles and streetcars and buses and other vehicles found in traffic). So, I cast the first !vote:
We appear to have good, strong consensus for a title change to eliminate the word "accident". Now let's see about selecting a new title. I favour Traffic collision and would like to get some discussion going by addressing some of the questions and comments above. Merriam-Webster defines Traffic as (...) the movement (as of vehicles or pedestrians) through an area or along a route; the vehicles, pedestrians, ships, or planes moving along a route (...). So I don't think we need to worry about the suitability of the word "traffic". As for collision, the same dictionary says collide means (...) to come together with solid or direct impact <the car collided with a tree> (...). There is always a collision of some kind involved with the kind of incident this article describes. It might be two or more cars colliding, it might be a car hitting a bicyclist or a pedestrian or a tree or the ground or the side of a mountain. It might be a bicyclist running into a pedestrian, or into a truck. It might be two pedestrians running into each other on the sidewalk because they're both engrossed in urgent text messaging. I really don't think there's a motor-vehicle-only connotation to "collision", and I think it is the more basic, proper term. "Crash" is somewhat more colloquial. Certainly everyone understands what it means, but the same is true of the present word ("accident") and we all seem to agree that one's gotta go. Finally, I don't think we need to prepend road to the title; see the definition of traffic cited above. So here again, I cast the first !vote:
Would prefer Motor vehicle collision
I haven't commented on the proposal to change the title to traffic collision until now. It is within the range of options that I said that I considered acceptable, but is the one I like the least. Given that there is consensus to change the title, and that is the leading candidate, I propose that the article be immediately moved to that name even if further discussion results in it moving to something else in the future. Leaving the article at the untenable title of car accident while discussing the new name is not productive. If we move to traffic collision now, this discussion may well peter out due to lack of interest, which would be productive. -- Athol Mullen ( talk) 05:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
It is stated that it is an offence to drive away from an accident without swapping details.
This is untrue. It is merely a guideline that details are swapped. If they are not swapped, it is a requirement that the matter be reported to the police within 24 hours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.161.77 ( talk) 06:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
An accident implies that there is nobody at fault. 99% of the time people make the conscious decision to let their guard down causing them to collide.-- GnarlyLikeWhoa ( talk) 03:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
References
This image has the description "Citroen c4, 1 student died in this car crash in Egypt, on the Cairo-Ismailia road, Misr International University" while its caption in the article is "Toyota Corolla Crash in Cairo, Egypt".
Please someone familiar with the Citroen or Toyota models identify this battered car. Cuddlyable3 ( talk) 09:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
What this page needs is not more images of motor vehicle collisions but charts and graphs of trends in MVCs. All but one of two of the car crashes can than been moved to a gallery at the bottom of the page.
Death from falling from a horse is not a traffic collision death. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
In many part of the world off road death are counted as deaths from motor vehicular collisions / traffic accidents. If one drives off the road and dies it is still a MVC death. As we have discussed above none of these terms are perfect.
Most people do not however count death that do not involve a motor vehical. Thus if one is traveling by say walking / climbing / kayaking / horse back and dies without the involvement of a motor vehicle it does not count as a MVC related death. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 09:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Large part of this seems to have been either plagiarized by http://www.miloslawllc.com/personal_injury.php and http://ownageville.com/Legal_consequences.html or plagiarized by us.
"Car collisions usually carry legal consequences in proportion to the severity of the crash. Nearly all common law jurisdictions impose some kind of requirement that parties involved in a collision (even with only stationary property) must stop at the scene, and exchange insurance or identification information or summon the police. In the UK it is a criminal offence to leave the scene of an accident without swapping details with the owner of the car or property or even to anyone else who asks for it. [1] Failing to obey this requirement is referred to as hit and run and is generally a criminal offence. However, most claims are settled without recourse to law. In this case, assuming that both parties carry adequate insurance, the claim is often handled between the two insurers. There may be financial penalties involved, such as an excess or deductible payment and a loss of a no-claims bonus or higher future premiums.
Depending upon the circumstances, parties involved in an incident may face criminal liability, civil liability, or both. Usually, the state starts a criminal prosecution only if someone is severely injured or killed, or if one of the drivers involved was acting illegally or clearly grossly negligent or intoxicated or otherwise impaired at the time the accident occurred. Criminal charges might include driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, driving without due care (UK), assault with a deadly weapon (USA), manslaughter, or murder; penalties range from fines to jail time (USA) to prison time to death (where applicable). It is notable that the penalties for killing and injuring with motor vehicles are often very much less than for other actions with similar outcomes.
As for civil liability, in places where healthcare is mainly provided through private insurance, such as the USA, automobile accident personal injury lawsuits have become the most common type of tort. Because of pre-existing case law, the courts usually need to decide only the factual questions of who is at fault, and their percentage of fault, as well as how much must be paid out in damages to the injured plaintiff by the defendant's insurer.
For lesser offences civil action may result in fines or collecting points that invalidate the driver's licence, through a central government agency. Such complaints may be filed by a police officer, by other witnesses of an incident, or through remote enforcement such as CCTV or speed cameras. Some jurisdictions (notably US states) directly administer fines or suspend licenses imposed by civil or criminal authorities when a driver has violated the rules of the road and thus the terms of a driver's license. In some jurisdictions such administrative penalties may be imposed through quasi-criminal infractions; other jurisdictions do not recognize infractions and charge all violations, at a minimum, as misdemeanours or felonies.
Some argue that the effect of a loss or injury due to a crash can be equivalent to that of a victim of crime under criminal law. Several campaigning organisations that provide support mechanisms also seek out an equivalent status within their jurisdictions [2] or draw attention to particular road safety issues and attitudes with the intention of introducing law reform (e.g. MADD)."
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 12:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
References
This whole area contains a massive number of co tracts containing snippets of related information. Will try to address some of it. It does not help that every country uses a different term to describe MVCs. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Needs section on cellphones. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the movie death proof by quentin tarantino should be added because the plot is similar to the other books/films listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.178.64 ( talk) 01:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
"Vehicle" includes boats and airplanes, which also (unfortunately) have accidents (in which people are injured and killed) so why do we have a redirect to this article, with its relatively narrow focus? I propose that either this article be expanded to acknowledge that vehicles besides cars are involved in (serious, life-threatening) accidents, or else we create a new article covering the actual, full range of vehicle accidents.-- TyrS ( talk) 04:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Wtf is a milliard? I would fix it but I don't actually know what is intended here. Is it million or billion? 213.155.151.233 ( talk) 15:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Is it intentional that these subjects are not considered in the Article? Ppeetteerr ( talk) 11:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I thought of that but the whole structure of the article is based on car crashes (even though the title has been changed) with a nod or two to motor bikes, so it is difficult to see where the contributions of pedestrians, push bikes and falling trees (ie acts of god) fit in. Ppeetteerr ( talk) 12:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, thinking more - a possible approach would be a higher level article such as "Dangers of Travelling" which could deal with all forms of travel putting them in relative context and then allow a selection to go to e.g. Air, Rail, Sea, Road, Other. Then the road one could branch to e.g. Motor Vehicles, Pedestrians, Natural Events etc, the Motor Vehicles one could then branch to the current article, Freight, Coach Travel etc. I see some benefit in applying the same structure to the Diabetes articles (at least), where a high level one could help to decide which of the existing articles is the one required. I haven't explored the whole of Wikipedia yet (joke) as I keep getting sidetracked by the links, but I expect there are other subject areas that could benefit from such a hierarchical approach - how would this sit with other people? And would it be more useful to ask about in a more general forum than this particular article. Ppeetteerr ( talk) 12:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
"(a) The percentage of the total state highway mileage that is rural. (b) The percent increase in motor vehicle registration. (c) The extent of motor vehicle inspection. (d) The percentage of state-administered highway that is surfaced. (e) The average yearly minimum temperature. (f) The income per capita. " Do these have negative or positive correlations? Intuitively, I would guess that some are neg and some pos. 211.225.34.73 ( talk) 02:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
As a young person myself, I have to take issue with the classification of age as a "driver impairment". While I will acknowledge that there is a higher incidence of collisions amongst the young and the elderly, "Driver Impairment" seems an inappropriate section to relay this information. As age is not, itself, a cause of car crash, I propose that the information in question be moved to the section "Epidemiology", as I feel that would be a more appropriate place to convey that information. Sherlockian87 ( talk) 02:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. There is File:Relative_risk_of_an_accident_based_on_blood_alcohol_levels_.png now used in the text. I think we can replace it with much better (in terms of statistics and reliability) with this WHO picture: File:WHO_BAC_Relative_risk.png (More links and quotes are listed at file pages in Commons).
What is wrong with File:Relative_risk_of_an_accident_based_on_blood_alcohol_levels_.png? - it is based on single Australian study (page 54) (Adelaide) from 1997, which itself was taked from 1979-1980 paper (page 25) from Adelaide. In this paper there were 1500 drivers total; but most notable digit, 30% risk, is calculated only from 23 people.
On the other side, File:WHO_BAC_Relative_risk.png is part of WHO report World report on road traffic injury prevention from 2004; and data is taken from 4 different papers. It has more points along BAC axis, around 9; (there were only 6 groups in Adelaide statistics: "0; 0.01-0.03; 0.04-0.06; 0.07-0.09; 0.10-0.14; >0.15"). In WHO report there were 15000 drivers (Compton). Also from Compton (2002):
Also, the measurement of BAC level has improved greatly over the last 30+ years, statistical techniques have become much more sophisticated
` a5b ( talk) 01:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Y at-il une greffe de la rate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.1.181.116 ( talk) 12:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
This is not strictly correct: "An RAC survey of British drivers found that most thought they were better than average drivers; a contradictory result showing overconfidence in their abilities." If we define some measure of badness, and the distribution is skewed in that direction, it's entirely possible for "most" drivers (the median) to be to the left of the "average" (the mean). This would happen if a few really bad drivers skew the mean to the right. If we had a ref to the RAC survey we could probably clear this up. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 13:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.180.214.34 ( talk) 17:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
DOI: 10.1016/0001-4575(94)00050-V — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.142.197.182 ( talk) 21:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
I want to look up a fatal car accident that happened January 12 1994 in Louisiana Mia & Brezzy ( talk) 20:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
The following text was recently reverted: Road transport is the most dangerous situation people deal with on a daily basis; but these casualty figures attract less media attention than other, less frequent events like mass murder. Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death in the workplace in the United States accounting for 35 percent of all workplace fatalities. [1] The edit summary was: "Reverting addition of overly generalised, not encyclopedically significant musings; please gain consensus on the talk page that includes an agreement of exactly what point you're trying to make here that isn't in the article and without which the article is deficient." I suggest these superlative conclusions of the World Health Organization (WHO) might be taken more seriously than generalized, encyclopedically insignificant musings. The first statement seems a more understandable summary than the more detailed information presently scattered thru this article. I interpret WHO's media attention comparison as illustrating a distraction from the most significant danger. From an historical perspective, focus on reducing mass murders would be less effective than traffic safety focus at preventing deaths and injuries. In the present climate crisis, improving road safety for pedestrians, bicycles, and smaller, slower, and more fuel efficient vehicles is arguably even more important. I am open as to where these statements might best be placed (either independently or together) in this article. Thewellman ( talk) 22:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
References
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors § Today's POTD. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 20:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
In the Oxford Learner's Dictionary, the definition of car crash or traffic collision says, "an accident in which a car hits something, for example another vehicle, usually causing damage and often killing or injuring the passengers", where the word "car" substitute "vehicle" and it hits something. The word "something" substitute (pedestrians, poles, tress, vehicles, etc...) and "hit" is any physical collisions. The Supermind ( talk) 06:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
"Simple counts are almost never used."
Indeed some countries give simple counts.
Might be we mean: Simple counts are almost never comparable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.202.122 ( talk) 10:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Due to some i.p. address edit warring, I am starting a thread for positive conversation regarding a possible necessity of clarification in the maps found in this section. I, personally, would not mind a clarification as long as it is; (1) Accurate to the data of the maps in question (2) Formatted in accordance with the manual of style (3) Inclusive of all notable countries, whether with low or high fatality rates. Emlythk ( talk) 20:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Traffic collision article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Traffic collision.
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 17, 2005 and August 17, 2006. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 January 2019 and 8 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Xicong Liu.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 11:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
DemonBarberTodd commented, "Too many refrences to statistics of the U.S. Like most people who use wikipedia I am not an American."
The result of the proposal was move to
Traffic collision.
Anthony Appleyard (
talk) 10:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
There have been several discussions in the past few years regarding this article's title — as can be seen by [
title|reviewing them], preponderance of opinion has been to change the title to something along the lines of Motor vehicle collision or Traffic collision or Vehicle collision or something else that does not involve the word "accident". I believe we must make this change to bring the article title in line with Wikipedia's requirement for adherence to the
neutral point of view.
Past discussions have narrowly missed consensus by getting sidetracked in quibbles over whether "accident" or "collision" is the more common term, but that's really not the relevant question. Both terms have currency and most any English speaker knows they refer to the same kind of event. The critical key difference is that collision is a neutral term — it means two or more objects striking each other, regardless of the cause, blame, or intent of whoever might've been in control of whatever objects collide. "Accident" is not a neutral term, for it denotes an unintentional and/or unpredictable and/or inadvertent collision. Some collisions are unintentional, unpredictable, and/or inadvertent, but some are not. So, all accidents relevant to this article are collisions, but not all collisions are accidents. Therefore, collision — and not "accident" — is the noun we need in this article's title. As for the rest of the title, as has been mentioned in past discussion, we'd best not restrict it to cars or even to motor vehicles (think of horses and bicycles and streetcars and buses and other vehicles found in traffic). So, I cast the first !vote:
We appear to have good, strong consensus for a title change to eliminate the word "accident". Now let's see about selecting a new title. I favour Traffic collision and would like to get some discussion going by addressing some of the questions and comments above. Merriam-Webster defines Traffic as (...) the movement (as of vehicles or pedestrians) through an area or along a route; the vehicles, pedestrians, ships, or planes moving along a route (...). So I don't think we need to worry about the suitability of the word "traffic". As for collision, the same dictionary says collide means (...) to come together with solid or direct impact <the car collided with a tree> (...). There is always a collision of some kind involved with the kind of incident this article describes. It might be two or more cars colliding, it might be a car hitting a bicyclist or a pedestrian or a tree or the ground or the side of a mountain. It might be a bicyclist running into a pedestrian, or into a truck. It might be two pedestrians running into each other on the sidewalk because they're both engrossed in urgent text messaging. I really don't think there's a motor-vehicle-only connotation to "collision", and I think it is the more basic, proper term. "Crash" is somewhat more colloquial. Certainly everyone understands what it means, but the same is true of the present word ("accident") and we all seem to agree that one's gotta go. Finally, I don't think we need to prepend road to the title; see the definition of traffic cited above. So here again, I cast the first !vote:
Would prefer Motor vehicle collision
I haven't commented on the proposal to change the title to traffic collision until now. It is within the range of options that I said that I considered acceptable, but is the one I like the least. Given that there is consensus to change the title, and that is the leading candidate, I propose that the article be immediately moved to that name even if further discussion results in it moving to something else in the future. Leaving the article at the untenable title of car accident while discussing the new name is not productive. If we move to traffic collision now, this discussion may well peter out due to lack of interest, which would be productive. -- Athol Mullen ( talk) 05:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
It is stated that it is an offence to drive away from an accident without swapping details.
This is untrue. It is merely a guideline that details are swapped. If they are not swapped, it is a requirement that the matter be reported to the police within 24 hours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.161.77 ( talk) 06:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
An accident implies that there is nobody at fault. 99% of the time people make the conscious decision to let their guard down causing them to collide.-- GnarlyLikeWhoa ( talk) 03:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
References
This image has the description "Citroen c4, 1 student died in this car crash in Egypt, on the Cairo-Ismailia road, Misr International University" while its caption in the article is "Toyota Corolla Crash in Cairo, Egypt".
Please someone familiar with the Citroen or Toyota models identify this battered car. Cuddlyable3 ( talk) 09:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
What this page needs is not more images of motor vehicle collisions but charts and graphs of trends in MVCs. All but one of two of the car crashes can than been moved to a gallery at the bottom of the page.
Death from falling from a horse is not a traffic collision death. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
In many part of the world off road death are counted as deaths from motor vehicular collisions / traffic accidents. If one drives off the road and dies it is still a MVC death. As we have discussed above none of these terms are perfect.
Most people do not however count death that do not involve a motor vehical. Thus if one is traveling by say walking / climbing / kayaking / horse back and dies without the involvement of a motor vehicle it does not count as a MVC related death. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 09:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Large part of this seems to have been either plagiarized by http://www.miloslawllc.com/personal_injury.php and http://ownageville.com/Legal_consequences.html or plagiarized by us.
"Car collisions usually carry legal consequences in proportion to the severity of the crash. Nearly all common law jurisdictions impose some kind of requirement that parties involved in a collision (even with only stationary property) must stop at the scene, and exchange insurance or identification information or summon the police. In the UK it is a criminal offence to leave the scene of an accident without swapping details with the owner of the car or property or even to anyone else who asks for it. [1] Failing to obey this requirement is referred to as hit and run and is generally a criminal offence. However, most claims are settled without recourse to law. In this case, assuming that both parties carry adequate insurance, the claim is often handled between the two insurers. There may be financial penalties involved, such as an excess or deductible payment and a loss of a no-claims bonus or higher future premiums.
Depending upon the circumstances, parties involved in an incident may face criminal liability, civil liability, or both. Usually, the state starts a criminal prosecution only if someone is severely injured or killed, or if one of the drivers involved was acting illegally or clearly grossly negligent or intoxicated or otherwise impaired at the time the accident occurred. Criminal charges might include driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, driving without due care (UK), assault with a deadly weapon (USA), manslaughter, or murder; penalties range from fines to jail time (USA) to prison time to death (where applicable). It is notable that the penalties for killing and injuring with motor vehicles are often very much less than for other actions with similar outcomes.
As for civil liability, in places where healthcare is mainly provided through private insurance, such as the USA, automobile accident personal injury lawsuits have become the most common type of tort. Because of pre-existing case law, the courts usually need to decide only the factual questions of who is at fault, and their percentage of fault, as well as how much must be paid out in damages to the injured plaintiff by the defendant's insurer.
For lesser offences civil action may result in fines or collecting points that invalidate the driver's licence, through a central government agency. Such complaints may be filed by a police officer, by other witnesses of an incident, or through remote enforcement such as CCTV or speed cameras. Some jurisdictions (notably US states) directly administer fines or suspend licenses imposed by civil or criminal authorities when a driver has violated the rules of the road and thus the terms of a driver's license. In some jurisdictions such administrative penalties may be imposed through quasi-criminal infractions; other jurisdictions do not recognize infractions and charge all violations, at a minimum, as misdemeanours or felonies.
Some argue that the effect of a loss or injury due to a crash can be equivalent to that of a victim of crime under criminal law. Several campaigning organisations that provide support mechanisms also seek out an equivalent status within their jurisdictions [2] or draw attention to particular road safety issues and attitudes with the intention of introducing law reform (e.g. MADD)."
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 12:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
References
This whole area contains a massive number of co tracts containing snippets of related information. Will try to address some of it. It does not help that every country uses a different term to describe MVCs. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Needs section on cellphones. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the movie death proof by quentin tarantino should be added because the plot is similar to the other books/films listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.178.64 ( talk) 01:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
"Vehicle" includes boats and airplanes, which also (unfortunately) have accidents (in which people are injured and killed) so why do we have a redirect to this article, with its relatively narrow focus? I propose that either this article be expanded to acknowledge that vehicles besides cars are involved in (serious, life-threatening) accidents, or else we create a new article covering the actual, full range of vehicle accidents.-- TyrS ( talk) 04:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Wtf is a milliard? I would fix it but I don't actually know what is intended here. Is it million or billion? 213.155.151.233 ( talk) 15:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Is it intentional that these subjects are not considered in the Article? Ppeetteerr ( talk) 11:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I thought of that but the whole structure of the article is based on car crashes (even though the title has been changed) with a nod or two to motor bikes, so it is difficult to see where the contributions of pedestrians, push bikes and falling trees (ie acts of god) fit in. Ppeetteerr ( talk) 12:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, thinking more - a possible approach would be a higher level article such as "Dangers of Travelling" which could deal with all forms of travel putting them in relative context and then allow a selection to go to e.g. Air, Rail, Sea, Road, Other. Then the road one could branch to e.g. Motor Vehicles, Pedestrians, Natural Events etc, the Motor Vehicles one could then branch to the current article, Freight, Coach Travel etc. I see some benefit in applying the same structure to the Diabetes articles (at least), where a high level one could help to decide which of the existing articles is the one required. I haven't explored the whole of Wikipedia yet (joke) as I keep getting sidetracked by the links, but I expect there are other subject areas that could benefit from such a hierarchical approach - how would this sit with other people? And would it be more useful to ask about in a more general forum than this particular article. Ppeetteerr ( talk) 12:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
"(a) The percentage of the total state highway mileage that is rural. (b) The percent increase in motor vehicle registration. (c) The extent of motor vehicle inspection. (d) The percentage of state-administered highway that is surfaced. (e) The average yearly minimum temperature. (f) The income per capita. " Do these have negative or positive correlations? Intuitively, I would guess that some are neg and some pos. 211.225.34.73 ( talk) 02:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
As a young person myself, I have to take issue with the classification of age as a "driver impairment". While I will acknowledge that there is a higher incidence of collisions amongst the young and the elderly, "Driver Impairment" seems an inappropriate section to relay this information. As age is not, itself, a cause of car crash, I propose that the information in question be moved to the section "Epidemiology", as I feel that would be a more appropriate place to convey that information. Sherlockian87 ( talk) 02:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. There is File:Relative_risk_of_an_accident_based_on_blood_alcohol_levels_.png now used in the text. I think we can replace it with much better (in terms of statistics and reliability) with this WHO picture: File:WHO_BAC_Relative_risk.png (More links and quotes are listed at file pages in Commons).
What is wrong with File:Relative_risk_of_an_accident_based_on_blood_alcohol_levels_.png? - it is based on single Australian study (page 54) (Adelaide) from 1997, which itself was taked from 1979-1980 paper (page 25) from Adelaide. In this paper there were 1500 drivers total; but most notable digit, 30% risk, is calculated only from 23 people.
On the other side, File:WHO_BAC_Relative_risk.png is part of WHO report World report on road traffic injury prevention from 2004; and data is taken from 4 different papers. It has more points along BAC axis, around 9; (there were only 6 groups in Adelaide statistics: "0; 0.01-0.03; 0.04-0.06; 0.07-0.09; 0.10-0.14; >0.15"). In WHO report there were 15000 drivers (Compton). Also from Compton (2002):
Also, the measurement of BAC level has improved greatly over the last 30+ years, statistical techniques have become much more sophisticated
` a5b ( talk) 01:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Y at-il une greffe de la rate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.1.181.116 ( talk) 12:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
This is not strictly correct: "An RAC survey of British drivers found that most thought they were better than average drivers; a contradictory result showing overconfidence in their abilities." If we define some measure of badness, and the distribution is skewed in that direction, it's entirely possible for "most" drivers (the median) to be to the left of the "average" (the mean). This would happen if a few really bad drivers skew the mean to the right. If we had a ref to the RAC survey we could probably clear this up. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 13:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.180.214.34 ( talk) 17:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
DOI: 10.1016/0001-4575(94)00050-V — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.142.197.182 ( talk) 21:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
I want to look up a fatal car accident that happened January 12 1994 in Louisiana Mia & Brezzy ( talk) 20:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
The following text was recently reverted: Road transport is the most dangerous situation people deal with on a daily basis; but these casualty figures attract less media attention than other, less frequent events like mass murder. Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death in the workplace in the United States accounting for 35 percent of all workplace fatalities. [1] The edit summary was: "Reverting addition of overly generalised, not encyclopedically significant musings; please gain consensus on the talk page that includes an agreement of exactly what point you're trying to make here that isn't in the article and without which the article is deficient." I suggest these superlative conclusions of the World Health Organization (WHO) might be taken more seriously than generalized, encyclopedically insignificant musings. The first statement seems a more understandable summary than the more detailed information presently scattered thru this article. I interpret WHO's media attention comparison as illustrating a distraction from the most significant danger. From an historical perspective, focus on reducing mass murders would be less effective than traffic safety focus at preventing deaths and injuries. In the present climate crisis, improving road safety for pedestrians, bicycles, and smaller, slower, and more fuel efficient vehicles is arguably even more important. I am open as to where these statements might best be placed (either independently or together) in this article. Thewellman ( talk) 22:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
References
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors § Today's POTD. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 20:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
In the Oxford Learner's Dictionary, the definition of car crash or traffic collision says, "an accident in which a car hits something, for example another vehicle, usually causing damage and often killing or injuring the passengers", where the word "car" substitute "vehicle" and it hits something. The word "something" substitute (pedestrians, poles, tress, vehicles, etc...) and "hit" is any physical collisions. The Supermind ( talk) 06:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
"Simple counts are almost never used."
Indeed some countries give simple counts.
Might be we mean: Simple counts are almost never comparable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.202.122 ( talk) 10:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Due to some i.p. address edit warring, I am starting a thread for positive conversation regarding a possible necessity of clarification in the maps found in this section. I, personally, would not mind a clarification as long as it is; (1) Accurate to the data of the maps in question (2) Formatted in accordance with the manual of style (3) Inclusive of all notable countries, whether with low or high fatality rates. Emlythk ( talk) 20:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)