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.

Don't worry but I think somebody got confused while usign LHD and RHD back and forth beetwen different countries, so for example, Spain is LHD or RHD? the part about Gibraltar made me get confused about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.204.140 ( talk) 03:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltar has not been part of Spain since 1713, so the British authorities applied their own laws, including the rule of the road. By 1929, driving on on the left while having a land border with a country that drove on the right became impractical, so that's why Gibraltar change on 16 June of that year. Quiensabe ( talk) 04:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Do we have any reliable evidence about the historic foundations of LHD/RHD are? I think the article could benefit from adding any info to this effect. On numerous occasions, I have heard that left hand driving has its roots in knights passing each other with the lances in their right hand. However, i have never been able to find any evidence of this. -- Matttwd ( talk) 23:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

-Please do excuse me for sounding a bit daft, but I'm not sure I understand the question. Isn't that what the entire article is about? In addition, I think the problems ascertaining the specific history are quite well-presented. Haku8645 ( talk) 23:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Under Safety factors it says "Research in 1969 by J. J. Leeming showed countries driving on the left have a lower collision rate than countries driving on the right. This research is questioned in Peter Kincaid's book on the rule of the road,[citation needed] but some countries that have switched to driving on the right, such as Sweden, have seen their long-term accident rates increase by more than any increase in traffic volume[citation needed]." The red part is totally made up, and the opposite is the truth. The number of accidents was cut in half from the first day of right hand driving, and has not increased substantually since then. Swedish right hand driver 83.255.35.43 ( talk) 20:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

H'm. This what you're saying doesn't quite make sense, either. The number of crashes will surely have gone up since 1967. Perhaps you mean the crash rate (per vehicle-kilometre travelled, per thousand vehicles registered, etc.) has declined, which would make sense since that's what's been happening in just about every first-world country over the last four decades.

Nevertheless, the assertion you call attention to is unsupported, has been for quite some time, and at the very least is questionable. We can remove it from the article unless/until someone cares to add it back with reliable support. — Scheinwerfermann ^T· _C21:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Dagen H videos

If anyone else has found this already and beaten me to it, I'm sorry to be redundant. After a long night of trolling the internet for hours I finally came across the holy grail of Dagen H-related video. Here's the link.

It's from TV Sveriges. That link will take you to the live television coverage from 4.45am to 5.15am. There's yet another clip from 5.15-5.30 and further clips down the right-hand menu to different reports throughout Sweden at different intervals throughout the day. It chronicles the entire switch in immense detail, though be warned that the dialogue is entirely in Swedish (as is the website) so its main function is simply for those of us who draw immense excitement from watching these events transpire. The site also hosts (further down) the news bulletins for the various anniversaries right up to 1997. Again, if this has been posted before, I'm sorry, but for those of you who haven't seen this before, happy viewing. Haku8645 ( talk) 16:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's been removed. Thanks anyway. Quiensabe ( talk) 18:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

On the Norwegian language version of the article, I came across this link to Swedish TV coverage - here Quiensabe ( talk) 15:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

New link [1] Quiensabe ( talk) 17:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Quote: "Some also attempted to reverse the traditional meaning of traffic signals by having the red light mean "go" and the green light "stop"." I find this rather funny, yet I do not entirely interpret this as a form of extreme socialism. Although red may symbolize the Social Revolution, red is also the traditional colour of good fortune in China. For instance, today in China, where reports on the stock and financial markets are given, RED refers to growth and GREEN refers to decline. --  李博杰  | — Talk contribs 11:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Who says that north China drove on the right before 1946? Kincaid was cautious avout North China because his source (Hooper) could not be confirmed. We can confirm that South China drove on the left because of reports from Hong Kong after 1946 when they discussed changing. (The bus companies wanted to know what kind of buses to buy). Also I have seen file photos of Shanghai published in 1937 at the time fo the Japanese attacks showing cars parked on the left. (Qurterly Review, London) We know that North China was under Japanese occupation, at least Beijing and Manchuria. The Japanes drive on the left. To say that North China drove on the right befor 1946, is saying that not only did they have a different rule to south China, but that the Japanese military recognised local law! It may be that in Manchuria the Soviet forces changed the rule in 1945, but that is speculation. Can anyone find a contemporary source for what happened in Beijing on 1 January 1946, as that is the date given by Hopper? Noel Ellis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noel Ellis ( talk • contribs) 04:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

A bit off topic, but for what it's worth, there's a scene in the 1987 film The Last Emperor that shows cyclists waiting at a traffic light to change from green to red in order to proceed. The scene is set in Peking in 1967. If you want to see it, it's at the end of this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upxEazgW7xw Haku8645 ( talk) 07:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 12:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

All these ^{citation needed}s that have been recently added... why?

I removed them from the worst paragraph (which was actually illegible) but don't have time to do it properly.

Seriously, count the references in a paragraph of a featured article and see that it is usually much less than 24. Then stop it. 137.205.74.230 ( talk) 22:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for removing excessive tags. However, unsupported assertions are still problematic. A single template ( Refimprove-section) at the top of the section now handles the task without spoiling the legibility of the text. — Scheinwerfermann ^T· _C23:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I made the change here [2]. Firstly the Telegraph ref is dead. More importantly, from a quick look through sources each one appears to give a different reason. I presume the Telegraph ref really said it was because he was told by a soothsayer to move to the right. Another ref I saw said it's because he was afraid he was going to die by being hit while driving on the left after being told so by a soothsayer. Another says he dreamed something which he intepreted to mean he should move traffic to the right. All in all, it appears no one really knows why he made the order (not that surprising) and people are just applying the 'he's crazy' argument and coming up with random crazy reason. The best assessment is probably that no one knows why he ordered the change which I've changed it to supporter by a ref. Nil Einne ( talk) 16:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I've found a new Telegraph ref [3] Quiensabe ( talk) 02:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Date for the change

Why is it so totally imposssible to find out the date for the change in Burma? I mean, it was in as recently as 1970 and something must have been written about it in the international press.I have heard that Ne Win was obsessed with (among many other things) the number 9. Perhaps it was on the 9th of September at 9 o'clock or something like that. But I have no idea. There is nothing about it on the web. I have also tried to find it out in books and so on. -- Andhanq ( talk) 22:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Found it here-

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10913F93F5F1B7493C5A91789D95F448785F9

The date on the article is 07 December 1970, though since it's the New York Times, it's possible because of the date difference that Burma switched on the 6th. However, as it's a morning publication, it would make sense that regardless of the time zone, it most likely happened on the 7th, which is what I'm about to write in the article. For what it's worth, you can't see the article preview on that link, but a Google news archive search returns the first line which is "Burma switched to driving on the right shand side of the road today after four months of careful preparation and training: Traffic moved slowly" Haku8645 ( talk) 06:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting. It has always been just "1970", now it is "December 1970" and probably "6 or 7 December 1970". Very good. But "four months of careful preparation"? I think many vehicles in that country are still, after nearly forty years, not converted. And official reason for the change? Sweden, for instance, was surrounded by right-hand driving countries, But most of Burma´s neigbours were (and still are) driving on the left. -- Andhanq ( talk) 21:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

After an early statement on the page dismisses the theory that left-to-right changeovers as a result of Napoleon's conquests is most likely pure myth and legend, the "History" section includes the following gem:

"Other countries, for example France, adopted driving on the right as a result of Napoleonic occupation/control."

How would this schism be corrected? Is the Napoleonic assertion truly myth? If there's fact behind it, the earlier "Changing to Right-Hand Traffic" section needs to be corrected; if not, the History section should, or there needs to be clarification of the statements. Kirottu82 ( talk) 02:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I am a historian and have always believed this supposed 'myth' to be fact: the armies of Napoleon marched on the right and so, as they conquered, enforced this rule on other nations. I suspect that the account of the USA driving on the right is a myth and more likely derives from the close association with France and anti-British sentiment of the period. ( Philo ( talk) 19:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC))

It is often said that the it it was the postilion that caused it. French postilions were placed back-facing, and English forward-facing. There are numerous refefences for this. So to have your right arm free (being a right-handed swordsman) required different orientation. Not saying this is correct in fact, but it is well quoted.

BTW nobody has mentioned that the width of a standard road is four horses wide but I guess it is out of place here.

I remember reading somewhere that pre-Napoleonic France, horses and carriages 'drove' on the left. But, peasants walked on the right to face oncoming traffic. With the French revolution, no one wanted to be associated with aristocracy and so the adoption of travelling on the right (as peasants always did) prevailed. Don't know if it's true or not, but if anyone knows.... Dbnull ( talk) 14:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think there is kinda a bias in this article that those who drive on the left are a bit mad. The article itself is good but I should like to remove this. A third of the world's motorists drive on the left.

I already removed (four countries in Europe) "continue to drive on the left". To say "continue to" is, in my view, not NPOV. It makes us sound like we are perverse not to drive on the right.

S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew ( talk • contribs) 15:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

"Continue to drive on the left" is not necessarily a biased assertion. Stated in context of historical development and change in traffic handedness in a country's region, it's not problematic. Nevertheless, I agree with your removal of two instances of "continue to"; they were at least superfluous and added nothing to the article. I would not agree with your proposal to remove a third of the world's motorists drive on the left. It is not biased, it is factual. Also, please remember to sign your talk page comments properly — typing an "S" isn't sufficient. — Scheinwerfermann ^T· _C17:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't proposing to remove that. Sorry if that was unclear. SimonTrew ( talk) 14:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see my error in parsing your comment. Thanks for clarifying. — Scheinwerfermann ^T· _C16:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

In fact I think that it is only here I stated that a third of the world drives on the left. I don't think it is in the article. It should be, it is a fairly plain and bold assertion. All I need to do now is verify it! It is roughly true (one could argue the exact proportion), but not sure where I would find to verify it. SimonTrew ( talk) 15:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Another point is that driving on the right is coloured green, while driving on the left is coloured red. Firstly, these colourings are rather unessecary. Secondly, if you must have them they could be culturlaly neutral colours like blue and yellow. 78.146.195.92 ( talk) 00:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

That is because in shipping etc port (larboard) = left = red and starboard (right) = green. SimonTrew ( talk) 02:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Afaik Suriname is now connected to French Guyana for several years due to a new bridge over the Suriname (river) 88.159.74.100 ( talk) 15:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Not all. The Suriname river divides Suriname in two and does not form the border with French Guyana. The Suriname / French Guyana border is the Maroni river. NFH ( talk) 13:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a picture with this label next to the text, but I couldn't find anything about it in the text, nor did I find anything interesting in the picture. Could somebody clarify why is it there? It seems like some text relevant to that pic got deleted. King Klear ( talk) 16:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The image shows a RHT/LHD car with the light quite clearly dipping down to the left (which makes more sense to me, so the light spreads across the entire road instead of off one side) but the text says "Headlamps for RH-traffic (LHD) countries have low beams that "dip to the right"," (off the road - so it does not dazzle oncoming drivers (who obviously have their heads at floor level) and so it reflects off road signs to make them more visible - but the distribution in the image seems to cover this). Is it the image that is wrong, or did someone get confused with the meaning of LHT,RHT,RHD and LHD, or am I missing something ? I addded the (LHD) and (RHD) clarifications but did not change the aforementioned yet in case I've got this wrong and someone fits their headlamps wrong cos of what Wikipedia says and they dazzle someone and someone DIES. Blatant breach of WP:BOLD I know but I don't want this showing up in another whining minor news story condemning Wikipedia
☭   мдснєтє тдлк ^ЅТЦФФ 15:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

a bit of OR, the headlamps on my LHT/RHD car spread light across the road (as in the image). ☭  

мдснєтє тдлк ^ЅТЦФФ 02:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Take a more careful look at the image: it shows a RHT/LHD car with the light quite clearly cut short on the left, and the distance reach of the beam extending far along the right side of the road. That is what is meant by "right dip". LHT low beams are opposite; their light reach is cut short on the right and extends long on the left. That is what is meant by "left dip". You're right, though, that the "left dip" and "right dip" terminology are British colloquialisms and are not inherently clear; I'll go fix that now.

Also take another look at your car's headlamps. Shine the low beams on a wall from about 3 metres away. If the light/dark cutoff line is horizontal at the top of the right side of each beam and sweeps or steps upward-leftward, they are left-traffic low beams. If the light/dark cutoff line is horizontal at the top of the left side of each beam and sweeps or steps upward-rightward, they are right-traffic low beams. If you visualise the wall folding down away from you so that it becomes the road surface, you should be able to visualise how the upswept or upstepped portion of the beam throws light far down its side of the road, while the horizontally cut off portion of the beam keeps the light range relatively short on its side of the road (and thus keeps the light out of oncoming drivers' eyes). — Scheinwerfermann ^T· _C23:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I have nearly finished a huge edit done over a couple of days where I have tried to remove the redundancy and improve the consistency of saying RHT/LHD etc, since naturally they can be confusing. It may trample other edits of the last few days as I was working on it since 16 March. I have done my best not to let this happen but I see no way round it.

My aims are to:

• Reorganise so the most important information is first or follows Wikipedia idiom for order
• Try to use LHT, RHT, LHD, RHD consistently throught (not left hand drive, left hand side, keep left, etc) and to remove wordiness and confusion therefrom. Similarly, make consistent "change" not "swap", "switch", "changeover", etc.
• Remove redundant "side", "road", "traffic" where possible
• Remove redefinitions and place at top of article
• Replace "second-hand" meaning used vehicles (I have gone for "pre-owned" which is not my favourite word: "used vehicles" may be better) to avoid any confusion in an article that is talking about the right hand and left hand, adding another hand could be confusing.
• General removal of wordiness and duplication.
• Check facts and add links etc.

It is at User:SimonTrew/Right-_and_left-hand_traffic. I should appreciate your views, or please edit it there (but please don't destroy it!). It's still not quite of the quality I think I can get it to but I think it is better than the current article without all of the redundancy etc.

One outstanding issue is I can't get the lists to sit in their proper places in the article. Any help there would be great.

Another is that I am not sure if there should be a separate section generally for pedestrians (and move some stuff out of individual countries' sections) and similarly for exceptions to the rules for LHT and RHT. I have marked many exceptions with a comment <!--exception--> in case you think they should be split out somehow. The difficulty basically is whether to organise the article geographically or by use, vehicle type, etc.

SimonTrew ( talk) 01:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

whats wrong with second hand ? ☭  

мдснєтє тдлк ^ЅТЦФФ 19:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing of itself, in fact the word I would prefer to use; I was just worried that now we have right hand left hand and second hand and that the third could be condusing to non-UK speakers. Perhaps this is needless overcorrection. SimonTrew ( talk) 00:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

SimonTrew, I will want to read through your proposed edit a few more times, but my initial reaction is that it has major problems with tone, and does not improve clarity to the degree you might have been trying for. In some cases, I think your proposed text is no better than the present text; in other cases, your proposed text is not as good as what we presently have in the article. Your Terminology section is markedly inferior. It contains a bullet-point list, rather than the preferred whole-text paragraph format. It incorporates inapplicable terms — road traffic is not maritime and therefore "port" and "starboard" do not belong. The writing is awkward and redundant, and it includes incomplete sentences, subject-object disagreement, verb tense mismatch, and other errors. It is unnecessarily and inappropriately self-referential to the article. Adopting this edit would, in my view, significantly reduce the quality of the article. Likewise, I feel that we should stay with the present organisation of main divisions along geographical (jurisdictional) lines, with subdivision along vehicle- and road-type lines. I do not perceive any advantage of changing this.

That said, I appreciate your goal of consistency throughout the article with respect to referent terminology. Might you please consider narrowing your focus and making a less sweeping edit to the article? — Scheinwerfermann ^T· _C21:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, and for taking the time to review it. In this talk page I have knocked comments down a section level as they are a reply to mine, not to Machete's (but haven't changed them).

I will definitely consider narrowing the focus of the change, I just find generally unless you actually Do Something (i.e. Be Bold) you will get no feedback at all.

To address some specific points:

• I've tried to simplify some of the English and remove wordiness. If I have failed there then I should be glad to have some specific examples (don't go making an exhaustive list right now!).
• I've deliberately tried to *remove* mismatches in verb tense, of which there were many, but I can quite understand many more probably still remain, and I have probably introduced some of my own.
• I disagree that this article is restricted to road traffic. Quite specifically it has sections about boats and aircraft, hence the addition of the terms port and starboard.

• • It just seems to me that as it stands the article is a hodge-podge from various contributors and has little coherence. I think it needs a great deal of tidying to make consistent, in many ways.

Again, thanks very much for taking the time to look it over. SimonTrew ( talk) 00:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy to provide more detail, but (again) could you please try and move away from the bullet-point lists you seem to like? They really are not a preferred format in articles, and they're kind of annoying in talk pages. We're having a discussion here, not sending telegrams; let's please try and use paragraphs wherever possible, eh?

Okeh, now looking at specific examples:

Countries have adopted one of two standards for traffic flow: ie. it either keeps to the left or ro the right. Countries are thus said to have

• left-hand traffic (LHT) if they drive keeping to the left
• right-hand traffic (RHT) if they drive keeping to the right

Aside from the spurious bullet-point list, this is just not good writing; it is unreasonably and unnecessarily circumlocutious and wordy. There's no reason not to be clear and direct: By international law, each country specifies a uniform road traffic flow: left-hand traffic (LHT) means traffic keeps to the left side of the road, and right-hand traffic (RHT) means traffic keeps to the right. Beyond that, your singular "it" pronoun doesn't agree with its plural referent "Countries", your "thus" is spurious, and your "i.e.," is neither an optimal pick nor properly expressed or punctuated.

These terms are used throughout this article to prevent repetition and avoid misunderstanding— particularly because generally LHD = RHT and RHD = LHT. (If you drive on the left you sit on the right, and vice versa)

This is unnecessarily and awkwardly self-referential. It is almost never necessary or desirable to say "In this article, we…" (or "It should be noted that…") or variants. It's sort of like putting "The end" at the end of an essay; the urge to do so is the writer's red flag that his or her writing is unclear. The reader knows s/he's reading the early parts of an article about a particular topic, and knows (by dint of the section heading and its placement near the start of the article) to expect presentation of the basic premises and terms of the article's subject topic. The generally LHD = RHT and RHD = LHT text is unnecessary. It's redundant and its condensed presentation here serves only to confuse; the matter of driver control placement is handled somewhat more clearly earlier in (your) terminology section, more clearly still later in (your) terminology section — yet more redundancy — and in clear detail elsewhere in the article. Furthermore, the final sentence of this out-of-place text is in spurious parentheses. Also, you've mixed conventions with regard to the em dash between misunderstanding and particularly. Either you place a space on each side of the em dash, or you place no space on either side of it. Half and half is not done.

We can debate minutiæ (e.g., placement of "port" and "starboard") later. These examples I've given illustrate the kinds of problems that seem pervasive in your proposed text, which in my view if adopted would reduce rather than improve the article's quality — more problems will be created than solved, more work necessitated than accomplished. What's called for at this stage of the article's development is relatively minor cleanup and improvement for consistency in terminology, resolution of isolated bits of awkwardness, and that sort of thing. A more substantial rewrite such as you propose is not warranted; the article's present organisation and overall presentation seem logical and appropriate to me. — Scheinwerfermann ^T· _C14:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well (I think) you just don't like bullet points. Personally, if not used excessively, I think they add clarity to an article— they may be newfangled but technology is a good thing of letting us lay out things more clearly. I don't think we'd ever agree here so probably not worth arguing farther.

"It" agrees with "traffic" not "countries". So it is correct. (Assuming you accept "traffic" is singular).

Maybe hmmm. Since they are used very extensively and the point is to distinguish RHD from RHT (and LHD from LHT) it seems relatively harmless, indeed helpful, to define them. They are in the original article that way, only buried.

I find the structure of the article most problematic, it can't make its mind up whether to be structured geographically or by the kind of traffic. If it wants just to talk about road traffic it should be in a road traffic article and split out the bits about peds and boats and aircraft etc. Alternately, they should be where appropriate be removed from their country sections into the sections about them. Obviously country-specific stuff should stay with the country but a general discursion should have it in the section on the mode of transport not buried in "Thailand" or whatever.

I must say your view that my English is poor is probably a minority view. I try to think of my readership-- and for an article like this, people coming here may very well be from anywhere in the world, so the English should be simple.But I am happy to make improvements. SimonTrew ( talk) 03:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

SimonTrew, please try to adhere to convention regarding talk page discussion format. We do not intersperse comments with existing text, we place our comments wholly below the existing text, otherwise the discussion quickly becomes impossible to follow, particularly for those not originally involved. I have consolidated your interspersed remarks without changing their content and placed them below the text to which you were replying. You may want to edit them slightly to make clear the referents of your comments.

No matter whether the subject matter is simple or complex, as editors we must strive for an article to be written in correct, clear, concise, precise, and accurate English. I'm sorry for the offence you seem to take at my pointing out errors, but they are errors; this is not a question of making the English "simple". Your English fluency may be good or it may be poor, but the writing in your proposed edit is demonstrably problematic. You asked for its evaluation; it is neither helpful nor appropriate for you now to be churlish when a frank and defensible evaluation is provided. I'm glad to read that you're happy to make improvements and I look forward to seeing whatever new proposal you may care to make. Please also give some thoughtful consideration to the attitude with which you seem to be approaching this project; it is not appropriate for you to consider users of Wikipedia "your readership".

I'm not sure I fully understand your objection to the article's structure — perhaps you'll clarify the problem you say you're having. Which specific parts of the article do you find disjoint, confusing, contradictory, or difficult to follow, and how so? Once any such issues are elucidated, you'll have a great deal of help in fixing the problems, rather than having to go it alone. This is a subject influenced by history, geography, industry, and politics, so it is not likely to fit neatly into an imposed constraint of discussion from only one of those factors without substantial loss of informative value.

I definitely agree with you that only information peculiar to particular nations ought to be in those nations' subheadings, while more generally applicable information ought to be consolidated under whatever which subheading best matches the content. That's certainly a good path for us to pursue the betterment of this article. — Scheinwerfermann ^T· _C23:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"Research in 1969 by J. J. Leeming showed countries driving on the LEFT have a LOWER collision rate than countries driving on the right. This research is questioned in Peter Kincaid's book on the rule of the road,[citation needed] BUT some countries that have switched to driving on the RIGHT, such as Sweden, have seen their long-term accident rates INCREASE by more than any increase in traffic volume."

well they would wouldn't they ? whats the need for that "but" in there ?? ☭   мдснєтє тдлк ^ЅТЦФФ 15:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the point here is that it increased by MORE than traffic volume, i.e. it could not be attributed simply to the roads getting busier. SimonTrew ( talk) 16:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I did get that, but I just think the sentence doesn't need that "but", because the increase seen in sweden follows Leeming's research. ☭  

мдснєтє тдлк ^ЅТЦФФ 19:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I've rewritten the paragraph for coherence and logical flow; please check it out and see what you think. I got rid of an unsupported book-report assertion, but we (badly) need a ref for the assertion about the safety effect of the traffic-handedness switch in Sweden. — Scheinwerfermann ^T· _C14:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a line about marine and aviation regulations, but the terms "Left Traffic" and "Right Traffic" are specific terms that refer to the path that loitering and landing aircraft fly when landing at an airport. Mstefaniak ( talk) 17:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is the United States in the "drove on left, now drives on right" category? I'm fairly certain that driving on the left was never the law - certainly not at the national level. The U.S. should be dark red on that map. Funnyhat ( talk) 02:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

"None shares a physical border with a country that drives on the right and all were once part of the British Empire."

I think this should say something like:

All were once part of the British Empire and only the UK (Norther Ireland) and the Republic of Ireland share a physical border.

(This very point is made later in the subsection on Ireland)

-- Sysyphus Jones ( talk) 08:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure you have understood the sentence? The point is that left-hand traffic is the exception in Europe and that there are no European land borders where you have to switch sides. The Republic of Ireland still has left-hand traffic; the main difference is that it uses kilometres on the street signs, not miles. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 12:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - sorry to waste your time -- Sysyphus Jones ( talk) 08:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. And I know how it is – when reading a good book I tend to reread a sentence that doesn't seem to make sense; when reading Wikipedia I am more inclined to think that one of the monkeys made a mistake. And often that's the case. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 10:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't right-hand be in blue and left-hand in red? Hofska ( talk) 03:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Why? — Scheinwerfermann ^T· _C03:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Because right-hand traffic is used by a significant majority of the world. I've driven on the left my entire life, but the image looks odd to me. -- Hofska ( talk) 03:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Why would the majority need to be blue and the minority red? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It's more appealing to the eye. -- Hofska ( talk) 00:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you will probably have a difficult time attaining consensus to make the change you propose; we likely will not change map colours just because one editor thinks it'd be prettier. — Scheinwerfermann ^T· _C03:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought Hofska was going to reply that red-for-left made sense because (mostly) these are remnants of the old British empire and on old school wall maps etc, the BE, Commonwealth & Dominions were shown in red... Not enough to justify the work involved, but this actually makes sense to me (an old-timer) :-) -- Sysyphus Jones ( talk) 09:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Red for Right and bLue for Left makes sense. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 02:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Or Red for Port and Green for Starboard -- Redrose64 ( talk) 23:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a section which appears to say that the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom do not share a physical border although Northern Ireland is part of the UK. Surely this means that the UK and Rep. of Ireland share a border. Philstaff ( talk) 22:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC) 4th June 2009

The Ireland section says:

The Republic of Ireland is the next largest European state after the UK to drive on the left. Given that the Republic of Ireland shares a land border with the United Kingdom ( Northern Ireland) this is very unlikely to change in future. Visitors to Ireland are very likely to encounter a warning sign near Irish airports, sea ports, major tourist attractions and outside major urban areas reminding them to drive on the left (in English, French and German).

In 2008, the leader of Seanad Éireann, Donie Cassidy, said that Ireland should consider changing to right-hand traffic. ^{[1] [2]}

That seems to make it fairly clear to me that the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom do share a physical border, unless I have missed something elsewhere. Regards, AlexandrDmitri ( talk) 22:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I searched for "Ireland" in the article, and the only other relevant passage I found says that Ireland and UK are among the 4 leftist countries and that no European leftist country has a border with a rightist one. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 02:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, you sure " rightist" and " leftist" are really terms that ought to be used for what side of the road we drive on? :-) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Normally I like to say that in the UK they drive on the wrong-hand side of the road, as it is obviously not the left-hand side. But I thought this wasn't appropriate on Wikipedia. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 11:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No. He/she means that 'Leftist' and 'Rightist' are political terms. Surely you've heard of Right (Far-Right) and Left parties? You can't call people who drive on the Right Rightists as that isn't a correct name for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.57.175 ( talk) 16:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Hans got that. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

We have several photos in this article which are not remarkable at all. They are photos of normal roads in India, Hong Kong, Pakistan and the United Kingdom. I don't think they add any value to the article and should therefore be removed. Photos should be of something unusual such as signs, borders and exceptions to the rule, not just showing normal roads in a particular country. NFH ( talk) 11:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree; I think it's fine as is. The presence of the photos of roads in a country provides examples to corroborate the text. If the article were overcrowded with images, I could understand removing some, but this article doesn't seem at all overcrowded to me. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The "Give Way To The Right" is a rule that applies in specific circumstances, and is not a rule assumed in all cases where nothing else applies (although it is a common misconception). More to the point, it does not apply to merges of any sort. Merges where no lines delineate the roadway require that the "zip" principle be applied (the car with its nose behind must give way and fall in behind the car with its nose ahead). Merges where lines separate the lanes (and one lane thins to nothing) the motorist that has to cross broken lines must give way. "Give Way to the Right" only applies on intersections where no other signs or devices control the intersection, and the intersection is not considered 'terminating' (although not necessarily a T-intersection). 152.91.9.153 ( talk) 06:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC) 15/06/2009

Since Suriname was Dutch, and the Dutch never drove on the left-hand side of the road, why does Suriname do so?

Kochamanita ( talk) 06:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)kochamanita

Why do you think that the Dutch "never drove on the left-hand side of the road"? Most European countries did that once upon a time. And the former Dutch colony Indonesia still does it. In fact I think The Netherlands had some kinde of "mixed system" up until the end of the 19th century. -- 85.224.27.126 ( talk) 21:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably because the article mentions the Dutch as driving on the right and never mentioning a transition period like most of the other countries. The article mentioned Indonesia here: "Indonesia, the world's fourth most populous country, drives on the left, despite being a former colony of the Netherlands, which drives on the right." It also mentioned military occupation being a factor, and Indonesia (as well as Korea & Thailand) was occupied by the Japanese. Kochamanita ( talk) 03:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Suriname was under English control in the 17th century, until 1667, when it was ceded to the Dutch under the Treaty of Breda. The Netherlands may well have been driving on the left at that time, although there are no dates for when it switched to the right. Quiensabe ( talk) 20:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This [4] tells us something about Rotterdam in 1917. Quite strange, indeed. -- Muniswede ( talk) 22:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hakluyt bean, in this edit you changed

Today, only four European countries drive on the left: Cyprus, Ireland, Malta and the United Kingdom.

to

Today, only four European countries drive on the left, although historically many others used to: Cyprus, Ireland, Malta and the United Kingdom.

I have reverted the change. It spoiled the clarity of the assertion (are Cyprus, Ireland, Malta, and the U.K. countries that drive on the left? Or countries that used to drive on the left?). What's more, it was quite redundant given the extensive coverage of switches in traffic-handedness country by country in the article as a whole. I saw no countervailing benefit your added text offered. What benefit do you feel this text, in this place, affords the article? — Scheinwerfermann ^T· _C23:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how they drive trams in Zagreb; but "on the old right-hand drive Zagreb trams, the driver sits on the left" is self-contradictory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.86.92.198 ( talk) 18:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No one who might know how Zagreb trams are driven has corrected this; so I have deleted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.86.92.198 ( talk) 16:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Now a person has restored the offending statement who doesn't seem to understand the terminology used in the article: "Vehicles are manufactured in left-hand drive (LHD) and right-hand drive (RHD) configurations, referring to the placement of the driving seat and controls within the vehicle." In order for the statement to be correct, the long-armed Zagreb driver, who is said to sit on the left, would operate controls on the right side of the "right-hand drive" tram. I doubt that this is the case. Such an extraordinary claim should be supported, perhaps by a picture of the contortionist driver. Will the person who thinks that the statement should stand as it is please explain why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.86.92.198 ( talk) 12:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

In Rome, Italy, I've seen Left-hand traffic for automobiles, motorcycles and bicyles on Ponte Umberto I. Don't know if that's notable... -- Scriberius ( talk) 10:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I have trouble finding adequate sources for this. An Italian article seems to have details, but my Italian is too weak for this. [5] A list mentions too other bridges in Rome instead. [6] One of them is also mentioned in the newspaper article. So this fact seems to be most notable about the Ponte Palatino. Hans Adler 14:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

'Today, UK motor vehicles are normally RHD, the main exceptions being service vehicles such as road sweepers and gritters where view of the kerb is more important than of the centre line. Unlike the US (see below) postal delivery vehicles and waste collection vehicles are not usually different from normal traffic, that is to say, they are RHD.'

I am a bit confused with the second sentence. It seems to contradict the first. If the US postal vehicles are not different from standard vehicles, wouldn't they be LHD? Sweetie candykim ( talk) 13:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This paragraph is so convoluted that it definitely needs fixing, but it's consistent. The second sentence says that in the US, postal/waste vehicles are RHD, i.e. opposite to the local norm (LHD). Whereas in the UK postal/waste vehicles are no exception to the norm, i.e. they are RHD like almost everything else. I'll see what I can do to make it clearer. Hans Adler 13:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

How come it's listed both as a jurisdiction with left and right hand driving?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.127.81 ( talk) 20:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right, well-spotted. Unless there's been some major recent development that I'm not aware of, Israel has no place on that list, and I have therefore removed it. Also, the total for those countries listed below is 75; with Israel included, it was 76, which makes me think that some (overzealous) editor decided that he/she knew better. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, however, please do enlighten us Haku8645 ( talk) 17:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

So that there's not some huge mad rush and wasted labour next week, I hereby volunteer to update the article (including maps and lists) to reflect Samoa's change at exactly 6am Samoa time, which for me in Dubai is 9pm on the 7th. I'll prepare both maps now and will set an alarm to remind me at exactly 9pm. Does anyone have any objections to this? Haku8645 ( talk) 17:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Kevinmon ( talk) 16:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

CMBJ, I have reverted your unilateral, undiscussed move of this article. The present title is the result of a great deal of discussion and consensus-building, which is how article titles are decided for complex subjects such as this one. It is possible consensus might develop to support the title you appear to prefer, but I have some difficulty imagining it, for the term "bidirectional traffic" does not seem to be in actual use (see e.g. Google search); another thing we don't do here is prescriptively create the world—we describe it as it is. If you feel the present title is in error, please check the number and dial again (I mean please read through the talk page and its archives to understand how the present title came to be, then if you still feel the same, propose a new title here on the talk page). Thanks for editing coöperatively! — Scheinwerfermann ^T· _C02:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I oppose the term "Bidirectional traffic" as a title for an article which is primarily about which side of the road that traffic should keep to. "Bidirectional traffic" suggests that traffic may move in either direction in any lane (as opposed to the normal keep-left or keep-right conventions), with the potential for head-on collisions. I know of no roads where this is permitted (other than very narrow roads where you are forced to drive in the centre); however, I do know of roads with bidirectional lanes (the currently-permitted direction being indicated by overhead signals), such as the A38(M) motorway in Birmingham, England. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 10:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting a new section on this proposal, as part of Scheinwerfermann's message has already been addressed on my talk page.   —  C M B J   20:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I am confused by the terminology in this article - specifically "left hand road" or "left hand driving," "left hand car" or "right driving car" and so on. Although they seem straightforward at first, they are confusing in context - I guess because a car with a driver on the left is actually driving on the right - we don't usually think about this, and it makes this article hard to read. Is there a way to clarify the terminology and make sure it's used consistently?

(or maybe I'm just dense) Dmz5 *Edits* *Talk* 04:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

In general, this article uses the terms "left-hand traffic" and "right-hand traffic" (abbr. "LHT" and "RHT") to refer to which side of the road traffic moves on. It uses "left-hand drive" and "right-hand drive" (abbr. "LHD" and "RHD") to refer to which side of the vehicle the driver sits on. Does this clarify things? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it true that left-hand traffic is supported by political Right, and right-hand traffic is supported by political Left?-- MathFacts ( talk) 10:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope, or else surely we'd see changes in side of the road after elections much more often. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Switch is a costly and difficult procedure, but right-wing article says that rightists support such things as British imperial units. In Russia rightists also supported old Julian calendar and opposed the adoption of Gregorian calendar, already adopted by most countries etc.-- MathFacts ( talk) 10:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

And therefore they'd also support left-hand traffic? Seems like a definite stretch. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

During the Cold War the countries which had trade relations with the USSR or China switched to right-hand traffic while Commonwealth countries and those which had relations with Japan switched to left-hand. It should be noted that right-hand traffic was introduced in France during the French Revolution (along with metric system btw). Most monarchist powers of Europe such as Germany, Austria, Hungary retained left-hand traffic until the monarchies were overthrown. Modern monarchies such as UK, Australia, Japan still retain the left-hand traffic.-- MathFacts ( talk) 10:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The Cold War is totally irrelevant to this subject, and the only (modern i.e. post 1945) example given that might be politically driven is Burma/Myanmar, presumably to show distance from former British rule.

What has motivated the 'modern' changes is generally avoidance of border conflicts. The article explains how few land borders remain where dirving side changes. Sussexonian ( talk) 15:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

One can tell this article has been mostly written by persons living in left driving countries. While it attempts to retain a level of uniformity with information about both sides of driving, most sections offer a very biased tone against right side driving, using negative wording to describe otherwise neutral maneuvers while the left side version uses mostly positive wording, this is probably not done intentionally, but is perhaps written by several authors who are left side biased and so have written the article in a way that promotes it despite the fact the statistics of the article itself show the right hand driving is the predominant form of driving in the world both in road mileage, number of nations, and population. Now, I'm not saying this is some conspiracy, I'm just pointing out the inline wording in the article that makes right hand driving sound inferior to left hand driving, one example I can give off the bat is the two sections titled "jurisdictions for right/left hand driving"; where as the left side paragraph discusses the reasons for why some countries drive left and points out how pacific islands use this method for uniformity with nearby influential nations, yet, the right side section discusses the problems and inconveniences with border crossings... while these "problems" can be just as equally blamed on left driving countries for not staying uniform with the majority of their neighbors, it is somehow made an issue on the "right hand jurisdiction" section as if it were entirely the fault of the right hand countries. This is the way the entire article comes off as, even going as far as hinting that things such as roundabouts and traffic patterns are inferior to to left side driving... regular users of this site should really look into getting together and rewording the bias out of this article. -- 76.255.84.85 ( talk) 16:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not know. But, for non-European countries, on the other hand, left-hand traffic is often explained in terms of "legacy of British colonialal rule" &c. Right-hand traffic, on the other hand, is more seldom explained at all or as a "legacy of French colonial rule". Both explainations may be correct, but it sounds as if left-hand traffic has to be explained in some way or another as something implemented by the odd Brits. But there were formerly lots of countries without any particular British connection also driving on the left side, such as Austria, Portugal or Sweden. -- Andhanq ( talk) 18:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Japan also: they still drive on the left, and AFAIK have never been under British influence. American maybe, after 1945... -- Redrose64 ( talk) 19:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Already the Swedish naturalist Carl Peter Thunberg (sometimes called the Japanese Linneaus), who travelled Japan in the 1770ies did notice that the Japanese always kept to the left when meeting others on the roads, in contrast to Europe there the rules were not so strict at that time. But what about the Philippines? The Americans changed the system in 1945. But that country had been dominated by the Spaniards from about 1565 to 1898. Who brought left-hand traffic to the Philippines? Or was it indigenous, as in Japan? -- Andhanq ( talk) 20:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Andhanq has a point. If any bias is detectable (and perhaps it is), it might stem from the feeling of needing to justify left-hand traffic as a sort of 'odd one out' and the perception that it seems to have (eg. during Samoa's switch, several American news reports such as Rachel Maddow on CNN referred to it as the 'wrong' side of the road). Therefore, I think any tone of bias might be resulting from an eagerness to justify and/or explain that left was indeed right at one point in time and isn't, as Andhanq put it, "something implemented by the odd Brits". Haku8645 ( talk) 21:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the question about the Philippines, it appears that Spain did not fully adopt drive on the right until after 1924 when Madrid changed. So some Spanish colonies drove on the left, such as Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay until 1945-46. It may also have been that drive on the left was wide-spread in Asia, ie China, Japan, Indonesia etc. 122.57.37.199 ( talk) 08:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

There is much talk about "exceptions", places in in different countries where traffic is said to run on the opposite side. But, that is not really the case. It is merely two one-way streets very close to each other, just separeted by a concrete divider and not by a city block. It may look like the opposite system, but normal overtaking rules apply on each of the separeted lanes. -- Andhanq ( talk) 07:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I just scrolled through the article, and with the 'exception' of the UK section, most other references to 'exception' occur in relation to left or right-hand drive cars, and not driving sides. I do understand your concern, and there is an unusually heavy emphasis on pointing out every single road or bridge where traffic has the illusion of driving on the other side, but as far as wording is concerned, most examples are quite clearly elaborated (i.e. two one-way systems running alongside each other), and the 'exception to the rule' section for the UK refers to Savoy Court, a truly worthy exception if ever there was one. Any other opinions? Haku8645 ( talk) 18:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI. There is a discussion going on the Infobox Country template to remove the Drives on field currently listed. -- Phoenix ( talk) 10:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"About 72% of the world's total road distance carries traffic on the right, and 28% on the left"

Where do one-way streets fit in this statistic? Are they so rare in the world as a whole that they've been lost in the rounding error? -- Smjg ( talk) 16:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

A fair point. I suspect that either their statistical value is negligible in the grand scheme of things, or that there's little in the way of separate data between one-way and two-way streets for the vast majority of countries. My guess is the latter, so I would assume that those distances are based simply on the total of all road types without any distinction in the original figures. It would be interesting to try and find more accurate figures just to see if one-way streets do have a statistical impact. Haku8645 ( talk) 02:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, amidst all the hubbub regarding Samoa's switch back in September, all of us completely missed the story that gripped African headlines only weeks earlier - after a survey, most Rwandans came out in favour of switching to the left as well! I've added in a new section incorporating information from various African news articles (all in English) regarding the survey, the ministry that undertook it, the results and the reasons for the switch. As far as I know, it's still being deliberated and no official word has been given yet, but one article mentioned that it could take months, so I'm keeping my eyes peeled for the next bit of info that crops up.

Does anyone object to me including this information yet? If you think I've jumped the gun, then by all means correct me, but it does seem a very tantalising developing story with not a whole lot of opposition. By way of comparison, the story about Donnie Cassidy in Ireland proposing to switch to the right being pretty much immediately rejected doesn't deserve a mention, but this is actually straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak (the Minister of Infrastructure gave this interview to several newspapers). If it is worth keeping, could someone tidy up my referencing? I've referenced the same thing three times and it's created three separate entries, and I don't know how to consolidate them. Until the next time, all roads lead to Rome... Haku8645 ( talk) 23:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

could some put the reason that most countries drive on the right, if that information is available? 76.22.97.102 ( talk) 14:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The article says that in countries with left-hand traffic, "on roads without a footpath pedestrians may be advised to walk on the right," and in countries with right-hand traffic, "on roads without a footpath pedestrians may be advised to walk on the left."

Does anyone know how common this rule is? While this advice is certainly given in some countries, I doubt that it is universal. A friend of mine was reprimanded in India (which drives on the left) when he walked on the right-hand side of the road.-- Oz1cz ( talk) 07:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been there but it drives on the left just like Thailand.-- 125.25.20.80 ( talk) 18:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. I was just there about a month ago. It definitely drives on the right. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

There are four European Union member countries where driving on the left is the practice. There appears to be legislation which means that, in all member countries, after 31.3.13 driving on the right will be compulsory. I quote this reference, although it may be only a related page and not the one which confirms that the legislation is in place: http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/transport/road_transport/l24055b_en.htm

86.182.20.204 ( talk) 19:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't know what you're seeing, but I don't find the words "left" or "right" anywhere on that linked page. 70.26.84.8 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC).

Clicking on the image with blue and red results in going to File:Countries_driving_on_the_left_or_right.svg.

Red and blue there are swapped. Both the legend and the description say "drives on left" is red and "drives on right" is blue. It should be the other way around. It is probably best to eliminate any variations of the word "drive" altogether to avoid confusion with LHD and RHD. So use something like "traffic keeps to the left" for blue and "traffic keeps to the right" for red. 173.168.177.217 ( talk) 23:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You are right, but it has no impact on the article. The error is only in the picture description file. The usage of the picture, its annotation and subscript are all correct and consistent with the other similar picture in the article. − Woodstone ( talk) 03:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Near the end of last paragraph of Changing to right-hand traffic section, it states that "...Hence, island nations such as Britain and Japan (using ships to move troops around and having less need to move them overland) continued to use the natural system....". How come that left-hand traffic is the "natural system"—given that's what is meant here—and who decides? Or have I missed something in the article? Vidimian ( talk) 17:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That seemed pretty blatantly POV to me, so I changed it. I dunno how it got there. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any info but I do know for sure that Dump trucks, construction vehicles such as excavators in Heavy equipment (construction) are all left hand drives. As in the driver is on the left hand side of the vehicle. Can someone who is a long time editor of this page find out more. I know in Australia and other right hand vehicle nations, these heavy equipment or construction vehicles are always left hand drive vehicles because the market is so big and over two thirds of the world drive on the right, it makes economic sense these vehicles are always have the steering column on the left Takamaxa ( talk) 15:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to add, crane trucks or construction cranes are also left hand steering columns even in countries in left hand driving countries such as Austrlaia. Takamaxa ( talk) 15:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

This unsourced paragraph seems far-fetched at best. Is it a joke? HowardMorland ( talk) 04:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

In writing this encyclopædia, we are to describe the world as it is, not as any particular individual thinks it ought to be. Kincaid's alleged claim that nearside and offside are equestrian terms "commonly misunderstood" to apply to automobiles appears to be nothing more than his prescriptivist opinion. The whole of the Commonwealth English-speaking world disagrees with him; the terms are formally used as defined in the four dictionary links I've provided ( here, here, here, and here). See also here and here (the two links provided by the IP editor -- not as solid as dictionary defs for article refs) and this driving school page in the UK as well as this one, and this Australian academic research paper. Numerous additional examples are readily found; this is how the world is, ergo, this is how we need to describe it. We must all be careful to avoid the common trap of relying on one source exclusively; few published works are wholly without bias, and if you will spend some time reviewing the ongoing discussion of this article's development you will see Kincaid's book is somewhat controversial. The alleged equestrian origin of the terms "nearside" and "offside" is irrelevant to this article; whatever meanings those terms might have in the equestrian world are of no consequence to the world of vehicles and roadways which is the subject of this article. — Scheinwerfermann ^T· _C18:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

For those of you who like looking at this stuff, here are some good videos of Okinawa in Japan switching from the right to the left on 30 July 1978 (known as 730, ナナサンマル).

Road work preparations, signs and markings, good coverage of driving.

More preparation stuff with an excellent split screen of the same junction the day before and after.

Some switch scenes, plus some mishaps and people going the wrong way! (skip to 4:43). The guy is a local famous boxer doing an advert. The last line he says when he does his hands up is like the official tag line of the whole 730 campaign: "Hito wa migi - kuruma wa hidari," which is: "People [drivers] are on the right - cars are on the left".

Haku8645 ( talk) 04:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a fairly persistent rumour on the web that Paris adopted a keep-right rule in 1794. A typical account is here. The appealing story is that aristocrats used to drive their carriages fast on the left hand side with peasants having to keep right. So at the revolution it all changed (though the teamsters' contribution is also given). Napoleon's contribution was then to spread this to the countries he conquered. Does anyone know of a good reference for this law?

At present the article has no good explanation of European practice. Chris55 ( talk) 12:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• There are two Light Rail system on the territory of an x-USSR. One is in Volgograd, Russia, and the other is in Krivyi Rig, Ukraine. Since the trams, which operate in Russia were built with right side doors only, both Volgograd Metrotram and Kryvyi Rih Metrotram need to operate in left hand traffic manner, where the stations have island platforms instead of wall platforms.

GK tramrunner ( talk) 18:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Since Malta is now a EU member it is now common to find left hand drive vehicles also (tourists overland[citation needed] or else second hand imports from other EU countries with LHD vehicles).

Now I happen to live in Malta, but I have no idea where this comes from. Most cars will be second-hand and either imported from the UK or Japan - and both are RHD countries. Now this is something based on own observation, so not really encyclopedic material, but as far as I'm concerned, the above statement is demonstratively not true, and should be removed. SeverityOne ( talk) 20:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This article's name should be changed to Driving side or driver's side of the road, the current title is very unappealing an ugly Thisbites ( talk) 10:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

"Driving side" is not an appropriate title as it implies more the side of the vehicle on which the driver sits rather than the side of the road of traffic. Please come up with a better idea and obtain a consensus before changing the title again. NFH ( talk) 10:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what's so unattractive about the current title, and I think the alternatives suggested are both a bit vague. Driving side is especially problematic, since it could refer to which side of the car the person sits on. The latter is better, but still isn't as clear as the current title that we're talking about left vs. right, and it isn't really any shorter, so I don't really see any advantage to a page move here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the current title. It's very descriptive, and I find that fact appealing and elegant. "Driving side" sounds rather strange, like something you would find in a dictionary of rare words and expressions. But "Right- and left-hand traffic" works well as the title of an encyclopedia article that covers precisely what this one covers. Hans Adler 16:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't, who would think driving side means what side someone drives from? Besides the current title is ridiculous. What is wrong with Driving side of the road then? It omits the silly looking spacings and double hyphenation. It also is worded in a manner that people would actually use to refer to the phenomena. Thisbites ( talk) 03:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone else here agrees with your assessment that the current title is ridiculous. For my part, I think it's very clear and unambiguous, and I'm afraid I think your suggestions are ambiguous. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Changing the name of an article is disruptive in Wikipedia and does need consensus. Driving side already redirects to this article, so people can find it. if you look at its and this article's history you'll see that they've gone through several permutations to reach the current state. It may not be ideal but it works. Chris55 ( talk) 09:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

While the current title is clumsy, "Driver's side" is disruptive and frequently inaccurate. Not all road users have such options. E.g. Pedestrians, bicycles, motorcycles, some commercial vehicles. Ephebi ( talk) 10:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thisbites, we are writing an encyclopædia here; our job is to describe the world as it is—not as we might think it should be or wish it were. That means, among other things, that we do not randomly think-up titles for articles. We select titles based on actual, real nomenclature in the actual, real world. In the actual, real world, the phenomenon being described is formally called right-hand traffic and left-hand traffic. That is why the title of the article is right- and left-hand traffic. If you can demonstrate that your preferred phrases like "driving side" or "driving side of the road" are in fact the more widely used formal terms for the subject of this article, then there'll be basis for discussing a title change. So far all you've given amounts to "I don't like it", which is not a valid reason for changing an article title. — Scheinwerfermann ^T· _C18:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

A motorcyclist is always on the driver's side dude. It really doesn't follow any wikipedia standard. It is not an encyclopedic term. Thisbites ( talk) 22:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thisbites, you may want to have a careful think about whether it might be time to realise that consensus is not going to develop to support your preference for the title of this article. It might be time for you to drop this one-man battle and move on to more productive pursuits. — Scheinwerfermann ^T· _C02:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)