Talk:Left- and right-hand traffic/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Kerb and Curb

For some strange reason, this article sees very frequent edits relating to the British vs. American spelling of kerb/curb.

To avoid these edits, people have resorted to placing comments in the text saying "please don't change 'kerb' to 'curb'" or something similar.

This leads to two questions:

  • Out of curiosity: Why do some Americans feel such a strong aversion against the British spelling that they feel compelled to change it? And why do some Britons feel such a strong aversion against the American spelling that they feel compelled to change it back?
With regard to the second question, many English people object to the spelling of English being changed by non-English. It's one thing for Americans to use their own spelling in their own country, but many English take great exception to having the US national spelling variation being imposed upon them by Americans and American companies, e.g. Microsoft. Although this is not the appropriate place to discuss such matters, I hope it answers your question! NFH (talk) 10:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
To be fair, this isn't a distinctly British article as London is; the only reason it's in UK spelling is because that's how it was started. But yes, it is annoying how many Americans just keep using their own spelling as though it were the only one. (And I'm American myself.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Can anything more permanent be done about this spelling issue which seems to pop up again and again?

--Oz1cz (talk) 14:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

For the Americans changing it to "curb", I think it's just plain ignorance, having no idea the spelling "kerb" is correct in some places. Those reverting back to "kerb", by contrast, are simply following style requirements of a consistent style in one article. As for anything to do, short of setting up an edit filter to disallow these changes (something I've no idea if it could be done, and if so, how), I don't think there's much we can do that we haven't already done. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It would be of great benefit to many Wikipedia articles to have a governing parameter for each article declaring which style of language it uses. Many articles have a mixture of British & American styles (a violation of Wikipedia standards). This would allow for: 1. preventing edits made in ignorance; 2. ease of debating which style is most approprate for the topic; 3. simplify installation of web tools, such as spellcheckers, in the edit fields that run on the pre-determined dictionary. 192.88.212.44 (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It has, actually, but the rules are that it goes at the top of the talk page, and there are often a lot of other boxes above it (as here). See WP:RETAIN for more details. Tim PF (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Space vehicles

Has anyone developed rules for vehicles used in space travel yet? Keraunos (talk) 04:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

What,are we in kinder garden? Thats when I first heard right hand side and left hand side. It is simply right or left side. It makes me a little crazy when you hear traffic reports and they say problem on the right hand side of the road. What is that? north, south, east, or west bound traffic because all directions have a right side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.73.19 (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

bicycle section

The bicycle section of the article seems out of place. As an avid cyclist, I cannot corroborate its claims (such as mounting, which side I walk on, use of the curb, etc), so I doubt its accuracy. It cites no sources. The section reads like an argument for left-hand traffic being superior. I don't see how it adds value to the overall article. 65.200.157.179 (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Gah. You're right. Unsupported, unsupportable, speculative claims really not germane to this article. I've removed the section. —Scheinwerfermann T·C23:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. True, they are uncited, but as a cyclist myself, this agrees with my own original research, but more importantly, I'm sure I've read most, if not all, of these comments before. It is true that it is uncited, but I think it better for now if it is left in the article as an uncited section, and see if it either stays uncited, or more discussion here says it should go. Tim PF (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Original research is specifically disallowed as support for assertions here. If you can find some reliable support for the notion that bicycle construction is at all related to traffic-handedness, or that bicycles for left-traffic use are different to bicycles for right-traffic use, by all means please let's have it and let's use it. Otherwise kindly please explain the relevance you see; I don't see any. The section has been entirely unsupported and speculative since at least September of 2009; under the "cite it or drop it" doctrine (amongst others such as, um, basic relevance to the topic at hand) I think it should go. Please explain why you feel otherwise. —Scheinwerfermann T·C00:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I didn't mean to say that I was supporting those assertions with my own original research, but was merely countering the comments of two others who appeared to be using their own original research to discount it. Perhaps I should have been clearer.
This section dates back with few changes to this edit by InMyHO (talk · contribs) (pretty much as per the version quoted above), at which time the article was already tagged with {{refimprove}}. I don't know why the section wasn't tagged with {{original research}} or anything else at the time, but it could have also just been reverted at the time.
One difference here in the UK (with LHT) from many other countries (mostly RHT), is that regulations require that all new bicycles have the front brake operated by the right hand, which I believe is so that one can operate the supposedly safer rear brake whilst signalling with the right arm.
I'll try to look into this some more over the next few days. Tim PF (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, that bit about the brake handedness regulation is a good one if we can get a reliable source for it. I still favour eliminating those statements in this section that either aren't relevant or can't be supported reliably. —Scheinwerfermann T·C23:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess that "The Pedal Bicycles (Safety) Regulations 2010". UK government. Retrieved 13 May 2011. the brake lever intended to be operated by the right hand must operate the front brake should qualify as a Reliable Source, but that's only part of the problem. We also need to find an RS for a RHT country that requires the levers the other way around. That will show a difference, but not the reasoning behind it. The best not-so-reliable source from the late Sheldon Brown also says that EU regulations require that the front brake is operated by the right lever, not just for its LHT countries.Brown, Sheldon (17 December 2010). "Braking and Turning Your Bicycle — Which Brake Which Side?". Retrieved 13 May 2011. The British Cyclists' Touring Club also part corroborates this: Juden, Chris (May 2005). "Brakes Q&A — Why are front brakes on the right?". Cyclists' Touring Club. Retrieved 13 May 2011.. That should be enough to write something, but obviously not to cover everything in the section. Tim PF (talk) 11:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Ooh, good finds, that's a very good start. Personally, I would tend to consider the late (and much missed) S. Brown a generally reliable source, though it's often dodgy getting info on European regulations from North American sources; often the critical details don't survive the trip across the ocean. Unlike the ECE Regulations that apply to motor vehicles, it looks like the European standards for bicycles are not free. I doubt anyone's going to be willing to shuck out €105 to $386 for an official copy of the applicable CEN regulation. Somebody seems to have one; Bicycle handlebar contains a block quote from it, but it is not cited. I did find this apparently official 2008 draft of the applicable reg (CEN 14764), which states, inter alia:

4.6.2.1 Brake-lever position: The hand-brake levers for front and rear brakes shall be positioned according to the legislation or custom and practice of the country in which the bicycle is to be sold, and the bicycle manufacturer shall state in the users instruction manual which levers operate the front and rear brakes (see also 5b)).

Most annoyingly, there is no "5b" anywhere in the document. But this does strongly suggest there is no uniformity. Some countries (such as the UK, per the link you found) do have regulations regarding which brake lever acts on which wheel. Other countries seem to have no such regulations. I found none for Australia, for example, another LH-traffic country. While my experience is in automotive regulations, it has been my consistent observation that when there is uniformity (e.g., all left-traffic countries specify "X" and all right-traffic countries specify "Y"), then the regulation will say "In the case of a (whatever) designed and intended for use in left-hand traffic, the (whatever) shall be such that X. In the case of a (whatever) designed and intended for use in right-hand traffic, the (whatever) shall be such that Y. In the case of a (whatever) designed and intended for use in either left- or right-hand traffic, (whatever) shall be such that X or Y, according to a clearly-marked adjustment achievable without the use of special tools not provided with the (whatever), and it shall not be possible to attain an intermediary adjustment position that does not give either X or Y". Only when there is no uniformity does the regulation contain text like "according to the legislation or custom and practice of the country in which the (whatever) is to be sold". —Scheinwerfermann T·C01:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Pavements, zebra crossings and escalators

Is there any rule for walking along pavements, footpaths or zebra crossings? And what about escalators? Which side should one stand and which side should one walk? 218.250.143.16 (talk) 11:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Historical view

There is no historical view of the problem - no ancient and medieval ages. There you would find that all countries including France were left-side drivers, because the sword is better to be wielded in right hand and people should meet on the "sword side! for better protection. Since mercantelism when more horse- and ox-pulled carriages without a coach-box apeared, the teamster was sitting on one of the animals - usualy on the left one to control them with the right-hand-wielded stick, crrating the first LHD vehicle ever.

Then the Big revolution 1789 made the aristocracy drive on right too. And then Napoleon conquered (temprarily) the big part of Europe, including Germany, part of Rusia and Spain, spreading the right side driving. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.11.224.232 (talk) 12:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be covered in the History section of the article, but you have no reliable sources to back up your assertions, which appear to be original research.
I would also contend that your assertion of the first LHD vehicle may have been a couple of millenia out, in that a chariot driver would be more likely to stand to the left of a right-handed archer or warrior. Tim PF (talk) 09:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Tidy up, and simplifying trains.

After someone added some useful information about Egypt, I made an attempt to slim that down, partly by removing what I see as obvious that trams and other light rail systems which use street running must adhere to the rule of the road, whilst segregated rail systems do not. If that can be said one or three times (already in "Trams (streetcars)", and added to the top of "Specific jurisdictions" and "Trains"), then it doesn't need to be added for each country.

What is perhaps useful, however, is where there is not uniformity, such as Argentina and China where the traffic switched sides but the trains didn't, and Egypt and France where the railway systems were built to run on one side despite road traffic using the other.

I've also tried to make a start on tidying up the jumble of the "Trains" section, although the "General" sub-section needs a lot more attention, but not this evening by me. Tim PF (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Legal restrictions on wrong-hand drive vehicles

as of 2011 NON vintinge LHD vehicles are premitted in South Australia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.109.92 (talk) 23:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

I've just added a(nother) {{unreliable source}} tag to a reference. This one concerns the story that wagon drivers riding postilion: Seated on the left, the driver preferred that other wagons pass him on the left so that he could be sure to keep clear of the wheels of oncoming wagons. He did that by driving on the right side of the road.

This contrasts with the situation in Spain and Italy where lorry drivers continued to prefer RHD vehicles long after a switch to RHT: In northern Italy trucks were often RHD so that the driver could see the edge of the road on Alpine passes. In Spain trucks were RHD until the 1950s, to enable drivers to watch for unstable road edges. (which also cites a questionable source, now tagged).

The RHD trucks story may be true, but postilions' desire to drive on the right means that they cannot see the edge of the road as well. I suspect it is the view of a late 20th century driver who is so used to associating LHD with RHT that he sees a LHD postilion, and assumes that he must drive on the right.

Anyway, I'd like to remove some of these unreliable sources, but am not sure whether to just excise the text, or just leave them uncited. I note the headline {{refimprove}} and {{original research}} banners, but I don't see that they can be removed until something drastic is done. Tim PF (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant article

This is a brilliant article. Perfectly helpful and incredibly informative. Wikipedia at its best :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.164.160.148 (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

UK government e-petition

Within days of the new e-petitions web site being launched by the UK government, one of the petitions is for the "UK to drive on the right-hand-side of the road". I'm reluctant to mention this yet on the main page as the level of support is not yet proven, and detailed analysis in Kincaid's book suggests it is unlikely to happen. Nevertheless it's something to keep an eye on, perhaps by comparing the (probably) low number of signatories with other e-petitions. NFH (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Claims of "UK spelling" ownership of an article

I see soem raeferences to UK Aenglish scaettered through this aerticle, and little hidden HTML taegs scoelding toe "noet chaenge" thaem scaettaered throeugh thae taext. But British aeditoers doen't oewn this aerticle, aend this isn't about ae British-oenly toepic. It is ae univaersel woerldwide doecument.

If there are spelling variations, they should both be included rather than trying to be specific to one format. Slashes are an acceptable compromise within the article text, as the majority of readers can figure out the intention: "Driver is closer to the curb / kerb."

(What is really needed is en-uk.wikipedia.org and en-us.wikipedia.org, which will put a stop to all the edit warring, but the foundation appears strongly resistant to that solution.)

DMahalko (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, no. That's not how it works here. Per WP:ENGVAR, your idea to crap up the article with slashes and parentheticals will likely not gain much traction toward concensus. —Scheinwerfermann T·C19:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Scheinwerfermann is right. If you want to implement your desired changes, you'll need consensus to change our style guidelines. But I think you won't get that consensus. I think it would look pretty ghastly if articles all over Wikipedia had things like "colour/color", "organize/organise", "centre/center" in text, and that's basically what your proposal would do. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

left hand driving

Left Hand Driving

Title of the Book : War and Peace in the Glolbe Willage

Authers : Mashall McLuhan and Quentin Fiore.

Napoleon was prolific in inventions. His semaphore telegraph carried messages from Rome to Paris in four hours, giving him a huge advantage over his enemies. Perhaps most extraordinary of all was his insitence in the interest of speed that everybody keep to the right hand side of the road in order to expediate and simplify traffic poroblems . where his armies went, reght-nahd side driving has remained, even in Russia. He never got to Sweden and the Swededs didn't switch to the right-hand side untill 1967. He never got to England, and they still drive on the left hand side.

Abbas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.189.189.69 (talk) 09:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Nigeria

Would somebody please take a look at the two recent modifications by 92.12.121.250 to the section about Nigeria. It sounds like utter rubbish to me, but I cannot be 100% certain. --Oz1cz (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I had a look and it is utter rubbish. Either the person was very confused as to what 'driving on the left' means (referring to LHT, obviously, and not LHD) or they had set out to intentionally reverse the information for some unknown reason. Wishful thinking? Who knows. Also, they changed the date of the switch from 2 April 1972 to 1 October 1960. I can't find a reliable source for the actual date but a simple Google search returns a website with photos taken in Lagos, Nigeria in late spring/early summer of 1971 and you can clearly see traffic still driving on the left. So I reverted the edits. Haku8645 (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Iraq

As this is not intended to be an exhaustive list, there is no point in having a section on Iraq that says only "Iraq drives on the right". If there's anything more to be said, please go ahead and expand it, otherwise it is clearly pointless and should be removed. 108.67.153.215 (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, anonymous IP editor. The state of most articles on Wikipedia is unfinished. Most of them are works in progress. In most cases, coverage of any particular aspect of the subject of an article starts out as a small kernel, which is expanded upon in subsequent contributions by various editors. There is nothing in or outside of this article stating that "this is not intended to be an exhaustive list"; that seems to be your opinion, guess, or preference, but that's all it appears to be—as such, if you feel strongly that Iraq does not merit coverage in this article, you will need to make a case for that exclusion based on Wikipedia policy (not based on "I don't think it should be here"), and attain consensus. Without that, your continued unilateral deletion counts as vandalism and will be treated as such. The assertion about Iraq's RH traffic does need support by reference to reliable sources, of course, but it is not particularly questionable and so does not warrant preëmptive removal. —Scheinwerfermann T·C17:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Since you've repeatedly displayed an unwillingness to engage in discussion on this issue, I'm left with no option but to start a discussion of your behavior on ANI. It's unfortunate, but hopefully in the future you'll assume good faith and participate constructively in the bold, revert, discuss process, rather than asserting ownership and making false accusations. 108.67.153.215 (talk) 07:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
As you wish, good sir or madam. —Scheinwerfermann T·C09:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
While going to AN/I over the issue is ridiculous, I'm not sure the Iraq subsection is very useful when it conveys no more information than the Jurisdictions with right-hand traffic section. Nevard (talk) 10:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. That's why I removed it, as it's duplicate information and unnecessary clutter. Unless the subsection contains more information than is already given in Jurisdictions with right-hand traffic, it is pointless and should not exist. NFH (talk) 10:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
No quarrel from me; that is a rational, lucid, productive reason for nuking the Iraq subsection. —Scheinwerfermann T·C19:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Which was the exact same rational, lucid, productive reason I gave. 108.67.153.215 (talk) 07:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Well…no, it isn't really. Look at the conversation above and your edit summaries to refresh your recollection; your reason was "It's not meant to be an exhaustive list and this is pointless". You got all bent outta shape when that was not accepted as an adequate basis for your deletion, took it to AN/I, and got a rousing "Ho hum, why is this here at AN/I?". Along came an editor willing to engage fully and participate accountably in the Wikipedia community (i.e., a registered editor) who made your same edit but with a reasonable, cogent explanation; voila, no problem. Instead of griping, try and learn from that, won't you? Please and thanks. —Scheinwerfermann T·C17:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it absolutely is the same reason I gave, and if anyone who looked at those edit summaries, the comments I left on your talk page, or the ANI discussion would see that is undeniably the case. It's also clear that the reason I got "bent out of shape" was over your refusal to discuss the issue and your repeated accusation of vandalism and disruptive editing. Who's more "willing to engage fully and participate accountably (sic) in the Wikipedia community", the editor who's trying to work with other editors or the one who's refusing to engage in discussion and making threats to get their way?
The fact remains that the only real reason you ever gave for rejecting my contributions was that I was editing anonymously, a fact you still seem to consider relevant after the smack down you received on ANI for exactly that disruptive attitude. If you really feel so strongly that anonymous editors should be banned, then you should work towards changing the rules. Currently, anonymous editors are accepted by the community, and treating them any differently than registered editors is a violation of wikipedia policy. If you're unwilling to accept that, then you have no business editing wikipedia, just like if you won't acknowledge that your actions towards me were 100% wrong you have no business editing wikipedia. 108.67.153.215 (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
As you yourself say on your user page: "There is a standing — and entirely reasonable — expectation that everyone will strive to coöperate (sic) with one another, registered and unregistered alike." You might try living up to the guidelines you expose, and maybe learn how to use an umlaut, bu that's another issue entirely. 108.67.153.215 (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
You seem upset. Have a cuppa tea while you learn something new at Diaeresis. —Scheinwerfermann T·C01:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Stop with the condescension. I'm not upset. I'm trying to contribute constructively and well within wikipedia guidelines; you're flaunting those guidelines in a way that's clearly disruptive. If you can't respect your fellow editors you should leave. Since you already claim to be "semi-retired" that shouldn't be too much of a stretch for you. 108.67.153.215 (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Okeh, then don't have a cuppa tea and don't learn something new; your choice. You're welcome to carry on finding me disagreeable; while you are busy fulminating, I'll go have a look and see what guidelines I might "expose" and, uh, "flaunt". I don't think we need to crap up this talk page with more squabbling, so…toodle-oo! —Scheinwerfermann T·C02:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Please learn some respect. I posted some links on your talk page that should help you in that regard. 108.67.153.215 (talk) 07:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Panama

I'm not sure whether it's notable enough to include a separate section but I found a single website giving quite a lot of information about Panama's switch (both the country and the Canal Zone at the same time) from left- to right-side traffic on 15 April 1943. It's a republishing of an article called 'When Left Was Right', from the Panama Canal Review, published in the fall of 1973. As a result, it unfortunately contains no citations of its sources, but as a publication from the Canal Zone it's likely to be pretty accurate, despite the consistent incorrect terminology use of 'left-hand drive' when they mean 'left-hand traffic'. Nonetheless, please take a look as it's a very good read:

http://www.czbrats.com/Articles/left.htm

Also, the article for the town of Cristóbal which was once in the Canal Zone has a great photo from 1933 of cars and horse-drawn carriages moving on the left. --Haku8645 (talk) 14:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

UN resolution to drive on right?

I was looking at information about Rwanda's potential switch from right to left to update that section and came across an article written in The East African, a relatively reputable Kenyan publication. One line at the very end struck me as staggering:

"Expense aside, Rwanda takes seriously a 1998 UN Resolution urging countries driving on the left to progressively shift to the right because across the world there is more traffic on the right hand than left."

Does that actually exist? I've scoured the internet for a while now, trawling through every document section on the UNECE, traffic safety resolutions and the lot, and I can find nowhere where the UN even hints at that. I'm aware that there's some document from the 1960s or so stipulating that traffic within a country's borders should drive on the same side, but that's nowhere near the same thing. Is this familiar to anyone? On another note, that article did reference this one, so hooray! Haku8645 (talk) 04:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know for sure, but I rather suspect the resolution doesn't exist, or at least doesn't say what the article you read says it does. —Scheinwerfermann T·C04:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I had figured as much, it's just that the journalist included in the piece because a representative of the Rwandan government being interviewed explicitly mentioned it. It doesn't sound right and I can still find no evidence of it, so I'm tempted to dismiss it. I just wonder what the basis is for the evidently false assumption the Rwandan authorities are working under. For what it's worth, here is the article. Haku8645 (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. One thing I have long and consistently noticed about English-language African "news" articles is their tendency to contain a great deal of made-up nonsense with no basis in fact. —Scheinwerfermann T·C19:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Give Way to Right

Several of the countries - Australia, NZ - explicitly mention that they have "give way to right" rules. As far as I know that is pretty much universal for both left-hand and right-hand traffic - but with some variation. Can I suggest adding some form of "give way to right at uncontrolled intersection" to the comparison lists.

Similarly, at roundabouts, left-hand traffic yields to the right before entering; while in US/Canada at least, right-hand traffic is sign posted so that it yields to the traffic in the roundabout before entering. Again, I'd suggest mentioning this.

Cagneya (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Article name

While I don't disagree that "Driving side" is a more concise name than "Right- and left-hand traffic", I think that such a major change (which has already involved creation/change of over 30 redirects and several templates) should really be discussed by the community first. For reference, the most recent discussion was here in which there didn't appear to be a strong consensus one way or the other. (update: and a more thorough discussion, from 2008, here) -- Chuq (talk) 04:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this issue has been debated time and time again, and that the other article name, though being long-winded, was ultimately chosen for its ability to fully convey the topic of its content. 'Driving Side' can be somewhat ambiguous as it doesn't specify whether that's referring to the side of the road one drives on, or the side of the car the steering column is on, or indeed something else altogether. I'm not as openly hostile to this title as I was to 'traffic directionality' as that implied that the article discussed other topics, such as one-way streets and so on, and didn't convey that it specifically covered right- and left-hand traffic. I'll wait to hear another contributor's opinion, but I'd say my position is to slightly oppose the name switch unless someone else can sway me.Haku8645 (talk) 03:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
"Right- and left-hand traffic" doesn't solve the problem either: relative to what? ;) Deryck C. 21:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Um…yeah. Neelix (talk · contribs) appears to have taken it upon him- or herself to rename the article unilaterally and without consensus. We don't do that here, and Neelix knows that good and well, being an administrator. Willful and wanton disregard for the basic, fundamental consensus principle of Wikipedia is a gross abuse of the trust that goes with adminship granted by the community, and it is certainly to be hoped that s/he is thoughtful enough not to try another stunt like this again.
The title Right- and left-hand traffic, which I have restored, is the result of discussion and consensus. It is five words long rather than two, but that does not violate any rule and is certainly nowhere near the length of the longest article title to be found on Wikipedia. It is encyclopædic in that it clearly denotes the subject of the article and matches the formal terminology used to describe that subject. The vague, nebulous, acontextually meaningless phrase "driving side", on the other hand, violated more than just WP:CON, it is a colloquialism at best, if in fact it is really used much at all, and does not self-evidently denote the subject of the article. If consensus develops to rename the article, then the article can be renamed. Until then, no. —Scheinwerfermann T·C04:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Scheinwerfermann, I think you've misunderstood what admins (and Wikipedians in general) should and shouldn't do. Because no one had raised the matter for a few months and the last discussion was largely inconclusive, Neelix did what they felt was right, which was fine; you didn't like the change, and reverted it and started a discussion, which was fine too. (I'm pretty indifferent as to which name to call this article - both are alright but not ideal, and I can't think of a better one.) Deryck C. 23:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I've misunderstood nothing. Unilateral name changes without consensus are unkosher, and an administrator is especially expected to know that and abide by WP:CON. A conversation sometime in the past that didn't result in unanimity is not grounds for coming along and changing the article title without first (re)opening the discussion. —Scheinwerfermann T·C18:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

(We've digressed too much. I replied on Scheinwerfermann's talk page instead.) Deryck C. 22:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Samoa

It seems unlikely that Samoa drove on the right after the NZ takeover in 1914. All other German colonies occupied by Britain (or Commonwealth countries) or Japan changed to drive on the left, such as Nauru, Guinea, Tanganyika, Namibia etc. There is no reason why the NZers would have followed the German rule. There were problem few (if any) cars and such vehicles as there were would have mostly belonged to German colonial officials rather than Samoans. It is more likely that driving on the right was re-introduced during World War II to suit the Americans where were effectively in control. Kincaid speculated about this but could not find any evidence either way. I have tried asked older Samoans (living in NZ) and some agree it is possible but no one knows for sure. The same newspaper reports that Samoa had driven on the right since German rule also included nonsense like Samoa was the first country to change in 40 years (ie since Iceland in 1968). One day when I get time I intend to search the National Library in Wellington NZ for a Samoan (weekly) newspaper from 1942 to see, as any change must have been recorded. --04:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)Noel Ellis (talk) 04:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved per unanimous opposition. It is unfortunate that the title is a bit awkward as it stands, as noted in multiple comments below, but the rename target does not appear to offer a better alternative as discussed.-Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Right- and left-hand traffic → Driving side – The name of this article has been discussed several times before, but I do not believe that "Driving side" has been given sufficient attention as an option. "Driving side" is a better title for this article than "Right- and left-hand traffic" for four reasons:

1) The term "driving side" is commonly used in the literature, far more than "right- and left-hand traffic"; "driving side" receives more than 15000 hits on Google Books while "right- and left-hand traffic" receives less than 250; "driving side" is the more common name.

2) "Driving side" is a far more concise title, as is preferred in our guideline about article titles. Neelix (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

3) "Driving side" is far more precise than "Right- and left-hand traffic", and our guideline about article titles also calls for preciseness, stating that article titles should "use names and terms that are precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article". In the literature, the term "driving side" is exclusively used to refer to the side of the road on which one drives; this is the subject of the article, and no sources have been found that use the term "driving side" with a different meaning. The term "Right- and left-hand traffic", however, does not precisely refer to the side of the road on which one drives; this title does not refer to the side (which is the subject of the article) but rather to a kind of traffic that goes on the right and the left, as opposed to, say, off-roading.

4) Our guideline about titles containing "and" recommends against using the word "and" where possible, and states that when "two or more closely related or complementary concepts are most sensibly covered by a single article... where possible, [we should] use a title covering all cases". "Driving side" is such a title, covering all cases. Neelix (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose, contrary to what Neelix says, just a short look through the Google books search shows the word "driving side" being used in senses that don't have anything to do with road traffic, for example, the driving side of a rope, the driving side of a groove etc. This shows both that the Google books search is flawed and that this term is far too vague. Right- and left-hand traffic is abundantly clear to what it is referring, even if it's a little more long-winded than I'd like. Precision is more important than conciseness. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article's present title is the result of considerable discussion and consensus-building. It is encyclopædic in that without any further explanation it clearly and unambiguously denotes the subject of the article and matches the formal terminology used to describe that subject. The phrase "driving side", on the other hand, is a colloquialism at best. It is vague, nebulous, and acontextually meaningless. It does not self-evidently denote the subject of the article and contrary to Neelix' assertion it is certainly not at all precise ("Driving side"? Is that the side of the car the driver sits on? Or the side of the road the car's on? Or wait…what?). I see no evidence that it's actually used by anyone, anywhere, even informally, to refer to the side of the road on which traffic proceeds. On the other hand, there is ample evidence that "Right-hand traffic" and "Left-hand traffic" are the formal terms in uniform use throughout all relevant sectors. The automobile industry uses it. The road engineers use it. The regulatory community uses it. The academics use it. I am finding it difficult to figure out how to support any of Neelix' putative reasons for preferring "driving side" based on any kind of a genuine literature search. Moreover, the article title guidelines Neelix cites are well down the list of title criteria; an article title must first and foremost stand on its own to accurately and unambiguously identify the subject of the article; if that requires more than two words or the inclusion of an "and", so be it. Furthermore, even if we accept Neelix' dubious Google Books hit count methodology as valid, "Right hand traffic gets 17,700 hits and Left hand traffic gets 11,500 hits, almost all of which are clearly relevant to the topic of this article. That handily beats Neelix' 15,500 mostly-irrelevant hits on "driving side". —Scheinwerfermann T·C22:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a big part of the need for "and" here. The subject of this is article is an inseparable dichotomy which annoyingly doesn't really have a single term to describe it (other than "rule of the road", but that's too ambiguous). Thus it's completely normal to expect one would primarily find the two terms used separately in literature, but the two must be covered together. To give another example of an article whose title contains "and" because it is about a dichotomy: Yes and no. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Of the first 100 Google books matches, 3 relate to the topic of this article, and none of those use "driving side" straight out; there is always an earlier phrase with "left" or "right" in it. Something like Driving side of the road would be clearer, but then the putative benefit of conciseness is lost. jnestorius(talk) 09:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Whilst I would prefer a short elegant title, which the proposal is, I am not convinced it is sufficiently clear to be an improvement. The article itself mentions "Rule of the road" which seems to me to be the only alternative worth considering. Abtract (talk) 10:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Meh. As I said before on this talk page, neither title really addresses the problem, and neither is the obvious search term. Unfortunately I can't think of a much better alternative either. Deryck C. 16:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reasons already given. The only possible alternative is "Rule of the Road", but this is not intuitive to those who are not already familiar with the term. NFH (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nothing's perfect, from previous reviews the current title seems to be the least bad option. Driving on the right and Driving on the left both redirect here, as does the obtuse Driving side. Rule of the road lands on a disambiguation page - which rule? Driving side is even more ambiguous in my opinion, do you drive on the left or sit on the left when you drive. And meaningless if we are talking about two-wheelers. Ephebi (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose No possible reason to move. Each every foreign expatriate living in another country have confusing driving directions and must understand and memorize the driving rules. ApprenticeFan work 09:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - while the current title is clumsy, "Driving side" is not, IMO, an improvement. Rwessel (talk) 15:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edits by 139.195.249.180 (Dec-15), 139.195.252.201 (Dec-16), 139.195.252.201 (Dec-17), 139.192.74.146 (Dec-18), 139.195.249.236 (Dec-18)

Similar edits over the past few dates by a set of similar IP addresses, 139.195.249.180 (Dec-15), 139.195.252.201 (Dec-16), 139.195.252.201 (Dec-17), 139.192.74.146 (Dec-18), 139.195.249.236 (Dec-18), have me at a bit of a loss.

These appear to be a form of test edits (repeated odd and pointless additional of bold formatting in a list), vandalism (repeated removal of Serbia), and or political statement (replacement of Serbia with Kosovo). The editor(s) have not provided any edit summary with these edits.

I have reverted four of these edits over the last few days, and another was made earlier today.

At this point I may, in fact, be in violation of 3RR, and if not, likely would be if I reverted the fifth. I haven't paid that close attention to the pages I was editing over several days, when reverting what I judged to vandalism of some form. Be that as it may, there's still are new edits which I think should be at least partially reverted.

I'm not sure if this should go to one of the admin notice boards or not, so if someone could jump in here, it would be appreciated. Rwessel (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

As there have been no comments, I've gone ahead and reverted the two edits by 139.195.249.236. Rwessel (talk) 12:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Aircraft

The article says "In most cases the controls are duplicated, Larger aircraft tend to have duplicate instruments on the right side as well, and in commercial airliners the first officer is just as likely to fly the aircraft from the right while the captain handles other tasks from the left."

My dad was an airline pilot for 20+ years, while this is true, in every model of aircraft he flew (727, 767, 757, and MD-80) the one major difference was the tiller to steer the front wheel when taxiing. Taxiing was always the job of the captain and the only way to do it was a tiller on the left side of the aircraft. Yes, the smaller planes he flew used differential braking to steer, but the large airliners didn't.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxiing for more information. "Larger jet aircraft have a tiller wheel on the left side of the aircraft that acts as a steering wheel allowing the nosewheel to be turned hydraulically" 

86.31.138.79 (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Matt
Many large aircraft have tillers on both sides, or have an option for that. IIRC, the 777 has a right-side tiller as an option, and tillers are standard on both sides for the 787. Rwessel (talk) 11:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Russia

quote " Opponents of Napoleon - Britain, Russia, Austria-Hungary, Portugal - adopted left-hand traffic" that should be around 1800

quote "Driving on the right was introduced in Russia by the edict of Empress Elisaveta Petrovna on 5 February 1752" that was before.

When did Russia changed from left to right? --Laurentleap (talk) 09:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no evidence at all that Russia ever used left-hand traffic on a national scale. Perhaps there were different rules in different parts of the country, or not any written rules at all. The edict from 1752 only fixed rules that were already in practice in most of Russia. In 1858 the Russians changed the system in the grand duchy of Finland (formerly part of left driving Sweden). --Andhanq (talk) 23:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Jordan, Israel

Palestine and Jordan were British colonies, why do they drive on the right ?--Laurentleap (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a legacy from the Ottoman Empire. The territores were mandates rather than colonies and for just some 25 years under British rule. --Andhanq (talk) 14:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Italicization in Jurisdictions with right/left-hand traffic sections

What is the italicization in the Jurisdictions with right-hand traffic and Jurisdictions with left-hand traffic supposed to represent? As it stands now, it appears almost random, and the comments (“Note: Italics indicates year of change to driving on the right/left.”) don’t make much sense.

IMO, just having the date present is really sufficient to indicate “as-of”. And unless someone has some objections, I’m going to remove all of the italicization from these two lists, and change the comments appropriately. Rwessel (talk) 08:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

And someone keeps re-adding the odd italicization. Someone else want to do something? I'm about to hit 3RR. Rwessel (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

LHD safety

LHD bias is pretty prominent in the Safety Factors section, even in spite of the attempt to temper it with caveats. In particular, it focuses heavily on collisions with vehicles and doesn't seem to touch into the revelation that in a right-hand drive situation, the predominant right-eye is being tasked to monitor the curb for pedestrians and cyclists: it is a maxim generally held that it's preferable for vehicles to collide with one another than to collide with pedestrians or cyclists, after all. Since I'm by no means an expert in the field and because of WP:No original research, I can't make such edits myself. --50.98.227.209 (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Samoa

Further to my previous, I can now confirm that driving on the right was the rule in Samoa in 1941. I searched the Western Samoa Daily Mail, a weekly newspaper for 1941-42 for evidence that driving on the right was re-introduced by the Americans during WWII. Unfortunately the papers stored at the National Library in Wellington NZ only go up to March 1942. But I found a number of references in the High Court News to traffic offences in 1941. As well as riding bicycles without lights and horse without bridles etc, a number of people were fined for failing to "keep to the right of the centre line" This included horses, bicycles, cars and even a bus. Most appeared to be native Samoans, although one had a German name. It stills beats me why the NZ administration kept the German rule in place in 1914, but it appears to be so. 23:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noel Ellis (talk • contribs)

Is the map correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:630:1B:6006:862B:2BFF:FE01:6126 (talk) 15:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Battery Street

The Exceptions under the United States section has a word that I am finding confusing: "While it's ill-traditional in that Battery street runs up a hill, not side by side with the highway off-ramp, a rare "keep left" sign is used to keep citizens from driving the wrong way (map)." What exactly does "ill-traditional" mean? --Khajidha (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done The wording has been fixed. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 18:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Exceptions

In the U.S. state of Texas after hurricane Rita, a system called contraflow was introduced to help evacuate people from the coastal areas. This allows drivers to drive on the left lanes of highways in the case of emergencies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pawlie73 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Such arrangements are hardly exceptions of the general rule. In such emergencies the roads are used in only one direction. --Andhanq (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Road-racing clockwise

Is this true? Any race I've every seen on a track was counterclockwise. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

While I can't offer any statistics, plenty of road-racing (as opposed to racing on ovals) is done clockwise, particularly with non-open-wheel cars. Certainly it's common enough for SCCA races. But perhaps a qualifier should be added to the statement, as is certainly not universal. Rwessel (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

UK - Exceptions to the rule

Two items listed are a little misleading - in the Birmingham and A329(M) examples, the apparent RHT examples are on separate carriageways divided by kerbs, barriers. This may not always have been the case, especially in the Birmingham example, but the examples are certainly not unusual - there must be hundreds of such layouts in the UK. The example in Barnet is truly odd and should be highlighted. I suggest dropping the two references above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tclode (talk • contribs) 13:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Spiral

Does the spiral mentioned in the article go clockwise or counterclockwise going up/down from the entrance.

This reminds one of the spiral direction in castles, which should be chosen to favour the defenders who are most likely to be righthanders. See: Stairs.

Tabletop (talk) 00:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

"The Canadian government stated that as from 2021 traffic in provinces including Ontario, British Columbia, and areas such as Montreal will change back to Left Hand Traffic."

I do not see any citations for this section, and I couldn't find any references in regard to this change. Such a change would be incredibly expensive, I would think, and this is the first I've heard of it. Any idea what this is from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Legacy (talk • contribs) 19:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It was added by an IP yesterday. I don't believe it for a moment and have reverted it. The IP also added a claim that there is some kind of split in China, so the south drives on the left and the north on the right. Which is easily disprovable. Kahastok talk 21:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Filling stations

This new section states that "Most often, cars have the fuel cap on the side closest to the road side". That is certainly not true in the United States, where most of the larger manufacturers produce a mix of cars with the gas filler on the right and left side (for example, my Nissan Altima has a left side filler, my GF's Nissan Rouge has it on the right). The actual mix in the US is probably not too far off 50/50. This allows easier use of both sides of the pump for fueling. I have heard claims that there is a different policy in some parts of Europe, but a quick search doesn't turn up any solid references. This section needs clarification and reference, or should just be deleted. Rwessel (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

"Change" vs. "Changeover" vs. "Conversion"

I have done a fair amount of work to clean up the article and harmonise the disparate wording used in different parts of an article that is necessarily international in scope. The 3 words mentioned above had been used freely and interchangeably, resulting in some confusing writing throughout the article. I think that the descriptions would be easier to understand if the word "conversion" were used to mean the one-time conversion from LHT to RHT (or vice versa), such as the Swedish Dagen H conversion of 1967. The other 2 words can continue to be used describe ongoing changeovers which occur at international borders and other locations on a more routine basis. As far as I know, this distinction is not "official" in any sense, and the article makes no claims in this regard. I am simply proposing a modest editorial convention, for the purpose of clearer exposition. What do you think? Reify-tech (talk) 02:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Original research

This article has been tagged for several years as containing original research. Having had a look at it I have to agree. We can't rely on primary sources like maps to verify things like junction layouts; we would need some kind of secondary source that documents it. I would be pretty permissive on an article like this about using a high-quality source, but sourcing of some sort beyond a map is definitely required. --John (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Road Racing

The following was added to the Road Racing section by 173.174.123.215:

"The next paragraph is just wrong, but sadly I cannot figure out how to quickly fix it other than to delete it which I do not feel comfortable doing. Many courses in right-hand driving countries are counterclockwise--pretty much every oval course in the U.S."

While I can't offer any statistics, plenty of road-racing (as opposed to racing on ovals) is done clockwise, particularly with non-open-wheel cars. Certainly it's common enough for SCCA races. But perhaps a qualifier should be added to the statement, as it is certainly not universal. Rwessel (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Missing from list?

What about Togo and Benin ? Tabletop (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

traffic in opposite direction in mountains

The article forgets to mention that traffic in the mountains is sometimes prescribed in the opposite direction to what is normal in a country to ensure that drivers can see the edge of the road. How common is this? The article Yungas Road mentions it, and i saw in a TV documentary that at least one steep part of the Katara Pass has the driving direction reversed, though this can't be seen in even long videos of it on YouTube. --Espoo (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Most Trains in US keep to the Right

I added United States to the countries that generally have trains keep to the right and removed it from the left hand train traffic. Most metro systems in the US have trains keeping to the right. 71.202.151.209 (talk) 03:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Language Majority

I understand that this article is written in British English, however even countries that use B/E do not use kerb, they use curb. Can we update this to reflect the majority of users? Kman9637 (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you are wrong. I'm in a British English-speaking country -- the original one, in fact -- and the correct spelling here is kerb. 174.21.254.214 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Picture and text disagree about Australia and New Zealand?

On the picture of the world map labeled 'Countries by handedness of traffic' it can be clearly seen that in Australia and New Zealand people drive on the left side of the road...

So how can we combine this with the text under section 4.2 Restrictions on wrong-hand drive vehicles which states that:

"In Australia, registration of non-vintage (i.e., less than 30 years old) LHD vehicles is illegal. Imported LHD vehicles less than 30 years old (15 years old in Western Australia) must be converted to RHD"

and

"In New Zealand, LHD vehicles may be privately imported, and driven locally under an LHD permit. Since 1999, only LHD vehicles older than 20 years or cars owned and operated for at least 90 days may be privately imported."

Which is right? The text or the map? Or am I completely missing something?

StijnDeWitt (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be confused between driving on the left and left-hand drive (LHD). If you drive on the left then cars should be right-hand drive (RHD). LHD are the exception. 09:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noel Ellis (talk • contribs)

By Country

Should

to match the format of the title of

Are there any other pages that should have the words "by country" added ?

Alternately might the

and

See also

This might include some pages called List of ... ... ... ?

There might also be a category "By country"  ? Tabletop (talk) 08:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Brazil

I have two things to tell: 1) There aren't any legal obstacles to prevent vehicles from Guyana or Suriname (RHD) to drive in Brazil not beyond the town of Bonfim, in Roraima. This information is not sourced anywhere and I'd like to see anyone to prove it. Probably it also goes against Vienna Convention, because a country cannot make a prohibition on these grounds. Registration of a vehicle suited for the opposite side is one thing and allowing circulation of a foreign-registered is totally different. It has implications much beyond, specially because Brazil wants to improve relations with Guyana. Why would it create a problem to its neighbour? Probably almost there aren't almost any Guyanian vehicle circulating in Brazil because Lethem is a very small town and far away from Georgetown, and to make things worse, the road linking these two places is in a very bad condition. Regarding this, I'll remove the unsourced information. 2) I'll add some information about the prohibition of registration of new RHD cars in Brazil and about places where there are left-hand traffic, only to accomodate special cases, but the sources are in Portuguese. Any problem? That's it. Fasouzafreitas (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Papua New Guinea

The section on Indonesia says its bordering state PNG drives on the left. As does the wikipedia page on PNG.

But it is not listed in the "Specific Jurisdictions".

Didn't have the confidence just to add it - in case there is a good reason it is not listed! Holland jon (talk) 13:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

"outside" the British Empire

There are a lot of references to countries being "one of the few countries outside the former British Empire to drive on the left". But the article in places likes to either list or number the countries not in the former British Empire who drive on the left, of which it is often inaccurate. This includes the sub section on Bhutan where it states it's one of the *five* countries outside the BE to drive on the left, but that number if far higher. To name some from the top of my head, there's Mozambique, E. Timor, Suriname, Macau, Samoa and the US Virgin Islands. I guess this comment is to A) confirm I'm not going crazy and 2) We need some consistency here. Bezuidenhout (talk) 11:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Well although Nepal and Bhutan were not part of the British Empire, they were states under protection of the British Raj of India. The list of countries not influenced by Britain is: three former Portuguese territories: Mozambique, East Timor and Macau; two former Dutch territories: Indonesia and Suriname; two Asian countries with no colonial influence: Japan and Indonesia; and one former Danish territory: the US Virgin Islands. 07:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)~

Croatia

sorry but where does this nonsense about Croatia driving on the right before World War I? Like most of the Austro-Hungarian Empire they drove on the left prior to the formation of Yugoslavia. Kincaid found that the only three provinces that drove on the right before 1915 were Tyrol, Voralberg and Carinthia. One small part of Carinthia is now included in Slovenia, but there is no source for Croatia drive on the right. There is also no date for when Yugoslavia adopted drive on the right. the 1928 Encyclopedia Britannica lists Yugoslavia as an exemption to driving on the right (which includes the possibility that it was driving on the right in some parts and driving on the left in others. 07:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.148.57.130 (talk)

Exceptions - Highway

The highway discussed in California isn't unique, there're other roads that temporarily have interesting lane directions. I wouldn't really call it "right or left hand" though, the different directions are on opposite sides of a valley and traffic doesn't really interact with the other direction. That's unlike an undivided road where the right/left hand direction actually matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.34.94.236 (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Right- and left-hand traffic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Right- and left-hand traffic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


ref removed, it resolved but not to anything related to the text. --Cornellier (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Right- and left-hand traffic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


some removed --Cornellier (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

US Postal vehicles

There is a short section about service vehicles in RHT jurisdictions which use RHD vehicles for specialist uses, such as postal vehicles. About the US it just says that rural mail carriers have to buy their own RHD cars, and there are only 20-year old Subarus and Saturns available. It turns out that the USPS has used RHD vans for over 50 years, the Jeep DJ, the Grumman LLV, and RHD Wrangler Unlimiteds are being built and used into the 21st Century. Mentions of this on those wiki pages aren't well sourced. Someone who knows a little about current RHD postal vehicles in North America should rewrite the paragraph so it doesn't sound like the only ones are a handful of old privately bought cars. Silas Maxfield (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done in this revision[1]. --Cornellier (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Mirrored or not?

Please someone make it clear somewhere prominent whether RHD and LHD are exact mirror versions of one another, or whether the symmetry breaks in some circumstance.2001:8A0:F009:9A01:A5BA:D14E:129D:84A1 (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

This is discussed in the section Road vehicle configurations --Cornellier (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

New historical map

I've replaced the map correlating handedness with unit of measurement with a map showing usage in the early 20th Century. I made the map myself and I realize that the map could do with a little improvement, for example I had some trouble with fill vs. line, and British Columbia, which I had to draw freehand, is too big. I'm hoping that someone with more Inkscape skills than I can step in and improve it. Otherwise I'll take another crack at it this week. --Cornellier (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

History

The current article cites a book called, "The Development of Transportation in Modern England" (1916) for the proposition that a law passed in 1773 recommended keeping to the left side of the road. I searched the book for every occurrence of "left" and could not find any evidence that the suggestion is supported by the reference.

The suggestion that LHT law was included in the 1773 law is disputed by the article, "Left is Right on the Road," from the New Scientist (December 1986), which is cited in the current article in support of the proposition that LHT was imposed for the limited purpose of the London Bridge in 1756. The New Scientist article says, "The General Highway Act of 1773 did not apply the keeping left rule to England. The custom was already established."

The comment about the 1773 law recommending keeping left should be removed.

Svaihingen (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Done. I also searched the book and found no evidence. --Cornellier (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

The following paragraph does not make sense:

Rwanda, a former Belgian colony in central Africa, is RHT but is considering switching to LHT, to bring the country in line with other members of the East African Community (EAC).[30] A survey, carried out in 2009, indicated that 54% of Rwandans were in favour of the switch. Reasons cited were the perceived lower costs of RHD vehicles as opposed to LHD versions of the same model, easier maintenance and the political benefit of harmonisation of traffic regulations with other EAC countries. The same survey also indicated that RHD cars are 16 to 49 per cent cheaper than their LHD equivalents.[31] In 2014 an internal report from consultants to the Ministry of Infrastructure recommended a switch to LHT.[32] In 2015, the ban on RHD vehicles was lifted; RHD trucks from neighbouring countries cost $1000 less than LHD models imported from Europe.[33][34]

It says that Rwanda people are in favor of switching from RHT to LHT because RHD vehicles are cheaper.

Please double-check sources and fix the error! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvlancellotti (talk • contribs) 20:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mvlancellotti: once you realise that "RHD" means "right-hand drive" vehicles (vehicles with the steering wheel on the right-hand side) and that "LHT" means "left-hand traffic" (traffic driving on the left side of the road) it all makes sense. It is the opposite of what the US has - there they have LHD vehicles and RHT. I hope that clarifies it for you. . -- de Facto (talk). 21:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Table order is confusing

It appears that, from A to M, the countries are ordered alphabetically (by default) and then most LHT countries are dropped to the bottom of the table. Because the table is sortable, it seems illogical to do something like this, so I'm going to make the table strictly alphabetical. If for some reason the order prior to this edit was intentional, please reply to this.

Thank you, AuburnAttack21 (talk) 03:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. There is one problem with this table. An anonymous editor in this edit put the territories of countries as separate rows, which breaks the sorting. E.g.
  1. load the page, see that Christmas Island, Cocos Islands, and Norfolk Island are listed under Australia, as they should be.
  2. click the header to sort by Country
  3. see that American Samoa is now a territory of Algeria. This is not undo-able. The only way to fix is to reload the page.
I think sorting is a useful feature and the territories should be removed from separate rows if it breaks the sorting feature. --Cornellier (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
per WP:SILENCE I'm going to go ahead and merge territories back to their "parent" countries --Cornellier (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
We can write China: Hongkong and Macau or United KIngdom: Gibraltar as country. We should separate those two because they are different to their mother countries. At this time the info is wrong or confusing for them. Other dependencies can be mentioned only in the comments since they drive on the same side as their mother countries. --BIL (talk) 07:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
How is it wrong or confusing? HK and Macao are territories of China, so group them with China, just like Martinique is grouped with France. To be consistent, U.S. Virgin Islands would have to be separated, which is inconsistent with the way other territories are handled. Adding RHT/LHT is useful because if you sort by the "Road Traffic" header you can see which ones are LHT, which are RHT, and which are mixed. --Cornellier (talk) 13:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Denmark in 1758

The table lists Denmark as switching to RHT in 1758. I think that is wrong. If I remember correctly, 1758 is the year for the earliest law mandating RHT, but this does not mean that a change took place in that year.

However, I do not have the access to the source cited for the information. If someone here does have that source, could you please check the information?--Oz1cz (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Since nobody has answered here, I have removed the reference to 1758. (See the Danish Wikipedia.)--Oz1cz (talk) 07:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

1758 is the adoption of RHT in Copenhagen, officially extended to the rest of the country 1793, see Kincaid, also confirmed by the Danish Cyclist Forbund (1995) There is no evidence that this was a change, it is the adoption of a law.

09:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noel Ellis (talk • contribs)

Requested move 8 September 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. No such user's humorous aside notwithstanding.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


Right- and left-hand traffic → Left- and right-hand traffic – Alphabetical order. Yes, I know it is a very minor issue, and won't affect the article at all. However, in interest of consistency and not being biased to first-mentioned terms, I think we should just do it, keeping with that Israeli–Palestinian conflict and Mexico–United States relations present the parties in alphabetical order to avoid the question of "which should be mentioned first???". Even the WWII infobox present the Axis to the right and Allies to the left, which means that the latter comes before in the alphabet and the English language is read from the left.
Since this is a minor issue, I suggest we just do it and try not to think too much. Gaioa (talk) 12:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Support, not only per the proposed reasons, but also because it puts the words "left" on the left and "right" on the right. English is a left-to-right language. – voidxor 00:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Heh, good point. All the more reason to change it. /OP Gaioa (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. For me, "Left- and right-hand traffic" is the more natural word order. 86.191.44.59 (talk) 20:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support A simple but commonsense change to maintain consistency. AusLondonder (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose for the sake of WP:DRAMA. It's not a wiki-way to have a discussion on a trivial style issue ended up unanimously; we must have at least three screenfulls of discussion coupled with an excursion to WP:ANI in order to resolve this. No such user (talk) 10:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Railways in the United Kingdom and Israel

In the United Kingdom trains almost always move on the left except in a very small number of locations such as Rannoch so therefore I think LHT would be more appropriate than LHT/RHT which is currently shown. In Israel I am told trains move on the left so that should be corrected. C. 22468 Talk to me 21:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Test with LHT in Europe?

It is commonplace in Europe for only the LHD variant of a vehicle to be tested under the Euro NCAP crash testing scheme, although the result will be used in the promotion of the RHD variant in European countries which operate LHT. w/o source and please see Crashtest Smart gegen Golf. AVS (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Left- and right-hand traffic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Left-_and_right-hand_traffic/Archive_4&oldid=1136898922"