Talk:Driving side

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)