Left-side traffic is not better than right-side traffic

I will address his points in their order. 1. My opponent says that the right hand rule is used in low-traffic situations and therefore the risk of accident is similarly low. Respectfully, while such intersections might in fact be generally low-traffic ones, this does not detract from the possibility of high traffic at any one time. Secondly, I was not merely saying that this is a safety factor. The fact is that having to lean over a passenger to see if there is a vehicle to which we have to give way is an inconvenience. My opponent then says that we are a further distance from the vehicle to which we have to give way. Assuming that he is correct (how does he know how far the other car is? ), being a greater distance from an oncoming vehicle is actually an advantage. It gives us more time to react and to slow down or stop so as to give way. Having to look past another vehicle (if one is oncoming from the opposite direction) is a valid point. However, since both you and the other vehicle are in motion, the other vehicle will be in your way for a split second. You will know if one is oncoming and will have notice of it. This is contrasted to the mother in law, who, once she enters your car, is a more permanent feature. She's there for the duration of the trip. Finally, the low-traffic aspect does not change the fact that we have to have a good look at the right hand side (past the mother in law / passenger). My opponent is right that chances are there will be no car there. But we still HAVE TO have a good look every time. At the same time, the chances of a vehicle coming in the other direction and blocking our view (even for that split-second) are minute indeed, given my opponent's own point that these are low-traffic situations. 2. The comparison between different countries is not fundamentally flawed. The comparison was used to confront my opponent's point that left-hand traffic has with it higher incidence of Road Rage. I have presented some data pointing that there is no evidence of that and that in fact the contrary appears to be true. I was not using this data to argue the advantage of left-hand traffic per se. My opponent presented no data whatsoever to support his theory that Road Rage is a higher risk in left-hand traffic. 3. Both sides are significant when crossing. That's true. However, immediate danger is always coming from one side or the other (right side in left-hand traffic and left side in right-hand traffic). A firmly in-built appreciation of the right-side danger in left-hand traffic systems is consistent with the right-hand rule. In the right-hand traffic system, there is no such consistency. We just follow our well-established response (sinc childhood). "Right-side, check right-side". Given that (unfortunately) most people do little thinking while driving (we are creatures of habit), this is actually important. 4. * "And since when can people already on a roundabout only approach from one side? " Since the invention of roundabouts. I quote from wikipedia: "All vehicles circulate around the central island in the same direction, and this direction is decided by whether traffic drives to the right or the left. In left-hand traffic countries the circulation is clockwise; In those that drive to the right, it is counterclockwise. " (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) 5. Let us consider this. I stated that in left-hand traffic systems, the driver of a manual vehicle retains his right (stronger) hand on the wheel while changing gears. I said this gives us more power to steer away and quickly react in case of danger. My opponent seeks to rebut this by saying that steering with one hand in bad situations is a no-no. The problem with his contention is that, when driving a manual car, we HAVE TO change gears. In right-hand traffic we HAVE TO DO THIS WITH THE RIGHT HAND and we HAVE TO steer with our left. There simply is no other option. I say it's important to have the dominant hand controlling the direction of the vehicle, especially if an emergency should arise. He further says that it is better to use the dominant hand to do other things so as to quickly get them done and get both hands back on the wheel. If he is indeed referring to such tasks that would need concentration if done with the left hand then he is referring to tasks that should NEVER BE DONE while driving in the first place. Aside from the rule that we are to always (when possible) have both hands on the wheel, it is paramount that we do not perform tasks that can't be done without using any substantial concentration at all. I suggest that the simple task of turning on the radio or opening the ashtray can be done equally with the left or right hand without much concentration. Anything else should involve stopping the car and not be done while in motion. I firmly remain with my contention that SAFETY COMES FIRST and the importance of having the dominant hand steer the car at all times by far outweighs any claimed advantages of being able to open the ashtray or change the radio station 0.05 of a second faster through the use of the dominant hand. My opponent has not given any examples of a task that could be done thoughtlessly with the right hand while requiring concentration if done with the left. I suggest such tasks do not exist. Some complex tasks may, however, require less concentration if done with the dominant hand, that's true. And those should not be done at all while driving. SAFETY FIRST, ladies and gentlemen. I make one final point on this. Having the dominant hand available to perform non-driving related tasks can in fact encourage us to perform such tasks. This in itself is dangerous and it encourages us to break road rules (both hands on the wheel, remember? ) 6. Drive-through is indeed zero danger. But my resolution is not limited to safety. My resolution is general and includes also convenience. 7. My opponent says that evacuating a vehicle sideways is wrong. He suggests that when we have milliseconds to save our life we should start by turning our entire body to the side and then jump out of the car on both feet. I must say this is an interesting (if unheard of previously) exit strategy. 8. My comment about guns was not meant to be taken seriously. I did not consider my opponent's AK47 argument to be serious either. I believe it was a metaphor for road rage. However, my opponent has responded to me on this point and I thank him for that. Note however that I did not mention anything about legality. I could find sources about the numbers of guns available to the public in various countries. However, I do not believe availability of firearms is relevant in this debate and road rage generally has been addressed in a previous point. In conclusion, left-hand traffic is better, albeit marginally. It provides consistency between the right-hand rule and the fact that imminent danger at any intersection is usually on the right hand side. This is important. Humans are creatures of habit. In left-hand traffic we also do not have to look over the passenger when obeying the right-hand rule. Roundabouts are consistent with the right-hand rule. The system also ensures that the dominant hand is ALWAYS on the wheel and it allows us to exit the vehicle with the dominant foot first. It is more convenient because we use our dominant hand to handle money and goods in drive-through. I did assume the onus and I say I have discharged that onus in no less than six aspects. I ask that you cast your prejudices aside (if you have any) and vote Con. nb: useful comparison need not require a country that has moved from one system to the other. It could simply use people who have substantially driven in both systems. I am one of those. But I will not give personal evidence in this debate.