Talk:Left- and right-hand traffic/Archive 1

message: There are genuine safety reasons for driving on the left
Driving on the left is correct for right handed people which is the great majority,here is why: 
When changing gear in a UK car with the steering wheel on the right , which is of course correct in the UK etc for driving on the left---------in the UK your left hand changes gear and your right hand stays on the steering wheel.-- this is safer( for right handed people.) The reverse is the case in countries where one must drive on the right.--
In other words if you live in the USA you hold the steering wheel with your left hand and change gear with your right hand because of course the steering wheel is on the left in the USA--------this is dangerous if you are right handed.
 
:Nonsense. A gear change is a far more complex operation than steering. If you're right-handed, you should be changing gears with your right hand. Of course, with an automatic transmission, which the vast majority of American cars have, that is not a problem. However, in other countries, such as Europe and Central and South America, where manual transmissions are more commonly used, shifting with the right hand would definitely be an advantage. 4.243.149.139 00:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. However, most Americans drive automatics, so this is not an issue for them. For this reason, I always prefer hiring an automatic when I'm in any country that drives on the right. Better still, I take my own RHD car from the UK if at all feasible. Research in 1961 proved that, other factors being equal, countries that drive on the left have a lower accident rate. I think if we are to cover this angle of the topic in the article, it will need a section titled something along the lines of "Natural advantages of one side over the other" and we will also need to cite some natural advantages of driving modern cars on the right, otherwise it will seem unfairly biased. NFH 18:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Debatable. At least in the U.S., bicycling is not a primary means of transportation in most places. In cities where there are a lot of bikes, many riders move through traffic irrespective of laws governing which side of the street they should be on, one-way traffic, stop signs and traffic signals, etc. It's difficult to see how getting on a bike on a sidewalk would have any effect on how safely the rider could enter traffic, regardless of whether people were driving on the left or right. 207.69.139.146 22:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Reversing or backing up is not a major component of most people's driving. In any case, it is (or should be) done while driving slowly, so whether you're holding the wheel with your right hand or left is not a major safety issue. 207.69.139.146 22:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: General

message: :A distinct question. What's with the US Virgin Islands? They drive on the left, while the rest of the US (and US territories) drives on the right. Some expalnation is definitely useful, somewhere. --Penta 10:25, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: See Transportation on the United States Virgin Islands. -- knoodelhed 06:59, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: not much info there. --24.94.189.11 02:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The nearby British Virgin Islands, as well as some other Caribbean countries and territories, drive on the left, so I believe the USVI follow that custom for safety and conformity. However, what makes things interesting is that most cars are American, with LHD. I don't know if that's the case on the BVI or the other Caribbean areas, although I believe it is true in the Bahamas. 207.69.139.146 22:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What's with the USVI?

message: Removed controversy statement about Taiwan.  The status of Taiwan after 1949 is controversial,
but the statement that control of Taiwan was transferred from Japan to the Republic of China in 1945 is not.
Roadrunner 03:59, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Taiwan

message: The introductory paragraph to this article implies that it will be a general article about rules of the road, and the first section begins: 'The first rule to learn for a particular country is which side to drive on.' However, this is about the only rule covered in the entire article! It would be good if someone with the time to spend could expand on the article somewhat. Andrewferrier 21:28, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)
Agreed but time and energy constraints impose - suggested topics could include a general overview of principles contained in Vienna convention.  Napoleonic "yield to traffic from right rule" and where it applies.  How does a US 4-way stop sign work?  Might be possible to put in something about origins of the legal principles - Common law users of roads, Locomotives in Highways act, Motor Car Act 1903 etc etc Suggested first step is to chop out the Left vs Right stuff and give it its own article.--Sf 12:23, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Article needs expansion and clarification of purpose

message: Is there any article on the rules of railways?
:In some countries, trains always move on one side or the other (of double-track or multi-track lines), while in others, such as the U.S., practice varies not only from one railroad company to the other, but also due to local needs. Amtrak trains may move from the right track to the left track if the next station is on the left, so that passengers may board or disembark without having to walk across a track. However, they do not always do this.
:Signals on American railroads are typically set up for two-way operation, meaning that trains can, when necessary, go the "wrong way" on virtually any segment of track. Dispatchers and train crews are responsible for the safe operation of the train in any event, and railroad rules, signals, warrants, etc., prevent "wrong-way" running from being a problem (in most cases).
:That said, however, most signs are on the right side of the track, probably so that they can be more easily seen by the locomotive engineers ("drivers," in British parlance), who sit on the right side of their cabs. However, if the lead locomotive is going backwards ("running hammerhead," or "long hood forward"), another crew member needs to be in the cab to help the engineer see signs and signals and check for hazards (stray animals, trespassers, motorists trying to beat the train through a crossing, etc.).
:In short, railway practices are probably a lot more difficult to explain than those for driving cars, in part because trains operate under much stricter yet more complex rules. 207.69.139.146 22:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What about railways?

message: What I'm about to say is probably insulting, but I've been trying not to scream while reading this article.
What is a 'traffics'? Whoever wrote this needs to understand that they should be able to speak and write English proficiently before they go and write an article in English.
I've rewritten the sentences which used the word, "traffics".
Yes, of course, "traffics" drive on the left-hand side of the road. No, motorists or cars do, not "traffics".
"Traffics" isn't even a word -- look it up... "He traffics in marijuana." So there.
/rant.
:I think it's Indian English. I hear the same thing done to the word "aircraft" at work. --Adamrush 13:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Road traffic is uncountable. Adding an "s" may make the word "traffics" like a verb and hence misleading.--Jusjih 15:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I concur that the word "traffic" should not have an s because it is already implicitly plural (that is, it refers to a composite object composed of a multitude of things).  However, I should note that road traffic is not inherently uncountable.  In the United States, our civil engineers count traffic all the time with sensor loops embedded in the pavement that sense the presence of large metallic objects (like bicycles, cars, and trucks) when they cross the electromagnetic field of the loop.  We also use sensor loops extensively to trigger traffic lights, so that vehicles need not wait for a full traffic light cycle when there are no other vehicles at an intersection.  --Coolcaesar 17:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This technology is not restricted to the Us but is in worldwide use. Nonetheless, it is 'traffic' that is being measured, not 'traffics'. Guinnog 17:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Traffics"? 

message: Is there any need to use 'side' or 'side of the road' after 'left' and 'right'? It should be fairly obvious that we're talking about the left or right-hand side of the road.
To keep things consistent, 'drive' should refer to the steering column, hence left/right hand drive, which is why I changed 'Left-driving' to 'driving on the left'.
I once had a correspondence with someone in the sales department of GM in South Africa, in which I was told that the company could not export to right-hand drive countries in Southeast Asia because they only built cars for left-hand drive markets like South Africa. I explained that most of Southeast Asia drove on the same side of the road as South Africa.....
Perhaps the term "traffic direction" is a better one? Antipodean Contributor 22:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of 'side' and 'driving' 

message: extracted from the section on Hong Kong and Macau,
:When crossing the border, vehicles go through a car park, from which they exit on the 'correct' side of the road
Isn't it a flyover or something? — Instantnood 09:58, Jan 29 2005 (UTC)
I think what is meant is that cars have to stop and park in a parking lot (or car park) while the driver and passengers clear customs and immigration; when they leave the parking lot, they simply have to remember to drive on the proper side of the road when they leave. 71.131.197.252 01:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Carpark?

message: Could we see some sources here, please! --ProhibitOnions 14:16, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
:There are none, which is why I've removed it.--Quiensabe 20:36, 10 June 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Philippines switch to the left?

message: "Slovakia, despite being a member of the European Union, does not allow the local registration of RHD vehicles, even if the vehicle is imported from one of the four EU countries that drive on the left." (emphasis mine).
AFAICT from the list, there are only three - UK, Ireland, and Malta. So which is the fourth EU country to drive on the left side of the road? Thryduulf 22:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cyprus Jooler 23:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Four RHD European Union countries?

message: I've uploaded some photos traffic driving on the right in Savoy Court in London. I'm not sure where to put them, so if anyone's got any bright ideas, please add them in somewhere.
*left|thumb|350px|Driving into Savoy Court
*left|thumb|350px|Driving out of Savoy Court
Nfh 19:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos of Savoy Court 

message: Somaliland definitely drives on the right. I had an e-mail from the Somaliland Mission in London in March 2005 stating that Somaliland has never changed from driving on the right. I've also searched the web for photos of traffic in Somaliland, where it is clear that traffic drives on the right:
* http://www.caynaba.com/SomalilandArmy.jpg
* http://www.somalilandnet.com/pics_sl/sland_pictures/tmpImg040_DVC00810.jpg
* http://www.insidesomaliland.blogtales.com/archives/W2-400.jpg
I'm therefore removing Somaliland from the list of countries that drive on the left. I am not including it in the list of countries that drive on the right, given that no other unrecognised countries are listed (e.g. northern Cyprus).
Nfh 21:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your research has done a good job, but the Canadian Travel Report still says that traffic drives on the left, presuambly due to outdated information.--Jusjih 11:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right that it's down to outdated information, because it actually states that all of Somalia drives on the left, not only the breakaway Somaliland part. Thanks for this anyway. NFH 14:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somaliland 

message: Where did the information come from that Samoa switched to driving on the right in the mid-1990s? From reading the Rule of the Road book by Peter Kincaid, I understand that until 1912, Samoa drove on the left. German occupation forces on 17 February 1912 switched Samoa to driving on the right. However, it is suggested (but not confirmed) that subsequently, New Zealand switched Samoa soon after 30 August 1914 back to driving on the left, and the United States then switched Samoa back to driving on the right during the Second World War. The book, published in 1986, confirms the rule of the road in Samoa to be keep right, and a quoted source confirms that Samoa was keeping right in 1974. Unless anyone has any objections, I'm going to edit the Samoa listing to say "mid-1940s?".
:I have read the same book by Kincaid, but the information is not very complete for Samoa.--Jusjih 07:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Samoa 

message: The situation with respect to Newfoundland is a unique one; yes, what is now the province of Newfoundland and Labrador did enter into Confederation with the Canadians on April Fools' Day 1949 (the Canadians have yet to realise that Joey Smallwood was only joking!) but there are a couple of other wrinkles to add to this:
* Newfoundland, laying claim to the status of being the oldest British colony, once functioned as a separate Dominion much like the Dominion of Canada; the government in St. John's therefore held a fair level of autonomy.
* This changed after the costs of World War I and the Great Depression pushed the government of the tiny dominion into financial ruin; the British were running the affairs of the colony through all of World War II while Newfoundland attempted to get back on her feet. By the end of the second war, Newfoundland was in much better financial shape.
* The Newfoundland referenda on whether to remain part of Britain, go alone, or join the Canadians were held in 1947 and 1948, with opinion closely divided but the British option being the least favoured (and therefore dropped from the second referendum ballot in 1948). The British follow the Roman drive-on-the-left system, the Canadians do not.
* The switch to driving on the right would only have made sense once Newfoundlanders had abandoned the idea of retaining British-controlled government. The British drive on the left. Traffic between Newfoundland and Cape Breton would be a non-issue; while many people made the crossing, it was inevitably aboard boats and ferries as Newfoundland itself is an island.
* With the bulk of traffic into Newfoundland and the bulk of transport to the many tiny, isolated fishing villages (outports) within Newfoundland being by boat, a change to right-hand traffic would primarily affect only St. John's, the capital. Substantial numbers of cars or multilane roads on which to drive them were rare to non-existent outside the capital at that time; money for roadbuilding was in short supply before the war and labour in short supply during the war. The geographic conditions (scattered small villages amidst rocky coastal fjords, long distances with low population density) were not conducive to widespread early adoption of large numbers of automobiles - some cars existed, but very few owned one in the outports. There was a narrow-gauge railroad at the time, which followed the path now taken by the Trans-Canada highway, but the primary transportation to the outport villages was by sea. Every fisherman would have had access to watercraft - a necessity of the livelihood upon this rock in the Atlantic Ocean. 
In this context, St. John's does end up becoming somewhat of a special case, and not just by being the capital of a Dominion which for whatever reason voluntarily abandoned its own sovereignty. --carlb 07:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Newfoundland was never 'part of Britain', even under the Commission of Government, because unlike the French with nearby Saint Pierre et Miquelon, the British did not consider their colonies to be part of their national territory with representation at Westminister (even though this was called 'the Imperial Parliament')  I suppose that even those who did not favour becoming part of Canada accepted that closer links with it (like driving on the same side of the road) were inevitable.
Quiensabe 08:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dominion of Newfoundland 

message: What I expected to see in an article entitled the "rules of the road" were, well, the rules of the road.  Instead, this article is dominated by the left/right issue.  A worthy topic, to be sure, but I expected to see here the rules of the road that allow competent drivers to drive safely and legally in just about any country without knowing their particular implementation of the rules.  I think this article needs a serious revamp, and the left/right issue addressed in detail should probably be moved to a separate article.  --Serge 04:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever happens, the left/right issue needs its own article, as you suggest. There is a book on this subject called "Rule of the Road", so this might likewise be a more appropriate title for the article i.e. simply change the current name to the singular. An article on general traffic rules ought to have a significantly different title, perhaps "traffic rules", "highway code" or "driving rules". NFH 09:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Serge, but no opinion on the page-naming.  Highway Code already has an article, because it's the title of the UK's rulebook.  As to the book, I can't see it on Amazon's top 20 search results for "rule of the road" - perhaps someone could link to the ISBN?  I also was surprised to see this article only about left/right.  Ojw 20:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Rule of the Road" by Peter Kincaid, published by Greenwood Press in 1986 -  NFH 21:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although Serge and I have had our disagreements (notably on the Manual of Style talk page), I have to agree with him that the Rules of the road article really needs to be fixed so that it discusses vehicle-related law in general.  I concur that the left-right issue should be relegated to a separate article (with a small section of this article summarizing the issue and pointing to the more specialized article).  --Coolcaesar 08:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The only thing left to decide is the title of the general road rules article and of the left/right article. I favour "Rule of the road" for the left/right article, as the subject is often known by this phrase and is even the name of a book on the subject. NFH 09:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think this article needs a serious revamp. 

message: There are some bizarre rumors travelling around the Internet. One of them is that Russia was a left-hand-driving country well into the 20th century.
You can read that Russia changed to right-hand driving "in the last days of the czars" or "in the 1920-ies".
That is certainly NOT the case. The former Swedish teritory of Finland became a Russian Grand-duchy in 1809. In 1858 the Russians introduced right-hand driving in Finland in order to facilitate for the Russian troops, already travelling on the right side.
Anders Hanquist, Stockholm, Sweden
Peter Kincaid's book has virtually nothing for Russia. I have found unconfirmed claims about Russia changing from keep left to keep right. If that were the case, then why bother changing Finland. What I guess is that when Russia ceded Southern Sakhalin to Japan in 1905, keep right was probably changed to keep left. Once Russia got that part back in 1945, keep left was probably changed back to keep right.--Jusjih 13:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Considering that RHD vehicles by far outnumber the LHD ones (better suited to the rules) on the Pacific side of Russia, drivers in those regions have made multiple proposals about switching the sides of the road. However, they were denied by Russian government." - I have never heard about anything like this. I live in Irkutsk, my parents live near Vladivostok, and this is just not true. Yes, most of the cars in the Russian Far East are from Japan, and yes, the government tried to ban RHD vehicles a few times, but no, nobody wants to have different traffic-handedness within one country. I have removed this false statement. 87.103.135.64 20:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, until proper citations can be found the would support otherwise. --Thisisbossi 03:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russia 

message: From 3 Priority:
: In the United Kingdom, priority is always indicated by signs or road markings, in that every junction has a concept of a major road and minor road (except those governed by traffic lights).
This is not true. Unmarked crossroads with no obvious major/minor distinction are not unknown in quiet residential areas, and are often included on driving test routes. Steved424 13:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know they do exist, but they are extremely rare. And I've never seen one in an urban area, which is typically where driving test routes are located. NFH 18:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I just have bad luck then! I started learning in Tunbridge Wells many years ago, and I'm pretty sure I remember at least one unmarked crossroads somewhere in the back streets; then I moved to Cheshire and took my test in Northwich, where there definitely is one, and on a test route to boot :/ Steved424 21:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Priority in the UK 

message: :*Research in 1969 by J J Leeming showed that countries that drove on the left had a lower accident rate than countries that drove on the right. Countries that have switched to driving on the right (for example Sweden) have seen their long term accident rates increase by more than any increase in traffic volumes. It has been suggested, but not proven, that this is partly because most people are "right eyed", and are therefore better able to judge the position of oncoming traffic when they see it on their right.
Actually, Sweden's long-term accident/death/injury rate declined due to the usual advances in engineering and traffic safety. 
Also, the accident rate went down for a short time after switching, due to drivers being more paranoid than usual, but when back up, and only down again with safety advances. I'm removing or at elaset removing this paragraph.—Last Avenue (talk) (contribs) 03:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Switching to the left became safer 

message: OK, I just revamped the article. The whole thing of which side of the road to drive on has been moved to Side of the road (traffic), but the introduction kept, and a link to the main article.
I was thinking of calling it Side of the road, but changed my mind to Side of the road (traffic). However, the redir. will still link to there, with an other-uses thingy. 
Someone still has to write a better intro paragrpah for side of the road (traffic). —Last Avenue (talk) (contribs) 03:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should have got a concensus on the talk page before doing this. What you should have done was rename "Rules of the road" to another title. Many pages link to "Rules of the road" on the subject of left/right. Those links all now need to be updated because you should have renamed the article, not moved the left/right stuff out of it. I will shortly be reverting your changes. Please do not make such drastic changes without getting the agreement of others first and without considering the implications properly. By the way, I agree that the page can be renamed to something more appropriate to the left/right issue and the non-left/right stuff moved out. NFH 09:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Serious revamp' 

message: It has been suggested several times that the title of this article be changed to something more appropriate. Please vote below, adding your comments. As well as adding "support" to a proposal, you can also add "oppose" to a particular proposal if you have comments to add concerning the proposal.
===Rules of the road (leave as is)===
#Oppose - the page is about one particular "rule of the road", but the title implies it is about many different rules of the road. NFH 13:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good idea. However, I think we should rename Rules of the road to Rule of the road and make sure that all the links on other articles update, and then turn Rules of the road into a disambiguation page (pointing to Rule of the road and Traffic laws) in order to cater for any links elsewhere on the internet. NFH 09:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming this article - poll 

message: #Oppose - the page is about one particular "rule of the road", but the title implies it is about many different rules of the road. NFH 13:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rules of the road (leave as is)

message: #Support - The phrase "rule of the road" is often used to describe the most fundamental rule of the road, i.e. which side to drive on. This is also the title of the only book on the subject of the left/right issue. NFH 13:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good idea. However, I think we should rename Rules of the road to Rule of the road and make sure that all the links on other articles update, and then turn Rules of the road into a disambiguation page (pointing to Rule of the road and Traffic laws) in order to cater for any links elsewhere on the internet. NFH 09:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rule of the road

message: *Oppose. Goes against encyclopedic tone, suggests something more of a list of countries/comparisons, and a bit ambiguous. —Last Avenue (talk) (contribs) 21:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Which side of the road

message: # And fill this article with information about traffic laws in general. Ojw 18:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of countries by the side of the road on which they drive

message: #Support, this title is most explicit as to what the page is about. I think one of the articles had this section titled Directionality which I also think could be OK i.e. "Directionality (traffic)" but I'm not even sure if it's a real word. Ewlyahoocom 20:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Driving on the left or right

message: On Wikipedia itself, kerb links to the archaeological term, while curb is a disambiguation page. Which should be preferred? —Last Avenue (talk) (contribs) 21:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing this out. I've fixed it so that it links to curb (road). Accepted practice on Wikipedia is to maintain the English spelling of the original contributor. NFH 09:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kerb vs. Curb 

message: One of the reasons different sides of the road were choosen is to differentiate the markets.  It prevented cars made in one country being sold in another.  This is particularly true in Europe when considering that Britain was the first, and for a long time the best, car manufacturer.  Other European countries decided to make their rules such that British manufacturers could not sell there, and thus strengthen their own manufacturing.  Now, where in the article should this go?  --Midnighttonight 04:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you've got a cite, probably the Myths section. Ewlyahoocom 08:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's definitely a myth, and in fact it's not even a popular myth. The history of driving on the left or the right in Europe had nothing to do with car manufacturers. Some countries switched in the early 20th century as a result of invasion by Germany, and others simply to conform with their neighbours. NFH 10:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  market differentiation 

message: I think the country sections (which I have put into alphabetical order) should all be sub-sections within one overall countries section. Does anyone have any ideas on the name for the countries section (perhaps just "Countries")? I moved Okinawa to be a sub-section of Japan, given that it is not a separate legal entity from Japan. On the other hand, Hong Kong and Macau are distinct legal entities, despite being part of China. They still have their own currencies, ISO codes, and most importantly drive on the opposite side of the road from mainland China. In view of this, should we continue to list Hong Kong and Macau separately from mainland China? NFH 11:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's just so many of them it looked a little lop-sided to me but I am of no strong opinion on it. I do think the 2 "Places..." sections could be moved up in front of the country sections, if it flows better. Ewlyahoocom 14:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Country sections 

message: Hey all! I've just gone through the links from articles to Rules of the road (currently a redirect to here). Most of the links intending "driving on the left/right" had used piped links to display text of some form of "driving on the left/right" or "right/left hand drive/traffic". The ones that display "rules of the road" in the article often usually mean traffic laws and rules. I've added a redirect The rule of the road to handle one case where it seemed appropriate. I've cleaned up the piped links, given all the redirects sometimes just by deleting the piping . Now I'd also like to redirect Rules of the road to traffic (which is where traffic law redirects). What do you think? Ewlyahoocom 19:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense to me. Thryduulf 12:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Before you redirect Rules of the road, you'll need to edit many of the pages listed at Special:Whatlinkshere/Rules_of_the_road and redirect them to the new article. You'll need to examine each article one by one to see why it points to Rules of the road. Also, you need to think about how we cater for links on external web sites that point to Rules of the road. Changing this redirect is not so simple as there are other implications that need to be considered. Please don't change the redirect yet. We may need some kind of disambiguation page for the time being. NFH 20:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you happen to read my message above, the one that starts Hey all! I've just gone through the links from articles to Rules of the road...? Cause that's exactly what I have done. The only links left to Rules of the road intend the traffic law meaning. Ewlyahoocom 07:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, silly me. I did read that, but then I saw a whole load of articles at Special:Whatlinkshere/Rules_of_the_road relevant to the left/right issue, so I got the impression that they hadn't been changed. I now see what you mean - some of the references in those article are about traffic laws and some are about the left/right issue. Thanks for all the good work. NFH 19:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Rules of the road" as redirect to "Traffic"? 

message: Is there any source for this, because I've never heard that most people draw their circles any particular direction? --Ibagli 03:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I write the letter 'O' anti-clockwise, but I'm not sure what the relevance is of this to driving. On the other hand, I'm used to seeing clocks go clockwise, and I'm not sure what the relevance of that is either. Perhaps the above statement should be removed. NFH 07:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circle direction? 

message: The comment above took the words from my mouth, if no-one's able to provide a source for the ascertation that "most people draw a circle anti-clockwise" then I believe it should be removed.  I certainly don't draw circles anti-clockwise and as a primary teacher have seen many circles drawn, never noticing a particular preponederance for one way or the other. --Brideshead 19:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Theodore Blau's 'Torque Test' study, 1974, studied and found that most right-handed people drew their circles counter-clockwise. The tendency was still apparent, though not as strong, for left-handed people to draw their circles clockwise. —Last Avenue [talk | contributions] 01:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circle direction 

message: Railways in the United Kingdom and France 'drive' on the left (with the obvious exception of single track routes). Up until a few years ago the station at Bicester in the UK was notable as being operated 'the wrong way round'. In the United States trains drive on the right. The situation is complicate by four track lines where two tracks will run each way, often alternating (fast up, fast down, slow up, slow down). Also some lines will be signalled to operate bidirectionally. User:Tom walker 19:48 GMT 24/3/2006.
:Thanks for your contribution. There's loads about this at . Two Tube stations I sometimes use have trains "driving on the right" - Bank and London Bridge on the Nothern Line. I don't think we should have a large section in this article devoted to railways, although a small mention might be useful, just to compare with driving. NFH 20:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Railways

message: :However, during the Cultural Revolution, cars were made to drive on the left for political reasons (Communism is leftist). This did not last for long, and motorists have since reverted back to driving on the right.
I noticed this has been removed, although variants of this have been here for ages. Is this true or not? I've asked people from China living during the Cultural Revolution, and most remember driving on the right. —Last Avenue [talk | contributions] 05:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just searched with Google but could not find reliable sources. It seems that the traffic lights were redefined bu inversing what red and green lights would mean while it is not clearly known whether Red China switched to driving on the left during the Cultural Revolution.--Jusjih 07:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural Revolution and driving on the left 

message: It's probably a joke, but I've heard that on Mallorca you don't drive on the left or the right side of the road, but on the shady side of the road to stay out of the sun. // Liftarn
:: You might be referring to Malta, where a local song said that that they drive in the shade.Quiensabe 15:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mallorca 

message: This article needs cleanup. It does not need to have links to a certain country everytime it is mentioned. Axeman89 00:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that this justifies the cleanup tag. Although Wikipedia policy is to link only in the first instance of a particular word, this doesn't make the article difficult to read. NFH 06:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have to agree and since many of the excessive links has been removed I have also removed the cleanup tag! -- UKPhoenix79 07:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: The section on the United States says:
Since colonial times, traffic in the United States has always been on the right-hand side, which was greatly influenced by France, a "founder" of the drive-on-the-right rule, which indirectly supported American Independence from British colonial rule. There is a common story that this may be due to the construction of Conestoga wagons, which had a high driver's seat on the left side. However, the Conestoga wagon does not date all the way back to the colonial period so this story is likely apocryphal.
However, the Conestoga wagon entry states that "the first Conestoga Wagons appeared in Pennsylvania around 1725", suggesting that they do indeed "date all the way back to the colonial period". GagHalfrunt 20:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States - Conestoga wagons 

message: The top image's tooltip doesn't work... it should say red and blue instead of those boxes. I'd fix it, but I don't know how. -Grick(talk to me!) 07:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The tooltip is automatically generated as the caption, so it is not (afaik) possible to show a tooltip different to the caption. In this case having the red and blue blocks on the caption outway the less than ideal tooltip imho. Thryduulf 09:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  top image tooltip 

message: I have noticed that over time, the two "Advantages" sections have degenerated into a place for British and Americans to promote their own side of the road as being better. Most of the statements in these sections are merely opinions (some of them well founded but with no verifiable sources), and several statements even contradict each other between the two opposing Advantages sections. These sections have been and will no doubt continue to be disputed. I propose to delete both Advantages sections and to move the only two statements of hard fact to other appropriate sections. NFH 18:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's nice of you to notice all this when it's been pointed out to you above. You seem to have been editing this article for months apparently without concern that it contains personal opinions and the advantages sections contradict each other. I'll certainly back you up in paring them down to hard facts. Thanks for bringing this up. Terminal emulator 14:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had noticed your first comment here, which you added to the main article instead of the talk page. The contradictions in this section were presumably what prompted you to scrutinise the article so much and you had a very good point. Let's wait a day or two more for any other comments on this before I do the deleting. NFH 18:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Advantages sections 

message: I wondered about how the issues of changing sides at borders would be resolved in practice. I suspect that it would be resolved similarly to how road repair on a higway sometimes is resolved, by temporarlily closing off one side of the road through roadblocks and stop signs.
1.
A  |
 \ |
| \|
| /|
 / |
|  V
2.
|  A
|  |
 \/ 
 /\ 
|  |
|  V
(Sorry for the sloppy explanation and the ugly Ascii illustrations...)
惑乱 分からん 11:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahhh, the Blue and Red arrows aren't meant to symbolize the road, but the movement of the cars. That is, in diagram 1, the purple lane is switched in intervals from left to right side traffic through stop signs. Similarly in diagram 2, where one side across the border is shut off in intervals (through stop signs or similar), and there only is traffic in either direction at any given time. Hope this gets clearer. Anyway, it would be interesting information for the article. Thanks for your answer. 惑乱 分からん 22:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changing sides

message: Please note that seeing with right eye (Right Eye Dominance) (Eyedness) is different from seeing to the Right Side (Right Field Dominance) (Sighting dominance).
When we look to right we use both the eyes - The image falls on the medial part of the RIght Retina and lateral part of left retina.
However, the images from both these eyes go to the  Left Occipital Lobe of the brain
So the references cited may not be that relevant, except for this point Though the left cerebral hemisphere seems to play a dominant role in gaze fixation in the greater proportion of the population, consideration of the joint of the two cerebral hemispheres for individual functions of the body has been advocated.
If the left cerebral hemisphere plays a dominant role in gaze fixation, the it is easy to fix the gaze when seeing to your right than when seeing to the left
This message is not to contradict the earlier posts, but just to bring to the notice that there is a difference between the two concepts (though one is dependent on the other)
Doctor Bruno 02:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eye and Field

message: I went ahead and removed the old "unreferenced" tag since it appears the article has references.  That tag is meant to indicate the article has almost no references, which isn't the case at this point.  Moving forward I'd suggest using "citation needed" on any specific statements that still require further citation. Dugwiki 22:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed the old "unreferenced" tag 

message: Any info on whether South Africa has always driven on the left?  
--Zaurus 20:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure the Cape Colony would have followed the Dutch rule from 1652 until the British takeover in 1805 - after that date it would definitely be on the left. So the next question is what the Dutch rule was at the time? Roger 11:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Africa History 

message: Bridge between Tachilek (Myanmar) and Mae Sai (Thailand) crossing the Mae Sai River: What's it's correct name and how does the LHD-RHD is managed? Scriberius 17:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a good look at a lot of photos on Flickr and I can't see any signs or anything. I get the impression that drivers simply change sides in the middle of the bridge, and given that the traffic levels are low, this probably doesn't cause a problem. NFH 11:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tachilek-Mae Sai

message: This article is about driving on the left/right, not sailing so perhaps that should go somewhere like navigation. Also I know that trains are driven but the left/right issue implies the driver has some control over how the vehicle deviates, which train drivers do not, if you understand me.ChrisAngove 23:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Driving, not sailing

message: Do insurance companies load premiums when you drive on the side of the road you are not used to? Or is it mainly based on your driving record, age etc. I would guess that driving on the other side is relatively low risk per se compared to the part determined from your driving record, age etcChrisAngove 23:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can comment on the UK as an example. Unless you have a good track record of driving in the UK without claims, you may face a higher premium. This can be a problem for people who have not lived in the UK before. Also, some UK insurers offer comprehensive cover only in the UK. With these insurers, when you take a UK-insured vehicle outside the UK, your cover drops to the minimum legal cover (i.e. third party only) and if you want comprehensive, you have to let the insurer know in advance and pay an additional premium. However, I don't think this has anything to do with the side of the road, but is just an excuse to make some more money. For many people (e.g. London residents), the risk of claims is lower when they take their car outside the UK because the car is not being kept in the high risk home postcode. NFH 11:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Effect on insurance

message: I've removed the link to British.  It is a disambiguation page and, "Wikipedia articles should not link to disambiguation pages (with rare exceptions where the ambiguity of a term is being discussed); instead links should go directly to the appropriate article." (See WP:DPL).  There are many editors working endlessly to disambiguate terms (see here).  If you notice, the other links to British in the article are to United Kingdom because it refers to the current state, but the link that is being reverted is a historical link so United Kingdom is not really appropriate.  If a better link cannot be decided upon, linking to British is still not the way to go as noted above, since the sentence is not discussing the ambiguity of the term.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 12:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. --Thisisbossi 12:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: Per WP:ENGVAR, it is improper to change spelling and usage to conform to whatever variant of English you happen to prefer personally. This article, like many others describing comparative practise/practice in different countries, contains a mix of English variants from at least three continents, which means changing individual words to suit your taste is poor practice. Moreover, I'm sure you found a particular UK dictionary to support your preference for "further" rather than "farther", and the two are commonly used interchangeably, but precise usage prefers the use of "farther" when the context is one of distance, and "further" when it is one of degree or amount. See Mirriam-Webster and dictionary.com, as well as The University of Victoria Writer's Guide, English Plus, and  AHD. Please do not change back to "further" without attaining concensus on this page. Thank you.--Scheinwerfermann 03:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My point exactly - I am the original author of the paragraph in question and I don't appreciate my spelling/vocabulary being changed to another variant of English. I reverted this change to my words in accordance with this policy and will continue to do so for the reasons I have given. It is very rare in the UK to hear or see "farther". "Further" is the usual spelling and pronounciation in the UK and my observation is supported by British dictionaries. Please do not change my words to another variant of English. NFH 09:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with NFH. Scheinwerfermann, the fact you can't spell "practice" (the noun is spelled this way worldwide) doesn't fill me with enthusiasm for your being a spelling expert!--Guinnog 09:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "According to the Survey of People On the Right of Kerb (SPORK), conducted by the Ministry of Bureacracy, individuals whom say "further" tend to drive on the left side of the road, and people who say farther tend to keep right. A $1.3 million follow-up survey could not find any explanation for this, but did discover a tasty recipe for the combination of meat and apple pies which would cause people to say "faurther" and/or "fuarther", ultimately causing them to drive in the center of the road -- to much confusion and mayhem for all. Further study is pending." --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 11:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Further vs. Farther

message: What language is this article in?  I only ask as it seemed to be in Br Eng (centre; neighbour), but after I'd changed 'archeolgic' to 'archaeological' I noticed two US Eng "traveler"s earlier on in the article.  I haven't changed them to Br Eng 'traveller' as now I'm unsure. 82.32.238.139 22:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further to the comments above, it's my understanding that all of the article should be in the same language variant, and not changeable by paragraph.82.32.238.139 22:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was originally written in British English so that is the format that is supposed to be used... I hope that helps -- UKPhoenix79 08:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed -- after looking through the History, it does seem that British English should be the standard for this article. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 15:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Br Eng or US Eng?

message: Does anyone have or know where to find accident/collision statistics in countries that allow both RHD and LHD vehicles. i think this kind of info is important to have along with what is already there.
i havent been able to find any numbers showing the accident rates of this kind of info. i basically am looking for stats that shows the accident rates of RHD VS LHD in both RHT and LHT countries to find out if there is any significant difference in accident/collision rates if there even is a difference. 
24.67.224.95 06:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend searching TRB, ITE, AASHTO, FHWA, EC, and/or UN, in that order.  I think I have some better EC links... but I forget them off the top of my head. I know there is research out there -- perhaps someone will come by with a more specific links (and I may search for it myself if I get the motivation to do so). Cheers! --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 11:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RHD vs LHD statistics 

message: I've removed the following snippet from the section about Australia:
"This situation compares interestingly with the "give way to the right" rule in most countries of Continental Europe, where a vehicle turning left (onto another road usually of similar hierarchy) can completely stop all traffic in the lane to its left while giving way to traffic on its right and waiting, however long, for a gap to move into."
I don't think the above description is very accurate, traffic arrangements are usually made to keep the above situation from being possible at all. Plus it's doesn't really describe the situation in Australia at all. Kumiankka 20:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed text snippet 

message: The history section is full of rather dubious assertions and perpetuates many of the common myths around this subject:
That the "normal" side of the road was originally the left as a result of sword-wearing horse riders.  But such people would only have been a tiny fraction of road traffic.   Isn't it more likely that the primary reason for horses to be ridden on the left is that most people mount and dismount on the left?
That a "change" occurred in countries where postillion carts were used.  While postillion carts apparently are best driven on the right, there is little evidence of a change from earlier practice (these countries may have already been driving on the right, which is also the optimum side for pedestrian-led carts).
(The most egregious myth) - That French aristocrats drove on the left, while the commoners walked on the right; and that France changed to driving on the "proletarian" side of the road after the revolution.
I assume this is a joke, not a myth - do you think the writer can actually have believed that aristocrats kept to one side of the road, commoners to the other? Maproom 17:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it Tom. In addition, I'm sceptical of that "drawing weapons with the right hand" theory of men's buttons. Although this could also be false, I heard that the reason women buttoned a different way was to do with being dressed by maids. Then again, that could be crap also. Whoa! Various theories can be found in Blouse Leon 02:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: What is the rule of the road for vehicles in Antarctica? The bus in this picture is a left-hand drive vehicle, so I'd assume that it is a right-hand traffic area.  Are there any reliable sources that people know about to document this?  Check out McMurdo-South Pole highway.  69.181.71.221 07:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Antarctica isn't one state/country, and has few (if any) roads connecting bases belonging to different countries, I would assume that throughfares in and around each base follow the road rules of their respective home countries. Grant | Talk 07:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antarctica