Talk:Left- and right-hand traffic/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Malta

This is just a little comment to the map... I have recently been at Malta, and they do not drive on the right side of the road... It is an old British colony, and they still drive on the left side. I have no idea how to change this, so I hope, that someone will se this message and correct it

Malta and Cyprus are both shown wrongly on the map - they both drive on the left. David (talk) 13:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I was in Malta too- it was ruled by the UK until the 1950s. 80.7.186.169 (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Swords

hmm- romans actually wore thier swords on the right (exccept for officers)until they switched from the short gladius to the longer cavalry style spatha which made it impractical. The greeks also used often even shorter swords, although i am not certain which side they were worn on. Does this cast doubt on the ancients-walked-on-the-left-to-allow-easy-sword-acess theory? The standard roman sword technique was underhand stabbing at the groin and gut, suiting the short gladius. wouldn't this mean you would actually want the opponant on your non-sword side (left)? This would seem to be confirmed by the fact that the romans fought left (shield) side forward. When greaves were still worn, they were typically worn only on the left.

Actually, on second thought, perhaps when fighting shieldless, as travelling swordsmen would be (shields were usually only military and also very large and heavy) , maybe you would present your right side to the opponant rather than your left, to keep your distanc since you have nothing to protect yourself. This would be especially true of road-wariness, where you would probably want to distance yourself and defend against the threat rather than score an efficient and ruthless quick kill.

the side that a sword is worn on is irrellevant. The hand used is the reason why driving on the left was more advantagious because the right hand would be holding the weapon so its exposed rather than trying to strike across the horse and ones own body.(Morcus (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

How Many Drivers?

In the Myths and Miscellaneous Facts section, it states "Approximately one quarter to one third of the world's traffic travels on the left-hand side of the road". Unless someone has stats on vehicle numbers, I would have thought the best way to come up with a figure like this would be by population. On a population basis, this should clearly be "Approximately one third ..." and the figure of one quarter seems to be belittling the significance of the number of people who do actually drive on the left.

On a related note, the statement "It is commonly asserted that left-hand traffic is a singularly British custom." needs to be justified. Asserted by whom? Not the 34% who drive on the left, for a start. Probably very few people within 10,000 km of where I live (NZ). This could well be a local phenomenon rather than a global one, and needs to be watered down. I have no doubt that there are some people who feel or believe this, and maybe quite a lot in some countries, but I do doubt that it is globally common. Pedrocelli 02:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Use a map with html charttips to show country names

Robsas 15:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have created a version of the map using SAS/Graph, and it has html charttips (hover text) that show the name of the countries, and it's left/right handedness when you hover your mouse over them:

  http://robslink.com/SAS/democd28/driving.htm

I think the html charttips are a useful addition, and would encourage this map to be used instead of (or in addition to) the SVG map.

All you need is the html file (see link above), and then put the following gif file in the same directory. (the html displays the gif file, and then defines the hotspot areas for the charttips):

  http://robslink.com/SAS/democd28/driving.gif

You have my permission to use this map, and I'm willing to make changes/corrections/enhancements to it from time to time.

Here is a page describing exactly where I got my data about left/right countries, and what assumptions I made:

  http://robslink.com/SAS/democd28/driving_info.htm

Robsas 15:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

bike brakes

Are bicycle brakes reversed between countries driving on opposite sides? In the US, the rear brake is mounted on the right handlebar, but in Tanzania it's on the left. This makes sense, as you need the other hand to signal a turn across traffic, and if you're reduced to one brake, rear gives you the best handling. Is this general, or just coincidence? kwami 09:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I've driven many bikes. A half of them had front brake on the right and rear brake on the left and a half of them had the brakes reversed. There's no bicycle brake standard AFAIK. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 21:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. For a bike with only one brake (the rear) this would be usually on the right hand side. For a bike with two brakes (front and rear) the right hand would be the front brake and the left the rear. This is deliberately rigged to favour right handed riders who of course are the majority. (There's nothing stopping you from reversing this, but this is my experience and is true on all of the bikes i've ridden, across BMX, Mountain and Road bikes.) The braking side of things doesn't appear to be influenced by traffic directionality, as you are still expected to signal right or left as appropriate regardless of braking requirements (and the cyclist should be travelling slowly enough to pull this off without causing a danger to themselves; they should brake in advance and/or approach slower if there is an issue around needing to both brake and signal at the same time. BlakJakNZ (talk) 08:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

But you signal with the hand that faces traffic: If you ride on the left, you signal with your right arm, and if you ride on the right, you signal with your left arm. At least, that's the rule in the US (where you may ride on the left on a one-way street).

I've never ridden a bike in the US with the brakes reversed: On all, the right-hand brake controlled the rear brake. However, when I let people ride my bike in Tanzania, they almost inevitably crash the first time they use the brakes - they've never been on a bike with that configuration before. So here are two countries with different traffic directionalities corresponding to clear differences is brake setup. Now, nearly all Tanzanian bikes are made in China, as are a good number of US bikes (Schwinn, for example). So China must be selling right-rear bikes to the US, and left-rear bikes to Tanzania (or more likely East Africa). kwami (talk) 09:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Its irrelevant with the direction of flow. US bicycle rules don't apply outside that country, most of the rest of the world uses both hands for signalling and encourages them to obey much the same rules as other road users. On motorcycles, where higher speeds make these things much more important, controls can be on any side. However, since the late 1970s the current convention was established on all new bikes across the world through the dominance of Japanese manufacturers. Ephebi (talk) 11:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Error on diagram of map

taiwan drives on left not right yet the diagram colours taiwan red, which is right thus a mistake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.6.250.250 (talk) 02:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

All sources specifically say Taiwan drives on the right, just like China, and despite the Japanese infrastructure. However, they do say that Somaliland drives on the left, which is not on the map. kwami 19:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've travelled to Taiwan two years ago and they drive on the right hand side of the road in every part of the country. --203.173.144.224 (talk) 08:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

We need more reliable and verifiable information than what you say. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 08:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a photo of Taipei demonstrating that traffic in Taiwan drives on the right. For a written source, any tourist guidebook to Taiwan would do.--GagHalfrunt (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Trains in Spain?

Spain is included in both the right and the left lists in the "which side do trains operate on" part in the trains section. It is stated that trains operate on the right (except for metros), and that they operate on the left. Which is it? I think that in keeping with the other western European countries, trains in Spain keep to the left (except for metros), and that this section should be updated. Can anyone with concrete information clarify this? --70.75.0.236 14:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the trains in Spain keep to the right as evidenced by this video about the AVE high speed train:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=QC4YBHoaWfY

As far as metros are concerned, I really don't know but I'm trying to find info on that right now. Haku8645 (talk) 05:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

English Channel tunnel section

I'm afraid I'm a bit confused by the section on the Channel tunnel. It says, in the paragraph about the proposed road-traffic implementation, that "This being the case, vehicles travelling to France would keep to the right and vehicles travelling to the UK would keep to the left." But, France and the UK are in opposite directions, meaning that both sets of vehicles would in actuality be trying to keep to the southwest side of the tunnel... a practical impossibility. Am I reading this wrong, or does this need to be fixed? --Darkwind (talk) 09:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Its more for overtaking. One carriage way would be above the other but laws for overtaking would nessesitate an arbitary side of the road to drive on, there are also legal and soveriengty issues.(Morcus (talk) 02:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

Instrument layout

Someone has attempted to make uncited POV claims about the "correct" layout for instruments on RHD vs LHD vehicles 3 times now. Normally this would lead to being suspended. Can we have this discussion here first please? Your logic would dictate that my superbike should have a different layout of instruments, brake or gear levers when I ride on the "other" side. They are considerably more demanding to ride (and keep points off your licence) than, say, a Fiat Panda 8-). Ephebi 17:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems some editor wants to provide their POV regarding "correct" instrumentation without giving any sources. Manufacturers take all kinds of approaches to placement of operating controls. The original Mini is a perfect example of a vehicle designed in a LH nation. Its instruments are hidden in the middle of the dashboard and away from a "normal" driver's field of vision. Another example of "non-standard" layout was the handbrake on the Volvo 164 that was placed between the driver's seat and the door. In short, these edits did not provide any authentic contribution to the article, and that is why I removed them the first time they appeared. — CZmarlin 19:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This editor is using a Verizon IP so I presume he's just inexperienced in the ways of the LHD world. (The mini was designed with a central console, not because it was a LHD car, but because it was envisaged for export from the start and this was one of the (many) ways used keep the costs down.) On some Citroens you just tapped the L or R side of the binnacle for the indicator switches, it soon became totally natural to me but I guess motor journalists never had the time to get used to it. They stopped whinging when Citroen introduced 'standard' GM-style instrument stalks bought from the many component suppliers, but it was a sad day for ergonomics. Ephebi 22:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The central mount of the instruments in the Mini, as well as many other new cars such as the Nissan Quest, proves the fallacy of the argument this editor is trying to make about a "correct" layout for LHD and RHD vehicles. The driver has to scan the gauges and work the controls as the manufacturer happen to provide them. If an automaker cuts costs by having one instrument panel for both LHD and RHD markets, then drivers have to adapt. There are still numerous differences in the operating controls among automakers and even between the various models in a particular brand. I have been renting countless number of cars and have to get used to many differences in controls and instrument layouts. Some cars are becoming more "generic" as the same components are now supplied to different automakers. For example, the steering column mounted automatic speed controls on numerous cars (such as Toyota Camry models) happens to line up with the wiper switch stalk when driving straight ahead. This arrangement makes it easy to turn on the wipers on a regular basis when trying to adjust the cruising speed. Furthermore, the editor's statements about radio controls are pure speculation as many owners replace the original equipment with all sorts of aftermarket audio systems, each having unique layouts and types of controls. — CZmarlin 01:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to make things clear, left-hand drive means that the steering wheel is on the left-hand side of the car, for driving on the right-hand side of the road. The editor "using a Verizon IP" is surely inexperienced in the ways of the right-hand drive world.--GagHalfrunt 12:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Left-hand-drive? That doesn't make any sense. When I drive, I stick my left hand out through the window or have it rest on the armrest. I steer and shift gears with my right hand. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 21:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Article rename

I have replaced the vague descriptor "driving on the left or right" with a properly encyclopædic, noun-based article title ("Traffic directionality"). See Traffic. --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 18:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad idea but why did you chose that particular name; is it in use anywhere? I had thought of renaming it the "rule of the road" since the article uses that term; what do you think?Abtract (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The term traffic directionality is in wide use in the industries involved — road system engineering, vehicle engineering-manufacturing-marketing-regulation, automotive lighting engineering & manufacture, traffic safety research, and the like. "Rule of the road" is certainly better than "driving on the left or right", but it is less formal and not as widely used in the relevant industries. Because there are many rules of the road, rule of the road is also a more ambiguous phrase than "traffic directionality", which refers to one phenomenon only. --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 20:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Then I agree wholeheartedly with the move. Abtract (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It took me awhile of figuring out when I added this article onto my watchlist... now I get it :P That old name kind of bothered me; I concur with the move. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 22:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You should check for double redirects when you move a page, and fix them. Ewlyahoocom (talk) 03:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ahh yes, can we get a bot to clean this up? --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 03:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a double-redirect. Can someone please describe what's wrong? --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 05:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed

I've requested a citation for this use of the word "directionality". To my mind, the directionality of traffic is the direction in which it is going (forward or backwards; downtown or to the suburbs, etc.), not the side to which it is keeping. Google and Google books seem to support this. If the less intuitive meaning is truly "in wide use in the industries involved" then a citable source should be easy for you to add. Thanks -- jnestorius^(talk) 10:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Done! Good question. Please do bear in mind that what might seem to make sense to you, personally, isn't necessarily more intuitive in general. Such an assumption can lead to problematic WP:UGH edits. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the motivation for moving the page from "driving on the left or the right" may well have had a touch of UGH. I don't doubt that a few people have used the term in "your" sense, but I'm still not convinced that it's "industry standard", and I still believe that it is widely used in "my" sense. Of the five cites, the first is clearly using the term in my sense, not yours. (The old span is now used for eastbound traffic but the new span has 2 lanes for westbound and a third lane which is reversed depending on traffic directionality.) The second is using your sense, but I don't consider John O'Keeffe an authority on these matters, he's just a journalist. As for the third cite, Noemi Beres at ReservaCar Dublin Airport might plausibly qualify as an "authority", but free-articles-zone.com does not; and her article at admits to being spurred by a comment from a politician that "got me thinking" and, judging from its content, it may well have used Wikipedia as a source. In any case, both Beres and O'Keeffe merely use the term "traffic directionality" once its meaning has already become evident from earlier discussion of "which side of the road you drive on". Better would be mentioning the term rather than using it. I don't have access to your fourth and fifth sources: could you supply quotations? They both seem to relate to headlight beams, which certainly relates to the traffic industry, but is a rather specialised subfield. Contrast with "Handbook of Traffic Management and Control Systems" (ISBN 0080435955) which on pg 454 uses "which side of the road you must drive on". jnestorius^(talk) 22:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If you put a gun to my head, I would probably grant that ugh was a factor in my finding the previous article title — Driving on the left or the right — unencyclopædic. It is a thoroughly unencyclopædic subject heading, which is why it made me go "Ugh!". I also agree that "your" sense of the phrase "traffic directionality" is in common use. It appears the term is used to describe whether traffic is headed to or fro, and to describe which side of the road that traffic is hewing to, which alone makes it a suboptimal subject heading by dint of ambiguity. Perhaps the best way forward would be to use neither of the two names this article has had so far, but instead to pick a term that describes only the side of the road on which traffic drives. Such a term would be "The Rule of the Road", as already mentioned and referenced in the article. Being a noun phrase, it's an encyclopædic subject heading, which addresses the problem with the article's original title. Referring only to which side of the road traffic hews to, and being well referenced, it addresses the problem with the article's current title. Redirects would obviously be provided, and a disambig link could be placed at the top should an article on the "other" kind of traffic directionality eventually be written. What do you say? —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Though I don't for one second profess to know what I'm talking about, I agree with Scheinwerfermann that the 'Driving on the left or right' is indeed a very unencyclopaedic title. However, I think 'Rule of the Road', regardless of whether or not Kincaid makes use of this term in his book, suffers from the same ambiguity that Traffic Directionality does. In my mind, 'rule of the road' refers to each country's own road rules, such as lanes to use for overtaking, turning right at a red light, and the general codified set of regulations and practices that govern driving in a particular country regardless of which side they do drive on. In fact it almost seems as though we've reached an impasse at which there is no specific, unambiguous term that describes the content of this page. Perhaps it's time for the most academic one among us to make one up and get it published in a scientific journal so we can use it? I, for one, will be writing a dissertation on this exact subject for my degree in transport planning next year. Any ideas? Perhaps I'll reference the person who solves this problem :) Haku8645 (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Drat, more loggerheads. And the worst part of it is that even though "rule of the road" is used rather widely in industry and academia, even down to GM's internal production codes for vehicle equipment installed on the assembly line, I see your point about vagueness. H'mm. Well, another candidate phrase that already sees use in this article is traffic handedness. What do we all think of this? It accords with the universally-used specific designators left-hand traffic and right-hand traffic, and I can't imagine of how it could be taken to mean anything but which side of the road traffic drives on. There is reference in automotive lighting literature to the term (because as mentioned in the present article, headlight beams are particular to LHT or to RHT). —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 01:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the entire Terminology section currently has no inline citations, so I can't say how widespread the terminology is. If there is no very widespread general term, it is not up to Wikipedia to make one up. If "traffic handedness" is genuinely widespread, then we can use it. Otherwise, if "left hand traffic" and "right hand traffic" are widespread, we can use left and right hand traffic, (or possibly left- and right-hand traffic) on the model of article names like long and short scales. And if "left hand traffic" and "right hand traffic" are not widespread, I favour going back to driving on the left or right: it's certainly inelegant, but I don't think that makes it "unencyclopedic": it's perfectly clear and widely used. jnestorius^(talk) 08:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the present discussion could accurately be characterised as "Wikipedia making up" a general term, for there's no requirement that article titles themselves be supported by references the way assertions within articles must be. Rather, it's up to editors to name articles so as to describe the contents accurately, concisely, and with a minimum of ambiguity. These questions of accuracy, conciseness, and ambiguity are what we're currently discussing.

Wikipedia's naming convention policy calls for the use of nouns (e.g. "traffic handedness") rather than verbs (e.g. "driving on the left or on the right") when reasonably possible — and it would seem to be reasonably possible in this case, in that we could leave the article as it presently is, we could change it to "traffic handedness", we could use your "left and right hand traffic" idea, or we could pick another noun-based option not yet discussed. That said, if consensus develops to return to "driving on the left or on the right", it does conform with the Wikipedia naming convention's preference for the gerund form of the verb phrase. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 13:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:INTRO#Bold title states "If the topic of an article has no commonly accepted name, and the title is simply descriptive [...] the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text; if it does happen to appear, it should not be boldface." The current intro begins "Traffic directionality refers to regulations requiring all vehicular traffic to keep either to the left or the right side of the road"; this is a statement about the real world, not about a Wikipedia article's title. As to using nouns where reasonable, it depends how we define "reasonable"...and "noun". Is a common gerund more reasonable than a rare abstract noun? When does a gerund become reified into a noun in its own right? Merriam-Webster considers "swimming" to be a noun, though not "driving". jnestorius^(talk) 14:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's work towards consensus on the best title for this article, then later we can discuss definitions of "reasonable" and "noun" and tackle such matters of article markup as whether and when to use boldface type. I think your suggestion of "Left- and right-hand traffic" may be the best candidate title yet proposed; let's see if we can get some additional input. Redirects are one of the niceties of Wikipedia that help make title selection less crucial to article accessibility; we are presently working to optimise the title, but redirects will ensure that under whatever which title we eventually settle on, the article will be equally accessible to any who wish to find it. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that a Wikipedia-article-title should not be mistaken for a real-world-name. If there actually is a real-world-name, let's use that as the Wikipedia-article-title. If not, a descriptive title that is obviously not a real-world-name is, to my mind, preferable to something that sounds like it could be but actually isn't. BTW, I just noticed we have an article called driving. jnestorius^(talk) 15:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, the name/title concern seems generally valid to me, though I think it'll be easily addressed or worked around in the present case. And Driving has a suitably encyclopædic title compliant with Wikipedia policy in that it is a gerund that cannot reasonably be replaced with a noun, so I'm not sure why it bears mention here; that's not the situation we face with this article. Again, let's focus on the immediate task at hand — deciding the most suitable title for this article. There's ample use of the phrases "right-hand traffic" and "left-hand traffic" throughout the engineering, industrial, and regulatory sectors as well as in literature published for (and general discussion amongst) non-experts, so let me try again to steer our conversation here back towards discussion of your proposal for Left- and right-hand traffic as an article title. One question that we ought to address is whether it ought to be in that order, or perhaps the other way round, i.e., Right- and left-hand traffic, given the greater prevalence of RHT worldwide as discussed in the article. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not think it is appropriate to divorce discussion of the article title from discussion of the real-world name. Currently there are no inline citations in the Traffic directionality#Terminology. If you add some citations there to back up your assertion that RHT/LHT are common terms, then I will gladly endorse that as an article name; otherwise I won't. I agree that Right- should come before left- as being the more common situation. jnestorius^(talk) 16:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Citations provided, though I must admit your tone seems perhaps a bit more abrasive and brusque than might be warranted in this discussion. I'm curious what you might've done instead of endorsing Right- and left-hand traffic had I not provided citations. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I admit to losing patience, but since it seems to have precipitated citations, I can't say I'm sorry. Too many Talk: page discussions are carried on tediously in an absence of facts. Thank you for providing the required facts; I can fully support a move Right- and left-hand traffic. Please don't think I'm being arrogant: if I had not supposed you to be reasonable and well-informed, then I would most likely have simply given up and gone away. jnestorius^(talk) 16:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Article name discussion, May 2008

OK, no harm done, and I agree that talk page discussions can in some cases be nothing but endless tailchasing, but I wish you will please try to assume good faith, for an end-justifies-means explanation for impatience is unlikely to gain you much traction in the event a dispute will break out in some future talk page discussion. Or at least just don't admit you consider the end to justify the means! ;-)

So: Right- and left-hand traffic is on the table. What do we think of simplifying this to Traffic handedness? The former isn't nearly so awkward as Driving on the left or right was, but the latter is more concise and can reasonably be considered a stylistic variant. Compare Right- and left-handed people, Right- and left-handedness, and Handedness.

Whichever we settle on, there'll obviously be redirects from Right-hand traffic, Left-hand traffic, Right-hand drive, Left-hand drive, Traffic handedness, etc., so accessibility won't be an issue. (L4 header added to simplify this phase of the discussion) —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't like it. It looks made-up. (I know all words were made up at one time, but you know what I mean. Perhaps nonce word is the technical term.) If you have evidence of actual usage, I will reconsider. Also, it drifts too far from being a self-explanatory term. "Right- and left-hand traffic" seems better on that score. jnestorius^(talk) 00:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Always content to voice my uninformed opinion, but I also tend to favour Right- and left-hand traffic as it's the least ambiguous of anything else. If the term Traffic handedness is indeed used and sourced, by all means let us know, I just personally feel that Right- and left-hand traffic is very self-explanatory and an improvement on Driving on the left or right. So I suppose you could consider mine a vote of support. Haku8645 (talk) 23:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have no problem with "Right- and left-hand traffic", and agree it's a good title. Shall we wrap this up with a discussion of format details? Which do we prefer:

• Right- and left-hand traffic

• Right and left hand traffic

—Scheinwerfermann (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Problem with both these name is the bias to right side. If I would look up this item I would first try: driving side. It is a noun phrase, suitable as title. Of course it's ambiguous as to where the steering wheel is or which road side one drives on, but that goes for all titles, and is both treated in te article. −Woodstone (talk) 07:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this can legitimately be called "bias", given that in fact RH traffic is significantly more prevalent than LH traffic. There'll be redirects so that anyone looking up any reasonably foreseeable variant (Left- and right-hand traffic, left-hand traffic, left-hand drive, etc.) will immediately get to the article. Your proposal is indeed a noun phrase, but as you point out it's even more ambiguous than the current title. And, it's not in use as a referent for this what we're writing about. I disagree with your statement that any title for this article would be ambiguous with regard to whether it refers to vehicle position on road or driver position in vehicle; "Right- and left-hand traffic" is not at all ambiguous in this manner, for it makes no reference at all to the word "drive", which is what creates the ambiguity. However, if "driving side" is something that would occur to you to look up, then it might well occur to others as well, so by all means a redirect can easily be put into place so anyone looking up that phrase will get to the article. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I come from an LHT country and would not feel my national pride hurt by "left" coming second in the title :) If driving side is a recognised technical term then it is a potential title. Googling gives a bit of evidence for this but so far it looks to me like Right- and left-hand traffic has more usage in official contexts. As Scheinwerfermann says, there will be plenty of redirect links to the page given all the many informal names and descriptions for the issue. jnestorius^(talk) 15:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW I prefer the version with hyphens. jnestorius^(talk) 10:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Me too. We have achieved clear (if typically rough) consensus, so I have moved the page. I checked for double-redirects and didn't find any. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

India image

Like most of the former colonies of the British Empire, driving is on the left side of the road in India.

There looks to be a reversion battle brewing, so I'm taking it here. The image to the right is intended to show traffic driving on the left, per the information provided by User:Mellisa Anthony Jones. However, I am inclined to agree with User:CZmarlin that the image does not clearly show such. Traffic may be keeping left, but the only way I can explicitly discern that is by looking at the yellow pavement markings (and even then, who's to say that India uses yellow as a centerline -- Britain does not). The only vehicles I can see are those approaching the photographer -- they consist of through and left-turn movements. I cannot identify any obvious indication that traffic is keeping left -- surely there are better images for placement at the introduction of this article. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 01:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Try this photo of the Mumbai-Pune Expressway.--GagHalfrunt (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Much better. I've placed it in the article. Thank you. --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

A definite improvement! Could somebody add the Commons Information template? It needs info on its location and date; and could benefit from geocoding, as well. A color image would be more preferable, however. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 03:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this black and white image shows the vehicles driving on the left, but it was posted on Flickr and has a copyright symbol on the bottom left corner. Therefore, its use within Wikipedia may be an issue. — CZmarlin (talk) 03:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sweden

There are still a number of places in Sweden where certain roads have been left with left-hand traffic solutions What does that mean? As is often the case, the word "solutions" seems to be being used as a buzzword when something simpler would be better. 86.143.48.55 (talk) 03:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, "solutions" was being used as a buzzword. Not only that, but the assertion is vague and unsupported. I've rephrased and tagged it. --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Although being a resident of Sweden all my life I have never heard of or seen any left-hand traffic solutions. It seems to be yet another myth. 62.119.149.231 (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Chung-Ying Street

What side of the road do they drive on in Chung Ying Street? One side of the road is in China and the other side of the road is in Hong Kong? 203.115.188.254 (talk) 09:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that make it a one-way street? (Just kidding.) — kwami (talk) 10:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Theoretically it would be a one way street, but if for some reason the implied direction was inconvenient, the two sides might have agreed on an alternative arrangement? I actually heard that this street is too narrow to support motor vehicular traffic, but that doesn't mean that a theoretical answer to the question doesn't exist. Unfortunately when I was there a few years back, this street was strictly off limits as it was in a forbidden zone that was in turn within the closed area. George Smyth XI (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect use of the word Ireland.

This article frequently makes refference to a country/state called Ireland, IRELAND IS NOT A COUNTRY. Ireland is an island upon which sit 'the Republic of Ireland (Éire)' and 'the Kingdom of Northern Island', part of the UK. In many places this article Implies that Ireland is a single country governed from Dublin and I find it offensive.(Morcus (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

You are slightly right and mostly wrong. Ireland is both the name of an island, and the official name of a country. The country's constitutional description is Republic of Ireland. This confusion is discussed at length on the country's article's talk page; general practice, though, seems to favour using "Republic of" only when confusion might occur. So Today, just four European countries still drive on the left: Cyprus, Ireland, Malta and the United Kingdom is unambiguous — it says country. Northern Ireland is not a Kingdom; it is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Bazza (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Morcus is right. The term 'Ireland' is too presumptuous because it ignores the fact that part of Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. The program should be changed to make the linked word automatically state the full name 'Republic of Ireland'. (203.99.236.13 (talk) 07:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC))

The Republic Of Irelands Official name is Éire an not Ireland because its a loaded term that implies ownership of Northern Ireland. NI is a Kingdom as is Great Britain (England and Scotland. Not Wales) which combined form The UK. Incase your wondering Wales is A principality and Technically a dependancy of England until 1707 when it became a dependancy of GB. The Part you've quoted is only unambiguous to someone who understands how the division of Ireland Works and i know for a fact that many people outside the UK and especially in the Americas recognise the Whole island as a single State.(Morcus (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC))

Whether you find something offensive or not, or consider it a "loaded term", this is an encyclopedia and is concerned only with verifiable facts.

1. "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland." is a quiote from the "Constitution of Ireland" - [1], Article 4. As this is the English Wikipedia, the English country name is used; the only excpetion being when needing to make it clear whether the island is being referred to (Ireland) or the country (Republic of Ireland). As the sentence I quoted above explicitly states "country", the official name "Ireland" will suffice.
2. Please give a citation for your statement "NI is a Kingdom as is Great Britain". I cannot find any authoritative reference to that effect. Otherwise, accept that Northern Ireland is not a kingdom, and that Great Britain is an island. The large state occupying the northern part of Ireland and all of Great Britain is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The smaller state occupying the rest of Ireland is Ireland.

I agree that people get confused which is why it is even more important to get the facts right. Wikipedians help this by making sure that terms are linked to their definitions; so Ireland links to the Irish state's description, and United Kingdom and Northern Ireland both make clear that the latter is part of the former. For people who get really confused, there's always the excellent British Isles (terminology) article; and for those who persist in arguing against the irrefutable, British Isles naming dispute is an informative diversion. Bazza (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Bazza7, that constitution that you gave is de Valera's 1937 constitution which retained the Irish Free State within the British Commonwealth with the King of England as head of state for external relations. Under that constitution, "Eire" was not a republic.

But there were later developments in 1949 which you are overlooking, when "Eire" became a Republic. Under the terms of the 1949 act of parliament, the official name became 'The Republic of Ireland'. That was the name of their choice. They insisted upon that name because they didn't like the name 'Irish Republic'.

On your other point, there are three Kingdoms that merged to form the United Kingdom. These are Scotland, England(including Wales) and Ireland.

No that is not true because England and Scotland had already merged into a single Kingdom in 1707 and today remain a single Kingdom even though they are often refered too as being seperate countries. In 1707 Scotland and England (Which had been in personal union since the restoration and for a considerable period before the wars of the three kingdoms) became a single kingdom. In 1801 the kingdom of ireland was joined into this union which was known as 'the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the kingdoms that composed that United Kingdom remained as Kingdoms themselves. Its 2 kingdoms a principality and argueably a duchy.(Morcus (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC))

However, I'm not sure if it's technically correct anymore to refer to them individually as Kingdoms. I know that Scotland and England both do it, but I don't think it is technically correct. It's certainly not common to hear of Northern Ireland being referred to as a Kingdom and I don't think that the term would be technically correct. Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. So I'll agree with you on that point. 210.4.100.115 (talk) 12:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The use of Ireland with the suggestion of Statehood is Inncorrect and is an attack on the sovereignty of HM's government in westminister over NI as it implies A single state occupies the whole island. the Term is wrong givern the circumstance and shouldn't be used. To my mind it would be like refering to spain as Iberia or north Korea as Korea.(Morcus (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC))

Morcus, you are very much mistaken. Every country has an official short name and an official long name. These names are maintained and published by ISO in English and French, and are internationally recognised. Examples in English are (with the long part of the name in brackets): United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), (Republic of) Ireland, (Federal Republic of) Germany, (Principality of) Liechtenstein, (Grand Duchy of) Luxembourg. Just because a region of a neighbouring country happens to have a similar name to an entire country, we are not going to use that entire country's long name every time we refer to it. For example, there is a province of Belgium called Luxembourg which borders Luxembourg (the country), but that doesn't mean that every time we refer to Luxembourg (the country), we have to say "Grand Duchy of Luxembourg". Exactly the same applies to Ireland (the country) which borders a province of the UK with a similar name. Ireland is a country (long name "Republic of Ireland") and its short name "Ireland" is internationally recognised by ISO, by the United Nations and by HM Government [2]. Your comments appear to be politically motivated rather than based on fact or international recognition. I suggest you read Republic of Ireland#Name, and if you still disagree, please continue this discussion at Talk:Republic_of_Ireland, as it is not relevant at all to this article. NFH (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

NFH, I can see why Morcus takes offence nevertheless. You claim that you adhere strictly to ISO codes. I don't see any evidence of that on your Londonderry City page.

It strikes me more that your own adherence to the ISO code in this particular case is equally as politically motivated as Morcus's.(203.99.236.12 (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC))

Morcus, no, I do not claim to adhere strictly to ISO codes, and in any case ISO is not a political body. We are talking about country short names here (e.g. Ireland), not ISO country codes (e.g. IE for Ireland). We should use the country short name that is recognised by the United Nations, ISO and HM Government. We do not need to use full country names in articles, and in any case, the form should be consistent. We can't use official short names in some cases and official long names in other cases. As previously requested, please continue this discussion at Talk:Republic_of_Ireland, as it is not relevant at all to this article.

Samoa update

Just to bring everyone up to date with the saga in Samoa, yesterday the opposition party challenged the bill in parliament and, after a heated four-hour debate, the challenge was defeated. So it looks like Samoa's officially going to switch! I've put an extra clause in the Samoa section mentioning this, and changed 'If the switch goes ahead' to 'When' for the sake of consistency. I'm hoping that after the third parliamentary reading, for the sake of procedure, we'll get an official date announced so I can go ahead and look into booking flights! Haku8645 (talk) 12:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The official date for the switch is now 07 September 2009 at 6.00am local time. Mark your calendars people! Haku8645 (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Canada

While Canada does indeed drive on the right now, the history cited in the article is not quite correct. Until about 1890, all of Canada drove on the left, just like the rest of the British Empire. I have seen photos from Winnipeg (1880s), Edmonton (1880s, 1890s, 1900s), and Toronto (unsure of date) showing left-handed traffic. Winnipeg may have been the first to switch (about 1895?), but other locations were slower; Edmonton, for example, did not switch till 1912. (See the books Winnipeg's Electric Transit and Edmonton's Electric Transit for many of the photos I am referring to here.) While Vancouver, BC and Halifax, NS may have been the last parts of Canada to switch, they were not alone at an earlier time. --Dmacgr 22 (talk) 07:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Citation for El Monte busway

Under United States, it says that traffic moves on the left in the El Monte Busway in California with a citeneeded. I can confirm that this is true, having seen it with mine own eyes today, but I'm not sure how to confirm it. I do have a bit of photographic evidence, though I'm not sure it's clear enough or citeable enough. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Peculiar footnote about motor vehicles

The article has a footnote saying:

It should be noted, of course, that some of these former British colonies ceased to be colonies and became independent before the advent of motor vehicles, e.g., the United States and Canada.

Why is this relevant? Driving on the proper side of the road was also important in the age of the horse carriage.

My guess is that -- like many other people -- the author of the footnote believes that rules about right- or left-hand traffic were introduced in the age of the motor car.

Unless someone can explain why the information in the footnote is relevant, I suggest that it be removed.--Oz1cz (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Right you are; that footnote was inappropriate in several different ways. Its content was dubious original research, and its format and presentation as a reference was improper. I've removed it. It's my experience that phrases like it should be noted that... or it is notable that... or it is worth noting that... almost always indicate that dubious OR/POV is immediately to follow. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

I don't really mind if an article begins "x is a term that refers to...", but I do think it's a little inelegant - certainly I wasn't factually inaccurate and I'm glad the vehicular traffic thing wasn't put back for the same reason. What I do find rather odd is an assertion that 34% drive on the left, but 28% drive on the left by road length. It makes absolutely no sense. Either people drive on the left or they don't, you can't drive on the right by road length but on the left for other purposes. Obviously the statement has nothing to do with a proportion but refers to a proportion of the world's roads. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 12:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right that the opening sentence was unnecessarily verbose. I've tightened it up with a one-word substitute for all the circumlocution. I wish you had taken a less tendentious, more productive and coöperative approach to fixing the assertions regarding the relative predominance of left & right traffic worldwide. The wording was a little muddled, but that was the only problem, and it's difficult for me to place much faith in the legitimacy of your stated inability to understand what was being said. It was all pretty cogent, even if the phrasing wasn't optimally chosen. I've cleaned it up — traffic flows along the right or left side of the road, drivers drive on the left or on the right, and vehicles (not roads) are left or right hand drive; please give it a look and let us know here in this discussion whether the new wording resolves your issue, and if not, why not. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 05:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting out the wording. I'm really not sure that making changes to an article is tendentious and uncooperative though. I would point out that I was not the first to revert and that the user who reverted me has not been very polite and could not himself be bothered to give his reasons here. The original was clear, incontrovertible nonsense. I explained what I was doing before making my changes. What I see from the source is that there are 7,969,529 km of road in the world with a left-hand traffic regulation and 20,929,635 with a right-hand regulation. This works out at 28% ~ 72% of road length and is different from volumes of traffic or numbers of people. As such, my edit was correct - the current page is not correct. I understand your objection to my ref to "a left-hand drive road" but 28% of the world's traffic does not flow on the left because the amount of traffic in the world is related to the numbers of vehicles and not the length of the road. My internet access is limited at the moment so for now I'm leaving this and I suggest you sort it out yourselves. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 15:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

What was tendentious and uncoöperative was the way you made your edits. Snarky, inflammatory edit summaries aren't helpful, and if your edit is getting repeatedly reverted or undone, it's your signal to discuss the matter here on the talk page.—Scheinwerfermann (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

(Reduce indent) Schweinwerfermann, it might have been more constructive to discuss the reasons for your edits here instead of making what looks to me like a personal attack.

To illustrate my point, Australia covers about 5% of the world's land area but contains only 0.03% of the world's population. Obviously, it would be absurd for me to say: "Only 0.03% of the world's population is Australian. By land area 5% are Australian”. Nor does the fact that a third of the world’s oil exports are from Arab countries mean that “by oil production, a third of the world’s population is Arab”. Please try to appreciate that what you were attempting to write didn’t make sense and try to understand why I thought it necessary to turn this muddle into something a little more logical when I came across it and why I was disappointed to see exactly the same, patently nonsensical, wording restored, without any proper explanation.

On the subject of your post, I have reverted precisely once. At that point, upon finding that the version I disliked had been put back, I did indeed take the signal to discuss; in fact I haven’t edited the page since. You make it sound like I was I was refusing to discuss my reasons while making the same edit several times, which isn’t the case. NFH didn’t think it necessary to initiate a discussion or to reply to my post. At no point has he even attempted to explain what was factually inaccurate in my edit, which repeated the source almost word for word, and yet you haven’t called him uncooperative. Please understand that short, curt edit summaries are a consequence of constraints on space and they’re unavoidable when reverting. Those making them don’t usually intend to cause you offence. This edit summary is not especially rude, certainly not as much as this. If, as you say, you find it difficult to show good faith then that is your problem, not mine. If you want to discuss the matter further, please leave a polite message on my talk page. From now on let’s stick to discussions about the article on this page. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 15:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I would prefer to say "By road length, traffic flows on the left on 28% of the world's roads..." Any comments? --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 15:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The wording you propose is a good bit less clear and direct than the present wording By distance, about 28% of the world's roads carry traffic flowing on the left, and 72% on the right. This present wording unambiguously conveys a relevant, germane basic fact supported by a reliable source. What problem do you perceive with the present wording that you propose to solve with your proposed phrasing?

Short edit summaries are of course necessary, but we all can, should, and shall please avoid the use of needlessly inflammatory words and needlessly belligerent tone (e.g. that's your problem, not mine), both in our edit summaries and here in our talk page discussions. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

And just to be completely clear, I agree with you completely that NFH's edit summaries were needlessly abrasive and inflammatory. There's really not a "right" place on Wikipedia for editors to snipe at each other, but taking potshots at another editor via edit summaries is really cheesy. We've all probably done it at one point or another when we lose our patience with what we see as another editor's gross improprieties, but as I say, none of us ought to be doing it, here or elsewhere. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 08:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, that wasn't really the edit summary I wished to make anyway. The reason it contains half a sentence is that I mistakenly hit the return key before I'd had time to read it and decide how abrasive it was. Nevertheless, the summary gave a reason for the edit; it was not a sleight agaisnt the editor. However I shall, as you wish, try to be less abrasive in the future. On the subject of the sentence, I'm afraid I wasn't clear. I didn't mean to say "by distance" at all. I meant that it'd be much simpler to say "Traffic flows on the left on about 28% of the world's roads and on the right on 72%." It avoids the slight repetitiveness of the current sentence and is a little clearer too. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 15:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Gotchya. You're right, the "By distance,..." thing was a little stilted. I've gone through the opening paragraph a few times just now to streamline it, reduce unnecessary verbiage and choppiness, and I think the current wording clearly expresses the two principal metrics by which it is evident that RH-traffic prevails: More countries & drivers use RHT than LHT, and a greater amount of road mileage/kilometrage carries RHT than carries LHT. It's a little trickier than it first seems to convey that second point accurately; if we were to say something like "77% of roads are green and 23% are red", that would not be clear: was this simply a tally of red vs. green roads, regardless of road distance? Of course the cited source doesn't make such a simplistic tally, so the concept of road distance needs to be conveyed, but, as you say, preferably without redundancy. What do you think of the present wording?

Please note I've also removed a couple of redundant, relatively obscure refs from the opening sentence. I put them there originally specifically because of an editor's skepticism regarding the validity of the terms "right-hand traffic" and "left-hand traffic" (see well above on this page) when this article's title was under debate. Now the article title is settled, it's no longer necessary to have five refs supporting a statement not likely to be seriously challenged. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 01:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that looks good. Thank you. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 15:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The Rule of the Road

The opening paragraph begins with an assertion that the rule "is so fundamental to transport that it is sometimes referred to as the rule of the road". This rather puzzled me when I first read it, not because I doubt it can be referred to as this, but because as I have always understood it, that term also has a rather wider meaning and isn't quite a synonym. None of the online dictionaries I can find mention right/left hand drive regulations specifically:
1. Merriam Webster: " a customary practice (as driving always on a particular side of the road or yielding the right of way) developed in the interest of safety and often subsequently reinforced by law ; especially : any of the rules making up a code governing ships in matters relating to mutual safety"
2. American Heritage: "A set of customary practices, especially for the operation of a motor vehicle, boat, or aircraft, established to promote efficiency and safety. Often used in the plural."
3. Infoplease: "any of the regulations concerning the safe handling of vessels under way with respect to one another, imposed by a government on ships in its own waters or upon its own ships on the high seas."'
4. 1913 Webster: "That which is prescribed or laid down as a guide for conduct or action; a governing direction for a specific purpose; an authoritative enactment; a regulation; a prescription; a precept; as, the rules of various societies; the rules governing a school; a rule of etiquette or propriety; the rules of cricket."
At the moment the wording of the sentence isn't bad but it misleadingly gives priority to a very narrow meaning for a term whose meaning is usually much broader. I accept this made a catchy title for a book and I accept too that it deserves prominence but I don't think it should be bolded, I think the "so fundamental" wording is over the top. The term isn't the rule of the road, rather it is one of several very fundamental rules that might be termed this. I don't think it should be used ein the article as if it's a synonym. It might refer, for example, to a rule that traffic on minor roads should give way to those on major roads or that cars overtaking should give priority to oncoming traffic. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 23:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Mishna

"The Mishna[6] records that the Kohanim in the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem would ascend the altar on the east (right) side and descend on the west (left)." Can someone explain the relivance this has to road traffic?--Prophesy (talk) 10:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5