Talk:Traffic

Highways Unassessed Mid‑importance

	Roads portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Highways, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of highways on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HighwaysWikipedia:WikiProject HighwaysTemplate:WikiProject HighwaysHighways
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article should also have a longer introduction paragraph and more images. I can't find the templates for these, however. —Last Avenue [talk | contributions] 01:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig needed

Really needs a disambiguation instead of this. --Edcolins 22:00, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Definition needed

Article needs a definition of the word Nurg 07:14, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

William Beaty and Brian Lucas

Those two guys are mentioned in the article but in no way is it explained who they are. Who can help? <KF> 14:18, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

The right side of the road.

…is the right; the other side is obviously wrong.

Sort of, because 'left' used to mean wrong. But traffic engineers are continually debating which side is better. "My right-hand drive car is better than your left-hand drive car; you can shift with your left. Plus, I can see oncoming traffic with my stronger right eye" etc. —Last Avenue [talk | contributions] 01:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Rules of the road, to be merged into article

See Talk:Traffic/Rules of the Road merge archive

Done that right now. —Last Avenue [talk | contributions] 00:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moving the stuff into an archive since it's clogging up the contents. —Last Avenue [talk | contributions] 00:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KRETP in california

I just looked at the CVC and it appears that california actually requires all vehicles to stay in the right lane except to pass or to make a left turn. 64.81.53.207 15:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sec. 21654 seems to imply that one is only required to use the rightmost lane if one is traveling slower than the flow of traffic (e.g. a tractor or marginally-able vehicle). The (rare) occurrence of explicit signage stating "Keep right except to pass" instead of the more typical "slow traffic keep right" implies that KRETP is an exception to the rule, only applicable where posted. (An example of such signage is on CA-20 west of CA-16, where there is a passing lane on a winding undivided road. Speight 20:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This ain't "Traffic (USA)" Requirements to use the rigthmost lane in general, except to pass exist in atleast Norway and Germany too, so clearly that's not a California-only thing. --Eivind Kjørstad 08:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging right-of-way and priority

These sections are very similar and contain some redundant info. I recommend merging them. Speight 20:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, though some cleanup needed. EdC 06:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insurance

I just read the insurance section. Wisconsin does not require drivers to carry insurance if they meet certain financial responsibility requirements. We should change the language to reflect that. Monkeythumpa 22:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. state-specific practices

I added a short description and link to the lane splitting article. Monkeythumpa 22:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic Congestion vs. Movement of Vehicles and people

In California, it is common to say "there is no traffic on the freeway" even when there are plenty of moving vehicles, but no significant slowdown due to congestion. How common is it to refer to traffic congestion as simply "traffic" elsewhere? I feel this meaning might have a place in the article. --CodeGeneratR 15:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External Links removal

Using the policies in Wikipedia:External_links, I removed links from the article. Below, the details...

I do not think the sites above:

"provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article."

Transportation Communications Newsletter

The site above "Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups) or USENET."

the sites above "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." (and they are not) --Legionarius (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My viewpoints are:

ITE - This is the professional institution of North American & Australian traffic engineers and one of the more prominent professional institutions elsewhere. I'd say it deserves to remain here as a resource.
Traffic waves - Agreed. This info could be worked into the article with this website serving as a reference or a better reference if one can be found (though this article, whilst itself written in an unprofessional manner, does give generally valid information).
BEST - Agreed. There are plenty of similar programs: no need to list them all.
Transp. Comm. Newsletter - Agreed. There are professional newsletters available such as ITE & Traffic Technology Today which aren't based on social networking sites.
Etymology - Agreed. As with the traffic waves, the etymology can be incorporated into the article with a reference provided; though we need a better reference than a blog. Use the blogger's sources or find better ones.

So of the five, I'd say we keep ITE and work the info on traffic waves and etymology into the article w/ appropriate references. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 19:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, ITE definitely should stay — there is ample precedent all over Wikipedia for including links to the professional societies and associations relevant to the topic at hand. While the the Traffic Waves link would be indeed be more relevant if its information were covered in the article, the lack of such coverage warrants some bold editor adding text on the subject more than it warrants removing the link. As for the BEST link, it seems to me directly relevant to some of the newer ideas and practices in traffic engineering and management. I agree with Thisisbossi that there are many similar organisations, but that fact doesn't render this link irrelevant. If some editor thinks this link is a poor choice, the preferable action would be to replace it with a better one (after obtaining consensus, if the replacement proves controversial).

I agree with removing the links to the web forum and to the etymological information; web forums almost always make problematic links, and the etymology of the word could very easily be incorporated into the article.

I am not happy that Legionarius unilaterally declared even the relevant and debatable links "linkspam" and chose to remove the lot of them summarily. It is one thing to remove actual linkspam, but the definition of linkspam does not include "sites Legionarius doesn't happen to like". Wikipedia is a cooperative effort based on consensus, not a dictatorial or competitive one. And obtaining consensus means a lot more than quoting one provision from the WP external-links guideline and baselessly asserting it applies to all of the links removed when it clearly does not. Please read the whole external-links guideline, and pay especial attention to the parts about common sense and consensus. --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this is the case. I am following the rules. You can debate the sites according to the rules, like Bossi did above.

For the record, I do not have anything against any of those sites. I understand there is not a rule called ""sites Legionarius doesn't happen to like", and that there is not a rule "sites Legionarius like a lot" either. Please, why did you restore the sites, based on what rule?

Further discussion on the remaining links:

I do not see any reason for Traffic waves be in the article. I am not saying that the article is bogus, but it definitely is not a WP:RS; the author is not a recognized expert in the field. Is Traffic Waves a term that is used anywhere outside of the linked page? Just asking; a quick Google brought mostly links to that same page.
ITE and BEST are valid and informative sites, but I do not see specific reasons for them to be in the article. If the only reason is that they are prominent associations, we could put a long list of associations and departments from all over the world, transforming it in a link farm. Maybe pointing the link to a specific area of the site that relates to the article could make it a better resource - right now the homepage for ITE has just some institutional news and advertising for selling books. Or if they have valid and useful content, they could be used as a source and incorporated in the article.--Legionarius (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legionarius, I understand your concern that the article shouldn't become a link farm, but this amounts to a red herring sliding down a slippery slope, if you'll excuse the torturously mixed metaphor. We haven't got a problem in this article with anything near an overwhelming number of links. Nobody's proposed adding tens or hundreds of links to associations from all over the world — we're talking about a grand total of three links here, so I think we ought to keep the debate centred around what is (whether or not a maximum of three links ought to remain), not what you're afraid might possibly someday under certain eventualities potentially happen (an unmanageably large number of links). If someday the list of external links grows to unreasonable size, we can deal with that problem at that time, as it seems.

I agree with you that links should point to the most relevant page on a site, particularly in cases where that relevant page can be difficult to find from the homepage. However, I believe it is inappropriate to use this common sense idea as an excuse to nuke links. It is more appropriate to fix a link that doesn't go directly to the relevant page.

The external links guideline contains rather clear langauge denoting it as a guideline and explicitly recommending that its provisions be applied with common sense and reason. It is not a stone-tablet statute by which for you or anyone else to write figurative tickets or stand in judgment of those perceived as violators. There will be many different interpretations of the grey areas in the guideline, and — discarding the obvious cases of miscomprehension — it isn't helpful or productive to assert that yours is more correct than mine or vice versa. Please remember to assume good faith. We are dealing in this case with some links that do not run afoul of the clear go/no-go provisions of the guideline (e.g., links to purely commercial sites — which I hasten to emphasise to you is what linkspam actually is). That being so, it'll be most productive to discuss the links and work toward consensus. Summary deletion and improper dismissal of non-spam links as "linkspam" is damaging, for it discourages people posting better links (why bother, if they're just going to get deleted as "linkspam"?). Just something to consider. You certainly had a valid point on some of the original links, and there may well be better links than the ones we're now discussing; it's not so much what you said as how you said/did it that was problematic, IMO. --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try to separate this. First, content:

  * I believe that, of the three links that remain, ITE and BEST are good sites, but thecurrent links do not point to anything particularly useful or related to the article. I prefer by far to not have a link than to have a link to something that is not useful. Using this rationale, we can have 3 or 3,000 links there - the important thing is that all of them are useful and extend the reach of the article. Or, if you think that ITE is a good thing to link to, why do not put a see also there?  They have an article, and their home page just have commercial and instituional messages. And about BEST, why are they so special or different from other similar organizations that they should be here and the others not? Talking about the link farm, I said that the article could become a link farm if we put all the deserving organizations there. That said, maybe the best is just to put a "dmoz" template.
  * About the "traffic waves" site, I still do not see why it is there. It looks like it is the work of a non-expert that is not mentioned anywhere else.

Now, about your critics to my behavior, I left a message in your talk page.

--Legionarius (talk) 02:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved party, I would like no-one to revert anyone. I am saying this as an experienced editor, not as a boss.(No pun intended.) I agree with what was said by Legionarius, and the three topmost links should be kept, and the lower down links should be removed/kept out. I do like what has been said though, and all points have been quite valid. <DREAMAFTER> ^<TALK> 21:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I am still not sure if Traffic Waves is reliable (that's why) and the other links should point to some specific area of the site that would be specifically related to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legionarius (talk • (Since I removed the duplicated links, Dreamafter is saying that ITE, BEST and TrafficWaves should stay and YahooGroups and the Etimology site should go).--Legionarius (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]