Talk:Car accident

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The bit about the Humvee being a good source of car safety is quite POV, what about the person you hit. With a lighter car it is easier to avoid being in an accident. Edward 08:56, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"That whole life-saving answers" section is very POV, and in fact, some of the "answers" directly contradict what European experts say. Also it completely neglects safety considerations for pedestrians that are hit by a car. "Greater steel content in cars" is such a case: in fact, most cars are built with increasingly lighter exteriors in an effort to reduce the severity of accidents with pedestrians. The "Humvee" section is utter bollocks, and BTW, $40000 isn't what I'd call affordable! The "hemp car" is pure speculation (though plant fibers apparently are used for car parts [1]—but note that ABCnews says Henry Ford used "soybean-based material", which I consider more likely). The rest (Carbon, Nano-carbon) is pure speculation, too. Lupo 10:08, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I also came here to say that these newer additions seem iffy or even sarcastic ("Humvee"??). If everyone drove smaller cars instead of heavier cars, the damage might be less because the total mass involved is considerably less--and they usually have a much shorter stopping distance than larger, heavier cars. I also question the "plexiglass" section. To my knowledge, plexiglass breaks into sharp pieces; it's in fact safety glass that most places require for showers and that breaks into chunks on impact (if you've ever been at the scene of an accident where there are little chunks of glass everywhere--that's sure not plexiglass). Elf | Talk 15:56, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I removed the whole section. What was not bullshit was pure speculation. We are an encyclopedia, not a place to state your personal theories.
Fact is, modern car windshields are a layered glass/plastic composite that is designed to contain breaks and "starring" from point impacts, to hold together even when broken, and to have as little in the way of sharp edges as possible. Regular safety glass is used for the side windows: this is the one that breaks into the tiny chunks.
As I find the time, I'm probably going to give the rest a prune too: I encourage help! —Morven 19:36, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
Hey, by the way, isn't the whole SUV part in the first paragraph biased propaganda exactly for the reasons stated above? What is it doing there anyway? SUV's might be safer for the people inside, but a danger to overall safety of pedestrians and other cars; the statistics for SUV's are biased anyway because there are more lighter cars than SUV's on the road. I would like to see statistics of overall death tolls in two car collisions involving an SUV and a light car versus two light cars, or two SUV's. Compare what's comparable: impacts on cars with the same line of collision versus impact on two cars with two different lines of collision. If I'm in a light car and the SUV's bumper is at my face level then I don't really get a good head start when it comes to my chances of survival. jsfranco 19:32, Aug 27, 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] another image

Don't know what happened to this car, but in case someone feels it can add to the article (I'm not sure), here it is:

Dori | Talk 03:58, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Page move

I've undone the copy-and-paste move to Vehicular collision, as doing moves like this breaks the history link. If anybody wants the page moved it should be listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves, so that an admin can delete the target page and then use the proper move function. sjorford →•← 10:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Please vote below if you think car accident should be renamed and moved to vehicular collision.

[edit] Reason

Vehicular collision concerns the collision—accidental or not—between any vehicles whereas car accident limits the subject to accidental collisions between cars. I think renaming car accident to vehicular collision will broaden the scope of the article, allowing for a variety of collision descriptions including those which are intended. The current article, car accident, would be redirected to vehicular collision. Adraeus 11:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Support

  1. Support. For the reason stated above. Adraeus 11:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  1. Oppose. I think there are a number of issues with the term "car accident", not least that many "accidents" are preventable, however, it is a term commonly in use. An article on "the science behind collisions, the various types of vehicular collisions and related statistics, and perhaps how each are typically managed", could be handled as a separate topic with a link back to the car accident article. Can we review when some work has been done on the vehicular collision article? It will then be more obvious whether a merge is appropriate or whether the articles stand alone--AYArktos 19:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. The title is fine for the article as it stands; a car accident can include a truck (lorry). —Michael Z. 2005-05-17 16:03 Z
    The phrase "car accident" is a possibly politically correct misnomer. Most vehicular collisions aren't accidental, and some are intended. [2] Adraeus 16:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
    There appears to be a movement to deprecate the word accident by confining it to the second meaning at that link you gave: things that happen for no apparent cause. But the common meaning is the first: a mishap, whether or not preventable. —Morven 16:52, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
    mishap. [3] Think of the excuse "it was an accident!" What does that imply? The argument implies that the event occurred by mischance, almost excusing the event for being "random" and "unpredictable". The main proposal point I'm pushing is changing "accident" to "collision". After all, we have "collision centers", not "accident centers". "Vehicular" simply broadens the scope of the article to allow more information to be displayed. Adraeus 21:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Philip Baird Shearer 16:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. "Accident" is the vernacular for bad things that happen in a vehicle. "Collision" limits it to only things that run into each other, which is only a portion of car accidents. Whether it's "car" accidents or "auto" accidents doesn't really matter. Clearly the existing content indicates that any vehicle driving on a road is included in people's idea of "car accidents"; "vehicle" might or might not limit it to things driving on a road. (Or how about Collisions and other bad things involving vehicles that drive on roads to be really precise?) Elf | Talk 06:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
    Scientifically, anything that happens to a vehicle is a collision; hence, collision centers [4] for auto body repair.
    With vehicular collision, the article can explain "accidents" for vehicles in a scientific way by briefly introducing Newtonian physics. With car accident, we'd have to settle for statistical explanation since "accident" implies chance that cannot be controlled. Adraeus 09:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
    I find this argument faintly ridiculous. To deny the role of chance and statistics is just as extreme as the alternative; and considering chance and statistics 'unscientific' is ... positively unscientific. You also keep insisting that 'car accident' is "Politically Correct", which is a misuse of that term; the old and common term for something cannot be PC. In fact, your insistence on replacing terminology to effect a change in attitude is the essence of PC; the belief on and insistence in the importance of changing language to change thought. —Morven 20:24, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
    I'm not suggesting changing the terminology. I'm suggesting the creation of a new article and merging car accident there in order to broaden the scope of the content. By the way, your argument that my proposal is "faintly ridiculous" rests on baseless assertions. Keep your inferential conclusions to yourself. Adraeus 22:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  5. Say to someone you were in a "vehicular accident" and they'll laugh and mock you. It's a car accident. I think traffic accident is actually a broad enough term and would support that one. violet/riga (t) 19:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
    Since when were encyclopedia article titles required to be conversational English? Never. Next time, learn why articles are named before you open your mouth. Adraeus 22:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
    Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). —Morven 23:26, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
I could go for traffic accident. That's commonly used, too. (Note that if a car rolls over or lands in a ditch, it's only loosely colliding with something--no one would say "I was in a collision with the road/the ground/the ditch" but they would say "I was n a roll-over accident"; likewise most people wouldn't describe running into a pedestrian as a collision, although I suppose technically it is; they'd call it an accident.) Elf | Talk 21:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Move to Traffic accident

  • Support. violet/riga (t) 23:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - a significant proportion of car accidents do not involve traffic - rolling into a ditch or hitting a tree is not a traffic accident. The term car accident is easily recognised and understood across many varieties of English. Traffic accident might be understood, but I know of no-one who would say "I saw a traffic accident on the way to work today" - they would say "I saw a car accident".--AYArktos 23:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - "traffic accident" is quite rare in most of the United States. Most Americans use "car accident." From what I've read of foreign newspapers, much of the English-speaking world also prefers "car accident." --Coolcaesar 06:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I would say "I saw a traffic accident" if it involved anything other than a just a car. Philip Baird Shearer 12:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

  • If we name this "vehicular collision", it would include crashes with any vehicles, not just cars. How about automobile collision? Or do we want to include plane crashes and train accidents here? --SPUI (talk) 11:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
    Vehicular collision could brief readers on the science behind collisions, the various types of vehicular collisions and related statistics, and perhaps how each are typically managed. Then for more extensive information, a "see also" link at the bottom of each type could lead to more articles, if necessary. By the way, train accidents is just a list, which is something we wouldn't include in vehicular collision. Adraeus 16:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
    I am not sure 'vehicular collision' is the best name. As pointed out above, it possibly over-generalises; 'vehicle' is sometimes applied to more things. 'Road vehicle' maybe. —Morven 16:56, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
    I don't expect to see enough content for an article on bicycle collisions... I don't think there's enough content to warrant opposition to vehicular collision. Adraeus
    Oh, there's definitely enough for a separate article on bike collisions. Door zone for one. --SPUI (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I added more options. Vote in support or in oppositoin to as many or as few as you like.Philip Baird Shearer 16:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I removed most of your added options. They were irrelevant to this requested move proposal. Adraeus 16:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
For possible future reference: automotive collision, auto accident, traffic accident might not be bad. Car accident still seems like the most common name to me. —Michael Z. 2005-05-17 17:46 Z
Again, those are terribly limiting. I don't see a problem if car accident redirects to vehicular collision. Users who search for "car accident" will find "vehicular collision", an article with a broader scope and without the politically correct misnomer as the subject. Adraeus 21:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I understand why the use of "accident" is disapproved of; that's clearly explained in the article. Perhaps we shouldn't perpetuate irresponsible terminology (I rather like "car crash", although where I come from "car accident" is surely the most common term by far). But I'm not at all happy with "vehicular", which a very common thing sound very academic. "Car" specifically means something that's not a truck or van, but it also generically means all motor vehicles. I don't think anyone will think that the article on "car accidents" excludes vans, trucks, or even motorcycles. —Michael Z. 2005-05-18 06:23 Z
It's somewhat bad form to remove the suggestions of somebody else who was acting in good faith - Philip Baird Shearer is well versed with naming votes and came up with a good suggestion. I've readded a vote for traffic accident as that seems to at least have some support. violet/riga (t) 23:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

If it's moved to traffic accident, it should involve bicycle crashes as well. Not all bicycle crashes are with motor vehicles. --SPUI (talk) 09:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Decision

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. A new article may be created that looks at the wider scope that the proposer seems to wish, should he want to do so. violet/riga (t) 20:13, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trends

What is the source of the data for Road toll figures show that car accident fatalities have declined since 1980, with most countries showing a reduction of roughly 50%.? What countries are 'most counties'? WHO figures showing much worsening death rates in Africa and Asia.--JBellis 18:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will try and track down the source, which I used to make this statement. The figures were official figures published for the US, UK and most of western Europe, but probably not for the whole world, or the third world. The drop of 50% is clear from the figures. Graham 03:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Minimal controls

User added this, which I removed:

Some accidents happen because accelerator and brakes (i.e. two controls) are operated by one (right) leg. Almost 80% of accidents happens due to this design. --59.93.163.16 14:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)Nitin Rajurkar

I find it extremely hard to believe, given all of the possible and probably causes of accidents, that this number is anywhere near accurate, or surely we'd have heard more about it. Can N.R. provide sources for this information? Elf | Talk 02:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

This is clearly rubbish. Not only is there no evidence to suggest that this is a real cause of accidents, but a moment's thought will show that a possible alternative design - operating the brake with one foot and the accelerator with the other - would be extremely dangerous and lead to far more accidents. In fact I'd say that one possible cause of accidents is with people driving cars with automatic transmissions in this fashion (I know my father does and it drives me crazy!).Graham 03:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I've come across vehicles with alternative layouts, build before about 1930 - drive one and you'll know why they chose to standardise on the current layout :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? 09:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] See also

Removed disaster from "see also" - there is no apparent link, car accidents are not mentioned on disaster other than as a link here, and car accidents are not generally considered disasters by any common definition of the word. I commented it rather than simply deleting, if others disagree then fair enough. - Just zis Guy, you know? 09:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Agree - disaster doesn't belong here.--JBellis 15:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Disagree. It should be put back in because in some extreme cases, a car accident can be considered a "disaster". For example, faulty maintenances of a truck loaded with explosive material (oil, propane gas, etc.) can cause the truck to explode taking out fellow cars, pedestrians, and surrounding buildings. A case like this is both a car accident and a disaster. Also, a car can end up in a runway of an airport and crush into an airplane. This too, is both a car accident and a disaster. In a much less deadlier example, a truck can hit a building with many data servers and cause a power shortage wiping out all data. -- Revth 04:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I have come across some pretty appalling car crashes which have not been described as disasters. I can't recall one ever being described as such, and as noted the disaster entry appears to make no reference back, either. You could just as easily defend a link to drownign because some car crashes and up withthe car in a river. The point is to link to other commonly linked terms, not to every term which might conceivably be linked. - Just zis Guy, you know? 08:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Worst ever

An anonymous editor included: "The worst recorded single automobile accident occured on December 17, 1956 near Phoenix Arizona 13 people were killed." I have seen several competing claims for the worst ever automobile accident (e.g. "The single worst automobile accident occurred when 12 people were killed and 50 injured in a fog-related, ninety-nine-vehicle chain reaction pileup on I-75 near the Hiwassee River bridge in 1990." and 10 dead, 70 injured and a railway line closed for at Selby. Is it productive to include the competing claims for worst ever? - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 20:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Move

OK, I moved it. I was being bold. My thinking is as follows:

  • They are not just car accidents, all kinds of vehicles are involved.
  • They are not just motor vehicle accidents, they may involve non-motorised vehicles, horses or pedestrians.
  • Road accidents might legitimately be taken to cover non-motorised collisions such as horse v. ped or ped v. bike, which is not covered in this article (and of a different order of seriousness, being mainly minor injuries).
  • My favoured term is collision, not accident, but that is not in wide currency, especially in America.
  • Terminaology for car is not even consistent! SOme people call them auto accidents, auto wrecks etc.

So it seemed to me, naive as it may be, that road traffic accident is a complete and unambiguous term. As ever, I acknowledge that I could be wrong. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 21:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

On the one hand, I agree it had to be moved (just as License plate was recently moved to Vehicle registration plate), but I personally would have called it just Traffic accident. Vehicles can go off-road and have accidents falling into the ocean, into swamps, etc. Road is a little too specific. What does everyone else think? --Coolcaesar 21:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I called it that because the road casualty stats in the UK (about which I know most) only include collisions on public highways. They are referred to as RTAs or RTCs. But England is not the world. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 22:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


The move was discussed above and there was no concensus to move. Given that a straw poll had been taken and there was a lack of concensus, I do not think being bold was appropriate - another straw poll was probably the way to go.--A Y Arktos (Talk) 23:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] gaper delay

Removed the following: "In some parts of the United States these traffic jams are sometimes referred to as gaper's delays (or gaper delays), referring to drivers gaping at the accident."

First, it seems to have very limited currency, second it doesn't seem to me to add anythign to the article, which is about the effect not the various terms for it (if we were to collect every single slang term for every type of collision and after-effect in the world this would be one looooong article!) - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 22:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I concur. What dumb part of the country actually uses such weird language? --Coolcaesar 02:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Um, the "dumb part of the country" called Chicago calls them "gaper's blocks".--216.37.14.114 19:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some idiot moved the page again

Okay, some idiot just moved the article to Motor-vehicle collision without bothering to check for a consensus on the issue. That is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Motor-vehicle is totally nonsensical; the correct word is "motor vehicle." Putting a hyphen in there implies that the collision is between motors and vehicles, which makes no sense. Any admins out there? Please fix this! --Coolcaesar 02:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello, anyone out there? If no one objects within a month, I'm going to be bold and move this to Traffic accident where it belongs! --Coolcaesar 07:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I do not believe it belongs at Traffic acccident. We had a straw poll (see above) and there was no concensus to move it to traffic accident. Why then do you say "where it belongs"? I would like to register my objection. The persistent moves by eidtors without regard to the concensus or lack thereof are a bit disenheartening.--A Y Arktos 10:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, how about car accident, then? That's my personal preference, as it's the most commonly used term in American English. --Coolcaesar 17:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Car accident was the concensus by default above. It works for Australian English as well. As the article is currently redirected from there we may need an admin to move it back again, the history is not quite as simple as it could be. (Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page) I am not sure we can stop moves. I think all redirects should stay in place. The redirects of course also reflect what others think of when searching for words for such incidents. We should probably tag the top of this page with a notice explaining that Car accident is the concensus and the following pages redirect to it. Renaming, or moving the page, should be discussed here first.--A Y Arktos 20:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The present redirects are:

  1. Auto accident (redirect page)
  2. Automobile accident (redirect page)
  3. Car accident (redirect page)
  4. Car accidents (redirect page)
  5. Car collision (redirect page)
  6. Car crash (redirect page)
  7. Fender bender (redirect page)
  8. Motor vehicle accident (redirect page)
  9. Road accident (redirect page)
  10. Road traffic accident (redirect page)
  11. Road traffic collision (redirect page)
  12. Rubber necking (redirect page)
  13. Rubbernecking (redirect page)
  14. Rubber-necking (redirect page)
  15. Single-car accident (redirect page)
  16. Traffic accident (redirect page)
  17. Traffic accidents (redirect page)
  18. Traffic Accidents (redirect page)
  19. Vandolph (redirect page) ???
  20. Vehicular collision (redirect page)

All of these redirects will need to be fixed to stop them being double redirects.--A Y Arktos 20:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this! --Coolcaesar 05:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It seems everyone has a preference on what to call these events. In the English speaking world, the US gov seems to officially calls them "Motor Vehicle Crashes" [[7]]. Uk calls them "Road Accidents" [[8]] and Canada seems to call them "Motor Vehicle Traffic Collisions [[9]]. I'd limit the official term used in Wikipedia to a choice of these 3. To me, it makes sense to use the US definition because that's where most of these occur. :) Ehlkej 01:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, now I can see where motor-vehicle collision come from, as it sounds like a good compromise between those three you have presented. But as I've already stated, motor-vehicle (with a hyphen) is grammatically incorrect. The correct title should then be motor vehicle collision. Do we have a consensus for that, at least? --Coolcaesar 08:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
car accident was the concensus when renaming was discussed above. Wikipedia:Naming conventions states "article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." In looking at the number of articles linked to this via redirects, the most common link by far was through "car accident". On the basis of making linking easy and second nature, car accident seems the appropriate choice. Government terminology is not usually the obvious candidate for most recognisable - a whole lot of political correctness often gets built into such terms.--A Y Arktos 10:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'm sick and tired of this mess and no one's stated any reasons in the defense of motor-vehicle collision. Back to car accident it goes. --Coolcaesar 05:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Because I did not pick it up among the 4,500 pages on my watchlist. The word "accident" is contentious, as many of them (actually the vast majority according to UYK police) are the result of negligence. The British Government has renamed its stats "road casualties" instead of "road accidents". Just zis Guy you know? 09:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
It's not because we consider it an accident that we're saying it's not due to negligence. An accident is just an unintentional act. If I kill someone in my car because I'm on a cell phone it's an accident, even if I'm to blame. --A Sunshade Lust 20:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


Maybe I'm just bad at math but..

The United States gets on average 30,000 car crash related deaths a year (out of a 300 million population). Other countries like Canada have lower crash death rates, about 2900 a year (out of a population of 30 million). Because of ratios, some statistics can be deceptive

The population of the U.S. is 10 times bigger, and so, there are 10 times more car accidents. The difference is very small based on the above statistics. The death rate really isn't notably smaller. --A Sunshade Lust 19:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] China Statistics

Text added by 202.40.240.215 has no citation and could be seen as non-NPOV, is it worth taking it down until sources are found? For the moment I'm going to add a "citation needed" tag. Paddyohale 10:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] White Van Drivers

White Van Drivers are appauling drivers so well done to the person who added a little picture to inform them about their careless and aggressive tendencies.

It made me smile too, but it is inappropriate for an encyclopedia entry, unless someone can provide stats to back it up.Damiancorrigan 19:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious stats

I've removed the line that says the PRC has the most accidents per year, as it is unsourced and really doesn't give readers any information at all. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 00:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crash Test cool video

Take a look at this interesting crash test video I found. It has ballet music in the background. Its really good. Jam01 01:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4503226433027246795&q

[edit] I propose removing the section on the meaning of accident "Terminology issues"

Webster says: 1 a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance b : lack of intention or necessity : CHANCE <met by accident rather than by design> 2 a : an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance b : an unexpected and medically important bodily event especially when injurious <a cerebrovascular accident> c : an unexpected happening causing loss or injury which is not due to any fault or misconduct on the part of the person injured but for which legal relief may be sought d -- used euphemistically to refer to an involuntary act or instance of urination or defecation 3 : a nonessential property or quality of an entity or circumstance <the accident of nationality>

That should close the case. This debate does not belong in an encyclopedia. --Martin.komunide.com 18:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] outdated info in trends section

The article states "42,643 in 2003". However, the page linked from the article: http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/ puts that number at 42,884. This page: http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_02_01.html also puts the figure at 42,884 and says the number has been revised, which is why I imagine WP is out of date. Someone might want to change this.

[edit] Deer-related accidents

Here is an article from CNN that shows statistics for deer-related accidents in the U.S., in case anyone thinks it should be included in the article somewhere.[10] --Nehrams2020 00:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Please include it - Thank You! --Lperez2029 15:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] collision prevention

Car_accident#Collision_prevention needs a little help. It's an informal tone and seems to be referencing street racing and young drivers, rather than driving in general. I haven't touched it (other than fixing up spelling) as I think I might be missing something. ... aa:talk 17:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trends

"Others claim that road safety improvements, not Smeed's law, are the dominant cause of lives saved." - I've removed this since I don't see Smeed's law supporters claiming the law "causes" anything. It's an observation that models past improvements in road safety etc. and attempts to predict future improvements empirically. --Romanski 11:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


Parts of this article sound like opinion straight out of someone's head. Eg. " ...... incidence of occupant death in actual crashes. However, in multiple-vehicle crashes SUVs are not much more lethal than passenger cars.(car, cyclist, or pedestrian) Although, rollovers are much more common in SUVs as compared to passenger cars(e.g. BMW 3 series, Subaru Impreza, Honda Accord) because of their top weight. For this reason SUVs actually post a greater threat to rollover and cause a fatality rather than passenger cars(e.g. BMW 3 series, Subaru Impreza, Honda Accord)." According to Wikipedia policy, this type of statement has to be referenced, doesn't it? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability) I'm sure you'll find a great deal of varying scientific data on SUV safety!

82.152.155.58 16:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lovely.

Further vandalism, and just when I'm trying to get a project done. Revert? --AK-17 14:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fatality Differences in Europe as Opposed to the United States

The US vs. Europe section heading mentions fatality, but the text in no way actually speaks of deaths, only accident rates. --Belg4mit 03:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That statistic is sort of misleading because a much higher percentage of Americans drive than Italians, so you can't really compare populations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.231.50.87 (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
You are both correct. There is no reference to fatalities, despite the heading; and it is also a flawed calculation -- not to mention its presentation is awkward. I am removing the information and moving it below for future use as necessary, albeit modified to what I feel to be a better format:
===Fatality Differences in Europe as Opposed to the United States===
In the [[United States]], there were approximately 6,181,000 vehicle crashes reported in 2004<ref> http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSFAnn/TSF2004.pdf </ref>. Per a population of approximately 298,444,215<ref> www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook </ref>, this results in approximately 20.71 crashes per every 1000 people.
In [[Italy]], there were 224,553 vehicle crashes reported in [[2004]].<ref> http://ec.europa.eu/transport/roadsafety_library/care/doc/last_2004.pdf </ref> Per a population of approximately 58,133,509<ref> www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook </ref>, this results in approximately 3.86 crashes per every 1000 people.
It is important to note that the above does not consider vehicle-miles/kilometers traveled nor varying classifications of vehicles. Transit usage and traffic volumes of heavy vehicles, recreational vehicles, motorcycles, etc. are not considered; nor are standards for the reporting of crash data necessarily equal.
--Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 21:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/r/Talk%7ECar_accident_3538.html"