Talk:Traffic Safety

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Moved this from 'Road Safety' since according to Wikipedia convention we don't capitalise subsequent words unless it's a capitalised name of an organisation, person etc. This seems not to be the case here. --Morven 20:00, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] General discussion about the name “Road Safety” for the article and not “Road safety”

The subject of this article is neither “Road Safety” nor “Road safety” but "Traffic Safety" (“Traffic safety” is fine). "Traffic Safety" is a technical subject with an extensive scientific literature going back more than six decades. Thousands of articles appear in a large number of technical journals devoted to subsets of the subject. There are technical books used in graduate courses in many countries with "Traffic Safety" in their titles. It is this technical knowledge that an encyclopedia should contain. The subject of traffic safety can be considered to have three very broad (and highly interactive) components: 1. Road safety -- refers mainly to factors related to roads. 2. Vehicle safety -- refers mainly to vehicle features, especially how vehicles protect in crashes. 3. Road-user safety - refers mainly to how the behavior of drivers and pedestrians influence safety. --Levanszzzz 16:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Leonard May 7, 2006 (check my credentials at [1])



Dear Morven many thanks for your interest and comments, as you said this topics as been discussed before, the argumentation, that unfortunately I put in the page of Angel and not here, was as follows,

“I think that the change of the article title from "Road Safety" to "Road safety" is a mistake, because "Road Safety" is a proper noun of a field or management system, that include much more mere "roads" as you will see when I develop further the article, for example, it include legal systems for prevention (point systems in UK). Y the case of "Road safety" the interpretation of it is that "safety" is simply to qualify the word "Roads" , like a number of other’s qualifiers like "Roads geometry", Roads design" etc. In short, "Road Safety" include much more that roads !”

Angela said: Ok I put it back. You could have moved it yourself using the "move this page link". Be bold! :) Angela


Your comment was: “I disagree and have moved it back to Road safety. Please feel free to disagree with me, but please also read my rationale first. I did the rename and then found out it had been previously done and reverted, so I went to look how Wikipedia treats the names of other serious fields of study. All the engineering disciplines, for example, do not have 'engineering' capitalised in their names; Chemical engineering, Nuclear engineering, etc etc. I think this establishes that the names of disciplines / fields of study do not have the subsequent words capitalised. --Morven 20:11, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)”

From the page Wikipedia:Naming conventions

General conventions

Lowercase second and subsequent words

Convention: Unless the term you wish to create a page for is a proper noun or is otherwise almost always capitalized, do not capitalize second and subsequent words.

As explained, in this case “Road Safety” is a proper noun, it is unfortunate that the early developer of the area don’t look for a single word ! but I said again “Road Safety” is about Management systems, to control crashes, and his consequences, that include components in a lot more that roads, as you can see in the table of the article, in fact it is possible that vehicle crashes occurs entirely outside roads, for example a 4wd vehicle can have an accident in farmland.

I over-extend this comment because the identification of the field of management called “Road Safety” with roads, has been a common historical reductionism, that create a number of difficulties, for example under the umbrella of “Road safety” (I.E. “safety” as a adjective to the noun “Road”) medical rescue an victims care in hospitals are not perceived as a field of intervention and, in practical terms, a lot of national programs (or Sate programs, in USA) to reduce crashes victims don’t include investment in Ambulances and intensive medical care, that incidentally have more reduction in fatalities that some activities done in the areas cover by the noun “Road”. This mistake is, unfortunately, very common in USA, and have policy implications. For example, States usually put the Management systems for crashes in the Highways departments. This policy option results in departments that develop policies that have reduced activities in other’s fields different of the “Roads” field. (that surely is a component of the fact that un USA the absolute number of killed is going up while in the rest of the developed word is going down !)

As you can see, the topic of the name is no minor, maybe will be interesting to develop a text box to be put in the article to explain the name and his policy implications. Milton 21:47, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)


No, it's not a proper noun. Other folks can capitalize it, but we are not going to. That's just our policy.
If someone writes a book called Road Safety, or produces a film or starts an organization with the capitalized form, then we'll use the capitalized form for them. --Uncle Ed 21:52, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Again,

I come back to the Convention: Unless the term you wish to create a page for is a proper noun or is otherwise almost always capitalized, do not capitalize second and subsequent words.

First the “Road Safety” professional community never use the expression “Road safety” for this field, please do a google search with this expression, you will see that not only in the titles but also in the texts. It means the expression is “otherwise always capitalized” as asked in the Wikipedia Convention is satisfied .

Second, The declaration “:No, it's not a proper noun. Other folks can capitalize it, but we are not going to. That's just our policy.” is not supported by the Wikipedia convention as shows.!!! that accept when is a proper noun or when is “almost always capitalized” I respectfully ask that before make the change here, modify the convention to this new policy !!

Third, what is a proper noun or not is a professional decision and, as said before the expression “Road safety” is never use in this professional field. It is expected than wilkipedia contents are developed up to the best professional standards, not less. Milton 22:39, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I would imagine that, say, chemical engineers regularly capitalise Chemical Engineering -- nevertheless, we do not.
Besides, there is a 'Road Safety' company, which IS a proper noun.
I tried your google search suggestion, and found more uncapitalised uses than capitalised. And yes, this included professional road safety organisations. --Morven 06:42, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)


The discussion is not about capitalized or not is about if the expression “Road safety”, that you suggest as the name of this fiel of management, is used to refer in professional circles as the name for this field or not, please indicate the google results that utilize this expressions !! (If you are suggesting “Road safety” as the name for this field you need to make your case !)

My Google count from the first two pages of results are:

Road safety  : 2 times

road safety  : 15 times

Road Safety : 34 times

I expect that this settle the topics about what is the common use of this expression in this professional field.

And yes I agree that in the case of “Chemical engineering” “engineering is a proper adjective to the noun Chemical, as Chemical process, Chemical devices… etc. In the same token Road design, Road geometry, etc, are also proper adjectives, but Road Safety, as a field of Management, is not an adjective of Roads !!! (As said before, crashes don’t need a road)

About the “we do not”, please indicate the rule that backup this declaration. Milton 10:49, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I consider "road safety" more accurate while the phrase does not look like a proper noun.--Jusjih 08:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Other Stuff

Clearly the "History" needs a massive rewrite (or delete). Roads go back thousands of years -- motorized traffic on public roads only to the last decades of the 19th centuary. The knowledge we have is based on data sets that do not include, for example, people getting injured running into other people or tripping, or injured falling off their horses, regardless of where these unfortunate events occur.Levanszzzz 16:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps "as the vehicles themselves" would be a better phrase for the cited example, although of course carts and carriages were indeed involved in dangerous incidents. PS: Moved the above comment to this seperate section; it was sort of lost in the lengthy discussion on the article's name. 128.232.250.254 20:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split Article?

Without wishing to stoke a dying fire, perhaps some of this article could be moved to a new article, maybe entitled 'Safety management (roads)' or something. A lot of this (long) article is focused on management issues rather than the actual concept of road safety, which makes it a little confusing IMHO. That would also address the issue of 'Road safety' as a topic rather than 'Road Safety' as a field of management.

As an example, perhaps the statistics, tables and concepts such as paridgms and strategic principles would be better in Safety management (roads), while this article could cover topics such as common dangers, safety measures in road design, and driving methods. There seems to be no mention of things I would consider fundamental in an article on this subject - things like the basics of driver training, crash barriers, emergancy vehicles and policing, rules for truck drivers, accident blackspots, and many others. This is why I feel the theoritical field should be seperated. Comments? akaDruid 16:14, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dear, I think that you are true, I made the mistake of inserting a lot of material in this article, some sort of road safety from A to Z but this approach fails to consider the audience, this a general purpose encyclopedia, not a professional one !

But I have some doubts about how is the best to proceed

Dare to wait for a week? Milton 20:49, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dear akaDruid you approach looks better, I split the article as per your suggestion Milton 12:06, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Split again

There is a big section on interventions and this tends to dominate the article. I've been asked to merge in another article, so I believe that it might be time to split out the interventions into Road safety (interventions). Any thoughts from anyone? - Just zis Guy, you know? 16:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Merge complete, still just about tolerable in size. Probably. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 16:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Delta V

I'm not really comfortable with the use of Delta-V (or δv) for collision speed. It sounds like cod science. Speed is a scalar, and it is the collision energy which matters; δv would normally be the change in velocity of the impacted vehicle, and that is not necessarily the right measure here. Thoughts? - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 16:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm also uncomfortable with it, for several reasons. It makes the article very difficult to read, my first impression is that it was a typo. People jumping to the third section for info have to refer to another section for definition - I feel that each separate section should be mostly independent, or, if not, unusual terms should be footnoted and defined at the bottom of the article. Plus, delta V, the "change in velocity" is *acceleration*, not speed. Also, one final point, "Joksch (1993)" referenced in the text has no reference title, unless it means the Davis book? MartinRe 21:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
One reason I don't like the term is it isn't δv that hurts; it's acceleration - δv/t or change in speed per unit time - that causes injuries. For example, consider the differences between a passenger car colliding with the following objects at high speed; an unprotected concrete wall, a crash cushion or a gravel bed runaway truck ramp. Same δv, very different severity. The first is likely to be a fatality. The second is a likely injury, and the last would probably be a propery damage only crash.
The other reason to not use δv is it may be too technical a term for a general audience.
The term "speed' doesn't work because crashes happen in two or even three dimensions. For example, right-angle crashes impart significant lateral and rotational acceleration to one or both vehicles, so using a scalar isn't appropriate.Triskele Jim 17:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article name

I see that the name of the main article has been changed, without much discussion, from Road safety to Traffic safety. This name is ambiguous as there are many types of traffic - air, rail, sea, river, and so on. The main article on air traffic safety is named Air Safety, so if Road safety is unacceptable then this article should be called the unambiguous name of Road traffic safety - I suggest we rename it again. Any comments? -De Facto 19:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

  • The article isn't about the safety of any and all types of traffic, so Traffic safety is too broad. Given that the article is only about the safety of traffic on roads, I second the motion to rename this article as Road traffic safety.--Wiley 02:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

These are good points. However, the reason that "Traffic Safety" has come to relate specifically to ground vehicular traffic is because of the enormity of harm in this arena compared to in all others combined. For example, in the USA in 2002 zero people were killed in commercial air travel -- compared to 43,000 killed in vehicular ground transport. Traffic includes much more than even the categories cited in the discussion. There is, for example, internet traffic and telephone traffic, and the word "safety" is often used in discussions of how to prevent harm (especially to children) from such traffic. There are no perfect definitions -- professional and general usage plays a role. When people in motorized countries hear a "Traffic Report" they immediately accept what the subject matter is. If it is other than ground vehicular traffic on public roads, then the mode (sea, air, space, rail, snowmobile, internet, telephone -- and many others) is specified. (see additional comments incorrectly placed by a new user at the TOP of this discussion page)Levanszzzz 13:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Please provide citations for verification of the claim that "Traffic Safety" has come to relate specifically to ground vehicular traffic. --Wiley 01:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no overriding body in the English-speaking world defining terms -- if there were there would be no need for this discussion. Nearly all universities have a subject "Traffic Engineering" (usually in the Civil Engineering Department) -- nearly every municipality has a "Traffic Engineer". A important component of "Traffic Engineering", and a major responsibility of the "Traffic Engineer" is "Traffic Safety". It is only if the traffic is NOT ground vehicles that an adjective is applied -- like "air-traffic controller." "Road-traffic safety" would be OK, and would seem to keep everyone happyLevanszzzz 13:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Small afterthought. "Transportation Safety" (in US usage) is the term that is usually subdivided into the different modes, the "Department of Transportation" having responsibilities for many modes. Outside the US the term "Transport" is used. "Traffic" usually refers to ground vehicles on public roads-- though there is no iron-cast rule. Levanszzzz 15:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

We aren't (usually) concerned with the safety of the road itself. Rather, it's the people and vehicles using it we want to protect. Therefore I vote for traffic safety, or even road traffic safety, but not road safety.Triskele Jim 17:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "History" and "Defining the Problem" need major rewrite

I consider these two sections to be unsatisfactory. Roads are thousands of years old -- vehicular traffic just over a hundred. People getting hurt on roads are not normally considered part of traffic safety unless a motorized vehicle is involved; people getting hurt running into people, falling off their horse, or tripping are not included in this topic. etc. etc.

The problem is not "defined" in the way that professionals in the field define it. Also, it places far to much emphasis on what are little more than extraneous details.

I am happy to rewire these sections (keeping many of the present hot links) if there are no major objections in the next week. Levanszzzz 15:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Quoting from the FHWA's Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD):

"Traffic shall be defined as pedestrians, bicyclists, ridden or herded animals, vehicles, streetcars, and other conveyances either singularly or together while using any highway for purposes of travel."[2] Since content must be verifiable, what are the citations that support the assertion that only motorized vehicles constitute traffic on roads?--Wiley 15:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Good points and entirely appropriate to the areas that fall under the responsibility of FHWA. However, traffic safety is an enormous subject that is only one of the many responsibilities of FHWA. The agency devoted only to traffic safety is NHTSA [3]. Almost everything we know about traffic safety is learned from large data sets -- the most useful of these being FARS (the Fatality Analysis Reporting System) run by NHTSA. For data to be useful much attention must be given to definitions, and these definitions are now fairly settled after a great deal of thought and effort. The subject should be discussed using a vocabulary that is in close correspondence with that used for the data.

NHTSA defines as follows: "To be included in FARS, a crash must involve a motor vehicle travelling on a traffic way customarily open to the public, and result in the death of a person (either an occupant of a vehicle or a non-motorist) within 30 days of the crash." [4]. In other words if a rider of (A) a horse (B) a bicycle (C) a motorcycle falls off and strikes the pavement with fatal consequences, only C will be counted as a traffic fatality (assuming no additional motor vehicle is involved).. One could of course argue that it is arbitrary to not include the bicyclist - but it is necessary to definitively say what is included and what is not. The enormous FARS coding manual (downloadable from [[5]]) shows that there are vastly more tricky question than one might guess surrounding most of the 100 variables coded. A coherent understanding of traffic safety is best pursued using the definitions (similar throughout most of the world) that determine what is included in data.Levanszzzz 23:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

  • The limited statistical data currently available for non-motorized traffic is a challenge which has been acknowledged by the NHTSA: "While safety programs rely on good crash data, the ability to analyze and use crash data effectively is often dependent on good exposure data, which is much less available... For example, there is little data on pedestrian and bicycle exposure..." [6]
  • The NHSTA's HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAM GUIDELINE No. 14 states that: "Each State should recognize that its pedestrians and bicyclists ... are a valid traffic safety concern" and that: "Each State should strongly emphasize the role played by law enforcement personnel in pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Essential components of that role include: Developing knowledge of pedestrian and bicyclist crash situations, investigating crashes, and maintaining a report system that supports problem identification and evaluation activities"[7]

Regardless of the challenges with currently available data, a definition of traffic safety which is limited to motorized vehicles would be incoherent with both NHSTA guidance and the very definition of traffic itself (ref. the MUTCD[8]).--Wiley 07:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes -- but when NHTSA talks about the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists, they are mainly talking about harm when these road users are struck by motorized vehicles, not when they trip, walk into lampposts, run into each other, or fall off their bicycles. In an encyclopedia article it is imperative to state what one is talking about. The statement that, for example, in 2004 there were 1,634 traffic fatalities in Georgia has (regardless of discussions about the accuracy of the count) a fairly unambiguous meaning. The total includes ONLY people killed in crashes involving MOTOR VEHICLES. This is a good practical definition if one wants to compare experience in different states, and different countries. As a practical matter, a decision must be made, even if the decision may invite discussion.Levanszzzz 00:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

  • The safety of traffic (which the professional MUTCD standard defines[9] as including bicyclists and pedestrians) is independent of the scope limitations of any and all reporting systems. Consequently, the proposed changes to the article should clearly state that the use of scope limited definitions for terms (including vehicle and traffic) are valid only when discussing data from such sets, and that otherwise the verifiable definitions of those terms[10] should be used. --65.87.175.140 07:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article name renamed

In response to the discussion when I renamed it “Traffic safety” I have renamed it “Road-traffic safety”, which I hope is sufficiently specific to address most objections.Levanszzzz 14:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, I disagree with the move to "road-traffic safety," which is a nonsensical term that no one actually uses. Traffic safety is the correct name under longstanding Wikipedia policy, which is to use the most common name. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions. If and when enough people concur with my position then at that time I will raise the possibility of moving the article back to "Traffic safety." --Coolcaesar 08:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • While "road-traffic safety" may not be in use, a web search for the phrase "road traffic safety" returned more than 100,000 hits. As an example, one of the hits was for the home page of The Association for Road Traffic Safety and Management. --Wiley 12:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I just ran the Google search and confirmed that. I also noticed that "road traffic safety" appears to be use primarily in the UK and some Commonwealth countries. But the American usage is "highway safety" or "traffic safety" (we have a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration). At this point I think "road traffic safety" without the hyphen is okay, but I think this is another of those funny American English/British English differences that ought to be noted (like how the downtown/CBD difference is noted). --Coolcaesar 20:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Judging by the NHTSA's name, the American English version is "highway traffic safety" --Wiley 22:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article too long

I am a relatively new contributor – and am most reluctant to delete other people’s contributions. The process seems one of ever-increasing length! This article is already marked “too long”. I consider it has many non-central items that should be discarded. Anybody have any general words of wisdom on this tricky matter?Levanszzzz 14:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • If a "non-central item" is a big section, you might consider copying it into a new article of it's own and then pruning that section in this article down to the bare essentials with a link to the new article. An example of a long article where the editors have done this for several sections is Bicycle. Look for the phrases "Main article:" and "For more details on this topic, see:" --Wiley 12:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Questionable physics?

while opposing-direction crashes will have δv of roughly double mean free travelling speed.

It seems to me that if two vehicles with approximately opposite momentum collide, conservation of momentum means they will come to a halt and each will experience a change of velocity equal to their previous speed. Of course if momentums differ greatly (say a Ford Aspire vs a Hummer, each at highway speed) all bets are off. Pretzelpaws 22:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Motorway Section

This looks like a whole lot of original research by editors and probably should be deleted, particularly the statistics section. The relationship between AADT and per billion/km appears spurious. Just try putting the numbers into a stats package and see. (Or even easier just plot them!) Alex Sims 22:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The AADT stuff was introduced in this edit of the Speed limit article. Alex Sims 01:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"whole lot of original research"? These are all publicly available statistics from IRTAD (checking again, I see they now have 2004 stats available [11]). As for the inverse relationship: divide 100,000 by the rate and plot it against AADT (Finland and Sweden are outliers, that is, unusually safe despite low AADT). The inverse relationship, as I recall, was recognized by the U.S. Federal Highway Administration back in the 1960's and 1970's; FHwA's annual reports plotted the relationship for all 50 states and the relationship was pretty conspicuous. Comparing high AADT urban interstates with lower AADT rural interstates demonstrates a similar correlation. Duke Ganote 13:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The statistics are good, the inference is not. Please re-read key policies, Verifiability and Original Research. You have taken statistics (verifiable) and then made inferences (unverifiable). Making inferences is original research. As editors we report on others who have done so. Furthermore, the relationship you argue between the data is statistically weak and other factors might explain much more of the variation of rate. It would be much better to introduce the US state data which clearly shows this relationship and removes confounding factors between nations. Alex Sims 23:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Alex Sims's excellent analysis. The no original research policy implies that the statistical analysis must be published somewhere else before it can be published on Wikipedia. We can present raw numbers but we cannot draw any conclusions about them that have not been published elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, see the official policy at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. --Coolcaesar 05:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Both the statistics and the inference are correct; the former cited and verifiable. The latter, as Alex Sims notes correctly, lacks the appropriate citation at the moment; I will research and see if I can find a web-based, and possibly more recent, verifiable citations; till then, I will remove the latter, disputed statements. Duke Ganote 17:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section removed from article pending attribution

Due to lack of citations readers can only assume that this section is WP:OR. If it isn't please restore it with attribution for:

  • by who "it has been noted that..."
  • who suggested that "One way of testing this hypothesis..."
  • who asserts "there is some evidence at least to support the contention that..."

We also need citations (author, title, date, work, publisher, etc.) which will allow the reader to verify the context, methodology, etc. used to arrive at the conclusions itemised in the bullet list.

Also required is a citation for "The "road safety" establishment is proud of the fact...".

 
 ===== Case study: UK pedestrian safety =====
The "road safety" establishment is proud of the fact that the UK has among the best pedestrian safety records in Europe, as measured in pedestrian [[Killed or Seriously Injured|KSI]] per head of population. But it has been noted that this value would also be low if the roads were sufficiently dangerous as to deter pedestrians from using them at all. One way of testing this hypothesis would be to compare rates for those whose transport options are most limited, the elderly and children. Hillman and others have done this and found that:
* Britain's child pedestrian safety record is worse than the average for Europe, in contrast to the better than average all-ages figure (Department for Transport)
* Children's independent mobility is increasingly curtailed, with fear of traffic being cited as a dominant cause (Hillman, Adams, Whitelegg)
* Distances walked have declined more than in other European countries
* Similar (though less well-defined) observations can be made regarding the elderly

So there is some evidence at least to support the contention that Britain's roads are not in fact particularly safe at all, it is just that the vulnerable are too intimidated to use them.

-- de Facto (talk). 10:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Attributed, removed the POV. Guy 10:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
So, just to clarify what you have written, could we summarise the section by saying "A study by Hillman et al. concludes that pedestrian KSI figures in the UK are amongst the lowest in Europe because UK roads are so dangerous (compared with the rest of Europe) that pedestrians are detererd from using them." ? -- de Facto (talk). 11:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
More or less, although it is not just they who say it. The measures used for "road safety" invite the question "safer for whom?" - this is raised in more than one source (e.g. Davis also discusses it in detail) - and the figures as presented, being per capita, are not factored per unit exposure so may well be misleading. If you compare road traffic fatalities around the world per capita, per car and per car-passenger-kilometre you get very different results.
The main focus of One False Move is to identify trends in children's independent mobility, and factors affecting it. Their thesis here is that the British culture of "road safety" education, centred on unquestioning deference to the car, has resulted in restrictions on children's independent mobility, victim blaming and greater danger for vulnerable road users. This contrasts with the Netherlands, say, where there is essentially a reversed burden of proof on motorists where vulnerable road users are injured. Guy 13:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you could put it like that second paragraph in the article. What's there now doesn't convey that meaning (to me at least), and it doesn't associate the ideas directly with the report - it comes across as OR. You'd have to demonstrate that the UK is more dangerous than other European countries too, not just NL, and that those other countries also assumed motorist guilt until proven otherwise. OTOH, you could look for other, possibly more likely reasons for any differences. Perhaps the schemes, originating in NL, and spreading around Northern Europe of Shared space hold some clues. -- de Facto (talk). 13:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US-centricity evident

I know it's up to me to modify what I don't like, but unfortunately I'm largely a visitor here, with not a lot to add.

However, parts of the article currently gives a strong impression of US-centricity, eg the following appears to be entirely about the US. The UK most certainly doesn't operate this way, employers are very much responsible for the actions of their drivers:

Employers currently escape, for the most part, the chain of responsibility for their employees' driving on company business. Truck drivers, especially self-employed ones, can be given unrealistic deadlines to meet. There are moves to bring driving for work (both commercial vehicles and, more controversially, private cars driven on company business) under the umbrella of workplace safety legislation. These are strongly resisted as they would place a far greater burden on employers and employees alike: penalties for industrial safety infractions are typically much greater than for negligent motor vehicle use. Tomrawlinson 08:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, it's just plain wrong. The liability depends upon the particular employer and the service provided. For example, if a Los Angeles Metro bus were to run over me, I could definitely sue the bus driver (in fact MTA gets sued ALL THE TIME for its drivers' torts as indicated by the huge number of reported cases in which it was the defendant). It is true there are certain courier and taxi companies in the United States that maintain a contractor relationship with their drivers to partially insulate the employer from liability, but as far as I know, that generalization does not cover most employers. --Coolcaesar 05:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GrdnAngel

Thank you for the contribution, however, I have deleted your latest entry because of insufficient encyclopedic content and information relating to the main article. Please don't get discouraged, but I would suggest that you may first commence an article of your own, reference it, polish it as close to perfection as possible, (share it with the community for opinion on where the article should reside) and then publish it. Please also keep in mind that Wikipedia is more about Quality, not quantity. Best regards --Lperez2029 18:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Road Safety Audits

I would like to add information regarding the Road Safety Audit (RSA) and Road Safety Audit Review (RSAR) programs, but I am not entirely sure where to add them into this article. It seems like it should be directly within the "Interventions" section as an introduction of what can prompt the following types of treatments, which the article then goes on to detail. However, as RSA/RSARS are not always what prompt intervention (seeing as much of America, for example, does not yet perform them), it'd take more literary skills in rewording than I can do at the moment... for anyone up to the task (or possibly myself once I get the work ethic), information on RSA/RSARs is as follows:

  • History = First started and required in Australia & New Zealand, now required in Europe [12], and growing in use in America [13]. This website may provide additional information on the EU's (EC's) road safety initiatives: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/roadsafety/infrastructure/safety_mgnt_en.htm
  • General = RSA/RSAR teams consist of approximately 5 members from a multidisciplinary background whom can call upon outside expertise to fill in any missing gaps of knowledge. The members are not typically connected with the project other than through the audit team, ensuring an unbiased and outside viewpoint.
  • RSA = The safety analysis follows a project throughout its entire process: from initial conception, through design, through construction, and completes with an RSAR after completion. The analysis attempts to find any safety concerns that may arise as part of the project and then suggests possible solutions to these problems.
  • RSAR = Similar to an RSA, except that the analysis is in follow-up to a completed project or is a new review of existing infrastructure.

This link may provide further information on history and more thorough explanations of terms: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3724/is_2_61/ai_56973795

If any additional information is needed, just let me know -- I have studied numerous RSAs and RSARs in Australia, New Zealand, Europe, and America; and have even completed a few myself. --Thisisbossi 19:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/r/a/Talk%7ETraffic_Safety_711f.html"