Talk:Driving on the left or right/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1
| Archive 2 →


Contents

[edit] General

There are genuine safety reasons for driving on the left

Driving on the left is correct for right handed people which is the great majority,here is why:

When changing gear in a UK car with the steering wheel on the right , which is of course correct in the UK etc for driving on the left---------in the UK your left hand changes gear and your right hand stays on the steering wheel.-- this is safer( for right handed people.) The reverse is the case in countries where one must drive on the right.--

In other words if you live in the USA you hold the steering wheel with your left hand and change gear with your right hand because of course the steering wheel is on the left in the USA--------this is dangerous if you are right handed.

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

Bicycles.

Bike riders are in real danger in countries where driving on the right is mandatory again assuming you are right handed------Try mounting a bike in the USA and you will find yourself in the stream of traffic when getting on the bike---- try it yourself---------: Mounting a bike in the UK is done from the sidewalk by right handed people who find it easier to put their right leg over the bike. , Much safer and this must have saved many lives.

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

Reversing up a steep drive: My drive in the UK is very steep----when I reverse out I hold the steering wheel with my right hand and look over my left shoulder to the rear window.

In a USA car you must hold the steering wheel with your left hand and look over your right shoulder to look out of the rear window.. So you must reverse with your left hand on the steering wheel.. Or stick your head out of the window if you want to use your right hand on the steering wheel. -dangerous for the majority who are right handed.

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

It is safer for left handed people to drive is on the right--

Christopher (Chris) Davison London UK


Thanks to User:213.48.145.41 for all the new material, which is likely to be valuable. However, i am reverting 213's addition of Thailand and Indonesia (in section "Left or Right?"), which are broken out individually already in section "Summary". I thot Japan belonged on a par, in this context, with the former Brit colonies, bcz it also accounts for an enormous number of cars. Without demeaning any country, a line needs to be drawn, or there is no point in having anything but the enormous list that ends the article. IMO, these two labels (ex-Brit & Japan) are a much better place to draw the line than any other option.

I'll also tighten up the wording, to make the logic clearer.

Please, 213, keep up the good work!

There's a section titled "Complete List" with links to many countries. What is this list for ? countries with driving on the left  ? Why have the links to the countries pages been provided ? Jay 12:01, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new to this so forgive the placement of this snippet. I understood that we (British) drive on the left because:

1. Jousting knights (right handed) used so as not to cross the horse with the lance. 2. When travelling on horseback generally, you can use your weapon right handed to the oncoming attacker.

Makes sense to me.

Richard Hatton

[edit] Rule of the road

-When driving on the left, "Viewing from the centre of the road and facing either side, drivers see vehicles approaching from their left, and those behind them are coming from their right " -Does someone want to explain this wordy paragraph to me? I don't think it's clear, unless it's wrong: if I'm driving on the left I see cars approaching on my RIGHT, not my left, and those behind me are BEHIND me, neither on my left nor right. I don't get it and it seems like nobody else would either. Can we clarify? --User:tilgrieog

I agree with tilgrieog here. No matter how I picture the scene from that sentence, it's currently listed backwards. Since it seems so odd that it's been up that way to me, I'm not changing it immediately, but might do so in a month or so if I don't hear any objections. 24.131.188.121 21:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
It is correct as it stands, but I agree it's very confusing. The reason it is confusing is that it picutres the scene as if you are standing on the centre line of the road and looking across to the side of the road (at 90 degrees to the flow of traffic). If the traffic drives on the left, then you will indeed see traffic coming from your left if you are standing in the middle of the road and looking across to the side. (The traffic behind you is on the LHS of the road and so will be passing from your right to your left, and the traffic in front of you, also driving on the LHS, will be travelling from your left to your right.) But the question remains, why on earth would you be standing in the middle of the road? I think it would be better to give the point of view from the pavement at the side of the road - that way, if traffic is driving on the left, it is approaching from your right and vice versa. Comments? 143.252.80.110 14:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


What is your source for the report that Somaliland (ex-British) has adopted driving on the left? With regard to East Timor, Kincaid is mistaken when he says that the Indonesians changed the rule in 1976. The Indonesian invaded in December 1975 and the military would have disregarded any local laws. However I have talked with Guy Duindam (B.A. (Ling.), Dip TESOL, Dip Tertiary Teaching, 11/758 High St, Lower Hutt, New Zealand, ph (64)4-567-5882, fax 64-4-567-9672) who had lived and worked in Indonesia and other places as a diplomat. He had visted East Timor prior to the Indonesian occupation and assured me that they drove on the left under the Portugese. He thought that drive on the left was imposed by the Japanese in February 1942, or possibly 17 December 1941 when the Allies (British, Dutch and Australian) occupied East Timor to prevent a Japanese attack. I have seen travel guides (e.g. RAC) which suggest that the Marshal Islands drive on the left, presumably because of the availability of Japanese right-hand drive cars. Can you clarify? A lot of sources report that Somalia drives on the left, but as Kincaid has found they changed some time ago. A Somali refugee I met said they changed in 1964, the same year as Ethiopia. Drive on the left must have been the rule in Italian East Africa. With regard to crossing borders, my only experience of changing sides was from Zaire to Uganda which has already been mentioned. The scary thing is the number of people who don't remember changing sides. One vet I met had traveled west through Afghanistan and insisted that he changed between Herat and Iran. He also reported that the Moslems in the tribal areas of Pakistan were trying to impose a keep right rule. More recently I met an English teacher who had been in Pakistan and crossed into Afghanistan. He didn't go to any major towns and so he only recalled that they drove on the road if they could find it and drove where there were no potholes or landmines! A woman who had travelled the Karakoram Highway from China to Pakistan did not remember changing sides at the summit. She agreed that there was not much trafic and much road to change, but thought they had driven on the left in China. This may because she was German-born, New Zealand resident and may have been familiar with both rules so that she did not notice a difference in China. A colleague who went into Tibet from Nepal in 1987 said he did not really notice changing sides of the road. He recalled crossing a huge rockslide, watching out for falling boulders. When he got to the Chinese side he caught a bus which drove on the road and when they got to a town and met other traffic they passed on the right, although the Tibetans themselves tended to keep to the left. Incidentally Tibet must have kept to the left until the Chinese invasion in 1950. Not that there were many cars to change. Noel Ellis, Wellington, New Zealand

Tibet has been under the influence of Chinese government as early as the 13th century, under Yüan dyansty, and throughout Ch'ing dynasty, similar to that of Korea, which has a much longer history of being under Chinese indirect rule. Of course the concept of sovereignty was quite different from that of nowadays. But it was true that Tibet was somehow independent from 1910s onwards, until the Commies under Mao invaded and seized control.
East Timor, then Portuguese Timor, changed to driving on the right in 1928, in common with Portugal and other Portuguese colonies, except Mozambique, Goa and Macau. Perhaps the Allies changed traffic back to the left. I'm sure I saw film footage of traffic driving on the right in Dili in the 1970s - in rural areas there were few paved roads. 1976 is the year that Indonesia annexed (or 'integrated') East Timor, so any change would have occurred by then.
I also saw some pictures of Dili from the early 1970s in a Portuguese book, and traffic was on the right. Quiensabe 12:46 UTC 2005-10-03

Some years ago on Australian TV I saw movie footage taken during the Indonesian invasion of East Timor, and it showed LHD motor vehicles parked on the right-hand side of the road. Antipodean Contributor 22:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's with the USVI?

A distinct question. What's with the US Virgin Islands? They drive on the left, while the rest of the US (and US territories) drives on the right. Some expalnation is definitely useful, somewhere. --Penta 10:25, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
See Transportation on the United States Virgin Islands. -- knoodelhed 06:59, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
not much info there. --24.94.189.11 02:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The nearby British Virgin Islands, as well as some other Caribbean countries and territories, drive on the left, so I believe the USVI follow that custom for safety and conformity. However, what makes things interesting is that most cars are American, with LHD. I don't know if that's the case on the BVI or the other Caribbean areas, although I believe it is true in the Bahamas. 207.69.139.146 22:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The best explanation we can find is that it was a former Danish colony. Except that Denmark drives on the right (official nationwide since 1793). It seems that during the Napoleonic Wars the Danish West Indes were occupied by Britain, possibly from 1806 to 1815 and during this period driving on the left was introduced and retained afterwards. Similarly the Dutch colonies of East Indies (now Indonesia) and Dutch Guiana (Suriname), but not Curacao and the other islands of the Dutch West Indies. Other Danish overseas territories occupied in the same period included Iceland which drove on the left until 1968, although they insist that it was a local custom not influenced by the British. Greenland may have also been occupied but they did not have many roads or traffic to change and they seem to have kept to the right. Also interesting is the Faeroe Islands, as the insist that they have always had drive on the right (except for one island for three years during WWII under British occupation). Noel Ellis, Wellington New Zealand

[edit] Taiwan

Removed controversy statement about Taiwan. The status of Taiwan after 1949 is controversial, but the statement that control of Taiwan was transferred from Japan to the Republic of China in 1945 is not.

Roadrunner 03:59, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I changed the statement from became part of to assumed control in a preemptive effort to mollify the small number of people who could conceivably object to the original wording. I'm a bit too tired to explain how the original language could possibly trigger controversy and describe who might object and why.

Roadrunner 04:05, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Power wasn't transfered because China owned the island of Taiwan. After the Chinese civil war, the Nationalists fled to Taiwan and established the Republic of China. -intranetusa

[edit] Article needs expansion and clarification of purpose

The introductory paragraph to this article implies that it will be a general article about rules of the road, and the first section begins: 'The first rule to learn for a particular country is which side to drive on.' However, this is about the only rule covered in the entire article! It would be good if someone with the time to spend could expand on the article somewhat. Andrewferrier 21:28, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

Agreed but time and energy constraints impose - suggested topics could include a general overview of principles contained in Vienna convention. Napoleonic "yield to traffic from right rule" and where it applies. How does a US 4-way stop sign work? Might be possible to put in something about origins of the legal principles - Common law users of roads, Locomotives in Highways act, Motor Car Act 1903 etc etc Suggested first step is to chop out the Left vs Right stuff and give it its own article.--Sf 12:23, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, I think that would be a good way to approach it. Andrewferrier 18:35, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)


[edit] What about railways?

Is there any article on the rules of railways?

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

[edit] "Traffics"?

What I'm about to say is probably insulting, but I've been trying not to scream while reading this article.

What is a 'traffics'? Whoever wrote this needs to understand that they should be able to speak and write English proficiently before they go and write an article in English.

I've rewritten the sentences which used the word, "traffics".

Yes, of course, "traffics" drive on the left-hand side of the road. No, motorists or cars do, not "traffics".

"Traffics" isn't even a word -- look it up... "He traffics in marijuana." So there.

/rant.

I think it's Indian English. I hear the same thing done to the word "aircraft" at work. --Adamrush 13:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Road traffic is uncountable. Adding an "s" may make the word "traffics" like a verb and hence misleading.--Jusjih 15:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I concur that the word "traffic" should not have an s because it is already implicitly plural (that is, it refers to a composite object composed of a multitude of things). However, I should note that road traffic is not inherently uncountable. In the United States, our civil engineers count traffic all the time with sensor loops embedded in the pavement that sense the presence of large metallic objects (like bicycles, cars, and trucks) when they cross the electromagnetic field of the loop. We also use sensor loops extensively to trigger traffic lights, so that vehicles need not wait for a full traffic light cycle when there are no other vehicles at an intersection. --Coolcaesar 17:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
This technology is not restricted to the Us but is in worldwide use. Nonetheless, it is 'traffic' that is being measured, not 'traffics'. Guinnog 17:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did China really drive on the left during the Cultural Revolution?

This seems as improbable as the idea that China changed to driving on the right because of US influence. The Communists probably thought driving on the left was 'bourgeois', and in any event, there were hardly any passenger cars in China during the Cultural Revolution, so it would be better to say 'traffic' not 'cars'.

What is the basis for the asumption that north China drove on the right before 1946? Most of North China e.g. Manchuria and Peking (Beijing) were under Japanese occupation. Photos of Shanghai published at the time of the Japanese attach 1938 show traffic keeping to the left. Of course Manchuria had a checkered history with Russian influence up to 1905. Interesting to find a source for the idea that Russia only changed to drive on the right before WWI. Noel Ellis, Wellington, New Zealand.

[edit] Use of 'side' and 'driving'

Is there any need to use 'side' or 'side of the road' after 'left' and 'right'? It should be fairly obvious that we're talking about the left or right-hand side of the road.

To keep things consistent, 'drive' should refer to the steering column, hence left/right hand drive, which is why I changed 'Left-driving' to 'driving on the left'.

I once had a correspondence with someone in the sales department of GM in South Africa, in which I was told that the company could not export to right-hand drive countries in Southeast Asia because they only built cars for left-hand drive markets like South Africa. I explained that most of Southeast Asia drove on the same side of the road as South Africa.....

Perhaps the term "traffic direction" is a better one? Antipodean Contributor 22:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did northern China drive on the right until 1946?

I think there was not any specific rules of the road. — Instantnood 09:51, Jan 29 2005 (UTC) This is extremely unlikely. While it is possible that in the countryside there was a lack of rules, there must have been rules in the cities. As most of northern China was occupied by Japan, this would have been keep left. Interestingly Manchuria must have been confused, as it came under Russian influrence from 1896 with the Chinese Eastern Railway, followed by the annexation of the Liaotung Peninsula (Port Arthur) 1898 and the South Manchurian railway. From 1900 the whole of Manchuria was occupied by Russia after the Boxer Rebellion and expedition to Peking. However the Russians were defeated by the Japanese in 1905 so drive on the left was in force from then. In August 1945 Manchuria was occupied by Stalin's Red Army. They may have enforced drive on the right from occupation, but I have no evidence.

Noel Ellis

[edit] What about railways, on pavements, elevators and at road crossings

Is there any articles on the rules on them? — Instantnood 09:52, Jan 29 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Carpark?

extracted from the section on Hong Kong and Macau,

When crossing the border, vehicles go through a car park, from which they exit on the 'correct' side of the road

Isn't it a flyover or something? — Instantnood 09:58, Jan 29 2005 (UTC)

I think what is meant is that cars have to stop and park in a parking lot (or car park) while the driver and passengers clear customs and immigration; when they leave the parking lot, they simply have to remember to drive on the proper side of the road when they leave. 71.131.197.252 01:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Croatia and Slovenia

Until 1918, Croatia was ruled by Hungary and Slovenia was ruled by Austria, so they would have driven on the left. Does anyone have information on when they changed over and why? What about the other former Yugoslav republics? Did Serbia, Bosnia, Montenegro and Macedonia always drive on the right?

The Yugoslavs I have spoken to all insist that former Yugoslavia drove on the right and always did so. However as you have noticed the parts under Austrian Hapsburg rule would have driven on the left. This would also have included Bosnia-Hercegovina, occupied 1878, annexed 1908. It is not clear if Serbia has always driven on the right. Even if that was the Turkish rule, Serbia revolted against Turkish rule from 1805, and contrary to the idea that the predominant influence was Russian, often it was Austrian, especially under the Obrenovich dynasty who alternated with the rival Kara-Georgovich dunasty who were pro-Russian. Anyway in 1915, Serbia (including Macedonia) and Montenegro were occupied by the Austro-Hungarians until 1918. So they would have inmposed their rule at least for the duration. They executed civilians and left people hanged with their bodies on public display etc so there is not reason to see why they would have followed a local rule. I have examined photos of the Serbian army in retreat 1915, but it just showed a long column of soldiers. There was only one car, King Peter's which was abandonned, so nothing showed whether they passed to the left or right. The Encyclopedia Britannica 1928 has an interesting reference under Rule of the Road for the Continent of Europe "drive on the right was the rule except for Austria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Portugal, Sweden and Yugoslavia". This was out of date by the time it was published in 1929 because Portugal changed 1928. This same info is repeated in the 1938 edition and again 1956. It is also ambiguous, as it does not say specifically that Yugoslavia drove on the left, only that it was an exception to drive on the right. In the case of Austria this included one rule for part of the country, with drive on the right in Voralberg from 1921, and Tirol from 1930. So it is possible that Yugoslavia had two different rules in different parts. I have spoken to two Serbs born about 1924 who both said they did not remember any change. One lived in Vojvodina which was formerly part of the Austrian province of Banat. This would indicate that if there was a change it must have been earlier than 1929. Noel Ellis, Wellington, New Zealand.

[edit] Philippines switch to the left?

Could we see some sources here, please! --ProhibitOnions 14:16, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

There are none, which is why I've removed it.--Quiensabe 20:36, 10 June 2005 (UTC)

Kincaird cites an executive order from the Philippines Official Gazette 1946 dated 10 March 1946 for the change to drive on the right, and also quotes from Hopper who was in Manila in February 1945 when they were driving in the left. It is not clear why the Philippines had a drive on the left rule in the first place. It was not imposed by the Japanese, as it was a Filipino Law being amended in 1946. Possibly keeping to the left was an Asian custom before 1946. It is interesting but obscure fact that the Philippines were occupied by Britain in 1763, but I still cannot see how that would have influenced a change in the rule of the road. Noel Ellis, Wellington New Zealand

My father-in-law served as a tech sergeant with the US Air Force during WW2. After VJ Day he was posted in the Philippines for a while, where he witnessed and distinctly remembered the change from left-hand to right-hand traffic direction. He also remembers that beasts of burden had a tough time with the change because they didn't want to walk contrary to habit. He's dead now so I can't ask him for more details of when and where: it's just possible that the change he saw applied to a local area only and not the entire country. Antipodean Contributor 23:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Four RHD European Union countries?

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

Cyprus Jooler 23:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Photos of Savoy Court

I've uploaded some photos traffic driving on the right in Savoy Court in London. I'm not sure where to put them, so if anyone's got any bright ideas, please add them in somewhere.

  • Driving into Savoy Court
    Driving into Savoy Court
  • Driving out of Savoy Court
    Driving out of Savoy Court

Nfh 19:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Somaliland

Somaliland definitely drives on the right. I had an e-mail from the Somaliland Mission in London in March 2005 stating that Somaliland has never changed from driving on the right. I've also searched the web for photos of traffic in Somaliland, where it is clear that traffic drives on the right:

I'm therefore removing Somaliland from the list of countries that drive on the left. I am not including it in the list of countries that drive on the right, given that no other unrecognised countries are listed (e.g. northern Cyprus).

Nfh 21:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Your research has done a good job, but the Canadian Travel Report still says that traffic drives on the left, presuambly due to outdated information.--Jusjih 11:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
You're right that it's down to outdated information, because it actually states that all of Somalia drives on the left, not only the breakaway Somaliland part. Thanks for this anyway. NFH 14:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Samoa

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

I have read the same book by Kincaid, but the information is not very complete for Samoa.--Jusjih 07:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United States

In one section it currently says, "Some ex-colonies of the British Empire continue to drive on the left, but others, such as Canada, Gambia, Ghana, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, and the United States switched to the other side." Then later it says, "Since colonial times, traffic in the US has always been on the right hand side" I'm not sure of the facts here so perhaps someone could clarify, 1. has the United States ALWAYS been on the right? 2. if since colonial times it has been on the right, is there a pre-colonial time when it was different (that would imply that the Native Americans rode on the left) 3. if it has always been on the right in the US then surely (first paragraph) a switch was never made ???? Kincaid's book suggests that the English settlers did not bring the keep left rule with them, but developed their own rules. However he did find that the Cumberland Road in Pennsylvania had a keep left rule in 1848. New York may have had a keep right rule from Dutch rule, although this is only speculation. Some have claimed that the Dutch actually kept to the left until Napoleon impose keep right 1808-12, and that it was the overseas territories like Suriname and the East Indies that remained on the left. Most think that it was the British that impose keep left in Dutch territories 1806-16. Interestingly Suriname was originally an English colony until ceded in exchange for New York in 1667. It is possible that is why Suriname now keeps to the left and New York to the right. Noel Ellis

[edit] Dominion of Newfoundland

The situation with respect to Newfoundland is a unique one; yes, what is now the province of Newfoundland and Labrador did enter into Confederation with the Canadians on April Fools' Day 1949 (the Canadians have yet to realise that Joey Smallwood was only joking!) but there are a couple of other wrinkles to add to this:

  • Newfoundland, laying claim to the status of being the oldest British colony, once functioned as a separate Dominion much like the Dominion of Canada; the government in St. John's therefore held a fair level of autonomy.
  • This changed after the costs of World War I and the Great Depression pushed the government of the tiny dominion into financial ruin; the British were running the affairs of the colony through all of World War II while Newfoundland attempted to get back on her feet. By the end of the second war, Newfoundland was in much better financial shape.
  • The Newfoundland referenda on whether to remain part of Britain, go alone, or join the Canadians were held in 1947 and 1948, with opinion closely divided but the British option being the least favoured (and therefore dropped from the second referendum ballot in 1948). The British follow the Roman drive-on-the-left system, the Canadians do not.
  • The switch to driving on the right would only have made sense once Newfoundlanders had abandoned the idea of retaining British-controlled government. The British drive on the left. Traffic between Newfoundland and Cape Breton would be a non-issue; while many people made the crossing, it was inevitably aboard boats and ferries as Newfoundland itself is an island.
  • With the bulk of traffic into Newfoundland and the bulk of transport to the many tiny, isolated fishing villages (outports) within Newfoundland being by boat, a change to right-hand traffic would primarily affect only St. John's, the capital. Substantial numbers of cars or multilane roads on which to drive them were rare to non-existent outside the capital at that time; money for roadbuilding was in short supply before the war and labour in short supply during the war. The geographic conditions (scattered small villages amidst rocky coastal fjords, long distances with low population density) were not conducive to widespread early adoption of large numbers of automobiles - some cars existed, but very few owned one in the outports. There was a narrow-gauge railroad at the time, which followed the path now taken by the Trans-Canada highway, but the primary transportation to the outport villages was by sea. Every fisherman would have had access to watercraft - a necessity of the livelihood upon this rock in the Atlantic Ocean.

In this context, St. John's does end up becoming somewhat of a special case, and not just by being the capital of a Dominion which for whatever reason voluntarily abandoned its own sovereignty. --carlb 07:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Newfoundland was never 'part of Britain', even under the Commission of Government, because unlike the French with nearby Saint Pierre et Miquelon, the British did not consider their colonies to be part of their national territory with representation at Westminister (even though this was called 'the Imperial Parliament') I suppose that even those who did not favour becoming part of Canada accepted that closer links with it (like driving on the same side of the road) were inevitable.

Quiensabe 08:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I think this article needs a serious revamp.

What I expected to see in an article entitled the "rules of the road" were, well, the rules of the road. Instead, this article is dominated by the left/right issue. A worthy topic, to be sure, but I expected to see here the rules of the road that allow competent drivers to drive safely and legally in just about any country without knowing their particular implementation of the rules. I think this article needs a serious revamp, and the left/right issue addressed in detail should probably be moved to a separate article. --Serge 04:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Whatever happens, the left/right issue needs its own article, as you suggest. There is a book on this subject called "Rule of the Road", so this might likewise be a more appropriate title for the article i.e. simply change the current name to the singular. An article on general traffic rules ought to have a significantly different title, perhaps "traffic rules", "highway code" or "driving rules". NFH 09:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Serge, but no opinion on the page-naming. Highway Code already has an article, because it's the title of the UK's rulebook. As to the book, I can't see it on Amazon's top 20 search results for "rule of the road" - perhaps someone could link to the ISBN? I also was surprised to see this article only about left/right. Ojw 20:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
"Rule of the Road" by Peter Kincaid, published by Greenwood Press in 1986 - ISBN 0-313-25249-1 NFH 21:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Although Serge and I have had our disagreements (notably on the Manual of Style talk page), I have to agree with him that the Rules of the road article really needs to be fixed so that it discusses vehicle-related law in general. I concur that the left-right issue should be relegated to a separate article (with a small section of this article summarizing the issue and pointing to the more specialized article). --Coolcaesar 08:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The only thing left to decide is the title of the general road rules article and of the left/right article. I favour "Rule of the road" for the left/right article, as the subject is often known by this phrase and is even the name of a book on the subject. NFH 09:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Finland 1858

There is an article here in Swedish about Finland's change to driving on the right on 8 June 1858, with pictures of the decree by the Tsar of Russia (Grand Duke of Finland) I can only get the general gist of what it means, but if a Swedish speaker could translate this, it would be useful information.

Quiensabe 19 January 2006 08:45 UTC

When Finland became part of the Russian Empire in 1809 Swedish law remained in force. But the Russian troops on the roads in Finland travelled dispite of that on the right. They were the stronger part, so the public had to follow suit. Therefore the Emperor Alexander, who was also Grand duke of Finland, changed the law as from 8 of June 1858. Anders Hanquist, Stockholm, Sweden

[edit] Russia

There are some bizarre rumors travelling around the Internet. One of them is that Russia was a left-hand-driving country well into the 20th century.

You can read that Russia changed to right-hand driving "in the last days of the czars" or "in the 1920-ies".

That is certainly NOT the case. The former Swedish teritory of Finland became a Russian Grand-duchy in 1809. In 1858 the Russians introduced right-hand driving in Finland in order to facilitate for the Russian troops, already travelling on the right side. Anders Hanquist, Stockholm, Sweden

Peter Kincaid's book has virtually nothing for Russia. I have found unconfirmed claims about Russia changing from keep left to keep right. If that were the case, then why bother changing Finland. What I guess is that when Russia ceded Southern Sakhalin to Japan in 1905, keep right was probably changed to keep left. Once Russia got that part back in 1945, keep left was probably changed back to keep right.--Jusjih 13:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

"Considering that RHD vehicles by far outnumber the LHD ones (better suited to the rules) on the Pacific side of Russia, drivers in those regions have made multiple proposals about switching the sides of the road. However, they were denied by Russian government." - I have never heard about anything like this. I live in Irkutsk, my parents live near Vladivostok, and this is just not true. Yes, most of the cars in the Russian Far East are from Japan, and yes, the government tried to ban RHD vehicles a few times, but no, nobody wants to have different traffic-handedness within one country. I have removed this false statement. 87.103.135.64 20:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, until proper citations can be found the would support otherwise. --Thisisbossi 03:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Priority in the UK

From 3 Priority:

In the United Kingdom, priority is always indicated by signs or road markings, in that every junction has a concept of a major road and minor road (except those governed by traffic lights).

This is not true. Unmarked crossroads with no obvious major/minor distinction are not unknown in quiet residential areas, and are often included on driving test routes. Steved424 13:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I know they do exist, but they are extremely rare. And I've never seen one in an urban area, which is typically where driving test routes are located. NFH 18:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I just have bad luck then! I started learning in Tunbridge Wells many years ago, and I'm pretty sure I remember at least one unmarked crossroads somewhere in the back streets; then I moved to Cheshire and took my test in Northwich, where there definitely is one, and on a test route to boot :/ Steved424 21:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Switching to the left became safer

*Research in 1969 by J J Leeming showed that countries that drove on the left had a lower accident rate than countries that drove on the right. Countries that have switched to driving on the right (for example Sweden) have seen their long term accident rates increase by more than any increase in traffic volumes. It has been suggested, but not proven, that this is partly because most people are "right eyed", and are therefore better able to judge the position of oncoming traffic when they see it on their right.

Actually, Sweden's long-term accident/death/injury rate declined due to the usual advances in engineering and traffic safety.

Also, the accident rate went down for a short time after switching, due to drivers being more paranoid than usual, but when back up, and only down again with safety advances. I'm removing or at elaset removing this paragraph.—Last Avenue (talk) (contribs) 03:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Serious revamp'

OK, I just revamped the article. The whole thing of which side of the road to drive on has been moved to Side of the road (traffic), but the introduction kept, and a link to the main article.

I was thinking of calling it Side of the road, but changed my mind to Side of the road (traffic). However, the redir. will still link to there, with an other-uses thingy.

Someone still has to write a better intro paragrpah for side of the road (traffic). —Last Avenue (talk) (contribs) 03:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You should have got a concensus on the talk page before doing this. What you should have done was rename "Rules of the road" to another title. Many pages link to "Rules of the road" on the subject of left/right. Those links all now need to be updated because you should have renamed the article, not moved the left/right stuff out of it. I will shortly be reverting your changes. Please do not make such drastic changes without getting the agreement of others first and without considering the implications properly. By the way, I agree that the page can be renamed to something more appropriate to the left/right issue and the non-left/right stuff moved out. NFH 09:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming this article - poll

It has been suggested several times that the title of this article be changed to something more appropriate. Please vote below, adding your comments. As well as adding "support" to a proposal, you can also add "oppose" to a particular proposal if you have comments to add concerning the proposal.

[edit] Rules of the road (leave as is)

  1. Oppose - the page is about one particular "rule of the road", but the title implies it is about many different rules of the road. NFH 13:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  1. Oppose - I have long held the view that this article has the wrong title. It clearly has little to do with the concepts of traffic law and the principles thereof. --Sf 11:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rule of the road

  1. Support - The phrase "rule of the road" is often used to describe the most fundamental rule of the road, i.e. which side to drive on. This is also the title of the only book on the subject of the left/right issue. NFH 13:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. However, an admin would have to do the move because Rule of the road is currently occupied.. —Last Avenue (talk) (contribs) 20:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support As NFH above Quiensabe 09:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Rules of the road could be a temporary redirect to Rule of the road. Then, a new page, traffic laws, would deal with the actual traffic laws, while the links to Rules of the road are being 'fixed' to go directly to rule of the road. Then, Rules of the road would redirect to Traffic laws. —Last Avenue (talk) (contribs) 21:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
This is a good idea. However, I think we should rename Rules of the road to Rule of the road and make sure that all the links on other articles update, and then turn Rules of the road into a disambiguation page (pointing to Rule of the road and Traffic laws) in order to cater for any links elsewhere on the internet. NFH 09:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, I think it's just confusing. A reader would have to start reading the page to figure out what it's about. Ewlyahoocom 20:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Side of the road (traffic)

[edit] Which side of the road

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

[edit] Left or right (traffic)

[edit] List of countries by the side of the road on which they drive

  1. And fill this article with information about traffic laws in general. Ojw 18:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Driving on the left or right

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


  1. Support for same reasons as Ewlyahoocom. --Sf 11:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support for same reasons given above by Ewlyahoocom. --Coolcaesar 20:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kerb vs. Curb

On Wikipedia itself, kerb links to the archaeological term, while curb is a disambiguation page. Which should be preferred? —Last Avenue (talk) (contribs) 21:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I've fixed it so that it links to curb (road). Accepted practice on Wikipedia is to maintain the English spelling of the original contributor. NFH 09:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments moved from article

This contribution was made by User:82.69.29.25 but was put in the article itself, not on the Talk page:

  • [riders on horse or bicycle] mount (from the roadside footpath) their horse or bicycle with the horse or bicycle facing in the direction of the traffic-stream they intend to join.

Mounting-blocks &c. are thus conveniently close to (or even part of) the buildings or roadside for mounting AND dismounting. For traffic-streams on the right of the road the mounting-blocks would have to be in the middle of the road, or the horses would have to face ONCOMING traffic (NOT a good idea!)when being mounted. In the British Isles of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries the number of regularly-ridden horses per head of human population was the world's greatest and their towns were the world's most constantly congested with traffic. It was horsemanship that dictated the "keep left" rule. Reject and forget all references to "sword-arms". Nobody out of uniform seriously wore a sword in town during the day, except as a particular badge of authority and except during the brief period when young fops swaggered about wearing a hanger as a fashion accessory.

[edit] Move it, buddy!

OK, I think everyone who is interested has added their input input. What say we move this page? With three supports each the two options are Rule of the road and Driving on the left or right. Either can be done easily (Rule of the road is a simple redirect with no history). If there are no objections I'm going to move to Driving on the left or right cause, um,... OK! OK! because I suggested it. Ewlyahoocom

Go for Driving on the left or right. It's a good title although a bit long - not what I voted for originally, but it's explicit and it makes sense. Also, Rule of the road has one 'oppose' vote (with reasons given), whereas Driving on the left or right has no objections. I'd say that Driving on the left or right is therefore very slightly preferred. Please move (rename) the page, thereby preserving the history. Rules of the road should therefore redirect to the new page, thus preserving existing links. NFH 22:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
The Oppose you mention is mine, so I didn't think it fair to count it here. Also, I added the merge from Side of the road (traffic) tag back, it seems like changes were made to that page that might need to be merged into here. I look at the history but I'm not sure I understand it: someone copy-and-pasted that text over there and removed it here; that was reverted here; but the new page never got deleted or redirected back here. I just want to make sure that that page isn't left dangling out there again. Ewlyahoocom
OK, let's wait for one more vote then, just to decide for sure. Side of the road (traffic) was just a copy of parts of Rules of the road with some subsequent edits by the same user that copied it. Many of those subsequent edits would have been reverted if they had been made in the existing Rules of the road article. I therefore don't see any point in keeping Side of the road (traffic). The page should be deleted and turned into a redirect page. NFH 09:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The point of copying the left vs. right side of the road stuff into Side of the road (traffic) was to be able to keep the actual traffic law information in Rules of the road. If Rules of the road were a redirect to the new Driving on the left or right, then the traffic law information would have to be copy-pasted out into another page like Traffic law or something similar. —Last Avenue [talk | contributions] 22:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

That's the plan. And since 95% of this article is about left or right doing it this way, instead of copying out the side of the road stuff to a new article, retains the history. Ewlyahoocom 06:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've moved it. (A month is more than long enough to wait for votes.) I've rearranged some bits but it still needs some real copyediting. I've dumped the traffic bits onto Talk:Traffic until I can get those merged in over there. Ewlyahoocom 08:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I lifted the "new" intro section from Traffic#Directionality. If it gets edited here, similar might want to be made over there, too. Ewlyahoocom 12:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] market differentiation

One of the reasons different sides of the road were choosen is to differentiate the markets. It prevented cars made in one country being sold in another. This is particularly true in Europe when considering that Britain was the first, and for a long time the best, car manufacturer. Other European countries decided to make their rules such that British manufacturers could not sell there, and thus strengthen their own manufacturing. Now, where in the article should this go? --Midnighttonight 04:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Unless you've got a cite, probably the Myths section. Ewlyahoocom 08:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree. It's definitely a myth, and in fact it's not even a popular myth. The history of driving on the left or the right in Europe had nothing to do with car manufacturers. Some countries switched in the early 20th century as a result of invasion by Germany, and others simply to conform with their neighbours. NFH 10:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Country sections

I think the country sections (which I have put into alphabetical order) should all be sub-sections within one overall countries section. Does anyone have any ideas on the name for the countries section (perhaps just "Countries")? I moved Okinawa to be a sub-section of Japan, given that it is not a separate legal entity from Japan. On the other hand, Hong Kong and Macau are distinct legal entities, despite being part of China. They still have their own currencies, ISO codes, and most importantly drive on the opposite side of the road from mainland China. In view of this, should we continue to list Hong Kong and Macau separately from mainland China? NFH 11:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

There's just so many of them it looked a little lop-sided to me but I am of no strong opinion on it. I do think the 2 "Places..." sections could be moved up in front of the country sections, if it flows better. Ewlyahoocom 14:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Rules of the road" as redirect to "Traffic"?

Hey all! I've just gone through the links from articles to Rules of the road (currently a redirect to here). Most of the links intending "driving on the left/right" had used piped links to display text of some form of "driving on the left/right" or "right/left hand drive/traffic". The ones that display "rules of the road" in the article often usually mean traffic laws and rules. I've added a redirect The rule of the road to handle one case where it seemed appropriate[1]. I've cleaned up the piped links, given all the redirects sometimes just by deleting the piping[2] [3]. Now I'd also like to redirect Rules of the road to traffic (which is where traffic law redirects). What do you think? Ewlyahoocom 19:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Thryduulf 12:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Before you redirect Rules of the road, you'll need to edit many of the pages listed at Special:Whatlinkshere/Rules_of_the_road and redirect them to the new article. You'll need to examine each article one by one to see why it points to Rules of the road. Also, you need to think about how we cater for links on external web sites that point to Rules of the road. Changing this redirect is not so simple as there are other implications that need to be considered. Please don't change the redirect yet. We may need some kind of disambiguation page for the time being. NFH 20:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Did you happen to read my message above, the one that starts Hey all! I've just gone through the links from articles to Rules of the road...? Cause that's exactly what I have done. The only links left to Rules of the road intend the traffic law meaning. Ewlyahoocom 07:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, silly me. I did read that, but then I saw a whole load of articles at Special:Whatlinkshere/Rules_of_the_road relevant to the left/right issue, so I got the impression that they hadn't been changed. I now see what you mean - some of the references in those article are about traffic laws and some are about the left/right issue. Thanks for all the good work. NFH 19:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm redirecting... done. Ewlyahoocom 23:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Circle direction?

Is there any source for this, because I've never heard that most people draw their circles any particular direction? --Ibagli 03:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"Traffic on roundabouts and other giratory systems flows in a counter-clockwise direction, which is more natural to most people, who draw circles counter-clockwise."

I write the letter 'O' anti-clockwise, but I'm not sure what the relevance is of this to driving. On the other hand, I'm used to seeing clocks go clockwise, and I'm not sure what the relevance of that is either. Perhaps the above statement should be removed. NFH 07:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Napoleon

The idea that Napoleon changed the rule of the road in Europe comes up over and over again in writing about the rule of the road. But it has never been backed up with historical research and it appears likely to be a myth. Peter Kincaid concludes so in his book (pp. 14, 99-100). Unless anyone can come up with eyewitness sources for the Napoleon story I would like to remove it from this article, except for a brief mention that it is a common myth. I'll check back on this page shortly to see if there are any objections. Also, I have also just made available on the net my (unpublished) MA qualifying paper from several years ago on the reasons for 20th-century changes in the rule of the road (http://www.ianwatson.org/rule_of_the_road.pdf). Perhaps some people might find it useful. -- Ian Watson, 23 March 2006

-- I just removed all the Napoleon references (3 July 2006)

[edit] Circle direction

The comment above took the words from my mouth, if no-one's able to provide a source for the ascertation that "most people draw a circle anti-clockwise" then I believe it should be removed. I certainly don't draw circles anti-clockwise and as a primary teacher have seen many circles drawn, never noticing a particular preponederance for one way or the other. --Brideshead 19:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Theodore Blau's 'Torque Test' study, 1974, studied and found that most right-handed people drew their circles counter-clockwise. The tendency was still apparent, though not as strong, for left-handed people to draw their circles clockwise. —Last Avenue [talk | contributions] 01:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Great, perhaps you can reference this study in the article, clear up any confusion? --Brideshead 17:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Railways

Railways in the United Kingdom and France 'drive' on the left (with the obvious exception of single track routes). Up until a few years ago the station at Bicester in the UK was notable as being operated 'the wrong way round'. In the United States trains drive on the right. The situation is complicate by four track lines where two tracks will run each way, often alternating (fast up, fast down, slow up, slow down). Also some lines will be signalled to operate bidirectionally. User:Tom walker 19:48 GMT 24/3/2006.

Thanks for your contribution. There's loads about this at [4]. Two Tube stations I sometimes use have trains "driving on the right" - Bank and London Bridge on the Nothern Line. I don't think we should have a large section in this article devoted to railways, although a small mention might be useful, just to compare with driving. NFH 20:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural Revolution and driving on the left

However, during the Cultural Revolution, cars were made to drive on the left for political reasons (Communism is leftist). This did not last for long, and motorists have since reverted back to driving on the right.

I noticed this has been removed, although variants of this have been here for ages. Is this true or not? I've asked people from China living during the Cultural Revolution, and most remember driving on the right. —Last Avenue [talk | contributions] 05:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I just searched with Google but could not find reliable sources. It seems that the traffic lights were redefined bu inversing what red and green lights would mean while it is not clearly known whether Red China switched to driving on the left during the Cultural Revolution.--Jusjih 07:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New historic 1858 map

Map of world driving directions before Finland's change in 1858     drove on right     drove on left     drove on both
Map of world driving directions before Finland's change in 1858
     drove on right     drove on left     drove on both

UKPhoenix79, thanks for adding the new map, which I think is a good idea in principle. However, there remain a number of problems with it:

  • You have simply taken the present-day map and worked backwards. How do you know, for example, that South-West Africa (present day Namibia drove on the left in 1858? For each country that you show in red or blue, you need to be sure that it is correct for 1858.
  • You have used present-day borders between countries, which doesn't make sense for a 1858 map. You need to show 1858 borders.
  • You show all of Canada as driving on both sides. This was not the case. There are clear boundaries between provinces that drove on the left and the right, which you can find on many maps.
  • You show all of Yemen as driving on both sides. Only South Yemen drove on the left.
  • You show nearly all of China as driving on both sides in 1858. Why?
  • You show Hainan island (famous more recently for the US spy plane incident) as driving on the right in 1858. How do you know this?

I am removing the map from the article until these problems are fixed. Some of the problems, particularly the 1858 national borders and Canadian province boundaries, require quite a bit of work, which I don't have the time to do myself. If you want to add this map, then it needs to be as accurate as possible from the moment it is added. You can't simply add a factually incorrect map and then put the onus on other people to spend considerable time researching and fixing it. NFH 09:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with you on principle and frankly I would like to use a world map from 1858 but there is very little information on historic countries that have changes on this wiki article. For instance the Austria-Hungarian Empire. Did driving on the left only occur in present day Austria and Hungry or did it include the rest of the empire even all of the Baltic countries? Here are some other replies to your points
  • Since all the information collected on this subject is about modern day countries I had to use a modern map.
  • Canada and Modern Yemen did have distinct driving directions depending on where you were living so as a country it was easier to state both. Italy for instance could have the direction change in distinct parts of the country (city or rural) it was a patchwork of many kingdoms back then (but consolidating). So it was better to show one color instead of creating a tapestry. Maybe changing the wording to mixed would be better.
  • China is listed as both since depending on what part of china you drove you would drive in a different direction.
  • This article was the main source of information so unless something was stated as being changed the colors remained the same.
  • Both Namibia and Hainan island were oversights that should be corrected.
I've noticed that in wikipedia many such maps get improved upon by many people and I would only hope that this would be such a case. Would it be better to just show a map of countries that have changed directions? That way it would convey the same info without worrying about the historic border issues and it would be easy enough to modify. Talk to you later. -- UKPhoenix79 11:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
As I said before, I do think the historic map is a good idea. However, if you want to make life easier for yourself, then go for a 1919 map. That year seems to be the peak of countries driving on the left, just after many switched from right to left, and just before many others switched from left to right. National borders will be easier to get right for 1919 than for 1858 too. See pages 196 and 197 of Rule of the Road by Peter Kincaid, which shows a 1919 map. I'm guessing that Peter Kincaid chose 1919 for the same reasons I've given. Send me an e-mail privately if you want some help with this. By the way, I don't know which side Namibia drove on in 1858 either. All I know is that it was colonised by Germany in 1884, but switched from right to left in 1915 just after South Africa invaded. If you go for an 1858 map, you'll encounter all kinds of unknown factors such as this, whereas 1919 is much safer. NFH 12:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
If you want to make an 1858 map, Image:BlankMap-World-1861.png might help - its pretty close.. also for 1919, you could use Image:BlankMap-World-1921.png --Astrokey44 10:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Map of the world showing the driving directions for all countries and any changes that have occurred in the past starting with Finland's change in 1858     drives on right     drove on left, now drives on right     drives on left     drove on right, now drives on left     different rules of the road, now drives on right
Map of the world showing the driving directions for all countries and any changes that have occurred in the past starting with Finland's change in 1858
     drives on right     drove on left, now drives on right     drives on left     drove on right, now drives on left     different rules of the road, now drives on right

Well I have updated it to show the changes of countries over the past to its modern outcome. It conveys more info than the previous version and I think it is better for it. I have little time at the moment to do anythning extensive so I will have to get back to you on the other preposal. For the moment I will re-insert this into the article. Remove or move it to a better section if you believe it is still wrong. -- UKPhoenix79 04:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice map, although I have my doubts about any Spanish-speaking country in the Americas ever driving on the left. I am quite sure that East Timor drove on the right before the Indonesian invasion, even if the change to driving on the left took place earlier than the 'integration' into Indonesia in July 1976. I have seen pictures and film footage of pre-invasion Dili, and someone who lived in what was then Portuguese Timor confirmed that traffic was on the right. Quiensabe 23:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected about Argentina and Panama, though can't find anything for Paraguay. Quiensabe 19:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't find anything about Paraguay either, but Uruguay switched from left to right just 12 weeks after Argentina. NFH 19:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Re Uruguay, to the article itself I've added a link to movie footage showing left-hand traffic in Uruguay in 1930. The narration is in Spanish. Also go to <http://www.montevideo.gub.uy/fotografia/>, click on "Montevideo antiguo" and browse through the photos. I have found some equally old photos of Buenos Aires and rural Argentina showing left-hand traffic. Don't have the URL right now; might add it later if I can re-find the photos. Antipodean Contributor 00:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Please, once again, 1/6 part of the World is displayed incorrectly! Check the boundaries of the RUSSIAN EMPIRE. And also be informed there were no country called "ukrainia" in those times, and there were no boundaries accordingly. Or just use the appropiate map. Thanks. Alexander, Russia.

[edit] Mallorca

It's probably a joke, but I've heard that on Mallorca you don't drive on the left or the right side of the road, but on the shady side of the road to stay out of the sun. // Liftarn

You might be referring to Malta, where a local song said that that they drive in the shade.Quiensabe 15:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

This article needs cleanup. It does not need to have links to a certain country everytime it is mentioned. Axeman89 00:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that this justifies the cleanup tag. Although Wikipedia policy is to link only in the first instance of a particular word, this doesn't make the article difficult to read. NFH 06:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I would have to agree and since many of the excessive links has been removed I have also removed the cleanup tag! -- UKPhoenix79 07:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Referencing

This article is jam packed full of dodgy statements of provenance unknown. It's clear from reading this article that people just add stuff as and when they feel like it, without thinking to cite sources. Apart from one book about the rules of the road, which is just shoved in at the bottom without inline citations giving page references etc, the sources that are given are amateurish websites, and it's not clear where these have been used and when the authors have simply added in what they believe to be true (or perhaps not, as it would be easy to hide deliberately false information in a mess like this). It has been consistently stated by Jimbo Wales that it's better to remove unsourced information than slap a "citation needed" tag on it [5] [6] so really this article has been let off lightly, for now. If 'facts' are to be kept, they need to be sourced, so anyone wanting to take on this task would do well to read the policies on verifiability and citing sources. 86.136.0.145 22:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That's fine but there must have been nearly 200 tags. --Guinnog 22:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
You don't need to put 10 tags in a paragraph and in the middle of sentences. One at the end should do. Many of the citations in the 'myths' section would be from the book The Rule of the Road, but I have no clue which page or chapter they are on. Perhaps someone with access to it could fill it in? —Last Avenue [talk | contributions] 04:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
If you read through some of the many tags you've inserted, many of them are on direct quotations, for example "The General Highways Act of 1773,[citation needed] contained a recommendation that horse traffic should remain on the left and this was enshrined in the Highways Bill in 1835.[citation needed]". In this case the names of two acts of parliament are quoted. What more do you want? And then we get to statements like "Most French roundabouts now have give-way signs for traffic entering the roundabout,[citation needed]". Can't you accept that the author may live or have lived in France and is very familiar with French roads? And then "As a result of European Union legislation ensuring the free movement of goods, many British consumers exercise their right to buy RHD cars from car dealers in any other EU country, where they are often cheaper, despite originating from the same factories as UK-sourced cars.[citation needed]". This is such a well known practice in the UK, that it doesn't need a reference. If you believe that every sentence requires a reference, you're very much mistaken. It would just fill up the article with unnecessary references that would be so numerous as to spoil the reader's enjoyment of the article. NFH 06:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
For the acts of Parliament, why not mention the section of the act that alledgedly sets these rules? Mentioning the specific act is certainly better than just saying there is a law, but it's still vaguer than it should be. "Can't you accept that the author may live or have lived in France and is very familiar with French roads?" Sorry this is not how Wikipedia works. We are not a repository of people's personal observations or what they consider to be common knowledge. If a fact is included, it needs to be backed up with a reliable, published source. If you cared about making Wikipedia a reliable resource you would prefer to have information missing than information that may well be false (whether it is or it isn't, the reader has no way of knowing if a source is not cited). You may think this is my personal perspective on referencing, but in fact it is Wikipedia policy. From the common knowlege page: "Citing sources when your edit is challenged by another editor is Wikipedia policy, and any unsourced edits may be removed." Jimmy Wales goes further than my position, see this email. All I've done is tag unsourced facts as needing a reference, really I'd be well within my rights to remove them. Here is the verifiability policy, which I recommend reading:
1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
The same goes for the supposedly well-known practice in the UK that you claim is so well-known it doesn't need a reference. If everyone knows it already, why bother to include it in the article? You may consider the citation needed templates to be overkill, but it's right to notify the reader which parts of the article are without backing, so I've reinstated them. Readers' enjoyment of the article would certainly not be spoiled by small inconspicuous superscript numbers which allow them to be more confident that what they are reading isn't someone's amateurish essay, but a professional-quality encyclopaedia article adhering to scholarly standards. Terminal emulator 11:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
It is perfectly acceptable Wikipedia policy to cite references (particularly those of books) in a section at the end of an article, which is what has already been done in this article. See WP:Citing_sources#Complete_citations_in_a_.22References.22_section. We certainly do not need a citation at the end of every sentence. Judging from the low number of posts on your previous anonymous IP address and your new user ID, you are relatively new to Wikipedia. Please learn how to use Wikipedia before trying to change the way we do things here. You are irritating a lot of established contributors with your persistent insertion of a ridiculous number of gripe tags and your misinterpretation of established Wikipedia policy. Any further bad faith contributions by you will be reverted and may result in you being blocked. You are welcome to dispute any statement in the article using this Talk page. If you believe any statement to be incorrect or contrary to the cited reference sources, please tell us specifically which one(s). Before doing so, you may like to obtain a copy of Rules of the Road by Peter Kincaid, which is probably the most authoritative and comprehensive source of reference on this topic. NFH 17:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Please don't threaten me with blocks, I'm quite familiar with the blocking policy, as I am with the policies on verifiability and citing sources. It's all there for anyone to read, and it appears that I have made more effort to do so than you. Your last two sentences are clear evidence of this, where you attempt to put the onus on me to prove negatives, and cite sources in order to get unreferenced information removed. Please read again all the policies and statements I referred to in my last post and you'll see that this is not how things work. My edits are being made entirely in good faith and you have no justification in reverting them. You appear to regard this article as your personal fiefdom, reverting anyone who challenges its accuracy and adherence to scholarly standards. I'm trying to make it clear to readers where a 'fact' is without a source so that they don't take as gospel truth information added by people who don't know what they're talking about. This article is so full of vague nonsense it's ridiculous. The comment below this section points out a discrepancy between this article and Conestoga wagon. The passage quoted contains such phrases as "there is a common story" and "this story is likely apocryphal", all without giving any backup for such assertions. The other article isn't referenced either, so which is the reader to believe? Do you see the problem here? You may be wondering why I'm picking on this article when Wikipedia is awash with unsourced rubbish not worthy of an encyclopaedia. The reason relates to your own assertions about shoving in book titles at the bottom being an acceptable way of providing references. If I go and write a short article based entirely on the information contained within a single published source, it would be sufficient to simply name that source as a reference for the whole article. This article however purports to use a number of sources in different places, which for all I know may contradict each other, and as you will see from its history, is continually expanded and amended by a vast number of anonymous editors who add 'facts' piecemeal and without sources. It is impossible to tell what's from the book, what's from someone's amateurish website, and what's from cloud cuckoo land. That's why we have footnotes. If you cared about making this article reliable you would understand the need to reference it in this way. I've reverted again, incorporating edits made in the mean time, and with the addition of a factual dispute tag for the Conestoga wagon section, the dispute being detailed by GagHalfrunt below. All this is in clear accordance with Wikipedia policy. Terminal emulator 23:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
You have inserted fact tags on sentences that are already supported by the cited reference sources. Please check the quoted sources before inserting fact tags. NFH 06:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Such confusion would be avoided if specific facts were linked to specific sources. This is what I have been trying to argue all along. I see you have removed all but one of the citation needed tags again. Are you seriously suggesting that every one of those 'facts' is taken from the sources mentioned at the bottom of the article? It is quite clear from the history that people add bits and pieces in without regard to referencing. Your record of blindly reverting my tagging of the article doesn't address the problem, but rather than argue pointlessly with someone who isn't willing to respect policy, I have attempted to make a constructive attempt to list all the questionable items (see below) in the hope that they can all either be sourced or removed. Terminal emulator 15:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United States - Conestoga wagons

The section on the United States says:

Since colonial times, traffic in the United States has always been on the right-hand side, which was greatly influenced by France, a "founder" of the drive-on-the-right rule, which indirectly supported American Independence from British colonial rule. There is a common story that this may be due to the construction of Conestoga wagons, which had a high driver's seat on the left side. However, the Conestoga wagon does not date all the way back to the colonial period so this story is likely apocryphal.

However, the Conestoga wagon entry states that "the first Conestoga Wagons appeared in Pennsylvania around 1725", suggesting that they do indeed "date all the way back to the colonial period". GagHalfrunt 20:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] top image tooltip

The top image's tooltip doesn't work... it should say red and blue instead of those boxes. I'd fix it, but I don't know how. -Grick(talk to me!) 07:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The tooltip is automatically generated as the caption, so it is not (afaik) possible to show a tooltip different to the caption. In this case having the red and blue blocks on the caption outway the less than ideal tooltip imho. Thryduulf 09:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statements lacking sources or with unclear sources

To help resolve the dispute about referencing (see above), there follows a list of statements requiring direct inline citation. I am hopeful that many of these can be linked to the sources given at the bottom of the article, and can therefore be footnoted in the article and removed from the list. Those that can't will have to be removed from the article. Please feel free to name the source and strikethrough the items on the list if you can find sources. Terminal emulator 15:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • "In most early motor vehicles the driving seat was in the middle."
  • "Later some carmakers chose to have it nearest the centre of the road to help drivers look out for oncoming traffic, whilst others chose to put the seat on the other side so that the drivers could avoid damaging their vehicles on walls, hedges, roadside gutters and other obstacles."
  • "The advantages of driving on one side or the other typically concern conformity and uniformity rather than practical or natural benefits."
  • "There are historical exceptions such as postilion riders in France, but such historical advantages do not apply to modern road vehicles."
  • "There is some evidence of cart tracks from a quarry in Blunsdon Ridge near Swindon, England, which suggests that local traffic was on the left, but no definitive references to a convention of driving on either the left or the right in the ancient world have so far come to light."
  • "the gear shift and other dashboard controls [require] fine motor skills" and this is an advantage of driving on the right.
  • "the steering wheel, ... requires larger, less fine movements"
  • "Some prototype race cars, even in countries that drive on the left, are usually configured with the gear shift on the right"
  • "For bicycle and motorcycle riders, most arm signals are done with the left arm"
  • "This is especially important since handlebars have a steering ratio of 1°:1°, unlike a car, which is often closer to 10°:1° (10 degrees turning on the steering wheel results in a 1 degree turn of the wheels)."
  • "It is easier to go in reverse when driving on the right. This is due to the body's natural torque of using the opposing left foot and right arm for support that cannot be used when driving on the left since the right foot is on the gas or brake pedal."
    • I think the above statement is easily verifiable by anyone getting inside a car and testing it out. I have a problem with the edit since I think it is original contenet and would be of interest to users of the site. However, under current rules it will just be hidden forever.
  • "Driving on the left avoids the difficult combination of steering with the left hand and changing gear with the right hand and at the same time viewing the oncoming traffic with the left eye."
  • There is a wider issue of contradiction here between the lists of advantages of driving on each side. Apparently the hand (usually the right hand) with fine motor skills is best devoted to gear changes and dashboard controls (an advantage of driving on the right) but below we are told that an advantage of driving on the left is that "the less coordinated hand is used for changing gear and operating dashboard controls, leaving the more coordinated right hand free to steer." Both assertions are likely to be the uninformed personal opinion of some editor.
  • "It is more common to be right-eye dominant."
    • It's supposed to be the responsibility of editors wishing to include material to find references for it, but I've done your work for you here. From ocular dominance, the following references:
    • Chaurasia BD, Mathur BB. "Eyedness." Acta Anat (Basel). 1976;96(2):301-5.PMID 970109.
    • Reiss MR. "Ocular dominance: some family data." Laterality. 1997;2(1):7-16. PMID 15513049.
    • Ehrenstein WH, Arnold-Schulz-Gahmen BE, Jaschinski W. "Eye preference within the context of binocular functions." Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2005 Sep;243(9):926-32. Epub 2005 Apr 19. PMID 15838666.
  • Where are the studies demonstrating that ocular dominance has some bearing on ability to drive, depending on which side of the road you have to drive on? The section about overtaking again may well be some editor's original research.
  • "When reversing and looking over one's shoulder, the driver is able to keep the more coordinated right hand on the steering wheel in a right hand drive car. This also enables easier viewing through the rear window." Again we see this idea that the more coordinated hand is best for steering, which contradicts an earlier statement.
  • "When driving on the left, right-handed people mount bicycles from the kerb, who find it easier to put their right leg over the bicycle."
  • "Research in 1969 by J.J. Leeming showed that countries that drove on the left had a lower accident rate than countries that drove on the right" This is absolutely crucial to the article. Here we have a name at least, but no bibliographic reference. How did Leeming conduct his research? What are the details of the study? Readers who want to know more need to be able to find this research which purports to demonstrate such an important fact.
  • "Leeming's research is sharply criticized in Peter Kincaid's book on the rule of the road." On what grounds? Surely we need to know why Leeming is not to be trusted. What does Kincaid have to say exactly, apart from this vague notion of sharp criticism.
  • "Some countries that have switched to driving on the right (for example Sweden) saw their long term accident rates increase by more than any increase in traffic volumes." In the Sweden section further down we are told fatal accidents dropped sharply at first, and returned to their original position after two years. Where are the sources for all this?
  • "It has been suggested, but not proven, that this is partly because most people are right-eyed, and are therefore better able to judge the position of oncoming traffic when they see it on their right." Back to the ocular dominance issue. Who suggested this provides an advantage?
  • "Approximately one quarter to one third of the world's traffic goes on the left-hand side of the road." In the introduction there is a link some convincing adding up of figures which tells us what proportion of road miles and population drive on each side. Because of the vast disparities between miles driven per person per year in each in the different countries of the world, it does not necessarily follow from this that a quarter to a third of traffic drives on the left. This is a different matter all together, is probably much harder to calculate, and requires a different source.
  • "Some claim that this practice arose from the prevalence of right-handedness, although such prevalence occurs in virtually all populations, regardless of which side of the road is used." Who claims this? What about the counter-claim that right-handedness is prevalent in "virtually all populations"? Are there some where it isn't? Where's the research?
  • "In any case, the need to be ready for self-defence on rural roads inclined most horse-riders to keep to their left when encountering oncoming wayfarers, so as to be able to deploy a sword or other hand-weapon more swiftly and effectively should the need arise." This sounds dubious. How often did people really have to whip out a sword at a second's notice when passing a hostile traveller? Are there any primary sources exhorting travelers of yore to keep left for safety reasons, or is this someone's recent speculation?
  • "Also, those on foot and in charge of horse-drawn vehicles would more usually hold the animals' heads with their right hand, and thus walk along the left hand side of the road." They could conceivably go along the right, and walk in the middle.
  • "The first legal reference in Britain to an order for traffic to remain on the left occurred in 1756 with regard to London Bridge."
  • "The British author C. Northcote Parkinson has presented what he calls "proof" that the British way of driving (on the left side of the road) is the natural one." What proof? Where did he present it? This lone sentence is virtually useless.
  • "It is commonly asserted that left-hand traffic is a singularly British custom" Who asserts this, when driving on the left occurs over much of the world, including Japan which was never a British colony?
  • "Prior to World War I, countries observing the left-hand rule included parts of Canada, Russia, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, parts of Austria, Sweden, Iceland, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, parts of Brazil, parts of Chile, parts of Italy, China, the Philippines, and Burma. Russia changed near the end of the Tsarist period, Italy when Mussolini came to power, Austria and Czechoslovakia when Hitler annexed them, the Latin American countries by 1945, the Philippines and China in 1946 (leaving Hong Kong and Macau isolated), and Burma/Myanmar in the 1970s on the advice of a soothsayer." All these are straightforward facts which, if true, should be easy to source. Did they come from the Kincaid book? The source should be clearly stated.
  • "One frequently hears the story that Napoleon changed the rule of the road in the countries he conquered from keep-left to keep-right." Does one really?
  • "The justifications mentioned are usually symbolic, such as that Napoleon himself was left- (or right-) handed, or that Britain, Napoleon's enemy, kept left."
  • "This story has never been shown to have a factual basis and it appears to be a legend." Anyone researched the matter in e.g., a book, and concluded that it's a legend?
  • "Some countries have changed the side of the road on which their motorists drive in order to increase the safety of cross-border traffic." Certainly countries have changed sides, but have their governments cited this as a reason?
  • Everything in the "Foreign occupation and military transit" section should be easy to source, if true.
  • "For safety reasons (and in some cases political or economic reasons), some countries have banned the sale or import of vehicles with the steering wheel on the 'wrong' side." So we have, safety, political and economic. Who says all these have been reasons? Everything in the vehicles section concerns simple matters of law, apart from assertions about how people get round the rules, whether they are enforced etc. It all needs sourcing.
  • "In France for instance, trains drive on the left, while cars go on the right."
  • "Initially, most steam engines had RHD, with the engineer sitting on the right, and the conductor sitting on the left."
  • "This was customary in the UK and it spread to the USA and elsewhere in the world."
  • "RHD was never converted to LHD even if the trains switched to right-hand running."
  • "RHD remains the customary way for operating trains, with the engineer/driver on the right and conductor/assistant, sitting on the left side of the cab."
  • "Ironically, some railways, particularly, the London Underground, switched to LHD with left-hand running."
  • "In countries with trains keeping to the right it is often said that RHD is safer" Who says? Examples of people making this assertion?
  • Boats section needs sourcing. It doesn't necessarily follow that having the steer board on the right would make you pass on the right.
  • "In the United Kingdom, priority is always indicated by signs or road markings, in that every junction not governed by traffic lights or a roundabout has a concept of a major road and minor road."
    • Removed as nonsense. There are very many junctions without signs or markings, whether on small rural roads or streets in housing estates. In these cases, traffic is so light that priority can be a free-for-all without being dangerous.
    • NFH was being mildly disingenuous here when he said he was reinstating this deleted statement. If you look at the diff between the edit before mine and his revision, you'll see that he introduced the word "almost" before "every junction". Still, the idea that "priority is always indicated by signs or road markings" is obviously false as anyone who has driven on minor rural roads in the UK will know (and I mean rural, not commuter belt). So, this inaccurate information is back in the article. It's promising to see a source being cited for this (though I have to wonder whether the source is wrong or being misrepresented), but the idea of footnoting still doesn't seem to have been grasped, with a page reference given only in the edit summary. The whole point of footnoting is to make it clear to the reader where a piece of information comes from the source named at the bottom, so as to distinguish it from the large amount of rubbish in this article which does not come from any published source. Terminal emulator 14:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I learnt to drive on rural roads (single track roads etc) and still drive on them, and I have never seen a junction between two public roads in the UK where priority is not marked by road markings. I accept that there will be some rare exceptions to this, which is why I inserted "almost". Perhaps you could find some examples that are covered by Google Earth (although this may of course be difficult in rural areas). NFH 08:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • "In most of Continental Europe, the default priority is to give way to the right"
  • "this default is overridden by signs or road markings on all but very minor roads."
  • "In France, until the 1980s, the "priorité à droite" (give way to the right) rule was employed at most roundabouts, in that traffic already on the roundabout had to give way to traffic entering the roundabout."
  • "Most French roundabouts now have give-way signs for traffic entering the roundabout"
  • "the Place de l'Étoile ... is so chaotic that French insurance companies deem any accident on the roundabout to be equal liability."
  • "British and Irish drivers, who are accustomed to having right of way by default unless they are specifically told to give way, are often more confused by the default give-way-to-the-right rule used on minor roads in nearby Continental Europe than they are by switching sides of the road."
  • Lanes section is full of generalisations. Are these things universal?
  • "For many decades Australia inflicted a "give way to the right" rule on its motorists" Inflicted is also POV.
  • "As traffic densities and speeds increased the collision rate became too great" Where are the figures? Who said the priority system was the cause?
  • "the rule was changed in the early 1980s, with turning movements made much safer by various combinations of line marking, signposting and the introduction of the "T rule"."
  • "the old rule can still apply in cases such as at unmarked rural crossroads"
  • "a vehicle turning left (onto another road usually of similar hierarchy) can completely stop all traffic in the lane to its left while giving way to traffic on its right and waiting, however long, for a gap to move into."
  • "most passenger cars [in the Caribbean] are LHD, being imported from the United States."
  • "Only government cars and those imported from Asia are RHD"
  • "The U.S. Virgin Islands are particularly known for having a high accident rate caused by American tourists from the mainland who are unfamiliar with driving on the left in their rental cars - the confusion from which is obviously compounded by using a LHD vehicle."
  • "cars in the southern provinces such as Guangdong driving on the left, probably a result of their proximity to the British crown colony of Hong Kong and the Portuguese enclave of Macau." Let's sort out the terminology here as well - Macau gets called an enclave here and an exclave later on.
  • "After 1946, China followed the United States, by changing to driving on the right, due to political reasons that the United States helped China to fight against Japanese occupation during World War II and American cars (mostly LHD) were already popular in China."
  • "During the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976), Red Guards in some cities considered that to drive on the right side of road was to take the "rightist's route/policy", and they were said to have ordered vehicles to drive on the left side."
  • "Some also attempted to reverse the traditional meaning of traffic signals by having the red light mean "go" and the green light "stop"."
  • "These two changes caused a great deal of confusion and resistance so both were abolished within several months."
  • "[in Gibraltar] some public buses until recently were RHD, with a special door allowing passengers to enter on the right hand side"
  • "most passenger cars are LHD, as in Spain, with the exception of second-hand cars brought in from the UK and Japan and some vehicles used by the British forces."
  • "As a result of the construction of the Pan-American Highway, four mainland American countries switched to driving on the right between 1943 and 1961, the last of which was Belize."
  • "Both Guyana and Suriname are separated from their neighbours by large rivers, over which no road bridges have yet been built."
  • "The inland south of both countries is sparsely populated with very few roads and hence no border crossings."
  • "Unlike road bridges between other countries that drive on opposite sides of the road, the changeover system will unusually be in the country that drives on the left, i.e. Guyana, where one lane will pass under the other on the bridge's access road."
  • "Once opened, the Takutu Bridge will be the Americas' only border crossing where traffic changes sides of the road."
  • "In Suriname most of the privately owned buses are imported from Japan, since they're already made of conform to driving on the left."
  • "Most state-owned buses, however, are from the US and often the placement of the exits has to be adjusted."
  • "Macau, a former Portuguese exclave, follows Hong Kong in driving on the left because most of the RHD cars in Macau are imported through Hong Kong."
  • "Most vehicles are RHD and even suppliers for the People's Liberation Army have specially made RHD version vehicles for the garrison to drive in Hong Kong and Macau."
  • "LHD exceptions include some buses providing services to and from the mainland."
  • "Vehicles registered in Hong Kong and Macau are required to have a special number plate issued by the authorities in Guangdong province to drive legally on the mainland."
  • "Numerous buses were also stuck in traffic jams [on Iceland's changeover day]."
  • "Drivers on Indian roads tend to disregard road safety in general and one could find the overtaking being done from any side which is relatively free of traffic."
  • "This is further exaggerated by the fact that most of the drivers tend to stay in the middle of the road."
  • "In Italy the practice of traffic driving on the right first began in the late 1890s, but it was not until the mid 1920s that it became standard throughout the country."
  • "There was a long period when traffic in the countryside drove on the right while major cities continued to drive on the left."
  • "Rome, for example, did not change from left to right until 20 October 1924."
  • "Cars had remained right-hand drive (RHD) until this time."
  • "Lancia did not produce LHD cars until as late as the early 1960s, and stopped making RHD cars altogether in 1994."
True.
  • "Lancia is expected to start manufacturing RHD cars again in 2008."
  • "An informal practice of left-side passage dates at least to the Edo period, when samurai are said to have passed each other to the left in order to avoid knocking swords with each other (as swords were always worn to the left side)." This phrasing ("samurai are said to have...") is all over Wikipedia. This is no better than "legend has it that..." and "some believe..." and other such amateurish weasel words.
  • "The change [in Okinawa] took place at 06:00 on 30 July 1978."
  • Whole paragraph up to "Many tollbooths in Japan have a special lane for LHD vehicles."
  • "As a former British colony, cars in Myanmar (formerly Burma) drove on the left side until 1970, when the military administration of Ne Win decreed that traffic would drive on the right side of the road."
  • "It is alleged" (by whom?) "that this was because Ne Win had been advised by his soothsayer, who had said 'move to the right'," (if that's a quote where's the source) "although this was in fact" (who says?) "a reference to economic policy."
  • "In spite of the change, most passenger cars in the country today are RHD, being second-hand vehicles imported from Japan, Thailand, and Singapore."
  • "government limousines, imported from China, are LHD."
  • "Virtually all vehicles are driven with a passenger in place to watch the oncoming traffic and inform the driver as to whether it is safe to overtake or not, as the driver cannot see this from his RHD position." It's certainly more difficult to drive a car on the other side of the road from its intended use, but as this article makes clear, this happens around the world, so is this practice near universal in Burma, but not elsewhere?
  • "Even though New Zealand drives on the left, drivers must give way to traffic coming from their right at intersections."
  • "Although Russia drives on the right, cheaper grey import cars from Japan are more popular than LHD cars of the same class."
  • "Russia is estimated to have more than 1.5 million RHD vehicles on its roads." That's a figure, not a general statement, so must have had a definite source unless it was plucked from the air.
  • "In the far eastern regions, such as Vladivostok or Khabarovsk, RHD vehicles make up to 90% of the total." As above.
  • "This includes not only private cars, but also police cars, ambulances, and many other municipal and governmental vehicles."
  • "drivers in those regions have made multiple proposals about switching the sides of the road."
  • "they were denied by Russian government."
  • "During spring 2005, the rumour that RHD vehicles would be completely banned from the roads drove thousands of protestors to the streets everywhere in the country."
  • "On 4 July 2005 Russian minister of industry and energy Viktor Khristenko announced that RHD vehicles would be allowed on the roads but would have to conform to all Russian traffic safety requirements." Didn't they have to already?
  • "One argument for [Sweden driving on the left with left-hand drive cars] was that it was necessary to keep an eye on the edge of the road, something that was important on the narrow roads in use at the time."
  • "In 1955 a referendum was held on the issue, resulting in an 82.9%-to-15.5% vote" What's the source of these results? Referendums are often notable enough for articles as well, so maybe whoever put this in could create one.
See Dagen H article.
  • "Since Swedish cars were LHD, experts had suggested that changing to driving on the right would be safer, because drivers would have a better view of the road ahead." Which experts?
  • "fatal car-to-car and car-to-pedestrian accidents dropped sharply as a result. However, the accident rate rose back to its original position within two years." Earlier on in the article there are some vague statements about accident rates going up in Sweden and this being due to right eye dominance.
  • "some cars [in Finland], especially the cars of the Post Office (Suomen Posti) have the steering wheel on the right side."
  • "many Post Office cars & vans in different countries, including the United States have the steering wheel on the right hand side. This is so the van can easily drive up next to the post office boxes and get out without walking onto the street."
  • Points 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the United Kingdom section. The Savoy Court article has pictures which verify point 3.
I added point 7. I'm not sure how I'd be able to verify that, it's more of an observation. Of course Scotland has them outside airports and ports, but they also have them on roads. --Bearbear 09:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I very recently crossed the border on the A74(M) and there are no signs, large or otherwise. There are signs on the A68 crossing, but I think that is because there is a tourist layby at Carter Bar; the fact it is near the border is, I think, just coincidence. I don't recall seeing any signs on the A1 or the A697 either. Such signs do exist, but I think the reference to the border is misleading. --Guinnog 13:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I suppose it could be removed as there are signs around the country on leaving motorways displaying the same --Bearbear 16:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • "American rules of the road sometimes permit overtaking on the right side (multi-lane highways, one-way streets, or when overtaking other vehicles preparing to turn left). The laws vary from state to state."
Many of these questions are answered by Rule of the Road by Peter Kincaid, which is a cited source of reference. Please check the available sources first before wasting everyone's time with this. NFH 18:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Not sure how I'm wasting everyone's time when you say yourself below that the article contains sections that are merely opinion with no verifiable sources. As I've explained until I'm blue in the face, the editing pattern found in this article (lots of people coming along and adding stuff) means that it's impossible for the reader to know what comes from the book and what is nonsense. Furthermore, as I've also made clear, policy states that the onus is on those who wish to include information to source it. It's your responsibility to check the available sources. I've made it very easy for you by producing a huge list of unreferenced statements, which you only have to match up to the sources. If you don't do this, soon I will have to start removing them. Policy makes it clear that unsourced information can be removed by any editor. I'm amazed at the effort it takes to get an article's authors to reference it. It's quite clear that large numbers of Wikipedians have no regard for scholarly standards and have no right to be writing encyclopaedia articles. Terminal emulator 14:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I think Cite your sources gives editors permission to delete unsourced statements, but it doesn't make it mandatory: a little discretion is advisable. WP:CITE#Text that is, or is likely to be, disputed says:
If the disputed text is harmless, and you simply think a citation is appropriate, place {{fact}} after the text.
It also advises copying deleted portions to the Talk: page, which you've done; thanks for that. I think it would be nice for whoever has access to the Peter Kincaid book to add inline sources rather than a generic reference at the end. Hoewever, while that's required for Featured Article status, I don't think it is required for meeting the CITE criterion. The problem of course is that, without reading it, we have no idea which of the contentious statements can be verified from Kincaid and which can't. Well, I say "no idea"; I'm sure we could make a few guesses... jnestorius(talk) 22:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
That's easy to say, but it would be extremely time-consuming to go through this entire list of statements and find the page number in Kincaid's book for each statement, and that amount of spare time is not something I am fortunate to have. Glancing through the list of disputed statements, I know that most of them are supported in the book. The onus is on authors to provide a source (which the authors have done by providing the name of the book in the references section in full accordance with Wikipedia policy). If anyone such as Terminal emulator wishes to dispute that a particular statement is supported by the quoted reference, the onus is on him to demonstrate the validity of his dispute. When an author has already provided a source, you need to check the source first before disputing a statement. I can assure you that Kincaid's book covers many of the statements that you dispute, so that would be a good starting point. NFH 08:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
In response to Terminal emulator's comments, I would like to counsel patience. I agree that it would be very nice to have more precise citations in this article and to eliminate unfounded statements. Let's take a constructive approach, by encouraging people to improve the article little by little, and thanking them for their contributions. It would be a mistake to delete any of the text marked by Terminal emulator without a well-founded suspicion that it is inaccurate and misleading. I would like to thank Terminal emulator for showing concern for the quality of the article but would encourage him/her to avoid making people who have contributed to Wikipedia in good faith feel bad. Except, 13 August 2006
Some of Terminal emulator's concerns are valid, and I have added a reference to the claim that Ne Win decided to change the rule of the road in Burma because of a soothsayer.
  • "It is alleged" (by whom?) "that this was because Ne Win had been advised by his soothsayer, who had said 'move to the right'," (if that's a quote where's the source) "although this was in fact" (who says?) "a reference to economic policy."

The citation is here More information about Burma (and Italy) can be found here

However, others are a little pedantic. If you have lived in or visited a country, you're likely to notice what side of the road they drive on, and what side of the car the steering wheel is on. As Gibraltar has driven on the right since 1929, it's highly likely that cars sold locally will be LHD, as in Spain. As I have been there, I can confirm that this is the case. However, as it is a British territory with a British military presence, there are second-hand RHD cars from the UK, as well as British forces Land Rovers and I have seen ex-Japan Toyota vans there as well. I don't know if the Gibraltar Ministry of Transport keeps a record of the number of RHD vehicles registered locally, but given the small size of the territory, you won't go far beofre you notice them.

Lancia definitely ended RHD production in 1994 - they pulled out of the UK in that year, and when they sold the Kappa in South Africa it was LHD only. However, I will add thisreference to substantiate the claim that it is planning to resume RHD production. Quiensabe 16:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Advantages sections

I have noticed that over time, the two "Advantages" sections have degenerated into a place for British and Americans to promote their own side of the road as being better. Most of the statements in these sections are merely opinions (some of them well founded but with no verifiable sources), and several statements even contradict each other between the two opposing Advantages sections. These sections have been and will no doubt continue to be disputed. I propose to delete both Advantages sections and to move the only two statements of hard fact to other appropriate sections. NFH 18:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's nice of you to notice all this when it's been pointed out to you above. You seem to have been editing this article for months apparently without concern that it contains personal opinions and the advantages sections contradict each other. I'll certainly back you up in paring them down to hard facts. Thanks for bringing this up. Terminal emulator 14:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I had noticed your first comment here, which you added to the main article instead of the talk page. The contradictions in this section were presumably what prompted you to scrutinise the article so much and you had a very good point. Let's wait a day or two more for any other comments on this before I do the deleting. NFH 18:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This is now done. NFH 19:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changing sides

I wondered about how the issues of changing sides at borders would be resolved in practice. I suspect that it would be resolved similarly to how road repair on a higway sometimes is resolved, by temporarlily closing off one side of the road through roadblocks and stop signs.


1.
A  |
 \ |
| \|
| /|
 / |
|  V

2.
|  A
|  |
 \/ 
 /\ 
|  |
|  V

(Sorry for the sloppy explanation and the ugly Ascii illustrations...) 惑乱 分からん 11:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


Install Google Earth and have a look at some placemarks I've published at [7]. I'd like to find a way to publish these placemarks in the article in accordance with Wikipedia policy. I'm not sure whether it's acceptable for me to simply add a link to my own page or whether one can upload a KMZ file on Wikipedia. Any suggestions are welcome.

The high traffic border crossings (China-HK and China-Macau) have elaborate bridges or roundabouts, whereas low traffic border crossings have no infrastructure at all to swap the traffic over. The diagrams you added above are not typical, but if you look hard, you may find some photos of barriers across the road at [8]. Also the Thailand-Laos Friendship Bridge (low resolution on Google Earth) has traffic lights to swap the traffic over.

NFH 21:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh, the Blue and Red arrows aren't meant to symbolize the road, but the movement of the cars. That is, in diagram 1, the purple lane is switched in intervals from left to right side traffic through stop signs. Similarly in diagram 2, where one side across the border is shut off in intervals (through stop signs or similar), and there only is traffic in either direction at any given time. Hope this gets clearer. Anyway, it would be interesting information for the article. Thanks for your answer. 惑乱 分からん 22:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eye and Field

Please note that seeing with right eye (Right Eye Dominance) (Eyedness) is different from seeing to the Right Side (Right Field Dominance) (Sighting dominance).

When we look to right we use both the eyes - The image falls on the medial part of the RIght Retina and lateral part of left retina. However, the images from both these eyes go to the Left Occipital Lobe of the brain So the references cited may not be that relevant, except for this point Though the left cerebral hemisphere seems to play a dominant role in gaze fixation in the greater proportion of the population, consideration of the joint of the two cerebral hemispheres for individual functions of the body has been advocated.

If the left cerebral hemisphere plays a dominant role in gaze fixation, the it is easy to fix the gaze when seeing to your right than when seeing to the left

This message is not to contradict the earlier posts, but just to bring to the notice that there is a difference between the two concepts (though one is dependent on the other) Doctor Bruno 02:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed the old "unreferenced" tag

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

[edit] South Africa History

Any info on whether South Africa has always driven on the left? --Zaurus 20:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the Cape Colony would have followed the Dutch rule from 1652 until the British takeover in 1805 - after that date it would definitely be on the left. So the next question is what the Dutch rule was at the time? Roger 11:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tachilek-Mae Sai

Bridge between Tachilek (Myanmar) and Mae Sai (Thailand) crossing the Mae Sai River: What's it's correct name and how does the LHD-RHD is managed? Scriberius 17:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I've had a good look at a lot of photos on Flickr and I can't see any signs or anything. I get the impression that drivers simply change sides in the middle of the bridge, and given that the traffic levels are low, this probably doesn't cause a problem. NFH 11:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Driving, not sailing

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

[edit] Effect on insurance

Do insurance companies load premiums when you drive on the side of the road you are not used to? Or is it mainly based on your driving record, age etc. I would guess that driving on the other side is relatively low risk per se compared to the part determined from your driving record, age etcChrisAngove 23:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I can comment on the UK as an example. Unless you have a good track record of driving in the UK without claims, you may face a higher premium. This can be a problem for people who have not lived in the UK before. Also, some UK insurers offer comprehensive cover only in the UK. With these insurers, when you take a UK-insured vehicle outside the UK, your cover drops to the minimum legal cover (i.e. third party only) and if you want comprehensive, you have to let the insurer know in advance and pay an additional premium. However, I don't think this has anything to do with the side of the road, but is just an excuse to make some more money. For many people (e.g. London residents), the risk of claims is lower when they take their car outside the UK because the car is not being kept in the high risk home postcode. NFH 11:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colour choice

The colour choices for the second coloured map are not quite optimal, as both "drives on right" and "drove on left, now drives on right" are a VERY similar red. This should be changed to an entirely different colour.

[edit] Disambiguation

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

Agreed. --Thisisbossi 12:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Further vs. Farther

Per WP:ENGVAR, it is improper to change spelling and usage to conform to whatever variant of English you happen to prefer personally. This article, like many others describing comparative practise/practice in different countries, contains a mix of English variants from at least three continents, which means changing individual words to suit your taste is poor practice. Moreover, I'm sure you found a particular UK dictionary to support your preference for "further" rather than "farther", and the two are commonly used interchangeably, but precise usage prefers the use of "farther" when the context is one of distance, and "further" when it is one of degree or amount. See Mirriam-Webster and dictionary.com, as well as The University of Victoria Writer's Guide, English Plus, and AHD. Please do not change back to "further" without attaining concensus on this page. Thank you.--Scheinwerfermann 03:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

My point exactly - I am the original author of the paragraph in question and I don't appreciate my spelling/vocabulary being changed to another variant of English. I reverted this change to my words in accordance with this policy and will continue to do so for the reasons I have given. It is very rare in the UK to hear or see "farther". "Further" is the usual spelling and pronounciation in the UK and my observation is supported by British dictionaries. Please do not change my words to another variant of English. NFH 09:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with NFH. Scheinwerfermann, the fact you can't spell "practice" (the noun is spelled this way worldwide) doesn't fill me with enthusiasm for your being a spelling expert!--Guinnog 09:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
"According to the Survey of People On the Right of Kerb (SPORK), conducted by the Ministry of Bureacracy, individuals whom say "further" tend to drive on the left side of the road, and people who say farther tend to keep right. A $1.3 million follow-up survey could not find any explanation for this, but did discover a tasty recipe for the combination of meat and apple pies which would cause people to say "faurther" and/or "fuarther", ultimately causing them to drive in the center of the road -- to much confusion and mayhem for all. Further study is pending." --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 11:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC) (I should probably stop commenting on things so early in the morning)

[edit] Br Eng or US Eng?

What language is this article in? I only ask as it seemed to be in Br Eng (centre; neighbour), but after I'd changed 'archeolgic' to 'archaeological' I noticed two US Eng "traveler"s earlier on in the article. I haven't changed them to Br Eng 'traveller' as now I'm unsure. 82.32.238.139 22:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Further to the comments above, it's my understanding that all of the article should be in the same language variant, and not changeable by paragraph.82.32.238.139 22:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The article was originally written in British English so that is the format that is supposed to be used... I hope that helps -- UKPhoenix79 08:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed -- after looking through the History, it does seem that British English should be the standard for this article. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 15:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RHD vs LHD statistics

Does anyone have or know where to find accident/collision statistics in countries that allow both RHD and LHD vehicles. i think this kind of info is important to have along with what is already there.

i havent been able to find any numbers showing the accident rates of this kind of info. i basically am looking for stats that shows the accident rates of RHD VS LHD in both RHT and LHT countries to find out if there is any significant difference in accident/collision rates if there even is a difference.

24.67.224.95 06:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Kevan

I recommend searching TRB, ITE, AASHTO, FHWA, EC, and/or UN, in that order. I think I have some better EC links... but I forget them off the top of my head. I know there is research out there -- perhaps someone will come by with a more specific links (and I may search for it myself if I get the motivation to do so). Cheers! --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 11:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed text snippet

I've removed the following snippet from the section about Australia:

"This situation compares interestingly with the "give way to the right" rule in most countries of Continental Europe, where a vehicle turning left (onto another road usually of similar hierarchy) can completely stop all traffic in the lane to its left while giving way to traffic on its right and waiting, however long, for a gap to move into."

I don't think the above description is very accurate, traffic arrangements are usually made to keep the above situation from being possible at all. Plus it's doesn't really describe the situation in Australia at all. Kumiankka 20:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

The history section is full of rather dubious assertions and perpetuates many of the common myths around this subject:

That the "normal" side of the road was originally the left as a result of sword-wearing horse riders. But such people would only have been a tiny fraction of road traffic. Isn't it more likely that the primary reason for horses to be ridden on the left is that most people mount and dismount on the left?

That a "change" occurred in countries where postillion carts were used. While postillion carts apparently are best driven on the right, there is little evidence of a change from earlier practice (these countries may have already been driving on the right, which is also the optimum side for pedestrian-led carts).

(The most egregious myth) - That French aristocrats drove on the left, while the commoners walked on the right; and that France changed to driving on the "proletarian" side of the road after the revolution. I assume this is a joke, not a myth - do you think the writer can actually have believed that aristocrats kept to one side of the road, commoners to the other? Maproom 17:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say that it makes perfect sense - when walking along a country lane you would walk along the "wrong" side of the road so that you have a good view of oncoming traffic. If the side of the road for driving in pre-revolutionary France was the left, then logically the peasants (pedestrians) would walk along the right-hand side of the road so as to have a better chance of not being run over by the aristocrats speeding along on the left in their carriages. --68.147.38.76 22:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It also implies that left driving is a particularly British practice, in direct contradiction to a later part of the article.


http://www.brianlucas.ca/roadside/ seems a fairly well-researched page on this subject. And it suggests that the original choice of left or right driving in various countries was more likely a result of the dominant mode of transport at the time such rules were codified (pedestrian-led carts: right; postillion-controlled wagons: right; wagons driven from the wagon itself: left). Maybe it's just me but this seems more convincing than the usual romantic stories about the mediaeval knights and the French revolution...

TomH 19:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


It also suggests that the US changed to the right, which (as has already been pointed out) directly contradicts another part of the article.

I am minded to perform some drastic editing on this section... TomH 20:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Go for it Tom. In addition, I'm sceptical of that "drawing weapons with the right hand" theory of men's buttons. Although this could also be false, I heard that the reason women buttoned a different way was to do with being dressed by maids. Then again, that could be crap also. Whoa! Various theories can be found in Blouse Leon 02:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Antarctica

What is the rule of the road for vehicles in Antarctica? The bus in this picture is a left-hand drive vehicle, so I'd assume that it is a right-hand traffic area. Are there any reliable sources that people know about to document this? Check out McMurdo-South Pole highway. 69.181.71.221 07:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Since Antarctica isn't one state/country, and has few (if any) roads connecting bases belonging to different countries, I would assume that throughfares in and around each base follow the road rules of their respective home countries. Grant | Talk 07:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)