Talk:List of road accidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.


Contents

[edit] Critique of July 2007 trims

Whoa, what happened here? Circeus deleted the accidents that do not involve white people. Might not be NPOV (just my opinion of this arbitrary action). Nutmegger 01:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I never noticed this. I moved around the time it was posted. Many of these accidents ()I happened to remove more that "[did] not involve white people" because there were less that involved white people to begin with (there are 6 accidents from Western Europe and North America in the removed list, which is on par with the frequency of these area of the worldin the whole list).
I trimmed mostly accidents with 8-20 deaths from Africa and Asia because such accidents, bar other peculiarities, are not nearly as notable when accidents with 25-40 deaths are common in these regions. We do not aim to report all the bus plunges stories, only the more notable amongst them, hence my (quite needed to keep the list manageable) trim, which also removed all the marginal cases for which I couldn't readily locate sources.
The items are all here, on the talk page, easily restored if you think they should, so it's not like I was being rogue or anything. Circeus 19:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] July 2007 trim

I will remove some less notable or unsourced events from the list and put them here. Feelfree to discuss. I have rough criteria in mind, but typing them would be too long. Circeus 18:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC) The years are missing from the copied elements. See original edit or references for year placement.

[edit] Fairport Incident

I would think it would be notable enough to make the list, it was covered by most major American news outlets (CNN, Fox, etc) Every local news source, and People Magazine as well. Links can be provided if you require. 70.101.32.218 22:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a "human approach" story that killed 5, but is not on par with most other incident in the list. Circeus 23:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Matt Yeager's removals

I disagree with most of these removals.

  • First, I find that massive pileups (and 30 to 60 vehicles one are certainly large) are generally underrepresented in the current list in favor of bus plunges.
  • The Saint-Michel-de-Bellechasse incident caused outrage across the province and lead to a 3-years long public investigation with significant impact on safety regulation. The publication of the report 3 years after the accident being reported in mainstream news is proof that notability was not temporary. I'm willing to do a start article if that's necessary (I think that all incident with separate articles are automatically notable, I only removed the January 2007 one because it,s getting deleted as of now at AFD)
  • Structural failures leading to death are inherently notable. The 2000 overpass collapse is as notable as the 2006 one, just a bit less present on the web due to older date. I can settle for mentioning it in relation to the inspection drive, though. (because that wouldn't have happened without the 2000 collapse)
  • I think the circumstances of accidents may affect their notability and whether they or not be included here. Those involving natural disasters in addition to the road accident element (cf. the Mexican landslide) become more notable.
  • Bluffton accident as a (long) article at Bluffton University bus accident,which establish notability. We should probably investigate Category:Road accidents by year to make sure all of them are at least notable, or listed here if they are not on their own.

While I'm at it, what do you think of adding that tanker fire that collapsed an overpass of the oakland freeway? n:Tanker truck fire causes collapse on Oakland Freeway.

Circeus 23:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Without going back and looking at the article, I agree in principle with all of Circeus's comments. I had particularly noticed about all the bus ones and am thinking of removing most of the remaining ones with fewer than 20 fatalities. Matchups 02:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
There are a number of reasons why a given case can be kept, though. Unusual circumstances (plodding into crowd, hazardous material explosions), poor coverage of the concerned country, and a 15 death accident does not have the same scale in, say, Danemark as in India. I tried to balance with the entries I removed (above), but it's not easy. Circeus 02:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
A few things. Bluffton I'm fine with--I debated a while over that, it probably should remain, I suppose. I'll even, in good faith, concede the Saint-Michel-de-Bellechasse one. And many that you added were fine. But I must disagree with you on this--an accident in India, all else being equal, means exactly the same as an accident anywhere else. Denying that means that when a person's percentage of the overall population decreases, his or her notability also decreases. Not true.
A few or even several of these accidents are really not very notable. I'm going to remove a couple. (For the record, the diff of the new placements BEFORE I began removing is this.) To sum up: a hit and run accident killing six is not notable; a 43-car pileup that leaves one dead is not notable; seven killed from a derailed train is arguably not notable; and what the heck does Eloxochitlan mean, anyway?
But let's see how this all works out. Matt Yeager (Talk?) 05:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The hit and run and various road collisions that resulted in derailments have quite detailed articles that demonstrate notability. There is no excuse for exclusing them (although I have prodded or nominated for deletion a couple things in category:Road accidents. But I still strongly disagree with you: 15 deaths in an accident, everything else being equal, is still a much bigger deal in North America or Western Europe than in India. Eloxochitlan is the name of a small village near the landslide location. I can even look up the etymology if you want me to. I know where to find good Nahuatl sources. Circeus 05:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so it should say "A landslide buries a bus near Eloxochitlan"... okay, that makes sense now. Anyway, the reason it seems like a bigger deal in Western culture is because, no offense, most Wikipedians on en.wikipedia.org live in Western culture and accidents locally virtually always matter more to people than faraway ones (all else being equal)... personally, though I really truly don't want this to sound insulting, I think it's demeaning to countries like India to suggest something on the order of "oh, it's no big deal, there's a billion more where those came from"... which is a decent summation of your argument for why European or American crashes mean more. (I hope that didn't sound rude... it's late, that's my only excuse.)

I acknowledge this. But I'm also arguing that death tolls above twenty are also much, much rarer generally in (to limit this) Canada and the U.S., which reduces the threshold of notability significantly. That's not a demeaning remark (Editing this list is a psychological challenge no matter where the accidents occur), it's a factual observation. Circeus 05:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I hear what you're saying, but are you sure Canada and the U.S. have such a small share? I mean, added together they only have ~5% of the world's population, right? Naturally I'd expect they'd have far more than 5% of the world's crashes (think of the percentage of drivers in the U.S./Canada versus in Nigeria, Bangladesh, etc... heck, even in urban European countries most people don't drive). If we compare NA totals to the whole rest of the world, the world will have more, of course, but the ratio will be skewed. If anything, we should be careful to limit NA (and UK) accidents because of this. Matt Yeager (Talk?) 19:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I must disagree with "even in urban European countries most people don't drive". What? Where on earth have you got this from? Very few British adults don't drive, and I don't think we're exactly unusual in Europe, where almost every city has a traffic problem. I agree that the trimmings were far too drastic - a serious accident is a serious accident, no matter where it happens. I think any modern accident where the death toll is in double figures and any that makes national news should qualify, and in earlier decades that threshold should be even lower. The list is never going to be complete, but so what? -- Necrothesp 09:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, "urban European" was putting it badly. "In Europe, most urban dwellers don't drive" would have been better (and true). In the U.S., most working-age people cannot (or don't) take public transportation anywhere, and often drive over an hour a day. Not so in, let's say, London. As for the rest... that's pretty decent criteria. The exact number we select doesn't matter much. Matt Yeager (Talk?) 08:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "don't drive". Most European adults can drive and many do drive; even most people who live in towns own a car and drive outside (and even around) the town even if they don't drive to work every day - I don't usually drive to work (since it's only a 15-minute walk), but I own a car and drive to the supermarket, the cinema, even the city centre, since it's more convenient than taking a bus, and if I lived further away I would indeed drive to work. Maybe this is confused by the fact that in Britain "he doesn't drive" generally means "he can't drive and doesn't hold a driving licence" not "he doesn't drive on a day-to-day basis". The former is rare, the latter probably indeed less so than in North America. -- Necrothesp 09:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay. That makes more sense, I see where you're coming from now... yes, I certainly meant "most people don't tend to drive", not "most people are not physically or legally capable of driving". But in the U.S., I would bet that over 90% of workers actually drive every day to work and back, often for a half and hour (each way!) or longer. So, for mostly that reason, a U.S. crash is much, much, much more likely to occur than a European one (when you correct for the higher general population in all of Europe, of course). Maybe a U.S. crash is less likely to happen per mile driven (since U.S. drivers are more experienced, one would hope they're better, too). In either case, it doesn't really matter. But still, pretty enlightening. Thanks! Matt Yeager (Talk?) 07:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criteria?

For the records, these are the criteria I tentatively applied:

  • Is there an article with proper assertion of notability? that is ground for instant inclusion.
  • Death toll: unless another criterion applies, a cutoff of 20 deaths seemed okay, although 15 might apply for North America and Western Europe, for reasons stated above. Consider also the number of injured.
  • Structural failure: Accidents caused by or causing structural failure of overpasses, elevated highways, bridges etc. are far more notable than regular collisions.
  • Circumstances: If the accident is definitely more than a mere vehicle-to-vehicle collision. Examples include vehicles running into crowds or buildings, or hazardous material explosions. The "steamroller falling on bus" case fell into this category (not exactly a common type of road crash!), as did the railway crossing accidents resulting in derailings. Accidents in tunnels are also unusual, and tend to be deadlier in addition to the potential economic consequences.
  • Natural event: Accidents involving a natural disaster, such as avalanches, floods, landslides... The Mexican landslide and Colorado avalanche are unusual and rare events that lend further notability.
  • Consequences: Did the accident have significant social or political consequences? The M40 minivan crash is a good example of both. The Éboulements bus crash, in addition to its death toll, created further controversy when ecologists opposed the complete redesign of the road near the site.
  • Large pileups, even with smaller death toll, are far more notable than smaller-scale events (and are overall much underrepresented.)
  • Record setting: Is the accident setting a record for the country?
  • Country coverage: How large is our coverage of the country? If this is the single incident we have, it is more notable than if we already have a dozen others.

There are probably some other things I am forgetting, but these seems sensible to consider when working on this list. Circeus 05:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a good start. The list should not become an updated list of bus plunges, of which every day one seems to happen in underdeveloped countries.
I think what should be the criterium, is the relative impact of the society it happened in, not the absolute death toll. A huge pileup in dense fog makes a much bigger impression on people than just one tourist bus ending up in the ditch, because the driver fell asleep.
Also, what should be considered, is a separate article for level crossing accidents, where both train and road traffic are involved. That should shorten both the List of rail accidents and List of road accidents. --Brinkie 10:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can see, any accident that makes national news in the country in which it happens is worthy of inclusion. That's a pretty good indicator of how important it's seen to be. -- Necrothesp 09:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grammatical Errors

I've noticed many grammatical errors on this page