Talk:Automotive safety

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 April 2019 and 5 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mjanssens92.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Archive of past discussion
Archive 1

Active vs passive
Sorry if I am just dumb and ignorant, but the distinction between active and passive safety in this article is just plain wrong. I have quickly read majority of the sourced articles but I have absolutely nowhere found the statement that the seatbelt is an element of active safety. The distinction between active and passive safety is plain and simple - it is between crash avoidance and minimizing injuries once the crash has happened anyway. I haven't bothered to find sourced for this for too long - but I found this one, where it is written plain and simple: http://www.crashtest.com/explanations/safety/index.htm I will wait for a couple of days and if nobody will argue the opposite, I am going to change the article myself. — —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.235.179.170 (talk) 14:40, 2009 March 23 (UTC)


 * Your definition is plain, and it is simple, but it is not correct. The definitions of active and passive safety in this article are contextually correct and verifiable, and they are well supported by reliable references. What is more, the apparently-contradictory usages of the terminology is discussed in the article. You will need to get consensus here on the talk page before a change can be made of the type you have in mind. Also, please don't forget to sign your comments properly on talk pages. Thanks! —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 00:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, I do not want any edit wars, but please: http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/Home/RoadSafety/BuyingASafeCar/SafetyFeatures.htm This is actually one of the subpages of the pages by which this article itself is sourced! If it does not support my statement, then I don't know what does. Oh yeah, and it was me who wrote the first post. 213.250.34.126 (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Definitely agree on avoiding edit wars. Please carefully read the relevant portion of the article and you will understand why your desire to replace the present definition with your preferred definition is not tenable: we have here contradictory usage of the terms "active" and "passive". It can be difficult to accept the notion of a manual seat belt as an "active" safety device — but in fact the definitions presently favoured in the article are the ones most commonly used by researchers, practitioners, engineers, and regulators in the automobile safety field. Just about any text on the subject (such as this one) will paint the picture for you, though you needn't go that far; viz the "passive restraint" terminology officially applied to airbags and (for a brief time in the U.S.) motorised seat belts, even though these devices' operation is very active in nature. As the article discusses, this is a very difficult bit of terminology to navigate clearly and accurately. Please see here, here, here (PDF), here, here, here, here (PDF), here, here, here, and here.


 * The reference you have found, on the other hand, is typical of how the terms tend to get simplified for presentation to a public audience assumed not to know or care much about the subject. Certainly the fact that the terminology is used this way ought to be mentioned in the article, even though it directly conflicts with formal usage, and that's why the article presently describes just such a conflict. Perhaps we can come to consensus on text that does a better job of describing the two different usage patterns and where they're generally found. Your VicRoads reference might be included in the article as a reference to illustrate the simplified usage sometimes presented to consumers, though we would need to think very carefully about its veracity; it lists "automatic transmission" as a safety feature, and as far as I am aware there is no reliable scientific basis for that claim. There appears to be no such data based on a power search of the UMTRI library, which is one of North America's (and, indeed, the world's) most comprehensive traffic safety libraries. Remember, there's much more to supporting your assertion than just finding a website that happens to echo the statement you wish to include in an article. The source needs to be reliable. Compare the level of documentation in most of the refs I provided above to the utter lack of such documentation in the ref you provided.


 * Whether or not we decide to use the VicRoads site, I feel it would be inappropriate to proceed with your idea to replace the present formal definitions, thoroughly and reliably supported, with informal definitions sometimes used to give consumers a quick, sketchy rundown on car safety. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 20:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay. I yield. If anything, I could have seen that you obviously have much more credentials in the field of car technology so you are most probably more suitable to edit such articles. What is interesting is that the definition as I have written is not only present for marketing purposes, but even in many texts written by car manufacturers themselves. Just by the way.
 * However, there is another thing. The fact is that from the article as it is written I practically could not deduct the main line of division between active and passive as it is now. Then I found this: http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Active_Safety (sorry, another link) and everything become clearer. Interestingly, this article is sourced from wikipedia (an older version, I guess). And it is much better written than as it stands now and deals with the same thing (blurred definitions).
 * Have fun ... 195.250.209.198 (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Wait, wait, don't yield. This is not a battle. Wikipedia is a coöperative project, not a competitive or combative one. You've raised the very valid point that the present language is not adequate to convey the definitions clearly. Let's work on developing better text. I'll start brainstorming on it after dinner; right now I gotta go eat! —Scheinwerfermann T·C 23:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It is important not to confuse active/passive restraints with active/passive safety. The definitions on this page are the definitions of active and passive restraints.  The definitions of active and passive safety are as indicated on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Safety

http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Car_Care/Notes_From_The_Road/Safety_System_Definitons.aspx http://www.audiusa.com/us/brand/en.html, etc. Tanja-Else (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * We never used Scheinwerfermann's definition in college (Mechanical Engineering, University of Sao Paulo). Even more, every single text I keep from those days agrees with the definition given by our anonymous contributor. May be we should put it both ways. Aldo L (talk) 07:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Both ways: good idea, and good refs you've provided. I've copyedited the section for syntax, grammar, and reference format. What do we think about the present coverage of terminology? —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 14:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone through, read the entirety of both of your responses, read through the relative wikipedia section under automotive safety, and read ALL of the respective sources (previously five) to the debate of active vs. passive safety. Thusly, since I have been following automotive safety for over a decade and already knew the correct answer, though wanted to verify; I have gone back to the article and corrected it accordingly. My opinion, based on reading everything humanly possible related to the debate and having majored in Mechanical Engineering in pursuit of an automotive safety career?! Scheinwerfermann's wrong. Period. Active safety is hands-down 100% the systems in a vehicle that work to PREVENT or AVOID an accident. Passive safety systems help protect occupants in the event of a crash. Simple as can be. I mean, I did an independent study on automotive safety in high school. High school. The supporting articles that duly didn't even support the statements, of both passive safety being relative to crashworthiness and seat belts being declared as active (also incorrectly sourced as the articles blatantly said the opposite) have been removed. Seatbelts are passive safety. Period. That's why they are part of the supplemental restraint system (SRS), restraining a passenger in the event of a crash. What part of the physical restraint of someone's being results in the avoidance of a crash? None. This argument of active being defined by user input is absurd. Sorry to be so mean but this is just ridiculous. The user that stated that the car companies themselves use the very definition of active vs passive that we are defending is correct; it's not to dumb down concepts for consumers. If anyone would like to debate this further, feel free to email me at lightinthedarkness87@gmail.com That's my secondary email so it may take me a while to respond, but this is case closed as far as I'm concerned. AutonomousCars09 (talk) 11:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand this article is specifically about automobile safety, however there are some more differences when you get into aviation, and specifically rotary wing crashworthiness. We use the terms passive and active (i.e., passive control and active control) differently when describing safety systems.  It does get a bit confusing at times.  -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 18:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Solomon curve & crash causes
We have here a long article that will get longer as its gaps are filled in and its scope is expanded. If we're not careful to keep focused on the topic of auto safety, the article will get diluted with material that belongs in Car accident, Road safety, Speed limit, or other articles. At best, this will mean reduplicated effort. At worst, the quality of all affected articles will be degraded. With an eye towards keeping these articles on their related but individual development paths, I have removed a couple of sentences that are better covered in Car accident, and have moved the assertion related to driving with the flow of traffic, together with its Solomon Curve link, to the relevant section of Car accident. —Scheinwerfermann T·C 21:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. It seemed to fit with the sentences you removed, but you're right that they all are better covered in Car accident.  Thanks.--Ludasaphire (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Statistical graph
A graph showing fatality rates in various countries over the last few decades would help explain the data, rather than only a few numbers scattered in tables and prose. -- Beland (talk) 06:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right. We've got a supported table like that here; perhaps that table could be placed—reference and all—here in this article, and supplemented and/or expanded with additional sources of info. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 18:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Added a diagram to illustrate the table - if this is insufficient then put the link back in again. Egmason (talk) 11:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"Sources" and "External links" sections
There appear to be some good resources in these two sections. Per WP:EL and WP:CS it's better if they're provided as actual references supporting assertions in the article, not just a list at the end of the article. We ought to look through 'em, get rid of those that are superfluous and/or spurious, and incorporate the valuable ones as references to the maximum practicable degree. —Scheinwerfermann T·C 15:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Tests vs Reality
Is it just me, or do all the safety tests give useless data? "Insurance losses by make and model" gives what insurance companies actually have to pay out for injuries. The safest vehicles here do not match the safest vehicles in crash test ratings - so cars optimized for the ratings may be much more dangerous than those with bad ratings but good real results.

Look at actual medical losses for 2011 Ford Escape Hybrid which has a combined very low test score - "CONCERN: Worst 10% for 2011-12". Now look at real-world insurance losses Ford Escape Hybrid does much better on personal injury than the vast majority of vehicles, the exact opposite of what the safety tests would have you believe.

How many people are being injured or killed due to buying vehicles they researched and thought "safe"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.253.116 (talk) 06:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You have a name? Have you checked other sources? -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 18:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Outdated Section

 * Commercial services also exist to that provide a notification phone number to report unsafe driving such as IsmyKidDrivingSafe.com[69] and CarefulTeenDriver.com.[70]

This section is outdated, as these sites no longer function. 88.148.84.87 (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * After marking those as dead links, I realized there are no other links in the sentence, so I have  .
 * I am referring this issue to WikiProject Transport. --Thnidu (talk) 02:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Automobile safety. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.factbook.net/EGRF_Regional_analyses_HMCs.htm
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.dps.state.mn.us/trafsafe/beltsairbags/pregnacy.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070417000447/http://www.gs.gov.nl.ca:80/gs/mr/dl-graduated-driver.stm to http://www.gs.gov.nl.ca/gs/mr/dl-graduated-driver.stm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Automobile safety. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aesvn.org/resources/new-car-safety.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110713063955/http://www.ismykiddrivingsafe.com/ to http://www.ismykiddrivingsafe.com
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110911185842/http://www.carefulteendriver.com/ to http://www.carefulteendriver.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality of History section
The Automobile safety section is non-neutral with respect to multiple reliable sources. Currently the Automobile safety section is little more than a chronology of the introduction of auto safety features, with little or no narrative or context. The Automobile safety section non-neutrally gives the reader the false impression of the spontaneous arrival of safety features, as if delivered by a benevolent auto industry.

Conspicuously, non-neutrally, absent from our project's coverage of the history of auto safety are highly significant actors and events, including:


 * National Safety Council
 * Ralph Nader
 * Center for Auto Safety
 * Unsafe at Any Speed
 * Chevrolet Corvair
 * Ford Pinto
 * lawsuits and litigation preceding safety features
 * industry resistance and opposition to automobile safety standards
 * the shift in emphasis from driver behavior to auto design and the role of design and safety features in the 1960s

Respectfully request collaboration on the neutrality of this section. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Object: The list is clearly a list of safety technologies, not a discussion of why those technologies came about.  Furthermore, the sources you wish to add are not all of legitimate value in terms of this discussion.  The tag should not have been added to the section.  Per WP:OSE we should consider how other safety advances type articles have been formated.  The Aviation safety article does not mention lawsuits or even the loss of Knute Rockne.  Springee (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

HughD, please review WP:BRD. You made a bold change but the content you added was not appropriate. The list in question is a list of safety devices or legislation. The Pinto related material you are trying to add is not a device or a regulation. You have not shown how the various Pinto related material lead to improved safety. Please don't add the material again until others support your changes. Springee (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a prose article WP:PROSE, not a list article WP:SAL; you may consider assessing community support for a fork such as List of automobile safety devices or List of automobile safety legislation. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Your argument is irrelevant. The list is one of safety devices and/or regulations.  You haven't shown that any of the Pinto material you have added has resulted in improved safety.
 * I've requested input from other editors.  Springee (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please do not delete because of lack of consensus WP:DRNC. Please do not edit war to remove a NPOV hat until the issue is resolved WP:EW. Deleting relevant content you personally disagree with is tendacious WP:TEND. You have deleted thirteen (13) noteworthy reliable sources without offering an alternative summarization of the sources. How would you summarize the thirteen (13) noteworthy reliable sources? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hugh, please cut out the BS. This is not a consensus issue.  The material you added was off topic.  As you SHOULD know, RS doesn't mater if the material is off topic.  As part of your failed ANI filed against me you were told you should back away from the Pinto topic.  Springee (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * It would be nice, if kinda unlikely, if the hat-adder would add some language describing what he thinks would reflect a balanced look at the question. Anmccaff (talk)


 * , please do not add disputed content without discussion here first.  is correct in noting that you have not adequately supported the link between Nader's book and the later legislation.  Furthermore, the book is not a safety feature or legislation.  The list is only safety features or regulations.  The current auto safety article is happily free of political type content.  Please don't open that door, especially without editor input. Springee (talk) 12:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * HughD, it really seems like you aren't understanding. The problem with your Nader addition is not that it's not reliably sourced, it's that it is off topic.  This article is not about the politics of auto safety, it's an article about safety features and safety regulations.  Please stop trying to add politics to the article without buy in from other editors!  Please see Civil_POV_pushing  Springee (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * , why did you restore the tag to the article without discussion here? Two editors have objected and you have not justified it's inclusion here.  Perhaps you should post a question on the project automobile talk page if you think the article scope is wrong.   has already removed it once and I support the action. You have failed to justify its inclusion.  Springee (talk) 16:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Nader and Unsafe at Any Speed
Contended addition to the 1960s subsection of the History section of Automobile safety:

"On November 30, 1965, the book Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-In Dangers of the American Automobile, by 32-year-old lawyer Ralph Nader, was published, and was a best seller in nonfiction by spring 1966. In February 1966, U.S. Senator Abraham A. Ribicoff asked Nader to testify before a Senate subcommittee on automotive safety. According to The New York Times, the Encyclopædia Britannica, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives at the time John William McCormack, the United States Department of Transportation, and others, Nader and Unsafe at Any Speed helped the passage of the 1966 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the first significant automobile safety legislation in the U.S."

Discussion
Contended content is highly noteworthy and relevant. Very, very obviously Ralph Nader is a very noteworthy actor, and the publication of Unsafe at Any Speed and Nader's congressional testimony, very noteworthy events, in the history of automobile safety. The exclusion of this content is a very severe violation of our project's neutrality pillar. The section non-neutrally gives the reader the false impression of the spontaneous arrival of safety features as if delivered by a benevolent auto industry. This is a prose article, not a list article. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please indicate your support for inclusion. Also, please don't significantly modify your statements after others have replied.  It can be seen as TEND because it may make it appear as though the statements of others were in reply to the modified text, not the original text. Springee (talk) 18:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose: This isn't a question of RSed material. I would agree that Nader's inflammatory book did a lot to bring safety to the minds of the consumer. However, the list in question, as has been pointed out already, is a list of safety features and regulations. For example, the first car with shoulder belts, the first car with ABS, the first mandate for seatbelts in cars etc. The political events (and Nader's book is a political event in this context) which resulted in these changes are not part of the list in question. It appears that the editors of this article have largely avoided the political aspects of the topic and focused on the technologies and regulations. I see no reason to change that now. Thus a strong objection to inserting the material into the list and a cautionary objection for inclusion in general. Generalized inclusion should only occur after group input as to how such information/events should be integrated into the article. Springee (talk) 17:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose This is a simple list of safety features and when they became common, and it is not restricted to the United States. Anmccaff (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , please propose language for review by the community, for addition to the lede, clarifying what you feel is the community consensus, such as that the article is a list and not prose, and explicitly excluding context you feel is inappropriate. List articles are required to have an explicit statement of inclusion/exclusion critieria WP:LSC. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You seem to be confusing a list within an article and a list article. I would suggest you raise the issue at Project Automobiles.  Springee (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , is the U.S. excluded from the History section of our project's article Automobile safety? Hugh (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Concentrating on it as you have is unequivocally WP:UNDUE. Anmccaff (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , is it your contention that the History section of our project's article Automobile safety is not about the history of automobile safety? Hugh (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, my contention is that it is about the history of automobile safety, not the hero-worship of Nader, as you seem to see it. Anmccaff (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , the consensus of numerous noteworthy reliable sources, including The New York Times, the Encyclopædia Britannica, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives at the time John William McCormack, the United States Department of Transportation, and others, is that Ralph Nader was noteworthy in the History of Automobile safety WP:DUE. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The consensus is George Westinghouse's air brakes were a breakthrough in rail safety. But that doesn't mean it should be in this article.  The material you are trying to add is related to this topic but NOT part of this topic.  Your NPOV tag is unwarranted.  If you don't like the scope of this topic I would, again, suggest you use the proper process such as taking your suggestion for a scope change the automobile project talk page.  Springee (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * , the material you have been trying to add has been opposed. Why are you now adding it against consensus and without discussion?  Please stop edit warring.  Pinging other recent editors to review the material you have added here . , , ,   Springee (talk) 21:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Should not material on the impact of a single book such as Unsafe at Any Speed be more properly covered in the article on the book? It seems a bit excessive devoting an entire history section to it. Dimadick (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , coverage in Wikipedia is proportional to coverage in reliable sources. The contended content summarizes vast noteworthy reliable sources regarding the historic impact of a noteworthy actor and a noteworthy book in the History of Automobile safety. Is it your position that Ralph Nader and Unsafe at Any Speed not be mentioned in the History section of our project's article Automobile safety? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't seriously minde the mention of a book, when it is relevant to the subject. But an entire historical section devoted to just that may be excessive. And the sources which you summarize seem to be missing from the article on the book, which has a shorter section on "Industry response".Dimadick (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , your contributions to improving our project's coverage of the history of automobile safety are welcome. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * This is an article on auto safety, not auto safety legislation in the US. Even if we neglect the "second world"; this leaves out Canada, Argentina, Sweden Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Austria, India, Japan, the Philipines (yep.), and Australia, just off the top of my head, who were all building cars in some numbers in the '60s. Add in the Commies, we get More-of-Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, the USSR, Ukraine, China. The World is a very big place, and much of it could care less about Ralph Nader or GM.  Anmccaff (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The US is the industry leader. The article of late has been grossly non-neutral in omitting the critical roles of industry resistance and of legislation in its coverage of the history of automobile safety. Coverage in Wikipedia is proportional to coverage in reliable sources, not proportional to surface area. Your contributions to improving our project's coverage of international automobile safety is welcome. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The US has been an industry leader, and probably could be seen as a waning one in the 1960s, but the rest of the world built a car or two then, and bought a few as well. It's also useful to compare this against a list of deaths by vehicle miles, which suggests, strongly, that legislation had almost nothing to do with the declining fatality trend.


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USA_annual_VMT_vs_deaths_per_VMT.png


 * The current rate of decline in fatalities tracks to '55. There was a sight increase from '60 to '65, but it had already fallen off before he legislation you claim was crucial.  Anmccaff (talk) 23:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Ignoring the issues with the actual text that was added (overcite, peacock) the addition of this material opens up a number of other issues. Why does "history" start in 1965 when many of the critical safety innovations occurred before that? Why focus so much attention on the book vs the organization that it helped to launch? Do we have room in the article to expand every topic to include the back story of the technology or regulation? Do we want to introduce that level of politics into what was previously an uncontroversial article? An article about auto safety could reasonably include the political backdrop behind various regulations etc. However, if we are going to expand the article to include such information it needs to be done with a plan derived from consensus. If Hugh feels this information is a must have in the article I would suggest proposing what changes we should make. We did Bold, Revert and now it's time for Discuss. Springee (talk) 01:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

, please review WP:BRD so we can build a consensus before you add new material to an section of the article that is currently being questioned by several editors. In addition to the above concerns with the entire section, your edit here is not adequately sourced. Your addition makes a specific claim, "was the first mandatory federal safety standards for motor vehicles." but two of your three sources suggest that isn't true. The only source that does support your edit is the Encyclopædia Britannica. I don't think it is considered a very reliable source given that it contradicts the other two sources. Springee (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

, the wholesale movement of content and changing of section headings without discussion is not conducive to consensus building. Please explain your plan before continuing. Springee (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Propose roll back In addition to questionable content edits, the historical list is getting chopped up with out talk page discussion and despite requests for discussion. I propose rolling the article back to this edit. Changes to the nature and content of the "history" section should be done with group input given the group attention. Pinging other editors for input. ,, ,  Springee (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Roll Back - Roll it back.... NickCT (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Support. This is looking like a WP:COATRACK for Ralph Nader fans. Anmccaff (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Some of the contents in the "history" section seem to have no sources at all and should probably also be checked for accuracy. For example: "Effective on new passenger cars sold in the United States after January 1, 1964. front outboard lap belts were required." and "Effective in 1966, US-market passenger cars were required to be equipped with padded instrument panels, front and rear outboard lap belts, and white reverse (backup) lamps."

None of this is supported, changes in law or industry standards are not explained and the geographic scope is still very limited. HughD might be a bit overenthusiastic about explaining Ralph Nader's impact on the industry, but the article does need changes and sourcing. Dimadick (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * No debate that it needs other improvement. US navel-gazing, sources are required, and some fine distinctions needed between big-3 adoption and legal requirement, Anmccaff (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. We agree, this article has many problems, including sourcing. We agree, more international focus is desirable. We agree, better distinction between manufacturer benevolence and regulatory compliance is desirable. Already, in response to editor comments, the simple chronological list of the introduction of safety features has been clarified. A prose history section has been started. The recent interest is exciting. Your contribution to improving our project's coverage of the history of automotive safety is welcome. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Your version of events isn't exactly true. The "chronological list" was not limited to safety features and no one suggested that should be the scope of the list other than you and only after the fact.  Your productive interaction with other editors to discuss changes before they are made in the article space is welcome.  Springee (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Editor consensus that the list is a list:
 * Springee: "The list is clearly a list of safety technologies, not a discussion of why those technologies came about."
 * Springee: "The list in question is a list of safety devices or legislation."
 * Springee: "The list is one of safety devices and/or regulations."
 * Springee: "The list is only safety features or regulations."
 * Springee: "However, the list in question, as has been pointed out already, is a list of safety features and regulations. For example, the first car with shoulder belts, the first car with ABS, the first mandate for seatbelts in cars etc."
 * Anmccaff: "This is a simple list of safety features and when they became common..."
 * Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * HughD, you seem to only see what you want to see. Misrepresenting my statements is WP:TEND.  You claimed that I supported making the list only the introduction of safety features yet even in your quotes it's clear I acknowledged regulations.  I didn't say "regulations which dictated a specific safety feature. Springee (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Context stripped. In many, perhaps most cases, you have to see what was being replied to to get the actual full meaning.  Anmccaff (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * No, "we" do not agree on all these points. Speak for yourself, please, u|HughD, rather than summarizing other's thoughts which you may not have fully digested. Anmccaff (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed that the article needs sourcing. I believe the proposed rollback retains many of the recent citation needed tags.  The article certainly could use cleanup beyond just improved sourcing.  However, I don't think the best way to do that is with some talk page discussion first.  Also, I think it would be best to keep the level of politics low to zero here.  The Nader centric edit seems to akin to hero worship.  It also opens the article up to the sort of arguments we have seen already.  I suggest keeping it to a more factual presentation.  If the passage of a particular law was controversial or political that can be discussed in a specific topic article.  Thus Nader's impact, as it is being added to this article, could be described here. Springee (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Rollback completed. I retained the 16:00, 29 April 2016‎ and later edits. This is not an endorsement but those edits were outside of the contested area. Springee (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

, Again please do not continue to add material after people have replied as you did here and here. As you have been told, this can create a false sense of what people said and/or were replying to. After the fact material should be clearly indicated. Springee (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Recent CN tags
, rather than just tagging older article content, why not try to find supporting links? If your intent is to HELP the article finding supporting information is far more productive than just tagging every non-controversial fact. This comes across revenge tagging. Springee (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

History of automobile safety off-topic in article "Automobile safety"?
A history section is appropriate in any article whose subject is not history itself but includes history. More specifically, this subject is of interest to our WP:WikiProject Medicine, which includes some style guidelines WP:MEDMOS, which recommends a "History" section. Twice in the last two days a section tag "off-topic" has been added to the Automobile_safety section. What is the basis in policy or guideline for tagging the history section of this article as off-topic? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * To begin with, your Coatracking edits. That looks to everyone else like a header paragraph to a list of short summarized points regarding technology, public acceptance, or law.  Short. Focused. Universal.  We see instead something that is verbose, tendentious, and parochial. Anmccaff (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What coat-racking edits? Anyway please under what policy or guideline is an "off-topic" section tag an appropriate response to perceived coat-racking? Hugh (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , kindly elaborate on how you feel WP:COATRACK applies here. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Look at the section. Look at the sweep of it: nearly 300 years.  Look at areas covered: nearly everywhere but Antarctica.  Look at the fact that a fifth of it is dedicated to burning incense at the Shrine of St Ralph the Nadered.  Anmccaff (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment, it helps focus. Coverage in Wikipedia is proportional to coverage in reliable sources, not to decades. In any case the 1960s were a significant decade. We will look forward to your contributions of new sources and improved coverage of other decades. This article is very poorly sourced, but even so it seems odd to make one of the most rigorously sourced paragraphs a target for an undue weight exclusion campaign. Please replace the section hat with an in-text relevance template after our article's contended paragraph. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hugh, please discuss your proposed changes with the group BEFORE making them. We are past the time to be WP:BOLD.  Please don't be [WP:RECKLESS]. Springee (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Whether or not a "history" section would be off topic, a Nader section is off-topic. The "off-topic" tag refers to content, not to headers.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I see Hugh moved some paragraphs from other sections into the History section, after the tag was added. Those paragraphs are on-topic in "History", but IMO, fit better where they were before.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , Ralph Nader is off-topic in the History section of our project's article on Automobile safety? Really? What is the due weight of Ralph Nader and and his book Unsafe at Any Speed and his congressional testimony in the History section of our project's article on Automobile safety? Respectfully, a reminder, coverage in Wikipedia is proportional to coverage in reliable sources; beyond proportionality, we have vast noteworthy reliable sources specifically stating a key role for Ralph Nader and and his book Unsafe at Any Speed and his congressional testimony in the passage of the first major automobile safety law. Please, how would you summarize the sources listed in the previous thread above? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, off topic because this article is avoiding the politics associated with various safety features, tests, laws and regulations. Springee (talk) 15:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Section blanking of "History" section
Please do not section blank without consensus. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hugh, there was no "section blanking". The only material removed was the disputed Nader related material.  The rollback was discussed above and supported.  The rollback came about because a series of BOLD changes were rejected by consensus.  Springee (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Which "Nader material", I'd add, might even be a proper part of this, on a very, very, very reduced scale. A sentence or two, a reference or two. Not ''War and Peace" followed by a dozen footnotes.  Anmccaff (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * By your participation in our community you agree to abide by our project's policies which include "don't delete salvageable text" WP:DR. Kindly self-revert your deletion. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * You are assuming that your text is salvageable, I'd suggest it is so far gone that any minor reintroduction would be more straightforward from scratch. Your constant ad hominem poisoning of the well, asserting without evidence that others are breaking "our project's policies," comes across as smarmy passive aggression, at least to my ears.  Anmccaff (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , removed nine (9) noteworthy relevant reliable sources from our article; please suggest a summarization of those sources. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 00:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, Hugh. My recent rollback, discussed at length with considerable consensus, removed material which was widely seen as tendentious, misdirected, and overcited.  Anmccaff (talk) 01:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

, please do not revert changes against consensus. It is clear from the replies of, and  (as well as myself) that both your insertion of the Nader material and your splitting of the list into two sections has not been supported by other editors. supported your concern with the lack of citation tags. That information has been retained. Now please propose, discuss and only make changes AFTER group buy in. Springee (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Paul Ingrassia
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/05/09/how-the-corvairs-rise-and-fall-changed-america-forever/

This piece summarizes some of the disagreements with Nadrocentric model of the universe. U|HughD, if you can show signs that you understand some of the concepts there, it will make for some common ground and actual collaboration. By this I do not mean that I'd expect you to agree, but only to acknowledge there's an entire part of the population, often far more expert than Ralph's Krew on automotive subjects, who disagree fundamentally about many of the ideas you take as given. Anmccaff (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The due weight of Ralph Nader, his book Unsafe at Any Speed, and his congressional testimony in the history of automobile is not none. Your deletion of relevant content and multiple noteworthy reliable sources is unjustified. Kindly self-revert. We are asked not to edit article space to attempt to teach an editor a lesson. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You are confusing several issues. The reversion in question was proposed and supported with consensus.  Rather than respecting consensus you engaged in edit warring by reverting the consensus.  You then created a disingenuous "section blanking" argument for your reversion.  The issue is not that Nader's book can not be in this article.  The first issue was how you were WP:PUSHing some material into a section where it didn't fit.  The second issue was that, despite being asked to discuss your planned changes, you proceeded to restructure the article in a way that the group did not support, hence a roll back.  Anmccaff's actions were entirely appropriate in this case.  Springee (talk) 18:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * We are asked not to edit article space to attempt to teach an editor a lesson. Either take that back, or take it to ANI, where it will lead to a boomerang.  That is, simple and plainly, mendaciously poisoning the well.   Anmccaff (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So,, are you withdrawing that, or is it time to visit one of Wiki's fine AN boards? Anmccaff (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , thank you for bringing a potential new source to article talk. You may wish to propose article content summarizing the source. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Replies like this are TEND. They ignore the concern(s) of the editor and falsely portray the intended meaning of said editor.  Springee (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

That looks like edit-warring, HughD
(Undid revision 718484375 by Anmccaff (talk) no edit summary, unexplained removal of highly relevant content and multiple noteworthy reliable sources) updated since my last visit (undo

That looks very much like an untruth,. There's extensive discussion by others before you again tendentiously added this material. You do not appear to have effectively participated in the discussion, perhaps, but there's little anyone else but you can do about that. Anmccaff (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * No response from you,, just a request to place the same information elsewhere. Let us know when you can address this, please.  Anmccaff (talk) 01:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act
Contended content:

"On September 9, 1966 U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the first mandatory federal safety standards for motor vehicles."

Sources:



What is the basis in policy or guideline for removing this relevant content and multiple noteworthy reliable sources? Hugh (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The basis has been mentioned so many times above that this calls into question something; whether it is competence or ethics I'll leave to others to decide for themselves.  Given the scope of the article, adding 5% about a single person's possibly unproductive actions is uncalled for.  Anmccaff (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you feel the content you deleted features President Lyndon B. Johnson too prominently? Hugh (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course. Look at every other item listed.  Bare-bones and a link.  More importantly, though, the selected, over-cited references are pure WP:Coatrack.  Anmccaff (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act is perhaps the most noteworthy automotive safety regulation in US history, if not the world. Why did you delete instead of correct? How would you summarize the sources? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Bare-bones" Please I would like to learn more about this approach to encyclopedia article writing you mention, can you kindly direct me to policy or guideline where I can catch up to you? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Look at every other item" Is this a list article or a prose article? This article is so poor, in terms of neutrality and sourcing, among other issues, that defending your deletions of neutral, relevant, well-sourced content through reference to the rest of the article as a template is an extremely weak argument. Hugh (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "over-cited" May I ask, do I understand you deleted a neutral, relevant, well-sourced contribution from a colleague, including all four new sources, because you felt it was over-cited? Hugh (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "WP:Coatrack" Sorry, I'm confused. Please explain how you feel WP:COATRACK applies here in justifying your deletion of a neutral, relevant, well-sourced contribution from a colleague. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, unanswered by you, some do not think this is relevant, and your predilection for finding sources that highlight Mr. Nader is uncanny. Anmccaff (talk) 02:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that your disdain for Ralph Nader is so intense that, as a Wikipedia editor, you cannot accept any mention of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and you cannot accept any source that mentions Ralph Nader? If so, you might need to back away from this article. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 04:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying your command of the subject is so thin that you can only discuss it by creating straw men and arguing with them? It would certainly appear so. What are the odds that someone researching the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act would only find references centered on Ralph Nader? Looking, for example, at Google Scholar, not a bad place for an overview, a search on this legislation gets only one hit mentioning Nader in the first 20 abstracts...oddly enough, a piece written by "R. Nader." On the other hand, I see several decent cites evaluating the effectiveness of it, and several explaining the politics of it. Lot of good cites there, yep. "The Struggle for Auto Safety" and "Driving Forces" might be good cites here, for instance. One's a little dated, but it captures quite well the failure of Nader's model, except perhaps as a job-creation scheme for lawyers. Anmccaff (talk) 06:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I am confused by your strenuous objection to mention of Lyndon B. Johnson, sufficient to delete a neutral, relevant, well-sourced contribution from a colleague. Other individuals mentioned by name in this article include Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot, Georges Ageon, Mary Ward, Claire L. Straith, C. J. Strickland, and Hugh DeHaven. Is the role of human agency limited in this article by policy or guideline? Hugh (talk) 00:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You find it odd that the person who some see as inventing both the motor vehicle and the motor vehicle accident is mentioned here? You find the mention of, arguable, the first motor vehicle fatality odd?  The first person to do serious research on crash-friendly auto design?  The guy who invented the first user-friendly lap-and-shoulder belt?  Nope, they fit here...but every single piece of legislation was signed into law by somebody, and it appears the only one mentioned is there mostly to put Nader's name in the footnotes. Anmccaff (talk) 02:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you deleted a neutral, relevant, well-sourced contribution from a colleague because it gave undue weight to US President Lyndon B. Johnson, why did you not consider simply striking US President Lyndon B. Johnson? Why excise the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act from our history of automobile safety? Hugh (talk) 04:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, stop using essentially dishonest techniques of argument if you don't wish to be seen as essentially dishonest. I obviously don't see your selected cites as "a neutral, relevant, well-sourced contribution." That's the essential problem, they ain't. They're tendentious, semi-relevant, and lazily sourced cites; that's not even one out of three, since their relevance is peripheral, not central. Anmccaff (talk) 06:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * As per WP:ES please use an dummy edit to provide an edit summary for today, without edit summaries, of a neutral, relevant, well-sourced contribution from a colleague. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , are you claiming to be unable to understand the reasons for this revert very thoroughly mentioned above? I'd say "discussed", but I can see little, if any, evidence of your participation in a discussion. Anmccaff (talk) 02:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * , The motives behind your addition were obvious and your arguments above are TEND. I think the mention of the passage of the act and which agencies it established is a good addition to the article.  The mention of Johnson with links suggests a bit of PEACOCK.  The real issue was the excessive number of citations, all with quotes containing the political material you wanted to add to the article itself.  It was clear that you were trying to get your favored material into the article.  It is dishonest of you to act like the issue is the mention of Johnson vs the mention of Nader et al. in the citation quotes.  Certainly a fact like the Act was passed doesn't need 4 citations with extensive quoting.  Springee (talk) 10:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Springee, elsewhere you have admonished Hugh not to impute motives to others and you call his doing so a "personal attack" and yet here i find you doing that in a much worse way than you allege Hugh did in the other context. Please take a look at yourself and lighten up with your accusations about other people's motives, and your accusations that other people are imputing motives to others... it's all too much. Let's speak with respect and common sense with each other, please. You can't have it both ways, you know. You can't say that when others do it, it's wrong, and then turn around and do it yourself. I suggest speaking to the content and not the motives of others. SageRad (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Automobile safety. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080311122721/http://www.universityscience.ie/pages/scientists/sci_mary_ward.php to http://www.universityscience.ie/pages/scientists/sci_mary_ward.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141213023724/http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Oldsmobile/1974_Oldsmobile/1974_Oldsmobile_Air_Cushion_Folder/1974%20Oldsmobile%20Air%20Cushion%20Folder-06-07.html to http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Oldsmobile/1974_Oldsmobile/1974_Oldsmobile_Air_Cushion_Folder/1974%20Oldsmobile%20Air%20Cushion%20Folder-06-07.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141213023724/http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Oldsmobile/1974_Oldsmobile/1974_Oldsmobile_Air_Cushion_Folder/1974%20Oldsmobile%20Air%20Cushion%20Folder-06-07.html to http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Oldsmobile/1974_Oldsmobile/1974_Oldsmobile_Air_Cushion_Folder/1974%20Oldsmobile%20Air%20Cushion%20Folder-06-07.html
 * Added tag to https://secure.srgint.com/home.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Automobile safety. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080416231439/http://www.ile-de-france.drire.gouv.fr/vehicules/homolo/cnrv/histoire.htm to http://www.ile-de-france.drire.gouv.fr/vehicules/homolo/cnrv/histoire.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Tucker/album/album/1948%20Tucker-04.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080309072906/http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/teepa/pdf/TRB_Safety_1-03.pdf to http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/teepa/pdf/TRB_Safety_1-03.pdf
 * Added tag to https://secure.srgint.com/home.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 4 February 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) B dash (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Automobile safety → Automotive safety – This article is not limited in scope to "automobiles", but deals with the broader category of motor vehicles. Common usage when referring to the broader category is to use the word "automotive", and thereby I proposed this move. In any case, Google Books results show many more results for "automotive safety" than "automobile safety". "Car safety" is also a possibility, but this article deals with a broader category of vehicles, in my opinion, as stated above. RGloucester — ☎ 19:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Dekimasu よ! 20:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

*Oppose: The term "Automobile" does cover the broader topic. Hence why we talk about the automobile companies even though they also manufacture cars, trucks etc. There is no reason for RGloucester to continue to run around Wikipedia and change titles from "Automobile" to "Cars" or "automotive" simply because the editor doesn't like the word "automobile". Springee (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC) See below Springee (talk) 23:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Lets move to Car safety then if we'd prefer to keep using that topic.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 20:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Why would we move it to "Car safety"? What is wrong with keeping it where it is?  "Automobile" is commonly used to refer to cars, SUVs, light trucks and in some cases heavy trucks, buses etc.  "Car" typically would not.  What I think is ironic is the same editor who lead the charge to change "Automobile" to "Car" would want anything to be "Automotive"?  For consistency wouldn't it make more sense to generally stick with "Automotive" and "Automobile"?  Thus we have a topic "Automobile" and a topic "Automotive Safety"?  Perhaps a broader RfC would be helpful.  Springee (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We've already decided on the main article and category so why do we need to repeat the debate here? RGloucester gave lots of reliable sources and arguments to support using "Car" so lets be consistent here and stick with "Car".  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 21:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If I recall that name change was not readily accepted at the time it was made. Additionally, the category name change RfC we had recently came out rather mixed with many who supported the category name change only doing so because they agreed that "Car" was focus article for the category.  This again suggests that a proper 30 day RfC rather than a quiet name change makes more sense.  Springee (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It was accepted, the move review was closed as effectively withdrawn.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 22:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It was accepted only based on procedural rules, not because there was a clear consensus for the change. Again, a RfC to address the efforts to rename long standing "Automobile" articles to "Car" etc would be helpful to resolve this issue.  Springee (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The long-standing title for the article has been "Car" why do we need a RFC for the rest of the titles, apart from topics where automobile is more common such as Plymouth (automobile). The usual rule otherwise is to follow the main article for the other articles, the categories, templates, wikiprojects etc.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 22:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The long standing title was "Automobile" until it was changed and not without at least some protest. The category discussion made it clear many editors do not support this wholesale effort to change "Automobile" to "Car" hence why it makes sense to have a RfC on the subject.  This is especially true since the "Car" article covers topics that aren't strictly cars including SUVs, vans, trucks and environmental impacts, traffic etc.  Springee (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It was changed as a result of a RM even if controversial. And 4+ years is more than enough time to be "Long-standing" and even if it was a recent RM (as opposed to a bold unilateral move) as noted at MR that probably doesn't mean it can simply be reverted as a result of a later no consensus.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 22:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's clear that when these article were named some were named "car" others "automobile" etc. As someone who got my start in automotive topics on Wikipedia I didn't pay much attention to "Automobile", now "Car" since wasn't a topic I wanted to work on.  However, if it's going to be used as a parent and then as a reason to change a number of article and category names then I think we should just have a single RfC so we can get a broad consensus on how to handle such cases.  This will also get a wide range of opinions.  Remember that one of the criticisms of the "Automobile"->"Car" page move was that the discussion period was short given the scope of name change.  Even at the time it was suggested that a RfC should have been used and based on the follow up comments it seems likely a non-consensus (as had happened in previous cases) would have been the result.  A well publicised RfC again could help come up with something less haphazard.  Springee (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This like the main category is just a hangover of the main article being renamed, as noted Category:Car safety was at that location even while the article was at Automobile (and the main category at Category:Automobiles), yet it was renamed to Category:Car safety after the main article was moved to Car and the main category moved to Category:Cars which is very odd. Likewise Portal:Cars has been at that location but Category:Car safety can be renamed if/when this discussion is over.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 14:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support: "automobile" is a synonym of "car" which is too narrow a definition. "Automotive" covers the broader subject of motor vehicles in general and is the more common term globally. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: The Oxford Dictionary definies automobile as a North American word for a car, but there are several other motor vehicles which require safety. A term that includes a broader variety of motor vehicles makes more sense in this case. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Common usage of "automobile" would include more than the common definition of "car". A Toyota Landcruiser is an SUV as well as commonly considered an Automobile.  It isn't considered a Car, at least not in North American English.  Springee (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * WP is global, outside US English the normal term is "car".  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 20:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "Automobile" is perfectly understood around the English speaking world. It also makes it more consistent with "Automotive" ie "Automobile" the noun, "Automotive" the modifier.  Both the Encyclopedia Britannica and Oxford Reference encyclopedia use "Automobile"[], [].  I haven't verified with other encyclopedias.  Do we have any examples of an encyclopedia that puts the entry under "Car" vs "Automobile"? Springee (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "automobile" is a noun and is synonomous with "car". This article is not about just car safety, it is about the safety of motor vehicles in general, which is why the adjective "automotive" is more appropriate here. Oxford Reference is an index for Oxford University Press publications, not an encyclopaedia, and what your links show is that the American Encyclopaedia Britannica uses the American term, and that Oxford University Press publish 1,261 different publications with the word "automobile" in, and if you had looked-up "car" there you'd have seen that they publish 8,985 different publications with "car" in. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a stupid argument. This move has nothing to do with the car/automobile nonsense...the problem with the present title is that it doesn't align with the scope of the article, i.e. doesn't adequately define the scope of the article per WP:PRECISE, and for that reason, we should use the broader term 'automotive', used in all varieties of English, as is done at automotive industry, &c. RGloucester  — ☎ 22:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a bad faith reply. I was responding to another editor's comments.  I'm sorry that your are so offended.  Regardless, is yet another reason why we should have a RfC on the "car" vs "automobile" question.  Springee (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Springee moved the category from Category:Automotive safety to Category:Automobile safety (but the articles are still in the old category), shouldn't this have waited until this was determined and then listed at CFDS.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 21:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No. A contested move should be reverted.  Given the previous concerns regarding TCG's similar moves it would have been better to publicize the request prior to making the change.  Springee (talk) 22:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It was at Category:Car safety until RGloucester moved it earlier today, it should probably be returned to that title pending consensus here.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 22:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, in that case I will restore it. My bad.  Springee (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)  The long standing category title aligned with this article title.  Is this meant to align with "Car" or "Automobile Safety" Springee (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Car safety, it was even at that title when the main category was at Category:Automobiles for some reason.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 22:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I tried to undo that change with no luck. Will give it another try.  The system says "Car safety" already exists.  Note the category was "Automobile:Safety" until last October.  Springee (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It was not, it has always been "Car safety".  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 10:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support or Move to Car safety Per the main article Car, we have established that we use "Car" except for topics where automobile is more common such as Plymouth (automobile).  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 21:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The main article's name change was considered controversial at the time. The category name change from Automobile to Car was only successful because there was virtually no notification.  When there was proper notification we got a no-consensus.  I think a RfC on the subject is needed.  Springee (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * But there was consensus to move the article and it has been there since 2014 without objections (AFAIK).  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 22:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * But "Car safety" has exactly the same scope as "Automobile safety", and neither of them cover the full width of the scope of this article, but "Automotive safety" does. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm striking my opposition to this change. I've been persuaded that "Automotive" makes sense when used as an adjective or adverb. It would then make sense to move the primary topic "Car" back to "Automobile". That would create a more harmonious "Automobile" and "Automotive" naming scheme. This is especially true when dealing with the high level article titles as well as the categories associated with automotive topics. It also would align our primary topic name, "Automobile" (vs car) with sources like the Encyclopedia Britannica (see link above). Finally, it would address the discrepancy that we see with the article "Car" covering topics related to SUVs, pickup trucks etc. This would have to be decided by a separate RfC vs this request to rename. Springee (talk) 23:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Clarifying, oppose absent any other changes because, on further review, the article is almost exclusivity about features on an automobile vs including roadside improvements. The argument that these features exist on heavy trucks isn't convincing since these features typically trickled from passenger vehicles to heavy trucks and depending on the definition automobile would include heavy trucks. I would support the change of the scope were increased to include traffic control, road side changes etc.  I would also support if it includes a general agreement to harmonize across many of these articles with "automotive" being a modifier and "automobile" being the preferred (but obviously not required) noun.  It would just make for a more consistent style across articles. Springee (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No definition of 'automobile' includes heavy trucks, and you've seen the evidence as such a thousand times. Roadside improvements are covered by Road traffic safety. "Automotive" simply means relating to motor vehicles. It has nothing to do with roadside improvements. RGloucester  — ☎ 14:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oops.... [] and opps []. It would be more accurate to say no definition you have presented or agreed with. Springee (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose: article deals only or mainly autmobiles -- >Typ932 T·C 06:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Several "safety features" described in this article are not limited to cars, and that is quite obvious. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 09:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Which one? and for which vehicles? its not so obvious if you read this article. This article is clearly speaking automobiles, or at least 99% of it  -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 15:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * AEB, seatbelts, airbags and tire pressure monitoring can all be found on heavy trucks. Toasted Meter (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The term automobile can apply to heavy trucks and those features started with passenger vehicles. A change to "automotive" may imply things like traffic control and road side improvements.  That could be a reasonable scope expansion for this article.  Springee (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - as per 's rationale above. "Automobile" is more specific, whereas "automotive" is more generic  and can include topics and items not germaine to the issue. But I must add, I find " Crouch, Swale "'s antics here are appalling, basically co-opting this RM to push an agenda. Changing "automobile" to "car" is not part of this proposal, and his persistent "IDHT" and "ILDI" behaviour has all but derailed this RM. I would suggest that all of his entries be struck, save for one '!vote' or comment that is on point with the current proposal, (if one exists), to recorded as part of the final consensus. Other than that, " Crouch, Swale " should not participate any further. This really is one of the worst, most blatant details I've ever seen. -  wolf  05:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Things like traffic control and roadside improvements ARE not part of 'automotive safety', anymore than they would be part of 'automobile' safety. All that "automotive' means is "Relating to or concerned with motor vehicles", as you can see from Oxford. What you're describing is called "ROAD TRAFFIC safety", and we already have an article on that. The present article includes items that are proper to trucks, busses, &c., which are not encompassed by the term "automobile". "Automobile safety" is not a common term for this topic for that very reason. RGloucester  — ☎ 14:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If you don't consider them part of Automotive safety why make this change? Roads, traffic lights, etc certainly related to motor vehicles.  The items in question also can refer to airplanes (they have seat belts).  The problem with your claim of what "automobile" encompass is that you want to use only one possible definition.  You earlier ignored that "car" doesn't include SUVs and light trucks as frequently used in North America yet now you demand that we respect your definition that "Automobile" doesn't include heavy trucks and buses.  Here is an engineering text on the subject that doesn't agree with you.  [].  It suggests that in Indian English Automobile is the parent topic for cars and heavy trucks.  So let's stop pretending that the OED is the only reliable source.   Springee (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * My behavior is not appalling, if you (Thewolfchild) have a problem with the use of "Car" then take it up at that article's talk page. As noted this isn't the place to continue that debate, I was also going mainly by the arguments but forward by RGloucester which contain many reliable sources.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * @ Crouch, Swale - Is that supposed to be a joke? (Did you really just write that?) You have smothered this discussion with a dozen posts (so far), all with your POV-pushing, battleground mentality, going on and on (and on) about "cars". "Hey guys, how about we make it 'cars'?", "I think it should be cars!", "Let's change it to cars, ok?", "I want 'cars'!", "Cars, cars!, CARS!".. Then you have the nerve to tell me to "take it up elsewhere"...? Wow. Oh, and uh... 'no'. I said all I've needed to say. I'm sure you still have plenty more to add, but I'm done here. 19:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A phoney textbook from India, with some text COPIED from relevant Wikipedia pages (easily verified if you bother to look), is not a reliable source for anything. The purpose of the change is to reflect the scope of this article, as pertaining to "motor vehicles", rather than "automobiles" or "cars". This is not an issue with "my definition" of "automobile". The definition being used is the one found in RS, specifically the OED (def 2), which other editors have also cited above. "Road traffic safety" is a broader category, because, while, as a "WikiProject Automobiles" member you might not be aware, other types of vehicles, such as bicycles, and even pedestrians (gasp!), travel on roads. This article is about safety features of motor vehicles specifically, not about the safety features of roads. The common term for said topic is "automotive safety", and that's what should be used here. The only appalling behaviour in this whole mess has been from Springee and his cohorts, who meaninglessly attempt to block well-reasoned and sensible changes in line with Wikipedia policies and RS, only for the purpose of retaining their favoured archaism, "automobile", even when it makes no sense to do so. Enough is enough, I say. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * @RGloucester - "Automobile" is "archaic"...? Pfft! Ok. I guess we should use that new, cutting-edge term that all the cool kids are using these days; "car", eh? Well, enough of this nonsense. I've posted my vote and I think I'm done with this "discussion". I'll leave you all to it. -  wolf  19:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * RGL is claiming, without proof that an engineering text published by a established academic text publisher is phony. That's quite the charge to have made without evidence.  It's that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence issue.  Anyway, this article seems to be about the introduction of safety features in automobiles.  I can see making the change if we want to try to standardize on something like "automobile" as the noun in titles and "automotive" as the modifier but not just because RGL feels we should always change North American English terms into UK English terms.  Springee (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Put the text into Google and see what comes up. But never mind that..."automotive" is NOT a "UK term", and such a claim is an absurdity. Are you claiming that Indiana University (they have an "Automotive Safety Program"...we'd write 'programme') is in Britain, or otherwise uses British English? Unless you're referring to "car", which would be even more of an absurdity. RGloucester  — ☎ 23:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That is a safety education program vs an article about technology to improve safety in automobiles. Springee (talk) 02:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thewolfchild, usually sub articles follow the parent article except for cases where another form is more common for that specific topic. That's why I suggested that you take it up at Talk:Car. There is no evidence that this particular topic (safety) is more specific to America that the rest of the world, thus the default is to follow the main article (Car). If the article was at Automobile and I was trying to get this changed to "Car safety" then I would completely understand that being appalling but if anything the persistent refusal to accept the consensus of the main article applying here is IDHT. "Hey guys, how about we make it 'automobiles'?", "I think it should be automobiles!", "Let's change it to automobiles, ok?", "I want 'automobiles'!", "Automobiles, automobiles!, AUTOMOBILES!".. I count 13 of my signs but Springee has 22! At Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 26 I have 10 signs but Springee has 19 and RGloucester has 34! similarly at Move review/Log/2018 November I have 10 but RGloucester also has 10 and Springee has 26.
 * Lets stick to if this should be "Automotive safety" or "Car safety". "Automobile safety" shouldn't be an option as long as the main article is at Car. The category was a bit difference since ambiguity is more of a problem in the category namespace, but it was still deemed that the vehicle is primary. But having the Automobile v Car debate here is pointless and off topic.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 12:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * So if you think "Car safety" is OK one must assume that's because you feel car and automobile can be used interchangeably. In that case you should be OK leaving the title as is.  Springee (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If car and automobile are used interchangeably (which they usually are) then we chose car per the main article.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 20:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. Automobile is a redirect to car, but this article covers other types of motor vehicles, including trucks, semis, and buses. "Automotive safety" is more encompassing of the article contents.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This highlights one of the concerns I have with the "Automobile"->"Cars" move that was done with only article level notification. Note that the change was not without controversy at the time.  It's now being used as justification to change the titles of other articles.  I get the "automobile" to "automotive" but I think that should also come with the idea that "automobile" and "automotive" make a nice paring for a range of article titles vs "automotive" and "car" Springee (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "Automotive" and "automobile" are completely unrelated words, with completely unrelated etymologies, so no such "paring" exists. "Automotive" (OED link) is a much older word than "automobile", dating to the early 19th century. It originally referred to any self-propelled vehicle, and was formed in English from the classical components auto, meaning 'self' in Greek, and motive, from the Latin motivus, meaning 'to incite motion'. It now refers to motor vehicles in general terms. "Automobile" (OED link), on the other hand, comes from a French coinage of classical components, and did not come into use until the the last decade of the 19th century. It specifically refers to a "road vehicle powered by a motor (usually an internal combustion engine), esp. one designed to carry a driver and a small number of passengers; a car", and is a marked as a chiefly American usage. Any conflation of these terms is an error, and again, simply a product of an attempt to promote a term that is favoured amongst certain enthusiasts, but is otherwise heading toward becoming a dead word in actual usage. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you really claiming "automotive" and "automobile" are not related terms? What's next, "Auto" isn't related to either one?  "attempt to promote a term that is favoured amongst certain enthusiasts", that is a laughable claim coming from an editor who has worked so hard to strike an clear and understandable term from Wikipedia.  Again, if the term was so wrong, "a dead word" as you claim, why does the Encyclopedia Britannica have an "automobile" entry instead of "car"?  [], [].  If you search "car" you get rail road stock [].  Springee (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * They are not etymologically related terms, as I explained above. They were created at different times in different languages from different parts to mean different things. That they both contain the component auto does not mean they are related, unless you're suggesting that both terms share more than a superficial connection with such words as "autodidact"? I'm not going to waste my time on the "automobile" v. "car" nonsense, as that discussion is closed. However, I am frankly tired of your continued creation of absurdities out of thin air, and ignoring of facts. Enough!  RGloucester  — ☎ 21:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * So you are saying they don't start with the four letters A U T O and those four letters don't have a common root? So I guess this is just wrong. []
 * '' automotive (adj.) "pertaining to automobiles," 1898, a hybrid from auto- "self," from Greek, and motive (adj.), from Latin.
 * These guys also agree []. Funny that you claim you won't waist your time on "automobile" vs "car" yet you went to great effort to try to change "automobile" to "car".  Springee (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * So, instead of reading the detailed etymology of both words provided in the OED, which I linked, you use rubbish net sources with no backing whatsoever. If you don't respect the most reliable source on English language etymology, then there is no point arguing with you, as you simply do not align with Wikipedia principles, and should be blocked as not WP:HERE. RGloucester  — ☎ 22:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That is quite the bad faith accusation you leveled. Please keep wiki principles like CIVIL in mind.  Springee (talk) 23:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * From the 1966 edition of the Random House unabridged dictionary:
 * Automobile: a vehicle, esp. one for passenger, carrying its own power-generating and propelling mechanism for travel on ordinary roads. adj. automotive.
 * Automotive: 1. pertaining to the design, operation, manufacture or sale of automobiles. 2. propelled by a self-contained power plant. 
 * Car: 1. an automobile. 2. a vehicle running on rails, as a streetcar. 3. Brit Dial. any wheeled vehicle, as a farm cart, wagon, etc.  
 * So the Random House Dictionary points to Automobile as the primary name, just as Britannica does. It also relates automotive back to automobile.  Springee (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. I dislike the personal attack against User:Crouch, Swale. I have had no interaction with this editor except seeing listings at WP:RM and occasionally commenting on them. From what I see, this user is attempting to improve the wikipedia by putting existing articles at their correct titles according to various naming conventions, mostly geographic.
 * I have seen a few technical requests nodded through, but if Crouch, Swale is in any doubt they get listed at RM to get community consensus, and were I Crouch, Swale I would be saying "why should I bother?" But gnoming is a valuable thing that gets little respect. In a rush to add new content, try to remember that wikignomes deal with the stuff when the solid fuel makes contact with the wind turbine. 178.164.162.144 (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support "Automotive" per WP:COMMONALITY. "Automotive" is the term used in the industry. I have worked on safety critical software for various companies and it is always "automotive" not "automobile". AUTOSAR for example is not an acronym for "Automobile... etc", but "Automotive... etc". I respect WP:COMMONNAME but I am as common as they come, and I say "automotive". 178.164.162.144 (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support for all the reasons listed above; article is better served by broader descriptor. Smith  (talk)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME. The clincher for me is the Google Books search results linked by the nom. --В²C ☎ 18:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The blinding lights seem ill-suited to show anything
The current text claims:


 * Vehicles are equipped with a variety of lights and reflectors to mark their presence, position, width, length, and direction of travel as well as to convey the driver's intent and actions to other drivers. These include the vehicle's headlamps, front and rear position lamps, side marker lights and reflectors, turn signals, stop (brake) lamps, and reversing lamps.

Blinding lights can be blinding, and it is hard to see any of these things when you can't see anything except flashing, or multiple flashes, and pain. I realize I'm more sensitive to these lights than most people, but even if most people are less sensitive, don't they have some trouble seeing when blinded? 108.51.205.136 (talk) 00:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * To improve the article might be the topic should be split in two parts:
 * light to see and to be seen
 * how to avoid the adverse effect of the light excess which might make people temporarily blind — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.216.31 (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Detailed analysis of "very poorly written, poorly referenced changes"
A robot has classified a group of changes as "very poorly written, poorly referenced changes": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Automotive_safety&diff=988183863&oldid=988158916

Only the group of changes has been rated and not each individual change.

So I assume a detailed analysis could help to see which change might be of interest and which might not. My comments are in the comment column: