Talk:Traffic/Archive 1

Disambig needed
Really needs a disambiguation instead of this. --Edcolins 22:00, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Definition needed
Article needs a definition of the word Nurg 07:14, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

William Beaty and Brian Lucas
Those two guys are mentioned in the article but in no way is it explained who they are. Who can help?  14:18, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

The right side of the road.
…is the right; the other side is obviously wrong.
 * Sort of, because 'left' used to mean wrong. But traffic engineers are continually debating which side is better. "My right-hand drive car is better than your left-hand drive car; you can shift with your left. Plus, I can see oncoming traffic with my stronger right eye" etc. —Last Avenue [ talk | contributions ] 01:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

From Rules of the road, to be merged into article
See Talk:Traffic/Rules of the Road merge archive


 * Done that right now. —Last Avenue [ talk | contributions ] 00:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm moving the stuff into an archive since it's clogging up the contents. —Last Avenue [ talk | contributions ] 00:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Expansion of intro & images
This article should also have a longer introduction paragraph and more images. I can't find the templates for these, however. —Last Avenue [ talk | contributions ] 01:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

KRETP in california
I just looked at the CVC and it appears that california actually requires all vehicles to stay in the right lane except to pass or to make a left turn. 64.81.53.207 15:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Sec. 21654 seems to imply that one is only required to use the rightmost lane if one is traveling slower than the flow of traffic (e.g. a tractor or marginally-able vehicle). The (rare) occurrence of explicit signage stating "Keep right except to pass" instead of the more typical "slow traffic keep right" implies that KRETP is an exception to the rule, only applicable where posted. (An example of such signage is on CA-20 west of CA-16, where there is a passing lane on a winding undivided road. Speight 20:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This ain't "Traffic (USA)" Requirements to use the rigthmost lane in general, except to pass exist in atleast Norway and Germany too, so clearly that's not a California-only thing. --Eivind Kjørstad 08:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Merging right-of-way and priority
These sections are very similar and contain some redundant info. I recommend merging them. Speight 20:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Done, though some cleanup needed. EdC 06:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Insurance
I just read the insurance section. Wisconsin does not require drivers to carry insurance if they meet certain financial responsibility requirements. We should change the language to reflect that. Monkeythumpa 22:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

U.S. state-specific practices
I added a short description and link to the lane splitting article. Monkeythumpa 22:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Traffic Congestion vs. Movement of Vehicles and people
In California, it is common to say "there is no traffic on the freeway" even when there are plenty of moving vehicles, but no significant slowdown due to congestion. How common is it to refer to traffic congestion as simply "traffic" elsewhere? I feel this meaning might have a place in the article. --CodeGeneratR 15:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

External Links removal
Using the policies in External_links, I removed links from the article. Below, the details...


 * Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
 * Better Environmentally Sound Transportation

I do not think the sites above:

"provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article."


 * Transportation Communications Newsletter

The site above "Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups) or USENET."


 * Etymology of "traffic"
 * Traffic Waves

the sites above "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." (and they are not) --Legionarius (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * My viewpoints are:
 * ITE - This is the professional institution of North American & Australian traffic engineers and one of the more prominent professional institutions elsewhere. I'd say it deserves to remain here as a resource.
 * Traffic waves - Agreed. This info could be worked into the article with this website serving as a reference or a better reference if one can be found (though this article, whilst itself written in an unprofessional manner, does give generally valid information).
 * BEST - Agreed. There are plenty of similar programs: no need to list them all.
 * Transp. Comm. Newsletter - Agreed. There are professional newsletters available such as ITE & Traffic Technology Today which aren't based on social networking sites.
 * Etymology - Agreed. As with the traffic waves, the etymology can be incorporated into the article with a reference provided; though we need a better reference than a blog. Use the blogger's sources or find better ones.
 * So of the five, I'd say we keep ITE and work the info on traffic waves and etymology into the article w/ appropriate references. -- Bossi  ( talk • gallery • contrib ) 19:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In my view, ITE definitely should stay — there is ample precedent all over Wikipedia for including links to the professional societies and associations relevant to the topic at hand. While the the Traffic Waves link would be indeed be more relevant if its information were covered in the article, the lack of such coverage warrants some bold editor adding text on the subject more than it warrants removing the link. As for the BEST link, it seems to me directly relevant to some of the newer ideas and practices in traffic engineering and management. I agree with Thisisbossi that there are many similar organisations, but that fact doesn't render this link irrelevant. If some editor thinks this link is a poor choice, the preferable action would be to replace it with a better one (after obtaining consensus, if the replacement proves controversial).


 * I agree with removing the links to the web forum and to the etymological information; web forums almost always make problematic links, and the etymology of the word could very easily be incorporated into the article.


 * I am not happy that Legionarius unilaterally declared even the relevant and debatable links "linkspam" and chose to remove the lot of them summarily. It is one thing to remove actual linkspam, but the definition of linkspam does not include "sites Legionarius doesn't happen to like". Wikipedia is a cooperative effort based on consensus, not a dictatorial or competitive one. And obtaining consensus means a lot more than quoting one provision from the WP external-links guideline and baselessly asserting it applies to all of the links removed when it clearly does not. Please read the whole external-links guideline, and pay especial attention to the parts about common sense and consensus. --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not think this is the case. I am following the rules. You can debate the sites according to the rules, like Bossi did above.
 * For the record, I do not have anything against any of those sites. I understand there is not a rule called ""sites Legionarius doesn't happen to like", and that there is not a rule "sites Legionarius like a lot" either. Please, why did you restore the sites, based on what rule?
 * Further discussion on the remaining links:
 * I do not see any reason for Traffic waves be in the article. I am not saying that the article is bogus, but it definitely is not a WP:RS; the author is not a recognized expert in the field. Is Traffic Waves a term that is used anywhere outside of the linked page? Just asking; a quick Google brought mostly links to that same page.
 * ITE and BEST are valid and informative sites, but I do not see specific reasons for them to be in the article. If the only reason is that they are prominent associations, we could put a long list of associations and departments from all over the world, transforming it in a link farm. Maybe pointing the link to a specific area of the site that relates to the article could make it a better resource - right now the homepage for ITE has just some institutional news and advertising for selling books. Or if they have valid and useful content, they could be used as a source and incorporated in the article.--Legionarius (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Legionarius, I understand your concern that the article shouldn't become a link farm, but this amounts to a red herring sliding down a slippery slope, if you'll excuse the torturously mixed metaphor. We haven't got a problem in this article with anything near an overwhelming number of links. Nobody's proposed adding tens or hundreds of links to associations from all over the world — we're talking about a grand total of three links here, so I think we ought to keep the debate centred around what is (whether or not a maximum of three links ought to remain), not what you're afraid might possibly someday under certain eventualities potentially happen (an unmanageably large number of links). If someday the list of external links grows to unreasonable size, we can deal with that problem at that time, as it seems.


 * I agree with you that links should point to the most relevant page on a site, particularly in cases where that relevant page can be difficult to find from the homepage. However, I believe it is inappropriate to use this common sense idea as an excuse to nuke links. It is more appropriate to fix a link that doesn't go directly to the relevant page.


 * The external links guideline contains rather clear langauge denoting it as a guideline and explicitly recommending that its provisions be applied with common sense and reason. It is not a stone-tablet statute by which for you or anyone else to write figurative tickets or stand in judgment of those perceived as violators. There will be many different interpretations of the grey areas in the guideline, and — discarding the obvious cases of miscomprehension — it isn't helpful or productive to assert that yours is more correct than mine or vice versa. Please remember to assume good faith. We are dealing in this case with some links that do not run afoul of the clear go/no-go provisions of the guideline (e.g., links to purely commercial sites — which I hasten to emphasise to you is what linkspam actually is). That being so, it'll be most productive to discuss the links and work toward consensus. Summary deletion and improper dismissal of non-spam links as "linkspam" is damaging, for it discourages people posting better links (why bother, if they're just going to get deleted as "linkspam"?). Just something to consider. You certainly had a valid point on some of the original links, and there may well be better links than the ones we're now discussing; it's not so much what you said as how you said/did it that was problematic, IMO. --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's try to separate this. First, content:
 * I believe that, of the three links that remain, ITE and BEST are good sites, but thecurrent links do not point to anything particularly useful or related to the article. I prefer by far to not have a link than to have a link to something that is not useful. Using this rationale, we can have 3 or 3,000 links there - the important thing is that all of them are useful and extend the reach of the article. Or, if you think that ITE is a good thing to link to, why do not put a see also there? They have an article, and their home page just have commercial and instituional messages. And about BEST, why are they so special or different from other similar organizations that they should be here and the others not? Talking about the link farm, I said that the article could become a link farm if we put all the deserving organizations there. That said, maybe the best is just to put a "dmoz" template.
 * About the "traffic waves" site, I still do not see why it is there. It looks like it is the work of a non-expert that is not mentioned anywhere else.

Now, about your critics to my behavior, I left a message in your talk page.

--Legionarius (talk) 02:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Take a critical look at the I/me/mine language you're using, together with the slippery-slope arguments you seem to favour, and you may begin to understand why your behaviour is coming off as more autocratic than coöperative. It is evident from your contribs page that you are on some sort of a crusade against what you consider linkspam. I've no interest in a countercrusade; others are already noticing what you're doing and calling you to account for it. Neither have I any interest in a pissing contest with you. I have contributed to what consensus may arise by speaking my mind regarding the links in this article. --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 05:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You are both good editors and I would hate to experience otherwise from either of you. Please keep this page on-track with the issue of the external links; and keep personal aggravations on your user talk pages. -- Bossi  ( talk • gallery • contrib ) 05:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Back to content: Bossi, do you think there is any special area the link to ITE could point to? S. wants to keep them the way it is; I want ITE to be redirected (I guess a good compromise would be link to their article), BEST and Traffic waves to go; Dream wants to keep ITE, BEST and Traffic Waves. You mentioned you like ITE and do not care much about the others. The only major problem I see is the traffic waves article, which does not seem to be WP:RS, but your input would be very important on that.--Legionarius (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

As an uninvolved party, I would like no-one to revert anyone. I am saying this as an experienced editor, not as a boss.(No pun intended.) I agree with what was said by Legionarius, and the three topmost links should be kept, and the lower down links should be removed/kept out. I do like what has been said though, and all points have been quite valid. &lt; DREAMAFTER &gt; &lt; TALK &gt; 21:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I am still not sure if Traffic Waves is reliable (that's why) and the other links should point to some specific area of the site that would be specifically related to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legionarius (talk • (Since I removed the duplicated links, Dreamafter is saying that ITE, BEST and TrafficWaves should stay and YahooGroups and the Etimology site should go).--Legionarius (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The three remaining links are clearly inappropriate. ITE is a fine organization, but it is not the authoritative outside source on "traffic" - not enough nexus to the article. Traffic waves is a self-published site that's not comprehensive, just a curiosity. BEST is a political advocacy site, which wouldn't be appropriate in most cases, and it's not specifically about traffic. I would just delete these all as a matter of course were it not for the revert war and the fact that they've been in the article for some while (meaning as a matter of procedure that those proposing deletion have some burden of showing their edits to be correct). Wikidemo (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As a "consensuus attempt", I will remove the three links and move ITE to "seealso".--Legionarius (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Reference to this site would be helpful
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071219103102.htm

talks about how traffic jams could be fixed by how a person breaks, its like that saying taht a butterfly in china can cause a tornado in wiscousins, type of thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eeemmad (talk • contribs) 01:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Freeway exits when driving left
Eh, this seems like a mistake, or otherwise it's unintuitive for people from 'right driving'-countries: It says most freeway exists are on the right side for both left and right driving countries. I suppose in the UK freeway exits are on the left side? SuperMidget (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay I saw someone changed it from left to right, guess it was vandalism. Undone. SuperMidget (talk) 08:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Oldest Traffic Laws and One-Way Street Inventor : Peruvian?
I was looking at old vides in youtube and came up to finding this General Motors promotional video (or something of that sort). Well, the video itself was rather boring, but the most interesting part came up when at  it stated that "Lima, Peru has the oldest traffic laws in the world" and that "the man who invented the one-way street came from Lima." I'm not sure whether this information is truth or false as I haven't found a source other than this youtube video, but I think that if this information is a fact then it would be highly relevant and historically important to include it in this article. On the other hand, if this information is false, then don't worry about it.--MarshalN20 (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol. Forgot to put in the video, here it is (It's in English, yay!): http://profacero.wordpress.com/2008/08/11/lima-1927/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarshalN20 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems useful, but a Youtube video is no source according to WP:YOUTUBE and WP:RS. Admiral Norton (talk) 10:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Definition
This article talks about vehicular, road traffic, not about the transportation of information, animals and similar. BTW, your spelling isn't good. Admiral Norton (talk) 10:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * if you wish an article about road traffic - so you should/must write one! traffic means all sorts of traffic. i suppose you don't understand the difference between traffic and transport: traffic means mouvement (on streets, flight routes, waterways, trails, railways, data highways or wherever) of everything (Cars, people, ships, electricity etc.) and must't anything transport apart itself! transport means something which is anotherthing (on or in it) take with it. Dontworry (talk) 11:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * First, AFAIK transport means the transport of prisoners from and to jail; the right word is transportation. Second, transportation is the transfer of people by car, ship, bicycle, etc. (not electricity), and traffic is widely understood to mean transportation by roads. This is the kind of traffic this article is talking about. If you're not satisfied, you are free to use WP:RM to propose a move to Road traffic, but you can count on my oppose, since I never hear "There is much road traffic on XXX boulevard" or "Road traffic is on rise in Zagreb." I doubt someone would believe it means "There is much road, data and animal traffic on XXX boulevard" or "Internet use is rising in Zagreb." And, as I believe I said before, it's not "mouvement," but "movement." Admiral Norton (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * i'm not able to teach you about english language, but i'm sure thats my definition is the right (sure: "movement" - not "mouvement"). and "transportation" is a non-exist word in english - only in "american english" and should be called: "transport" - so, if my english dictionary is correct! Dontworry (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Setting aside regional spelling differences, your definition may be "right," but it isn't the usual and most used definition. As I said, you're welcome to propose a move to Road traffic and create a new Traffic article using your definition if the proposal is accepted. Admiral Norton (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * sorry, i'm afraid, my english isn't good enough! Dontworry (talk) 14:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

FALSE TRAFFIC: [MOBIUS TARDIS] (4D ARCHITECHTURE):... it occured to me that if I survived the interrogation '55% tiger', then I would automatically inherit a decypherance of EU/UN traffic to a certain extent;	; it was obvious where I had failed to not be "inquired" on any level beforehand owed itself now to the fact that biological-falacy existed now and then;	; the one increment this understood so far had/has the dubious circumstance of {biohazard overfiend}, this replicated by a memory of study-halls to the factors of #sheila take a bow-wow mario kart come home post pat abortion#;	; this becomes schindlers list with a paralell little red riding hood now dodecahedric armageddon;	; that fact that on the level such things can succeed as biologocial-fallacy can include tome:bribery-mailing-forgery or ~beguiling as one € realise everyman has affected me on this level;	; her beguiling ways now nonsense - realise biometric-babylon appearing in this way;	; this traps sex-drugs-rock & roll into @spectra@ whereas has I can know the entirety of the situation where if she fails to be part of it insendury she deactivates a time loop which inadvertantly recalculates her importance in this;	; rephasing any accomplices she may have had beleived this was worth such whiles as has expenditure involved to seal the deadly-throne away from this end;	; realising because of this definite involvement of various parties entreat;	; the major one being at this extent ?death's door?;	; the fact that when holographic atlantis is established it will utilise biometric identity where the internet does not do this - realising as well the utility of multiple-oxides into medical serialisation !DMS BIOMETRIC ABBACUS! from the fact that they were aquaintances with the 'strategic defence sheild gate' or 'graviton astrolab event';	; this will eventually disperse itself where it is american-express validated or not - with a holographic surgeory;	; this has now a floating point panorama ;last broadcast; from cheif consultant to chief consultant... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.48.184 (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Different tag needed
This article does not really appear to be the work of a single editor, let alone from a single source. It does appear to have unverified information. I think a more appropriate tagging that would attract constructive attention would be:

Synchronism (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was page not moved. &mdash;harej (talk) (cool!) 04:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Traffic → Ground traffic &mdash; This article deals around ground traffic, thus it is only logical to place it to ground traffic.

The Traffic article should redirect to Traffic (disambiguation) User:91.182.186.28 (talk) 12:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The primary use of the term traffic without qualification is vehicular traffic.  Vehicular traffic is relatively rarely referred to as anything other than traffic.  For example, Tom Vanderbilt's recent book Traffic is about vehicular traffic, as is the 2000 movie.  Other forms of traffic are almost always qualified, as in air traffic control and web traffic.  A hat note to the dab page at the top of the Traffic article already exists, and is the standard way for dealing with this type of situation.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I should add that other forms of traffic are usually qualified unless the particular context is clear. For example, in an air traffic control tower the plain term "traffic" might well be used without qualification to refer to "air" traffic. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Comment  User:91.182.186.28 is correct that the article is about a specific type of traffic, but for over two years now the article lead has defined the subject of that article as "traffic on roads". Hence the article should be moved to Road traffic.  --Una Smith (talk) 20:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And the term most commonly used to refer to "road traffic" is... traffic, and "road traffic" is the primary use of "traffic"... so the title of this article is already correct.  --Born2cycle (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So you claim, but where's your evidence for that claim? --Una Smith (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I already cited recent book and movie titles that support the notion that "traffic" is commonly used to refer to vehicular/road traffic, and is the primary use of that term. It's also self-evident to most English speakers, I would think.   Do you have any evidence supporting the use of "road traffic" for this topic?  Others will chime in whether they agree or not.  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You invoked the "primary topic" claim for this topic above all others, so you show it. How about some reliable sources? --Una Smith (talk) 03:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's impossible to take this seriously, Una. I mean, see above, and below.  I'm going to assume you're just joking around, in good faith.  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that all these terms, "road traffic" and "air traffic" and "drug traffic" and "foot traffic" etc, when used in context commonly are shortened to "traffic" (see Synecdoche). So, the question devolves to this:  which one of the many kinds of traffic, if any, is the primary topic?   One method is the Google Books test (ever so much more reliable than Google Web):
 * 232,600 on "traffic"
 * 17,429 on "air traffic"
 * 16,700 on "highway traffic"
 * 6,570 on "drug traffic"
 * 6,395 on "road traffic"
 * 2,950 on "slave traffic"
 * 2,510 on "rail traffic"
 * 1,557 on "foot traffic"
 * 1,222 on "Internet traffic"
 * 1,123 on "shipping traffic"
 * 817 on "ground traffic"
 * 741 on "bicycle traffic"
 * 478 on "sex traffic"
 * Note that the first item, 232,600 on "traffic", by itself proves nothing, as the question is which kind of traffic is the primary topic, if any. However, the first item, compared to the others, does show that "traffic" in general (ie, the dictionary definition) is a very diverse topic.  Hence, it seems entirely reasonable to put the disambiguation page at Traffic.  It will be right at home beside Captain and Spin. --Una Smith (talk) 03:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Una, I invoked the claim about vehicular/road traffic being the primary use of the term traffic, and the evidence I provided, for the third time, is the book and movie titles. Note that books and movies about air traffic or any other kind of traffic are not named simply "traffic".  You are correct that, in context, all kinds of traffic are often referred to as simply "traffic".  But in ordinary usage, absent any kind of special context, the primary use of the term is road/vehicular traffic.  That's the point of the book and movie examples.  If you pick up a book or DVD named "Traffic", you're likely to assume it's about road/vehicular traffic and not any other kind of traffic.  The reason you're likely to assume that is because that is the primary use of the term.  If this topic was not the primary topic for "traffic", the book publishers and move producers would not use it that way. And if you prefer arguments based on data from searches in books.google.com, then consider the first page of results when searching for "traffic" there.  Seven out of the 10 hits on the first page use the word traffic to refer to road/vehicular traffic.  70%!  That's primary use, my friend. Now, that's the evidence for my claim.  Now let's look at your claim, which is:"the article should be moved to Road traffic".  Where is the evidence supporting that name for this topic?  --Born2cycle (talk) 05:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So you claim, Born2cycle, but you have yet to provide any evidence for that. You assume.  I do not.   As for the article, it clearly is about road traffic, or perhaps street traffic;  it is not about highway traffic nor ground traffic in general.  --Una Smith (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose In this case, Born2cycle is right. We should use what is most convenient to a lay readership. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Per the stats I provided, only a small minority of uses of "traffic" refer to the topic of this article. So allowing this article to squat on the ambiguous base name Traffic would inconvenience the majority for the benefit of the few.  --Una Smith (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The statistics you provided show nothing of the kind. They do conveniently show that traffic, unmodified, is far more common than any alternative; they do not - and cannot- show what the unmarked word normally means, but ordinary fluency will. "Air traffic" is so called because it is not normal traffic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, that is precisely what they can do and in fact do. Are we supposed to believe that a book in which "traffic" occurs but "road traffic" does not occur, not even once, is about road traffic?  I'm not buying that.  This is a technical topic, yet some contributors here apparently would have us believe fiction, in which "traffic" is a metaphor, is evidence of anything.  I don't buy that either.  The topic of this article is, according to its lead, "Traffic on roads" so, for clarity, the page name of this article should be changed to reflect its topic. --Una Smith (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The comment by Pmanderson (Septentrionalis) gave me an idea. As I said, counts of the bare "traffic" tell us nothing whatsoever, because the search term does not find the bare word, but rather every instance of the word, bare or not.  But we can test for (eg) traffic -"road traffic" and the result supports my view:  top hits concern traffic safety, traffic congestion, railroad traffic, human trafficking, liquor trafficking, transportation in the United States, and network traffic.  None refer most directly to the topic of this article.  --Una Smith (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * False. The first two are exactly the sense used in this article; the safety of "road traffic" and its congestion; so are the fourth and fifth. (The third is a book from 1888 on the "liquor traffic", now an archaism.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC
 * But I observe that Una Smith is capable of saying that the overwhelming majority of usage means nothing, and that it clearly supports her, in adjacent paragraphs. Is further discussion productive? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've read this four times and cannot figure out what you think this shows, or how it's relevant here. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That makes two of us who can't make out what Pmanderson is trying to say. --Una Smith (talk) 01:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "Are we supposed to believe that a book in which "traffic" occurs but "road traffic" does not occur, not even once, is about road traffic? ". Yes. Here are the results for a "road traffic" search in the book called Traffic, which is about traffic on roads: No results found in this book for "road traffic". link. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a novel. which in the context of an encyclopedia article about a technical topic is not a reliable source. --Una Smith (talk) 01:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Clear primary topic. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose as unnecessary disambiguation of a clear primary topic. The current hatnote suffices.  —   AjaxSmack   02:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - no need to disambiguate here what doesn't need disambiguating in ordinary English-language discourse the world over. Knepflerle (talk) 11:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support move to Road traffic. It is not clear to me with there is a primary use for traffic.  Maybe this is my background rearing up, but network traffic may be used enough to say that there is no primary use for the term traffic.  But then I'm also from the age when we had delays from air traffic another challenge to primary use.  I suspect that the term is clear when it is used in context.  When it is not in a specific context, like an article name, the term is in fact ambiguous. I do wonder if the dab page should be moved or if a general article on traffic could be created? Vegaswikian (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought about that and concluded the dab page should be moved to Traffic because the word "traffic" has so many application domains that a general article would swing between a dictionary definition and what we have now, namely an article about one kind of traffic (vehicular traffic on streets) that keeps accumulating tangential content and some sections that are disambiguation lists with some text wrapped around them. The article is a mess, parts of it a content fork of traffic control.  I think the dab page needs to be reorganized along the lines of Weymouth:  group together all the articles related to vehicular roadway traffic. --Una Smith (talk) 01:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Dab page much changed. --Una Smith (talk) 02:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose All the searches I've thus far seen have been flawed in my view. We learn nothing about how often traffic refers to something other than road/highway/vehicular traffic and other things this article covers, from seeing how many use a specific formulation of "traffic X". As noted above, the results of some "traffix Xs" over the form of traffic covered in the article may even support the opposite conclusion, i.e., since "air traffic" has high results, this may indicate it is often used with the definer, whereas the use of traffic alone to indicate traffic on routes may be so commonplace that the possible set of definers are rarely used. So let's approach this with a different kind of search.  is something I think we can all agree is in almost all cases going to refer to the type of traffic the article covers. That has 653,000 web results, 29,500 news results and 970 book results. More compelling, searching , though this will rope in some false positives, still targets results mostly based on the article topic I think, and searching Google news with this parameter, we see 27,000 results, or about 1/6 of the total results for traffic alone (173,600). The same search of Google news results in 17,001 results or about about 1/7 of the total results for traffic alone (119,182). Anyway, this is a very hard topic to use searches on because there is no way to test apples against apples. But my sense of the vernacular, regardless of any searches, leads me to believe it is the primary topic.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. it's more exactly for the difference between (any) traffic (anywhere) and the (vehicle) transport resp. movement on streets! Dontworry (talk) 08:09, 2 August 2009 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

National traffic differences
Perhaps a section could describe to occurence of huge differences in the ground traffic laws (seperate page is to be made called Ground traffic regulations). This includes driving on different sides of the road (eg france vs england or US), but also other distinctions (eg other road signs, other priorities in crossings, ...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.186.28 (talk) 12:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What "huge" differences are there besides side of the road differences? People who learn to drive in one country can generally drive safely and legally in just about any other country by following essentially the same rules.  Even the right/left thing is arguably not a "huge" difference since most other related rules simply mirror the side of the road rule, and are all derived from the same or very similar basic principles of traffic behavior.  See also Right- and left-hand traffic.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

About road rules....
Australia http://www.ntc.gov.au/ViewPage.aspx?documentid=00794 --124.78.213.124 (talk) 11:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC) http://www.ntc.gov.au/viewpage.aspx?documentid=1563 --124.78.213.124 (talk) 11:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/licensing/road-rules.html --222.64.20.207 (talk) 11:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Australian overtaking rules
I've changed the sentence:


 * "In Australia (which is not a contracting party), traveling in any lane other than the "slow" lane with a speed limit at or above 80 km/h is an offence, unless signage is posted to the contrary or the driver is overtaking."

and added
 * "traveling in any lane other than the "slow" lane on a road with a speed limit at or above 80 km/h is an offence"

as it was confusing to read at first, even as an Australian that understands this rule. I initially read it to mean that DOING 80km/h or more in the fast lane was an offence, which is completely absurd; I think the confusion stemmed from the syntax of the sentence attributing the speed limit to either the fast lanes or the act of travelling in such a lane rather than the road itself.