Jump to content

Talk:Automotive safety

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 4 February 2019

[edit]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

*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)[reply]

Lets move to Car safety then if we'd prefer to keep using that topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It was accepted, the move review was closed as effectively withdrawn. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
WP is global, outside US English the normal term is "car". Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"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"[[1]], [[2]]. 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)[reply]
@Springee: "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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It was not, it has always been "Car safety"[3]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oops.... [[4]] and opps [[5]]. It would be more accurate to say no definition you have presented or agreed with. Springee (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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·C 15:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AEB, seatbelts, airbags and tire pressure monitoring can all be found on heavy trucks. Toasted Meter (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Oppose - as per Springee'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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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. [[6]]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
That is a safety education program vs an article about technology to improve safety in automobiles. Springee (talk) 02:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 26#Category:Cars I have 10 signs but Springee has 19 and RGloucester has 34! similarly at Wikipedia: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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"? [[7]], [[8]]. If you search "car" you get rail road stock [[9]]. Springee (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. [[10]]
automotive (adj.) "pertaining to automobiles," 1898, a hybrid from auto- "self," from Greek, and motive (adj.), from Latin.
These guys also agree [[11]]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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

[edit]

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)[reply]

To improve the article might be the topic should be split in two parts:
  1. light to see and to be seen
  2. 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)[reply]

Detailed analysis of "very poorly written, poorly referenced changes"

[edit]

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:

Size Change size Change summary Change status Comment
76,225 bytes +164‎ Automated cars undo Tag: Reverted This change moves automated cars from introduction summary into a dedicated section. I am not sure to understand why it was reverted by the robot.
76,061 bytes +27‎ →‎Issues for particular demographic groups undo Tag: Reverted Is driver behavior a part of vehicle safety? I assume it its a question of vocabulary.
76,034 bytes +144‎ →‎Unused safety features: Other unused safety features undo Tag: Reverted Looks like good faith truism but it is "very poorly written, poorly referenced changes".
75,890 bytes +56‎ →‎Other safety measures undo Tag: Reverted This is related to TPMS but not sourced. The edit looks like good-faith. According to a TPMS provider, "Tyre pressure monitoring systems (TPMS) are an important vehicle safety feature legislated in many countries around the world. Since its initial adoption in 2008 in the United States (TREAD Act) the legislation quickly spread in different countries including the EU member states, South Korea, and Japan. " I do assume that vehicle safety is a part of automotive safety. However, I believe a reliable source could be welcomed.
75,834 bytes +74‎ →‎Teenage drivers: capacity undo Tag: Reverted That's also a "very poorly written, poorly referenced changes" as detected by the robot
75,760 bytes +137‎ →‎Teenage drivers: Geneva convention: a driver in a foreign country should be 18 undo Tag: Reverted That's just a "very poorly written, poorly referenced changes" as detected by the robot
75,623 bytes +104‎ →‎Infants and children: In the same rearward facing child restraint might be forbidden where there is a not deactivable airbag. undo Tag: Reverted The topic of rearward facing child restraint with airbag might be of interest. On Internet, some in Australia says "Never put a rearward facing child restraint in the front seat due to the high risk of injury from an airbag." Other in Europe say "Warning labels now have to be fitted in cars to avoid the installation of rearward facing child restraints and in some cars there is now provision for automatic detection of child restraints and out of position occupants or a manual switch to disconnect the passenger airbag system."
75,519 bytes +60‎ →‎Safety trends: Old data, before Brexit undo Tag: Reverted There was 28 EU members before Brexit. This is not true anymore. How to deal with it?
75,459 bytes +21‎ →‎Safety trends: [citation needed] undo Tag: Reverted This change challenge the poorly source assertion which suggest (the US) has "technological advances". Is there a contradiction here? Can the US be — in the same time — in advance in safety and late in safety result?
75,438 bytes +682‎ →‎2010s: ====2020s==== undo Tag: Reverted This change introduces the 2020 decade and the year 2021. There are some references but the year 2021 might be too recent to be dealt with by wikipedia, because wikipedia should focus on topics yet dealt with by other encyclopedias.
74,756 bytes +57‎ Better TOC + centuries undo Tag: Reverted While hiding the table of content is a poor solution, this change provides a more detailed table of content. However it comes with a grouping of decades into centuries.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Automotive_safety&oldid=1274686812"