Talk:Driving in the United States

Car pool lanes
At least in Southern california there are car pool lanes, that are only open to cars being occupied by at least two (sometimes there are other requirements such as at least three people, or a car that has a certain fuel eifficiency etc.) however I 1) don't know how widespread this is and 2) wouldn't know where to put it into the article. As travellers are very likely to travel in cars occupied by more than one person, I think this information might be useful in this article141.30.210.129 13:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Article status
Is this article usable yet? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Travel topic status says: "Has at least a good overview of the topic, and some useful material under each outline heading.". I think it is.
 * Matter of fact, there's probably not much left before it can be declared a Guide (=nothing important missing+doesn't look like something a cat just played with). ϒpsilon (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I was thinking so as well, but wanted to hear a second opinion. Thanks. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Title
I think we use periods in U.S.A. on this site. Should we retitle the article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * USA vs. U.S.A.? Both seem to appear in article text or section headers, but I can't find any example of article titles with U.S.A. (with periods) other than the redirect to the country article United States of America (USA and U.S.A. both redirect). I suppose the periods make it more difficult for users, as they'd have to type the extra characters to search for the article? K7L (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't care greatly, but "US" is constantly "corrected" to "U.S." on this site. I "correct" it, too, because it was agreed upon at the article on spelling or whatever. I think it's unimportant, but just for the sake of consistency, I thought I'd bring it up. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "Driving in the United States" is preferable, I think (cf. Rail travel in the United States, Industrialization of the United States, United States without a car, etc.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * But then there's Inter-city buses in the USA K7L (talk) 02:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ...which has been moved to Long-distance bus travel in the United States per consensus on that article's Talk Page. Unless anyone has any strong objections, I'll rename this article to Driving in the United States shortly. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Removing all hints of humor
Am I the only one that sighs at edits like this? It was very clearly tongue in cheek, but apparently, it wasn't obvious enough... Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That doesn't strike me as humour but as pushing an opinion. (It really isn't funny -- it's just kind of tiresome.) I don't think it belongs. Ground Zero (talk) 11:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If police see the motorist as "revenue", that's something we want to know as it directly affects travel. K7L (talk) 11:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And that's the opinion-pushing that we probably don't need here. And writes "nothing, repeat nothing" outside of a high school newspaper? We're writing for adults here. Ground Zero (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Sarcasm doesn't usually translate well in a block of mostly factual text, unless you use emojis or write something so exaggerated that no one could possibly take it seriously. That bit of text didn't do that. Keep in mind the audience. For this article in particular, they may be ESL readers, or may be reading a translated version that didn't capture any intended humor.
 * I'm not opposed to keeping that information, but it needs to be presented differently. Maybe something like this: (changes in italics)
 * Beware of speed traps in small towns along otherwise high-speed rural roads (and medium-speed suburban roads); the reduced speed limits found while going through such towns are strictly enforced. (Speeding tickets bring sizeable revenue to such small towns, which belies their claim that the incredibly low speed limits are for "safety".)
 * I'd even consider phrasing it like "(It's understood that... )", but I think that sounds a bit too encyclopedic. --Bigpeteb (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So we're supposed to write for people whose English isn't all that good and/or who're a bit slow on the uptake? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I just deleted it. Seriously, it is not obvious whether or not it is sarcasm, and in any case, it is not important for a traveller to know why the police set up speed traps. All that is important for travellers to know is that they do. If you get a speeding ticket, it doesn't matter whether the police issued you one for revenue, or whether they are really concerned about safety. The fact of the matter is that you were caught driving over the speed limit, and now you have a fine to pay. Whether or not the police enforced the speed limit out of goodwill is not going to change that. The dog2 (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, yes, it does matter. You can be driving at a perfectly safe speed (the arbitrary lowering of Interstate highways from 70mph to 55mph during the 1970's fuel shortage being a prime example) and still not be driving lawfully. K7L (talk) 00:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree (somewhat)... It doesn't matter why speed traps exist, but we should certainly warn readers that on an empty rural road, the speed limit can drop from a loosely enforced 55mph to a very strictly enforced 35 or lower with almost no warning. --Bigpeteb (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Thedog on this. What matters is that the reader risks getting a ticket. The argument that K7L is making about why they do it is extraneous. A $200 fine is a $200 fine whether it's intended to protect a neighbour from speeders or to fill city coffers. The traveller is still out $200 either way. Let's remember that this is a travel guide, not a commentary on municipal finding. Ground Zero (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Can we avoid an edit war, please?
So the offending verbiage was just excised and then reinserted. Which way does it look better? Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I would keep it. It's brief, and it's demonstrably true. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's necessary, but since it's brief, I could live with it being included. I removed it because I thought that the previous consensus was that it was not important as either way, a $300 fine is a $300 fine regardless of why it was imposed. But in general, I do try to avoid making political statements in the articles. The dog2 (talk) 02:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have a problem with arguing about this through edit comments instead of on the talk page.  was absolutely in the right implementing this nine months after discussion ended. K7L is edit warring, and that should not be tolerated, his/her other worthwhile and commendable contributions to Wikivoyage notwithstanding. Ground Zero (talk) 03:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "not tolerated"? Should we dock his pay? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Definitely. 25% on the first offence, 50% thereafter. So, no, I don't have any particular sanction in mind beyond rolling back his edit while the discussion is underway. Ground Zero (talk) 09:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * But I agree with his edit, as noted above. I don't see the point in rolling it back "just because". Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of things like this that are true but are not relevant to travel. It is the strict enforce of speed limits that matters to travellers, not the municipal financing element. Ground Zero (talk) 09:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * [Edit conflict:] I just read the discussion above. I won't fight if there is a consensus to delete, but there really are communities that get most of their money from suddenly lowering the speed limit drastically at the city limits and putting a speed trap right there. I recall a news story about one such community in Florida that also had a really corrupt police department. But it's true that the reason for the suddenly lower speed limit and speed trap don't per se affect drivers - except that they really do, because it goes toward motivation for the local police department. There's a difference when they're trying to catch everyone driving a MPH or two above a suddenly lower speed limit for the money than if they are normal troopers or something. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

All I was trying to do was to implement the previous consensus. If we come to a different consensus here, I'll follow this new consensus. But one question I have is would having such a statement be considered too political? I always thought the consensus was to keep political statements out of our articles. The dog2 (talk) 13:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's worth including. Even if not absolutely essential information, it's interesting trivia. It's nice to tell travellers the reason for a phenomenon they might experience, when that can be done relatively concisely. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I look at the prior discussion and see no consensus to remove the information. What I do see, however, is a deadlock with multiple editors on both sides of the question and the apparent compromise being to shorten this to a very brief (half a sentence) mention. That compromise was the status quo when one user unilaterally jumped in to remove all mention of local governments seeing traffic violations as a revenue source; my edit merely reverted to the status quo, which should be left in place unless a consensus is reached to either expand or curtail coverage. K7L (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me just state here for the record that imnsho driving is too cheap, speeding should be punished in a way that hurts and all fines should be tied to income and wealth (like they are in some of the Nordic countries). But that's most likely neither here nor there. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Except that in the U.S., driving is an almost essential way to get around because the car manufacturers and airlines have lobbied successfully against government investment in public transport. The trains on the Chicago L or New York City Subway, for instance, are not as clean as those on the London Tube, Tokyo Subway or Hong Kong MTR. But anyway, back to the main point, since there are more people who have supported the inclusion of that text for this second discussion, I'll live with it since it's not a lot of text anyway. The dog2 (talk) 19:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Ford - consequential or influential
I want to draw some eyeballs to this edit. IIRC this was a result of me - as often - using too many words on a tangent and User:Ikan Kekek trimming it down somewhat. Is "influential" really the correct word here? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I liked "consequential", because the point I think you're making is that he made the mass-produced car a reality more than anyone else. So I think you're using the word properly, in that Ford's actions had major consequences. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what you're getting at. But I don't think "consequential" works in the current sentence. You could say that the Ford company's act of mass-producing cars was consequential, but the sentence is talking about Henry Ford the person. Describing a person as "consequential" doesn't sound right to my ears; it kind of sounds like the person's existence itself is what was consequential, important, or significant. Maybe I'm just talking in circles, like when you say a word too many times and it starts to sound funny. If y'all prefer "consequential", feel free to revert, but I do think "influential" is more effective at conveying what was meant. --Bigpeteb (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Guide status?
This seems like a good, detailed article. Would you guys say it is ready for guide status yet? --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 16:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)