Talk:Driving etiquette

This article was nominated for deletion on 1 December 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Automobiles Low‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Transport Low‑importance

	Transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sources

Which of these are notable sources? We can use some of this. Pet Peeves are a documented phenomenon, and definitely contribute to what is considered good driving etiquette - and even road rage if these things are done. Driving Pet Peeves at Google [1] [2] [3] [4] 6th link at Google Scholars--Coin945 (talk) 04:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Driving etiquette. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pet peeves

Just finding random WP:PRIMARY sources -- one of which is a random poem -- isn't sufficient for providing a laundry list of so-called pet peeves. The one remaining source is from a 1981 random article, which also is on thin ice. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

reinstatement of Pet Peeves section

I reverted a series of 3 edits on November 11-12, 2023, in which the removal of one valid source was the basis of subsequent removals by different editors. I made some minor edits in this process.

Removal of content based on the apparently unintentional removal of a source is inappropriate. Nobody had objected to the entirety of the content per se, but I will presume that other editors will leave in that content for which there is no valid basis for objection. Fabrickator (talk) 02:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See my edit summaries - these are random WP:PRIMARY sources -- even just a poem -- and not WP:RS. The last one I removed was just a personal opinion piece in a magazine; also not a reliable source regarding what consitutes pet peeves, let alone how they are directly connected to etiquette. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As well as being poorly reference, the vast majority of them are not peeves but are actually dangerous practices that are against the law in most first world countries. If a police officer in Australia saw you do any of those practices then they would pull you over and give you a ticket or at least a stern warning. Stepho talk 03:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PoV

It's troubling that most of the "by country" subsections are cited to only one source each, and those sources are very old - in some cases almost a quarter of a century. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, a lot of the sources are oudated and some of them don't seem very credible. Qqiumax (talk) 02:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the entire by-country section!!! David notMD (talk) 12:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]