Talk:Election litter

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing 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.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Just some reference notes - this is to much to include, but the upshot is that "Distractions" are causually associated with a majority (56%) of accidents - meaning distractions account for some 27 thousand deaths a year in the US (vehicle deaths being 55K per anum) said another way, distracted drivers are 30 times more deadly than terrorism.

[[1]]

Defining and Describing the Problem of “Distracted Driving”

Extensive studies have been conducted into the causes of traffic crashes in Monroe County, Indiana. Study results identified “human factors” as causing traffic crashes more frequently than either environmental or vehicular factors. Human factors were identified as “definite causes” of crashes in 71% of crashes by the in-depth examination team, and 64% of crashes by the on-site investigators. At the “probable causes” level, human factors were calculated at 93% by the in-depth team, and 90% by the on-site team. The researchers “conservatively” concluded that human errors and deficiencies were a causal factor in at least 64% of crashes, and were likely causes in approximately 90-93% of all crashes investigated (Treat, et al., 1979). Treat et al. then looked at more specific human behaviors or direct causes contributing to crashes, among which three of the five most frequently cited causal factors were “recognition failures,” including: “improper lookout” (flawed visual surveillance, or “looked but didn’t see”), “inattention” (preoccupation with competing thoughts), and “internal distraction” (attention to events, activities, persons or objects inside the vehicle), “Improper lookout” was most commonly cited as a causal factor, cited in 18-23% of all crashes by the in-depth team, and 13-20% by the on-site team. Driver “inattention” was reported as a causal factor in 10-15% of crashes by the in-depth team, and 8-14% by the on-site team. “Internal distraction” was identified as a causal factor in 6-9% of all crashes by the in-depth team, and 4-6% of crashes by the on-site team (Treat, et al., 1979). In addition to these three types of “recognition failure,” a fourth type was identified in the study: external distraction (attention to events, activities, persons or objects outside the vehicle). The Indiana Tri-Level Study of the Causes of Traffic Accidents, revered as one of the most rigorous and comprehensive studies in the field, found that these four principal forms of “recognition failure” were involved in 56% of the in-depth crashes reviewed.

Benjamin Gatti 01:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly may remove some of my content if it doesn't fit in too well. I had just tried to flesh out the article a bit; you know more about the subject than me, and your above comment looks helpful. Gracenotes^T § 02:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda

Calling election litter propaganda was unreferenced, so I softened it up by calling it political advertising. NerdyNSK (talk) 11:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Election litter. 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}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 01:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]