Talk:Red light running
 | The contents of the Red light running page were merged into Traffic light and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Proposed merge with Traffic light#Legal implications
editArticle already has a section about traffic-light related offences -=# Amos E Wolfe talk #=- 08:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Agree, should be merged. This sort of reads like an essay as it stands, and the bit about the study conducted would fit nicely at the target section. CrowCaw 20:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- To clarify, this page should be merged into the Traffic Light page. CrowCaw 21:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Agree, with the caveat that while the study from NY would be a good fit in Traffic light#Legal implications, it needs citations. The
study itself needs a citation (to its existence) and theclaim that it was the first of its kind also needs a citation. That said, the main Traffic Light article is ripe to be split, but that is a discussion that needs to take place elsewhere. Etamni | ✉ 21:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC) - Agree Anarchyte 02:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Agree, and have merged the article. Epic Genius (talk) 02:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
The study
editA quick Google search turned up the study at http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/communications/repository/files/Final%20with%20appendix.pdf but as this is the primary source I'm not going to add it to the mainpage article. I don't have time at the moment to see how others have interpreted the study. Also, I remain concerned about the claim that this is the first study of its kind, given that there are thousands of jurisdictions in the world, any one of which might have already done a similar study elsewhere (and indeed, the study itself seems to point at several other previous studies, albeit of a smaller scale). Etamni | ✉ 22:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Disruptive editing, or ???
editI am concerned about the edits being made by the article's creator, Redsbro. I feel that the edits are being made out of a lack of knowledge of how the process is supposed to work, rather than an intent to be disruptive, but nonetheless, it is disruptive to the process to be continually restoring tags, etc. to the article. Redsbro, if you happen to read this, please comment below. Please state how you feel about the proposed merge, and if you can, please address any other concerns that have been raised here. Thank you. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 22:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)