Talk:1991 Interstate 5 dust storm
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Cause[edit]
Several factors contributed to this collision. The dust storm was an unusual situation, and evidence suggests drivers of a significant number of the vehicles involved failed to adjust speed as required to keep their stopping distance within visibility limitations created by that dust storm. Despite the posted speed limit, California's basic speed law states "No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable ... and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property." Thewellman (talk) 04:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- While excess speed may have been a factor in the accident, there are a lot of reasons why that could be true; some drivers just may not have had time to react and slow down upon encountering the dust storm, while others may have been overconfident in their ability to keep driving through it or unaware of the potential hazard. (And I'm not sure any speed is really safe in zero visibility conditions.) That being said, I don't think any of the factors in the accident can be described as "vehicular violence". There's no evidence to suggest that any of the drivers intentionally tried to harm others or hit other vehicles, which is what using the term "violence" implies. And suggesting that speeding or even careless driving is inherently violent is a strong point of view, one that we shouldn't be making in articles (and certainly not in articles tangentially related to the subject).
- Looking at it, the way Vehicular violence in the United States is structured seems like a WP:COATRACK to me. The article focuses more on speeding than other subjects that fit a more conventional definition of "vehicular violence", and the heavy (and somewhat slanted) emphasis on speeding as a form of "violence" feels like it's pushing a POV. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 02:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- The title and format of the article follow the long-established article Gun violence in the United States. Since that article includes accidental firearm injuries, it seems appropriate this article should include injuries from vehicular accidents. Your suggestion that some drivers may not have had time to react or slow down illustrates the prevalence of the misperception that speeds routinely accepted by American drivers are not dangerous. Emphasis on the relationship between speed and injury seems valuable if, as you point out, drivers may be unaware of the potential hazard or overconfident in their ability. Thewellman (talk) 05:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- My point is that making a claim that speeds routinely accepted by American drivers are inherently dangerous is a contentious point of view, and implying that in an article without context (and especially using terms such as "violence" to describe it) isn't consistent with NPOV. And the comparison with Gun violence in the United States doesn't hold up; the statistics in the first paragraph include a small number of accidental deaths compared to a large number of intentional ones, while in Vehicular violence in the United States the accidental deaths feel like the main focus of the article. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 13:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- I suggest violence describes the effect rather than the intent. An earthquake or tornado may be described as violent without implying any malice. Point of view is clearly significant. The difficulty separating accidental firearms deaths from intentional shootings or separating justifiable police shootings from police brutality is similar to the difficulty in differentiating vehicle ramming attacks from accidental collisions or determining appropriate speeds under conditions at the time of collisions. Investigators may have varying points of view. The common thread between the two articles is the similar number of deaths and injuries resulting from use of different machines.
- The World Health Organization's conclusions about speed may be contentious, but I suggest they are worthy of inclusion. Perhaps the article would benefit from well-sourced alternative perspectives. The absence of CDC investigations is mentioned as a problem in the gun violence article, suggesting that improved understanding of causation correlations might help reduce deaths and injuries. While early firearms legislation appropriately focused on concealable weapons and fully automatic weapons, the absence of recent correlation studies has encouraged legislation focusing on such irrelevant features as bayonet lugs and flash suppressors. Thewellman (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- My point is that making a claim that speeds routinely accepted by American drivers are inherently dangerous is a contentious point of view, and implying that in an article without context (and especially using terms such as "violence" to describe it) isn't consistent with NPOV. And the comparison with Gun violence in the United States doesn't hold up; the statistics in the first paragraph include a small number of accidental deaths compared to a large number of intentional ones, while in Vehicular violence in the United States the accidental deaths feel like the main focus of the article. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 13:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- The title and format of the article follow the long-established article Gun violence in the United States. Since that article includes accidental firearm injuries, it seems appropriate this article should include injuries from vehicular accidents. Your suggestion that some drivers may not have had time to react or slow down illustrates the prevalence of the misperception that speeds routinely accepted by American drivers are not dangerous. Emphasis on the relationship between speed and injury seems valuable if, as you point out, drivers may be unaware of the potential hazard or overconfident in their ability. Thewellman (talk) 05:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)