From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Older comments

This is a very good article. As a passer-by, I was amazed at your decision to delete it. I understand your reasoning, but I think it should be moved rather than deleted. It is, after all, a nice, long, well-structured article that deserves to stay. Remember, Wikipedia is not only a conventional encyclopedia. Yes, it looks like an essay, but I think it should be integrated with automobile or something like that -- Ronline, 22 Nov 2003

I think it's a very opinionated article, it says very little against the automobile and the one line paragraph on safety implies accidents are a thing of the past. It is a good essay, maybe it would be better suited boosting the egos of certain fat-cats. I'd best say no more incase I begin to sound political. SimonMayer 06:47, 11 Jan 2004 (GMT)
Simon, please give this article a thorough editing. I've parsed it down, but it still needs a lot of work. See if you can remove the POV and redundancies. And see if you can remove parts that are already written elsewhere in wikipedia. My head hurts trying to deal with this article. Kingturtle 17:52, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure I have the ability or knowledge to change it, infact I don't know if I have the strength, I set the challenge for someone else to do it... SimonMayer 10:33, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This aricle could do with more about the negative impacts of the car, it reads like propaganda written by Ford or General Motors at present G-Man 01:20, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • This article reads like a paper written for a low-level college course. Kingturtle 02:53, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • This article reads like a paper written for a low-level college high school course.-- Loodog ( talk) 01:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

RFC on some major changes to this article

After reading the comments above, I would like to do a load of work on this area and I would appreciate any thoughts anyone has on my ideas. I think the article should be renamed something like 'Effects of the automobile on society' and the following areas covered:

  • Remove subjective trash like 'The automobile gave whole new meanings to accessibility, time, and distance', concentrate on facts.
  • The article should start with a summary, not stuff that belongs on automobile
  • comments like '(Flink, 33)' should be binned unless someone has a good reason for them.
  • I'm open to suggestions, but perhaps the article should be restructured something along the lines of:
    • Cultural changes
    • Economic changes
    • Technological changes

I don't want to offend anyone with my changes, and I will probably have to do them in stages, so please do let me know how it's going and feel free to edit/delete/revert etc as you see fit. akaDruid 13:25, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wow! Excellent reformating and edits. This page needed it! Excellent work. Keep at it :) Kingturtle 18:16, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have a bit of a problem with this:

Up until the automobile, horses were the major means of transportation within cities. Horses require a large amount of care, and were therefore kept in public facilities that were usually far from residences. They also created a sanitary problem with the manure they left on the ground. The automobile had none of those disadvantages.

The automobile may have had some affect on the role of women in society, providing a means of transport that was safer in some ways than existing travel.

Surely streetcars, railroads, bicycles etc were major modes of transport prior to cars and not just horses.

Also this article should mention more about congestion and the contribution car culture has to the promlems of obesity caused by lack of excercise etc, and other problems related to cars G-Man 21:20, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • Please please please make changes as you see fit! your ideas are important here. So add willingly. Kingturtle 22:44, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Yeah 100% correct. That section is pretty poor. I just started laying into formats on this article, it still needs loads of work. The bit about Leland appears to differ with other articles in the WP. As a side note, if anyone drifting through here has an interest, WikiProject:Automobiles is looking for volunteers. (This was me, forgot to sign :) akaDruid)

Photo

I think a photo of a snarled, bumper-to-bumper freeway would be more appropriate than the one here. This must be from the early 1960s. Anybody? heidimo 16:02, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Yes. I thought about that when I put that one up, but I couldn't find one. I think this one is from Australia, not the US. If anyone has such an item, please do upload it! akaDruid 09:29, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I removed the image for the time being. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:38, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I think it would be better to find a more accurate picture rather than just delete it. It does add to the article, even as it is. I'll try and snap something on my way to work one day since I walk along congested London streets! akaDruid 16:05, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • I too could take a photo of congested London streets.... still not much help for an article about the United States (unless you mean London, Ohio? ) Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:12, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • I'm proposing we change the title of the article anyway (see above) since there is little US-specific content. Aside from that, I can't do much about a picture of US roads anyway, and one traffic jam is a lot like another for the purposes of illustration! I'm a strong believer in doing things like this, since a poor picture might only be a small improvement to the article, but it might prompt someone to replace it (or add to it) and then you may get a great picture. Just my £0.02 anyway. akaDruid 12:46, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
            • As you can see, I agreed that a name change was appropiate, which solves the photo issue. Now lets have at least two photos, the Ozzie empty freeway and the narled up London street. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:01, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
              • Haha! you're trying to edit this at the same time as me - I just got an edit conflict on the new image, so I'll let you finish first! akaDruid 13:04, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
              • OK, I've added the new image further down the page. It doesn't look as busy as I intended - there is a big jam on the opposite side of the road. If I see a better image opportunity soon I will add it. akaDruid 13:10, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Suburban growth

Because of the automobile, cities grew and suburbs appeared for the first time.

Not quite true. In LA—considered by some to be the apotheosis of suburban auto hell—the sprawl actually started with Pacific Electric's extensive network of streetcar and interurban routes, at a time when large numbers of average folks were still using public transit. I rewrote this sentence and polished up the following one. -- Sewing 23:55, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

name of article

Please change the name of the name of the article back. The facts and figures and topics in this article are about America. The article is about the effects on the United States. Feel free to start a different article about society at large. Kingturtle 15:34, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"I'm proposing we change the title of the article anyway (see above) since there is little US-specific content..." - akaDruid. One of you is wrong! Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:51, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
But if it does get made US-specific again, please remove the pictures of London and Australia! Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:56, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Facts and figures in this article specific to the U.S.:

  • Aside from industries, one of the most visible effects the automobile had on the world is the huge increase in the amount of surfaced roads. In 1921, the United States had only 620,000 km (387,000 miles) of surfaced road throughout the country. Over the course of the next twenty years, the United States spent US$40 billion and over one million new miles of roads. With this came loss of habitat for wildlife on a massive scale. Loss of rural areas and agricultural land to pavement has also been extensive. The quality of roads was also improved. Roads were paved with asphalt, (an environmental hazard) and roads with more than one lane on each side became commonplace.
  • The assembly line and other methods of mass production were developed when American businessmen began seeking ways to build more automobiles at a lower price. The idea of using many small identical parts that could be exchanged for each other was engendered by the president of the Cadillac Automobile Company, Henry M. Leland. Once other automobile makers realized the value of small identical parts that were interchangeable, they hired many small machine shops to make identical parts that were then put together at assembly plants. Because of this, broken parts could easily be sent to car owners. This greatly prolonged the life of the automobile, making it even more attractive to consumers. Ransom E. Olds took the first step towards assembly line production when had the framework of each automobile pushed on a wooden platform supported by rolling casters. Henry Ford built on this when he used conveyor belts to pull along the bare frame of a automobile while workmen added parts to it that were brought to them by other conveyor belts. Ford's utilization of the conveyor belt in the factory was inspired by the Chicago Packing Association's disassembly line, where workers dressed beef pulled along by an overhead trolley. Until Charles F. Kettering's invention of the electric self-starter, in order to start the engine, the driver would have had to rapidly turn a crank sticking out of the front of the automobile. This difficult and sometimes dangerous task had restricted automobile use. The self-starter rotated the engine's crankshaft with an electric motor, eliminating the need to do it by hand.
  • The creation of good roads and dependable automobiles changed the ideas of U.S. citizens recreation and vacations. Before the automobile, resorts were predominantly found near the coast or a railroad. If people did not live near either one, then they were unlikely to be able to visit one. Once the automobile became abundant, resorts sprang up that were off the beaten path. Resorts sprang up in scenic places, far away from the hectic life of the cities. National Parks became popular tourist attractions and developed designs with automobile travelers in mind.
  • Automobile accidents caused many deaths before the United States Government passed automobile safety laws. To this date, automobiles remain a major cause of accidental death and injury, not to mention emotional stress. The automobile expanded the role, abilities and efficiency of the emergency services such as the response to a 9-1-1 call for firefighters or paramedics.

Facts and figures in this article specific to other societies:

  • nothing.

Sincerely, Kingturtle 16:26, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC) P.S. For those of you who don't know, this article started out as a school paper by a student - and it was full of problems. It was nominated for deletion, but survived. Kingturtle 16:27, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK. First up - I want to make this into a useful article, so I can easily be persuaded of improvements. Given the above, this is my take on this:

  • I doubt there is enough content to here to support a seperate article for the US. While you are correct on the lack of content specific to other societies, IMHO there is almost no useful content which is exclusive to the US. The bulk of useful exisiting content, and potential future contributions, are applicable to most countries where the automobile is prevelant. Specifically, all the references to 'US Government' and 'US Roads' etc in the quoted section would be better replaced with 'governments' and 'road networks' or stripped out entirely. Since the article was originally written from a US POV these sections have not yet been made applicable to other countries.
  • If there is an additional article made for the US, it should focus only on factors unique to the US.
  • Perhaps 'Social impact of the automobile' would be better.
  • The article is still horribly opinionated. A more neutral locational bias is only a start to improving it.
  • The sections covering the historical development of the automobile concern US history. However, this belong under automobile or possibly US history.

OK start shooting :) akaDruid 17:15, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Effects of the automobile on society" moved to "Effects of the automobile on societies"???

This article is completely from the POV industrialized-nations and from the POV of Western nations. It barely (if at all) touches on cultural anthropology (which would seem vital if we are talking about societies). There is nothing here regarding the effects on third world societies or on communist or totalitarian societies, or indigenous peoples. Moreover, nearly all the effects discussed in this article have to do with what happened in the United States, but not other societies. There are difference between the effects of the automobile on the U.S., France, China, Russia, Afghanistan, etc.

Therefore the new (and even the old) name of this article is misleading and off target. Really, this article should be renamed Effects of the automobile on Western industrialized societies...but even that isn't fully accurate. Kingturtle 18:53, 9 May 2004 (UTC) reply

  • As a person from post-communist Eastern Europe, I can say that most of effects discussed in the article took place there as well, with some delay. I can try to add some information and numbers specific to that region. Andris 20:16, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. I haven't had the time to check who decided to make the change (though I have an idea), but I agree that it is most inappropriate as it stands and recommend the original name be restored. BTW, I'm not sure if you saw this article in its first incarnation; far from being a low-grade college essay, it appeared to be a grade-school or junior high essay. There remain only a few odd phrases from the original document - isn't evolution amazing? Denni 19:28, 2004 May 9 (UTC)

Yes, I had actually support its deletion. But since people wanted it to stay, I put in a few huge edits early on. This article still needs tremendous revisions. Kingturtle 20:15, 9 May 2004 (UTC) reply

Other commentary

  • What does the word "pizzarized" mean? As in , Automobile accidents caused many deaths before automobile safety laws were pizzarized.... If it's a typo, it should be corrected. If it's a real word, it isn't in common usage. Perhaps a definition is warranted. -- Kaleid 02:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Remove: Changes to individual lifestyle in America

I'm going to remove this section becuase it is, as far as I can tell, just a bunch of random thoughts and I can't find any source that supports these ideas. Are there any objections? futurebird 23:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Car-oriented Convenience

I have some issues with this section. Here are the bullets currently listed and my respective issues (rearranged for ease of nitpicking):

If you do not have a car, I wouldn't need to acquire gas or wash it.
  • Buy many different kinds of food and beverage
  • Buy freshly prepared coffee or other similar beverages
  • Purchase alcoholic beverages from a drive through liquor store where local ordinances permit
I agree with the intent, but providing separate descriptions for coffee and alcohol is too arbitrary to me. I pickup bagels, tacos, burgers, and whole chickens without having to leave my car; but no need to list each of those on their own.
I'm actually OK with these, for now, though I do want to point out that I can similarly perform all of these without ever having to leave my feet. :)

Sláinte! -- Bossi ( talk ;; contribs) 22:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Proving a point

To the person who stuck the infinite number of "citation needed" tags into this article, might I point you to WP:Point? This is ridiculous. Wouldn't a banner at the top of the article or even the sections suffice? Give me a break. Zweifel 08:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Removed claim

I removed the claim:

In comparison to pedestrians or users of mass transit, drivers of automobiles are not able to travel as quickly in inner-city urban cores.

because it is unreferenced and somewhat dubious. It's certainly faster to get around downtown Boston in a car than it is on foot, if you are going more than a block or two. Sometimes it is faster to take the subway than, but that depends on traffic and parking. -- Beland 18:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Expansion requests

  • There's a lot more to be said about the environmental impact of the car, for example:
    • Listing other pollutants besides CO2, such as ozone, NOx, sulphur dioxide, particular matter, etc.
    • Discussion what proportion of the emissions of various pollutants are due to automobiles
    • Discussion of which places are most impacted by automobile pollution
    • Summarize automobile emissions control
    • Discussion of differences between developed and developing countries
  • Nothing in this article is mentioned about the huge impact of the internal combustion engine on cargo transport. The article truck doesn't mention any social effects, and this article might not be such a bad place for coverage of the social impact of both cars and trucks.
  • There is no mention of the economic impact of cars on trade, other than the decentralization of cities.
    • What about the transportation economics of rural farming?
    • What about the economics of finding a job in a large metropolitan area?
    • What about the impact on the dynamics of inter-urban trade of goods and services?
    • What about the impact on the railroad passenger and cargo industries?
    • What about the impact of highways on economic dominance (I'm thinking of the rise of Route 128 ove downtown Boston due to better freeway access, the decline of Route 66, and how cities like New York, Chicago, and Atlanta used to be water or rail transport hubs, but seem to have transitioned into the automobile era)
    • Urban sprawl is not mentioned by name, except in the "see also" section. Discussion of land use differences between e.g. New York and Los Angeles would be interesting.
  • More specific information is needed about traffic accidents than "many deaths and injuries". Statistics on the frequency thereof, as well as areas and demographics for which traffic accidents are the leading cause of death and injury would be appropriate.
  • Nothing is mentioned about traffic congestion.
  • The article externality is linked in the "see also" section, but this should really be explained with regard to specific effects, such as pollution and congestion.

-- Beland 18:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC) reply


Further hidden costs

  • What about the financial cost of accidents? Currently £18bn annually in the UK, didn't want to edit the main page as it's a US context and I don't know the annual US cost.

-- Nick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.238.227 ( talk) 21:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC) reply


Neutrality problems

This article sounds like it was written by someone who does not like cars or what they feel American society has become as a result. While there are certainly some clear negatives, like traffic accidents and pollution, some changes are evaluated by different people in different ways (like the effect on interpersonal interaction) but this article seems to put a negative spin on those, too. Little coverage is given to positive effects. Most sections are very poorly referenced and short on supporting details which would help skeptical readers. -- Beland 19:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I agree - the whole tone of the article feels driven by a hatred of automobiles - it needs to be essentially gutted for weasel wording, rhetoric, POV statements and rewritten in a neutral tone that plays up the benefits as much as the detractions. Hmoul 20:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Reeks of OR to the point of deletion.-- Loodog ( talk) 05:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply
I disagree, the article is increasingly comprehensive and well-sourced, and, in regards to worldwide view concerns, incorporates multiple references to the effects of road networks on other continents besides North America. It's been 1.5 years since all of your comments here, but I have yet to see some substantive edits on your part as to neutrality issues. I do believe it's high time to remove the npov tag. CriticalChris 12:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Well, I don't disagree. Consider this sentence;

"Beginning in the 1940s, most urban environments in the United States lost their streetcars, cable cars, and other forms of light rail, to be replaced by diesel-burning motor coaches or buses."

This trend actually began in the late-1910's, not in the 1940's. ---- DanTD ( talk) 15:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Name change

I propose to rename this article Automobile social impacts. It is shorter and more to the point. It would also be easier to find this title when one is searching lists for automobile related topics. Alternatively it could be named Automobile societal impacts. Timiddriver 04:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Biased Section

The whole section on costs is written like a persuasive mini-essay on why roads and parking should be tolled to reduce driving, not to mention the graph of aggravating red colors representing the car and calming blue representing public transportation. Our own opinions aside it's a pretty one sided and unencyclopedic section. It should be rewritten somehow, but I'm not quite sure how to go about it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.150.253.56 ( talk) 03:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

"De facto" standard of transport

User:Loodog insists that the automobile is the "de facto" transportation standard in ALL (and not MOST) developed countries. But, for instance, the majority of personal journeys in Singapore and The Netherlands don't even happen by automobile. In Singapore the modal share for public transport is 63% of all motorised journeys, and the government wants to increase it to 75% [1]. Anyone who has been to the Netherlands knows that the whole infrastructure is built around bicycles, and that cars are given very low priority in cities. What makes you so sure that the automobile is the "de facto" standard (which implies highly dominant modal share) in those countries, rather than just one of the standards? Cambrasa ( talk) 04:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Check again. That wasn't me.-- Loodog ( talk) 12:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Maybe it was an edit conflict, but check out this - SCEhard T 13:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Yes, that I did do.-- Loodog ( talk) 18:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Which included "in most developed" -> "in developed". So, you are OK with Cambrasa's reversion? - SCEhard T 20:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Good article, suggestions

Should tie in with the article "Motor vehicle fatality rate in U.S. by year" The death rate given in section 6 should be 36,560 (2018) from the above article. ref 9, 10

I don't see a lot wrong with the article's neutrality or its content. Yes the negative points are more numerous than the positive points but that isn't evidence of bias. This is simply an issue where there is a large, easily understood benefit which can be described quite concisely (ie. freedom of mobility) but there are also a number of ramified negative effects which each have to be evaluated and quantified to assess the overall impact.

If anything the article misses what in my opinion is a very important negative effect of the automobile's effect on society which is the extreme increase in the number of people leading sedentary lifestyles because they drive instead of having to walk or cycle, and the consequent rise of obesity etc. For example it would interesting to show a graph of obesity correlated with car ownership levels, or the two time correlated throughout the 20th century in the USA. If a source can be found, the plausible argument that the entire modern fitness and dieting industry and culture is largely an indirect consequence of the automobile should be noted.

I don't think the article addressed the argument that the shift to car transport, particularly in America due to its size and population distribution and the subsequent neglect of public transport, disadvantaged the poor and created an underclass of those who can't afford to drive. This has connections to the sociology and demography of inner city ghettos which should be noted. There is a lot of evidence that the US urban poor become socially ghettoized because they literally can't obtain affordable transport for a short trip out of their neighbourhoods. The cost of car transport or the hassle of public transport also makes work less financially rewarding or more stressful for them, leading to a poverty trap where benefits are marginally preferable to work.

It's interesting to note than car ownership levels aren't directly linked to "car hegemony" in any given society. For example, Germany has one the highest levels of car ownership but also very good public transport, healthy populations and quality of life for pedestrians and cyclists; Britain's levels are lower but in Britain these things are comparatively abysmal.

More generally, we should explore the argument that because the American public is tied to oil for transportation it has been far easier for American governments to unite the body politic behind foreign policies based on Middle East intervention and imperialism. The resulting low prices of oil have also probably encouraged the growth of oil based industries like plastics manufacturing and freight transport by truck or plane. In general a body politic of motorists has an interest in low prices and high supply for oil, and healthy profits for oil companies which they can reinvest into ensuring the continuation of oil consumption. All of this fosters dependence on oil in other spheres.

Marxists like Theodore Adorno, Guy Debord and Herbert Marcuse wrote a lot about the alienating individualising effects of the automobile too and their points should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.228.120 ( talk) 22:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply

In my opinion this article still needs a lot of work. It is not even 10% of the way to a good article award. Some parts read like a primary school essay, some like a motor industry pamphlet, and some like a green party manifesto. This is an extremely difficult topic to write a good article about because it is so vague and wide-reaching. At the moment the article summarises individual opinions of all sorts of experts with a narrow area of interest, but it fails to connect them together to a "bigger picture". I guess this is partly because it is so hard to find good literature about how the auto relates to the bigger picture, that don't have a political agenda. The second problem with this article is that it doesn't quantify the effects. Some highly trivial effects are reported thoroughly (such as how many songs have been written about cars) while some world-changing effects (such as urban sprawl) are barely mentioned at all. The third, and biggest problem, is that this article is mostly about the USA, however soon there will be 2 billion new cars in China and India, making the USA car fleet insignificant in comparison. The article says virtually nothing about cars in Asia, where the situation is very different to the US. Even the "freedom of mobility" advantage you talk about is highly dependent on geography and population density. For instance, in Hong Kong or Tokyo a car is probably the slowest and most inconvenient way of getting around.
Of course the difficulty of writing this should not make Wikipedia shy away, because this is a hugely important topic, far more important than most people realise. The systemic effects of the auto in the developing world could make the all the difference between survival and extinction of the human race (see Peak oil). It would be a shame if this article continues to be neglected. Some day, after reading all the literature, I will try to give it a major rework. Cambrasa confab 23:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "asphalt" :
    • ..
    • .

DumZiBoT ( talk) 03:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Remove POV tag?

This article seems objective to me. Obviously some work has gone into it since a lot of the comments on this page.

Time to remove the tag?

The worlwide tag I think needs to stay. There's not enough on cars outside the US.

DHooke1973 ( talk) 12:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Nope. It still needs some work. ---- DanTD ( talk) 15:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
I agree with DanTD. This article seems to have gone from a pro-driving POV to an anti-driving POV; particularly the last section, where almost every claim made is documented with reference to source #20, which itself has a very anti-car POV.
Absent that last section, the rest of the article isn't too bad, although very US-centric. I'd take a stab at fixing it, but I don't want to merely remove statements. I think we'd be better served by citing both pros AND cons to a larger extent than is done now.
And I absolutely agree the article is too US-centric. One example is the cost of road maintenance; the low tax on fuel in the US may not cover the cost of road maintenance, whereas many European countries have a very high tax that goes into their general budgets and gets spent on unrelated programs. -Stian 14:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I made several improvements trying to fulfill the POV issue. May we remove the POV tag? Thank you in advance.João Pimentel Ferreira 13:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joao.pimentel.ferreira ( talk • contribs)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 15:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply

This statement not encyclopedic enough

In the history section "This increase in production required a large, new work force. In 1913 13,623 people worked at Ford Motor Company, but by 1915 18,028 people worked there"

A better statement than this would be say---> in the united states in 1905 X number of people were employed in the automotive industry by 1930 X number of people were employed in the automotive industry just need to find a good source now if anyone can help let me know Sassmouth ( talk) 01:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Additional verification?!

Someone added on the article a tag for additional verification without specifying anything. This article has already 47 sources! Either the person specifies which sentence needs verification (with the tag "citation needed") or that tag makes no sense. 145.64.134.245 ( talk) 14:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Effects of the car on societies. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Effects of the car on societies. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC) reply

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Effects of the car on societies. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Source for cost in Portugal is missing

There is no source for the claim, that motorists in portugal spend over half of their income for their car and a spontaneous google search did not brought any fruits. Perhaps someone can clarify? Tulpenliebhaber ( talk) 07:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Societal_impacts_of_cars&oldid=1216884412"