Category talk:Hazardous motor vehicle activities

Untitled

I'm not sure if this is the best name, feel free to CFR it if there's a better way to phrase/organize this. In particular, there are quite a few articles which go in Category:Driving techniques already, and I don't think they need to be listed here also. Maybe it's not possible to encyclopedically/NPOV delineate things that are typically done illegally by teenagers from those that are usually studied by professional drivers, though I do think there are distinct audiences for those two topics. --Interiot 10:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - the two categories overlap - but they aren't proper subsets. Things like trunking aren't driving techniques - and things like threshold braking aren't hazardous - so you can't make this page a subcategory of driving techniques nor driving techniques a subcat of this page. However, there are definitely a number of things that are driving techniques (like handbrake turns) that are most definitely hazardous (try hitting a curb when doing one!). So the only logical solution is to make them completely separate categories - and to add this new category to those things that are under driving techniques that also happen to be hazardous motor vehicle activities. Someone looking for a list of things to tell their teenager not to do (or conversely - a teenager looking for new and yet more stupid things to do) will want to consult this page and may not consider looking through the driving techniques category to see if there are any that we missed here. QED. SteveBaker 12:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from my user page;

Right, but things like Hill jumping... that's an important part of professional rallying... [1]

Whereas things like Doughnut (driving), I agree should be moved to Hazardous, since no rally driver uses it, and "driving technique" implies (at least to me) moving from point A to point B, which doughnuts aren't about.

Or maybe they should be merged because there's no encyclopedic way to break apart the two audiences (people interested in doing legal things on closed courses, and teenagers wanting to do risky things) --Interiot 12:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - but some of these things are simultaneously hazardous (to idiot teenagers) and useful (to race drivers). But being a race driver is inherently a hazardous activity (check out their biographies and see how few survive into old age!) - so it's unsurprising that some activities end up in BOTH places. Just because a rally driver can do hill jumping safely on a closed course with a reinforced car doesn't make it un-hazardous to a teenager who has no steering control for several seconds and doesn't have the course notes to tell him that there isn't a bicyclist just over the ridge. Plus his Mom's old junker has suspension that's going to collapse when the car hits the ground.

If a Wiki article belongs to two categories - you just put it into both categories - and that's exactly what I just did to hill jumping. SteveBaker 12:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, both categories is fine, but there is a significant overlap, so I was sort of hoping we could default to putting things in Driving (and if they didn't fit, put them in Hazardous) (and making Hazardous a subcategory of Driving was just a possible way to formalize that. I certainly agree they're not proper subsets.)

Well, by hazardous, I more meant "usually illegal" (just that "usually done illegally, but may be completely legal in some jurisdictions, and may rarely be used in rallying" is too long of a category name). Someone looking to do more legal techniques (on a closed course) wouldn't be interested in things like trunking (auto) or ghost ride, even if they are hazardous (eg. rally drivers are interested in getting to the finish line as fast as possible, not necessarily looking to do it in the most dangerous or goofy way.. they just happen to use a whole menu of techniques that are dangerous as well)

Things like a J-turn (on a real road) are indeed hazardous, but in my mind anyway, take enough skill that they're more done by more experienced people (certainly in some illegal situations, but just as much in legal ones as well). --Interiot 12:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess maybe I'm thinking of two categories, "useful to professionals" and "not useful". Though "useful" is maybe a bit subjective, "not useful" is pejorative. I think most useful activities would be driving techniques... because going around in circles is not useful, and most driving techniques are dangerous if done near the limit of control. --Interiot 13:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are agreeing vigerously here! Yes - there are techniques which belong in Driving that aren't dangerous and so don't belong here. But equally there are techniques that belong here (like skitching) that don't belong in driving techniques. That is simply proof of the fact that:

This is not a subcategory of Driving techniques (because not all hazardous things relate to driving the car).
Driving techniques is not a subcategory of Hazardous motor vehicles (because there are some driving techniques such as threshold braking that are never dangerous).
Some articles refer to activities that are both dangerous and useful to race/rally drivers.
Both categories are valuable.

So we have to conclude that this is NOT a subcat of driving techniques - it's a unique category all of it's own - and it follows that some articles have to be in both places in order to be adequately covered.

It's really not a problem. SteveBaker 18:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I said, I certainly agree that they shouldn't be subcategories.

I still maintain that it may be possible to put "dangerous and useless" items here, and that would leave this category only with the items that aren't used by professional drivers. --Interiot 00:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But then it wouldn't be a list of all of the hazardous activities anymore - it would be a list of some of the things that are hazardous - but which would leave out the things that aren't hazardous to people who know what they are doing. Absolutely everything on the list can be done safely by someone. A stuntman can ride on the hood of a car for the purpose of making a movie and be relatively safe doing it. Conversely - I'd argue that participating in motor sports is in itself pretty hazardous (just look at the number of rally drivers who die doing it!) - so whilst rally drivers do actually do these things, it doesn't mean that they aren't hazardous. If you really want to leave out things like handbrake turns - then this category becomes useless and I'd support a CfD for it. SteveBaker 02:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]