Talk:Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

As-written this seems to be more a defense of this group. Saying it has a "sole purpose" and mentioning none of the controversies the organization has been involved in is not a balanced approach. The lead of the enwiki article is better: note the last sentence "It also conducts research on road design and traffic regulations, and has been involved in promoting policy decisions". In traffic regulations they have advocated shorter yellow lights at traffic intersections. In policy they are, as would be expected, pro-insurance company. Saying they are a rival to the NHTSA is misleading. The purpose of an article is to inform, not defend or in any way take sides. Any pros and cons they should both be discussed fairly and with no bias on the part of the editors. The stub has no sources and the use of several key words suggests OR. No original research, neutral point of view and verifiability are our three core content policies. User:Rus793 (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The issues were resolved and is ready for more improvement. User:Rus793 (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)