Talk:Vehicle recovery

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Trucks  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trucks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Trucks on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 

Merge?[edit]

This article seems like it (or parts of it) could be merged with Towing. —Mu Mind (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. Each article has substantial unique content, and any overlap is probably for good reason. When I have time I will take a look at both with a view to rationalisation if necessary. Downsize43 (talk) 09:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the merge is a bad idea. Vehicle recovery is only one use of towing. You tow a caravan or trailer. A train tows all of is carriages or wagons. Having your car towed can also be for impounding. Tugboats often tow ships in busy/crowded docks. Tugboats tow oil platforms. The military often tow their big cannons and machinery.

Towing is only a small part of vehicle recovery, if at all, sometimes the car is just put on a flat bed.

You can also use tow some what like following "She came home with her children in tow." Rom016 (talk) 17:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Towing is a very general term, and that the page shall rather be a collection page referring to the various types of the term with each type having its own term, very much like pages for acronyms. The current page on Towing is a good example of a bad page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehsnils (talkcontribs) 14:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Separate article for Vehicle recovery equipment[edit]

A quick study of this article suggests to me that there are two separate topics, Vehicle recovery (as a function of society, and as an industry) and Vehicle recovery equipment (delineated by region and by task). Substantial rework will be needed to make each one more encyclopediac. As a first step I propose to extract the existing equipment text to a separate article if there are no objections. Downsize43 (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree that you can should merge these topic like that. I have spent my life in the industry and understand its complexity. Vehicle Recovery is made up of the following components 1. The work itself (this includes the equipment used, the specialist knowledge often employed on more complicated jobs, types of lift and types of recovery. lastly the risks involved). 2. The providers of work (this covers the domination of the motoring organisations, police work and the problems this is causing with insurance companies. 3. The Operators themselves including the many Characters who pioneered many of the methods and equipment in use today.

Towing is just one small part of recovering vehicles and if anything it should be merged into the large topic of Vehicle Recovery. The main problem to doing this however, is that to most Americans the word Towing means the same as Vehicle Recovery does in Europe.

I think the articles should be separated but the Towing one to deal more with Vehicle Recovery in the USA. The Vehicle Recovery one could also do with expanding to include more of the detail on recovery website like my own at http://www.vehiclerecovery.org/history/index.htm

Andy Lambert 13:24, 19 08 2011 (GMT)

Quick scan of Wikipedia articles on Vehicle recovery equipment[edit]

This topic (Vehicle recovery equipment) already has extensive coverage in the following articles (excluding for now the many articles on Military vehicle recovery equipment)

  1. Tow truck (redirect from Recovery vehicle)
  2. Wrecker
  3. Spectacle lift

Associated topics[edit]

A quick Google search reveals information on the following associated topics, which may also be represented in Wikipedia.

  1. 4WD recovery equipment (Un-bogging devices, etc.)
  2. Railway recovery equipment (Breakdown cranes, etc.)

Downsize43 (talk) 11:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Please do not forget aircraft recovery, a very specialised field in itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.208.114.13 (talk) 09:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

"Motoring organisations—or as they are often known, 'The Clubs'—are organisations to which the vehicle's driver will belong. They may have made a conscious effort to do this, or they may have got the membership with their new vehicle, through a company scheme, or purchased with an insurance policy."

The word "scheme" used in the second paragraph of the article does not seem very NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.88.108.26 (talk) 03:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Holmes Link?[edit]

In the Recovery Equipment lead-in there's a link to the page of Ernest Holmes as developer of the tow system. I believe the correct reference is to Ernest Holmes Jr. The article on Mr. Holmes minus Jr. doesn't mention towing at all. I'm leery to hack the link out, as it may be the right guy and it's just glossed over in his wiki article.

A more knowledgeable editor needs to take a look at this to make sure we're linking to the right people. Thanks UnsanctionedStyle (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Soft towing[edit]

IMHO the text added by user 45Colt is both misleading and overly complicated. 1. Prior to power brakes and power steering this was a very common method of vehicle recovery. 2. With modern power assisted systems it is too dangerous to attempt, even at low speed. Downsize43 (talk) 05:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Image for this article[edit]

Swedish cops tow away the attack truck used in the 2017 Stockholm attack

An IP editor 175.103.25.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) added this image to the article and was reverted twice by TwoTwoHello, first per WP:BRD and then citing it as "a poor illustration for this article". When the IP inserted it again, I also reverted, agreeing that you can't even tell anything is being towed – in fact it may not be being towed at all, apart from the slight upward angle of the truck, it's impossible to tell. The IP inserted the image for the 4th time, which brings us here. IP is doing the same at Towing. Should this image be included in this article? Mojoworker (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

What are you tryin to say, Mojoworker. Do you have some problems with your vision? Do you think that the tow truck is just parked there doing nothing? Can you not see the tow bar, it connects the truck with the tow truck.. You stated in your own words, that you can't even if its being towed or not. Why do you think it was added to Wikipedia by the photographer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.103.25.137 (talk) 09:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
"Can you not see the tow bar, it connects the truck with the tow truck." No, I cannot see the tow bar. I can see a kerb in the background and some debris in the road, but no towing equipment at all. The tow truck is indeed parked up, but even if you were right, the fact it is so unclear would make the picture unsuitable to illustrate articles on towing or recovery. As has already been explained to you, the photo was added to illustrate the 2017 Stockholm attack articles. TwoTwoHello (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
That Red thing looks like the tow line. I might be wrong. So this photo was probably taken when the tow truck just arrived? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.103.25.137 (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I believe the image was added by the photographer to illustrate sv:Attentatet i Stockholm 2017 – although he initially chose one of his other photos for that article. And no, as TwoTwoHello said, it's not obvious that's a tow bar rather than a curb and/or more debris in the street (like the black and white object next to the truck, which I believe is a toppled stone lion ornament that's also lying there). It would have been more clear if the photo was taken from the other side of the tow truck. IP, I have no problem with your insertion of the image where it's strongly related to the subject as you apparently did at Vehicle-ramming attack, and Drottninggatan as 175.103.25.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), but there are better images that illustrate vehicle recovery. I'm not sure why you're so fixated on adding this image – are you the PR guy for ISIL? BTW, since I'm returning some of the snark you threw at me, I'll just say that's a mighty big set of blocks and warnings you amassed as 175.103.25.136. Mojoworker (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Me the PR guy for ISIL?? Nice try. What are you? Are you Mojo Jojo? Or someone trying to be more naughty than him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.103.25.137 (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)