This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||
|
This article seems like it (or parts of it) could be merged with Towing. —Mu Mind (talk) 17:54, 10 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 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
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)
This topic (Vehicle recovery equipment) already has extensive coverage in the following articles (excluding for now the many articles on Military vehicle recovery equipment)
A quick Google search reveals information on the following associated topics, which may also be represented in Wikipedia.
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)
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)
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)
An IP editor 175.103.25.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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)
When lifting the rear for towing, there is no requirement what so ever to lock the front steering. The wheels will track themselves without problem and it is in fact beneficial to have them able to turn. For reference search YouTube for "Scammell recovery 1" and view from 13:12, you can see clearly this in action (YouTube link blocked). Yevad (talk) 13:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
As far as I can see the articles do not indicate any discernible difference between vehicle recovery in the military as opposed to vehicle recovery in general. Therefore two articles seem to have the same scope. Sauer202 (talk) 15:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)