Talk:Motor vehicle

Misleading US POV

This is how people are mislead when dealing with government. Same word but VERY different meanings. The ONLY definition that applies is the one spelled out in LAW, not the one found in the "dictionary"!

Title 18 United States Code, Sec. 31

       PART I - CRIMES
       CHAPTER 2 - AIRCRAFT AND MOTOR VEHICLES
       Sec. 31. Definitions	

               When used in this chapter the term -

Motor vehicle means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power AND 'Used For Commercial Purposes' on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo; the above was definition (6) of the above cited United States Code Title 18' additionally, definition (10) states "Used for commercial purposes.— The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit." So, the only motor vehicle you must have a driver license for is one which is used where some sort of remuneration is involved. The intention to make a profit must be involved. Carlichek (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)CarlichekCarlichek (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Motor vehicle vs automobile

How is a "motor vehicle" meaningfully different from an "automobile"? Ham Pastrami 08:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I seem to have answered my own question by correcting the land-only clause that was in the article. Ham Pastrami 09:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

EU/European countries

The EU is not a region, it is a trading/economic union of 27 sovereign states, most of which are in Europe. Europe is a continent. Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Sweden and the United Kingdom are coutries in their own right, so sould be listed separately as India, Brazil and the other countries are. Or are we going to aggregate by continent or trade bloc? -- de Facto (talk). 13:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The original organization reflects the sources, it is not geographical but rather the relevant automotive markets in terms of fleet size and growth trends. All three sources reflect this grouping. And because notability is what matters at Wikipedia, the European Union countries are relevant only as a group, and that is why there were grouped together. The way you split the European countries leaves the section for each country with information that is not relevant (in fact there is already an article List of countries by vehicles per capita, so no need to repeat it here).

The logic for the EU section is, EU-27 market size is even greater than the US, but no individual country is more relevant than the US, China, Japan or Brazil. Since 5 countries have more than half the Union's fleet,ownership per capita was included for those five countries only. Plus, since most of the relevant countries (except China) are also countries with some significant share of alternative fuel vehicles, that fact was mentioned when relevant. Sweden only appears because it is the European country with the most flex-fuels. Italy, because has the highest ownership per capita and the largest NGV fleet. Isolated, these facts lose relevance. So I ask you to reconsider and put the European content together. Alternatively, we just keep the EU section and remove the short bits for each European country, otherwise, this section will become another list article.--Mariordo (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Mariordo, what is your logic for including Australia in a section of its own? -- de Facto (talk). 17:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

First let me apologize for my rushed partial reversal, I forgot about the other edits. What do you think about the section merge? (the country/region/union issues get circumvented under the current section title).

Now to your question, indeed Australia does not follow the same logic. In my first edits I only kept the other countries, but then I realized that there was no country from Africa or Australia/Oceania, so adding a representative country (from the automotive perspective) would give the article a more universal view. So I added Australia, which has a respectable fleet and a relative high vehicle ownership rate, but I couldn't find any from Africa (see worldwide motorization rates here) I thought maybe South Africa could be included (their fleet must be around 8 million vehicles), but decided to research a bit more. If we keep the selection criteria without exceptions, Australia must go. If we want to have more of a worldwide view, then South Africa or some other other country from Africa (Arab country?) should be included. Let me know what do you think. Finally, thanks for holding your edits during the DYK time.--Mariordo (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

DeFacto, the article is currently being displayed in the DYK section of the main page. I will restore the original organization as the article was reviewed as such, and we can change it later as this discussion develops.--Mariordo (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Does the 1 billion include motorcycles?

Let's tackle on issue at a time.

• Regarding the 1 billion motor vehicles, none of the sources explicitly excludes motorcycles, but you assumed they are excluded. The Ward's article excludes two types of vehicles, which is what the article reflects. The Two Billion book can help clarify the issue, as this reference also supports the fact that the one billion mark was reached, but in footnote 1, Chapter 1, page 13, explicitly says:

"We use the term cars here to represent all conventional motor vehicles, be they cars, sport utility vehicles, minivans, trucks, buses, motorcycles, scooters, or three-wheeled motorized vehicles. When a narrower definition of cars is intended, it will be made clear."

So it is clear that one billion includes motorcycles, as well as the forecasted two billion. I will add the TwoBillion citation to support that content, and add a summary of the note to avoid further confusion.--Mariordo (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I added that exclusion because the 3rd para in the original Ward's ref explicitly includes cars, light-, medium- and heavy-duty trucks and buses, but doesn't mention motorcycles at all. -- de Facto (talk). 14:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Stats are always complex because every source usually has a different definition. One way to make all sources more consistent would be to say that there are more than one billion vehicles, not using the exact figure 1.015. If you agree, please go ahead and change it.--Mariordo (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I also added Eurostat definition of cars in the corresponding citation, it is actually any passenger vehicle seating less than 10 passengers excluding motorcycles, not just the common "car."--Mariordo (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

This article is on t — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.222.79 (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Why do you reduce motor vehicle tout road vehicle?

Does a truck, a battle tank or a train is a motor vehicle? Pano38 (talk) 08:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Since motor-driven airplanes and motorboats are generally not considered "motor vehicles" we should mention this in the article

Most dictionaries define motor vehicles to exclude Planes and motorboats and as such I propose we add a mention of this fact alongside the already mentioned exclusion of railroad trains from the definition unless there is some objection. --108.239.8.149 (talk) 08:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Why Motor vehicles are best

Why 2407:C00:C001:1E57:1:2:339:83AA (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)