Talk:Truck/Archive 1

Archive 1

Cab Section

Measurements

Is there any reason that the units of measurement in this section are imperial followed by SI? i.e. US laws or some such? Otherwise it reads quite strange to have the entire article preceding this section in SI units (and no imperial figures), only to switch to imperial. It also contradicts wiki guidelines, unless the source reference uses imperial as well (no source quoted here though). If not could someone please change this? Steevm 01:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Scania info

"The Swedish truck maker Scania claims they stay away from the US-market because of this third party tradition. Scania wants to sell a highly integrated product with proven interoperability and quality."

Scania did indeed sell trucks here in the USA from the mid 80's to early 90's. They failed due to not being able to establish a dealer network or partnership. Their trucks were also very heavy compared to similar North American trucks which was another blow against them. Mack trucks did offer a Scania engine as a light weight low power alternative to the Maxidyne series in the R model around the late 70's early 80's. That statement is not entirely accurate should be deleted or edited.

Thaddeusw 01:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Which jurisdiction ?

The following statement appears in the aricle:

Trucks have often had to pay higher tax rates, and have been subject to extensive regulation. Partly this is because they are bigger, heavier, and cause more wear and tear on roadways. This is one reason that UPS vehicles are called 'package cars', because that exempted them from certain tax-rates.

I've never heard the term 'package cars' used, ever. Even UPS calls it a truck in their advertising slogan. TheGuruTech 05:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

California used to assume that any vehicle with 'truck' in its name was a commercial vehicle, and they were plated and taxed accordingly, even if they were privately-owned household vehicles. This may have something to do with UPS calling their oldest vans 'package cars', but this certainly isn't modern usage in the USA. 66.116.29.7 18:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Rules are in place for tractor-trailer rigs, regulating how many hours a driver may be on the clock, and how much rest time/sleep time is necessary (11hrs on/10hrs off; 60hrs/7days; or 70hrs/8days). Many other rules apply. Violations of these laws are subject to large fines.

Notice that these hours are different in other jurisdictions. Always check up before you go.

Which jurisdication does this apply to? If you know could you please clarify the point. Arcturus 19:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Without knowing for sure, I think this is some american rule. I know rules in Denmark are quite different. Here 4,5 hrs driving must end in a break of 45 min, though some of the break can be split up in 1/4 + 1/2 hr or 3X1/4 hr.

A driver cannot drive for more than 48 hrs a week, and there's something about max per day, I THINK it's 9 hrs with normal time-off, but can be 11 hrs twice a week, if compensated by longer rest time. Not sure, ask an export driver. Minimum fines have just been adjustet from 500 danish Kroner to 3000 DKr, I think that's around 400 $, correct me if I'm wrong. G®iffen 11:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Also see "Hours on the road" below

The rules described are the current rules for commercial drivers in the US. These rules affect all commercial vehicles over 26,000 pounds (some states use a lower weight limit.) Tractor-trailer rigs are just one type of commercial vehicle. UPS delivery vans are commercial vehicles.

The Federal Government sets Hours of Services rules for interstate commerce. The individual states can (and do) set their own Intrastate rules which sometimes conflict with the Federal rules. Alaska and Hawaii have much different regulations, for example. due to their size and remote location.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration sets the rules nationwide FMCSA, these can currently be found here Part 395

Canada has similar but somewhat more liberal rules as the US. I found a PDF containing their regulations: Canadian Hours of Service

66.116.29.7 18:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hours on the road

I'd like someone to make a clear list of how the driving time / break time / rest time rules are around the world.

The latest rules in Denmark (I assume those to be EU rules) say that a driving time is whenever the wheels are rolling or stopped for less than 3 minutes. Each 4hr30min of driving must end in (the rest of) a 45min break. This break can now be divided in 15+30 minutes. (no longer in 15+15+15!).

A driver can usually drive for 9 hrs a day. 2 days a week the driving time can be 10 hrs, but max 6 driving periods a week, going from monday 0:00 to sunday 24:00. Max 56 hrs in one week and max 90 hrs in a 2 week period.

The rest time must be 11 hrs a day, but three times a week the rest time can be shortened to 9 hrs. A long rest (11 hrs) can be divided in two rests, if one is minimum 3 hrs and the other minimum 9 hrs. If two or more drivers share the driving, each must have 9 hrs undivided rest time for each 30 hrs. The vehicle must be stopped in this period, if the driver(s) rest in the truck.

Each week the driver must have 45 hrs undivided rest. This weekly rest can be set to 24 hrs every second week, if it is compensated by making the daily rest longer over the following 3 weeks. The daily 11 hr rest can be stopped 2 times to get on or off ferry or train.

The driver must keep documentation (digital tacho card or tachograph discs) on the driving the later 15 calender days, and documentation older than that sholud be handed in to the company and kept for 2 years.

Still they say any fool can be a truck driver... :-) G®iffen 18:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a old saying "Truck driver has one foot in jail and one in grave" I'd not comment that any fool can be a truck driver because its grossly unfair. The job is a nightmare and only dedicated persons can do it and do it well.The governments around the world seem to be only too wiling to blame truck drivers for all the ills of the transport industry while conveniently forgeting who the real culprits are. Stonufka 12:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Meaning of verb Trucking

As mentioned on Webster, trucking means barting, changing

It should be mentionned — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.9.9.173 (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Automatic or semi-automatic transmissions?

Are automatic or semi-automatic transmissions in europe?

I'm not quite sure I understand... Are you asking IF these are available in Europe?

In that case yes, both manual, semiauto and fullauto transmissions are available; we have different variations of all three kinds at my work. G®iffen 17:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"The trend in Europe is that more new trucks are being bought with automatic or semi-automatic transmission. This may be due [...] to the fact that you can lower fuel consumption and improve the durability of the truck."

I can't say I've ever heard a claim that an automatic transmission is more economical than a manual (engine speed being equal)? Can anyone provide any evidence to support this claim? 60.242.154.34 12:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

From what I've heard, fullautos use more fuel, while most semiautos can be switched between power or ecomony. Fullautos are adjusted better and better though. G®iffen 15:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure some of you got the concept of auto and semi-auto transmissions correctly. Firstly most semi automatic transmissions are in fact manual boxes with automated gear changing and clutch control. All major nanufacturers produce ones today including options for converting existing manual transmissions to auto shift regime. Some of these have fully automated clutch control dispensing the need for a clutch pedal where some include clutch pedal which is only used during takeoff and stopping. Fully automatic transmissions do not use clutch instead utilising torque converter and seamless planetary gear ratios, primarily used in city buses , earthmoving machinery and perhaps some trucks namely in rubbish colection where frequent stop/start action is performed.Fuel consumption is actually improved with semi auto boxes due to the fact that most are electronically controled thus engine torque and gear ratios can be closely matched to driving enviroment. Stonufka 12:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Stonufka: Yes, that's what I mean. The semiautomatics I've worked with are Scania Opticruise gears. Here you have to use clutch for start and stop. Also you can choose the auto or manual shift as defined for this gera system meaning either is does all the work from when you release the clutch at start and untill you step it again at stop, or that you press the gear shifter to the side to gear up or down, and then you press the clutch. If you're too fast on that pedal, the machinery will take over, releasing the clutch slower. I haven't tried the newer generations, but the ones from 2000-2003 are still nicked "Opticrunch" at my work due to the annoying slow shifting procedure.

With full automatic gears, yes, you just put it into "Drive" position, release the hand brake and step it. G®iffen 12:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Scania system but the other Swede (Volvo) got it perfect now with their I-shift 12 speed range of transmissions for FH/FM trucks. No clutch pedal, fully automated gearchanges or manual shifting via rocker switch on foldable gear lever which has R N A M positions ,incidentally same lever as on their fully automatic transmission Powertronic so the line is getting even more blurred. My only wish is that the car manufacturers start doing the same and yes I know Tiptronic has it all but it costs $$$$. Stonufka 12:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Position of commercial links

In the South America part, three links - Renault, Troller and Matra, were followed by links to websites. Temporarily I invisibilized them, since I'm not sure it's the correct way to promote it. If that's the case, all manufacturers should have it in that list. G®iffen 21:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Environmental Effects

I reverted to a version without the para cited by http://www.aar.org/getFile.asp?File_id=466 whose source is biased anti-truck. Care is needed with such sections and references to show balance, otherwise we are in danger of synthesising Original Research. I think the whole section needs a careful look with regards to OR synthesis. While trucks patently do have environmental effects we must record them, not draw conclusions from them. Fiddle Faddle 20:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean in regards to the American Railroad Association as a source, but the International Energy Agency is pretty authoritative. Do you think that quote could be let stand?Dickpenn 21:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I think, if the section is reworked to ensure NPOV balance then even the biased source quote may be included. My concern was simply to ensure that no-one could criticise it as either pro or anti. I'm sure it was really "work in progress" that just saw "finished product" a little too early. Fiddle Faddle 21:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW the area the worries me is "Synthesis" where we may accidentally create something unless we word it with care. Fiddle Faddle 21:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed guidance - you're right, it was a case of Ready - Fire - Aim! I will do some more research and try to come up with something more NPOVDickpenn 23:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Trucking

Where is the article that describes the trucking industry? In comparison, consider the article book and the article printing. There are two separate articles.

OMG, you're right! An article on the trucking industry is entirely missing in the English Wikipedia. "Trucking" shouldn't redirect to Trucks. Somebody wants to start the article? Relrel (talk) 11:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

floating ... can not be used on trucks which do not have a tachometer

I dispute the accuracy of this line. I've taken up the habit of double-clutching, because the clutch is easier to replace than everything else that floating wear & tears, but I am able to shift gracefully enough with no clutch, and do so by feel and sound. I was able to do so even before I had gotten used to the truck and gotten a good idea of the ranges for each gear. I can also float in my light pickup, which is a lot more touchy, without reading the tach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phaedrus420 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course one can shift clutchlessly without reading a tachometer. Doesn't matter what size of vehicle, it's a matter of timing and knowledge of how it feels, plus a degree of empathy with the equipment. It's the "technically illegal" that interests me, though. Is it? And in which legislations? I don't drive trucks, so I can't justify being bold and removing the area you query. Instead I've added {{fact}} tags to it. Also, unless I've missed it, "floating" appears undefined. To work out whether it has a place in the article the casual reader needs to understand what it is. Fiddle Faddle 09:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless its just a slang term for changing gears without the clutch , which had its origins perhaps in the lack of power assisted clutches fitted by North American truck manufacturers , where idea of pressing heavy clutch pedal on those trucks all day long is rather exhausting and slow so the man found the easy way out. If you've never driven such a vehicle I can tell you that by the fifth intersection in the city stop-start traffic stirring through 18 speed shifter you would have enough and the left leg the size of Mr Olympia body builder. To answer the question its not illegal whatever someone might mean by that. Stonufka (talk) 09:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the meaning of "technically illegal" is that the manufacturers kindly tell you to use the clutch, since it tears less on the mechanic systems? Just like a retarder brake should be turned off when not actively braking, but many drivers has the handle on all the time, forcing the retarder to brake every time the gas pedal is released.

Images

The Images of Kenworth and Peterbilt trucks near the bottom of the page are of low quality and should be removed. Asicmod (talk) 06:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Interest in creating a WikiProject about "Trucks/Lorries"

I'm no expert in trucks (I'll use this word intead of "Lorry" for the sake of simplicity) but I'm interested in military vehicles in general (trucks among them). I've noticed that there are WikiProjects for "Military Histoey" and "Automobiles", but could find none for "Trucks" (or "Lorries", "Vans" od "Wheeled Cargo Vehicles", or anything similar). Wouldn't it make sense to have a WikiProject specifically dedicated to these important automotive cargo vehicles? Just an idea. Regards, DPdH (talk) 06:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Quite probably, if you start it off, folks will join it and make it work. I have a little time I can devote to it, though not a huge amount. I was also surprised there wasn't one. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Size of image

Can some one reduce the size of this image?? Peter Horn 01:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

--Taken care of .... Stonufka (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Weight Restriction

I have two issues with the weight restriction statement made in the first section. First off, where is it the case that you need a special license to drive a truck weighing over 10000lbs? It's certainly not true in the US. Secondly, what unit system has 3.5 tons/tonnes equal to 10000 lbs? 3.5 short (standard/English) tons is 7000 lbs exactly, while 3.5 (metric) tonnes is just over 7700 lbs. -Athaler (talk) 02:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Alaskan Trucking

I used to drive a truck in Alaska, and in the winter it could get extremly dangerous. I would like to know if anyone else ever had the promblem of the suspension freezing completely while parked overnight. This made my truck incredibly unsafe. Please let me know if you has this problem. =]
Thankyou, kind regards,
Zesty Prospect 14:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about air suspension? I can't imagine steel suspension freezing! Stonufka 12:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

And you're asking because you want to add this to the article about Trucks? Or maybe This is a better question for a message board! Asicmod (talk) 00:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Combination Bus/Truck

In some countries, there are vehicles which are half bus and half truck. How are they called? Are there special names for them, like e.g. the Norwegian word "Kombibuss"? (Not the original names are important for me, but the English translations.) Please answer here, or on de:Diskussion:Skvader_(Nutzfahrzeug). --85.22.7.146 (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

New article section

I suggest adding a new article section called "Military trucks"; focusing on troop carrier. Include the example of the International Harvester Loadstar,

AM General M-35 A2, Alvis Stalwart and the Mercedes Benz Unimog S401 (with picture

. The latter is lighter, features are given at http://www.unimogsales.com/unimog-concept.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.175.166 (talk) 09:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

History

I've got a possible conflict. The article credits Daimler 1898 with the first IC truck. I've seen Richard F. Stewart, using a 2hp Daimler motor, in Pocantico Hills, NY in 1895 credited, as well as with the first commercial truck sales, 1897. Can anybody clear this up? Also, the article omits mention of the first articulated (semi-trailer) truck, by Thorneycroft, & the first (or early) cabover, by Mack in the early 1900s (1905 Bulldog, sold to B.A.?) Trekphiler 06:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)oz

Yes, this article definitely needs to include some history. Globbet (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Truck Components

I'm not sure this would help, but we have an interactive 'map' of the components of a North American truck and are building a European truck. We could package something for use on wiki. The website is: www.partseek.com My email is: scott@partslink.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.53.192.200 (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Truck Design

Is there any reason (trade barriers etc.) why the design of trucks - and, for that matter, busses - differs so greatly between the US and Europe while cars pretty much look alike everywhere?

Is it just that the US truck design in less modern or is it different?

thx. --79.227.139.107 (talk) 10:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The EU has much stricter emission regulations. Also, in most of the European jurisdictions, the law dictates the maximum length of the truck & trailer together, while in USA the maximum length counts only for the trailer. Hence most of the European trucks are Cab over engine, in order to save place for the lenght of the trailer. Last but not least, there are much higher taxes on fuel in Europe, which leads to much higher prices than in US, which consequently leads to greater need for fuel efficient vehicles. Regards, Cimmerian praetor (talk) 12:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

broken knees?

A European project revealed the fact that the average city driver would step from 3 to 7 tons with his clutch-foot every day, depending on truck model, and these results made many companies buy trucks with automatic transmission, with the primary (but often untold) reason that they couldn't afford to pay compensation to drivers getting broken knees from the work.

This doesn't make any sense at all. It's like saying that a power plant generated over a million volts last year. I vote for removal.Fsiler 23:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

It has been mentioned in several truck related papers and magazines and in several countries in Europe it's a legal matter in law sues (Spelled correct?) about "worn out" knees.

If You're out lifting iron to get better muscle power, what will be smarter? 10 times 500 Kg or 100 times 50 Kg? The total in both cases will be 5 tons... How would your body react to the different weights? Personally my knee hurts after 2-3 work days in a truck with manual transmission, because I have an old injury in my knee. For the same reasom I have a note in my contract saying I can only drive manual gear one day every week.

Besides the fact that it makes no sense scientifically, I don't think this is terribly relevant on a page about trucks. Why not just edit it to say that manual transmissions are becoming less common because of legal issues?Fsiler 23:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, maybe it's more relevant in an article about gear, clutch or transmission...

If it's just "because of legal issue", I thind sby would like to know WHICH legal issue, so it might be written in different words. Sorry, beyond my english skills to spell out a good sentence here... G®iffen 16:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

How about (feel free to edit) "The trend in Europe is that more new trucks are being bought with automatic transmissions. This may be due in part to lawsuits from drivers claiming that driving a manual transmission is hard on their knees." Fsiler 23:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Quite good. It explains, and at the same time it gives a set-off if an expert should drop by, wanting to add specific details. I've contacted the local drivers union to see if they can find reports about this issue, eventually something to quote or add to wikisource or something G®iffen 11:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

By far the largest reason for the upwards trend for automatic transmissions in the U.S. is because the vast majority of potential commercial drivers have never driven manuals and it is easier to train them. The downside of automatics is lack of durability. 300,000 to 500,000 miles before repairs / replacement. Manuals often go for more than 1,500,000 miles with only routine maintenance. I don't have any cites available, just 20+ years of experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.136.160 (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Manufacturers of Truck Engines

In North America, both the Ford Motor Company and General Motors have a history of manufacturing large diesel engines for trucks - and they probably still do.
These diesel engines are made for their own trucks, and the companies also sell the diesel engines to any customer with the money to buy them with. Those enginers can be used in trucks, tractors, buses, etc., and they can also be used as stationary engines, such as for emergency electrical supplies.98.67.166.209 (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Today neither GM nor Ford build HD trucks for the US market. Ford may never have made a HD diesel, not since the 60s, at least. GM’s DDA built them for GMC and other makes, as well as anything else (GM has built diesels with from 53 to 710 cid per cylinder since before WWII.) GM sold off DDA about 1990, Ford sold off its HD truck lines about 2000.

Mack and Navistar (ex International Harvester) both build engines for their own trucks, Navistar may build them as vendor engines for other makes. Smaller Navistar diesels are sold in Ford pickups.

Cummins is still a major vendor, Caterpillar exited the market around 2010 (due to emissions standards). Sammy D III (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Images?

I believe that the US is being underrepresented here (doesn’t happen often, we’re pretty egotistical). None of the images here, except maybe for components “Engine”, “Driveline”, and “Frame”, are of US vehicles. Even the interior shot of a Mack is right hand drive, probably Australia? It is a good shot of a high-buck model, but not really representative of the manufacturer. Shouldn’t it be LHD, use RHD for some English model?

Should someone at least put a Mack, and maybe a Navistar, in the gallery?

While I’m babbling, should an ALMA antenna transporter be here?

Thank you for your time. Sammy D III (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Fire trucks out

"Fire Engines" and "Fire Trucks" are separate vehicles, a poor example. An Engine provides power, mainly to pump, and is operated by an Engineer. A Truck is a transport, for ladders, hoses, other equipment, and personnel. They work together, supporting each other, and often the line isn't clear, but they have different names for a reason. Maybe "dump truck" vs "tipper"?Sammy D III (talk) 03:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Down-under, our pumps are called "Fire Appliances", they are appliances used for the fighting of fires, implementing of rescue equipment and other such pump required tasks, as well as the carriage of staff to said incidents. In my opinion it is the lazy media that brands all fire appliances as fire trucks and other useless terms. Trumpy (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Someone to talk about truck safety with, and my communication skills have let me down (again/still).

Before 19May13 “International variances” wasn’t clear to me, it sounded like “engine” was used in some countries, truck in others. In the US both were used, they were different basic vehicles. “Engines” (aka “pumpers”) go back to those horse drawn things with a vertical boiler running a pump. A steam engine. Trucks brought people and ladders. “Hook and ladders” were trucks, “snorkels” probably are, too. I’ll check eventually.

“Apparatus” covers everything, a good word. I think we would use “equipment”, a common term around here. Again, I’ll check sometime.

Going to next section now. Sammy D III (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

History and Accidents

I’m not sure about this conflict, but if the vandal is referring to the first line of “Engines”, he’s sort of right. Not all that strong a source, but Daimler does sound plausible. That line should be somewhere else, though.

History is weak, to put it mildly. Lots on the name, but little on the machines themselves. I can put a few dates together, but they would be the US from one source, at least to start. If someone could come up with some EU stuff, and writing talent, a “History” section might be an improvement. Or not, just a thought.

While I’m here, I have real problems with “Trucking accidents”. There is no source for a serious subject. Most of the first paragraph sounds like they are real numbers, but it could be rewritten.

I HATE the last paragraph. Sounds good, maybe, but I don’t buy it. I am prejudged, and familiar with a specific area, though. I suggest that the most common cause for accidents is a smaller vehicle encroaching. In my world, most accidents were “not chargeable”. Sleep deprived may be a problem over the road, but not in local stuff, they go home at night. I cannot remember anyone driving drunk. After work, late at night, morning hangovers, but not on the clock. Drugs were different, but most drivers are subject to random screening, that may have changed things, or not.

I do not have numbers to prove it, but I wouldn’t mind if that last paragraph disappeared. Sammy D III (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

There are lots of numbers at [1]. Table 1 has yearly totals (para 1 good), table 56 is accident type and driver error. Sammy D III (talk) 00:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The USDOT 2009 Large Trucks in Fatal Crashes with Passenger Vehicles with Driver-Related Factors figures show that in 22% of crashes the large truck driver was a factor, while 80.5% of passenger vehicle drivers were. Alcohol or drugs among heavy truck drivers were a factor in .31% of crashes, among passenger vehicle drivers they were a factor in 11.75% of crashes.

Reference "Large Truck and Bus Crash Facts 2009". Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. 2011. pp. Table 1, 65, 68, 69. Retrieved 11 August 2013. end reference. Sammy D III (talk) 02:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any figures, but, the idea shown on the article suggests that trucks cause their own accidents, which couldn't be further from the truth. I'm a truck driver as a Senior Fire-Fighter and the number of times I've seen people in cars try and race trucks to the end of a passing lane and come to grief, begs the question, who is the poorer driver? I've seen this coming the other way on the way to an accident, just because your car is small, doesn't mean you can speed to get out of some supposed trouble. Trumpy (talk) 10:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Lies told about hard working pros. I thought I showed that it is the amateurs who cause the crashes (saying “accident” is covering up stupid). If you can do better, please do.

Car drivers are wrong in 80% of crashes, truck drivers in only 20%. In a harder vehicle to control. Who’s dangerous?

Booze. .31% (that’s POINT three one) of truckers are drunk/drugged, 11.75% of car drivers are. Who’s DUI (“Driving Under the Influence”)?

Encroaching is coming into someone else’s space, you know that one. Rear enders are almost always the rear driver’s fault, a big part of the job is not hitting the guy in front of you. Basic. Half the times the truck is at fault, but almost half the time it is the struck car’s fault. Almost half the time the car pulls in front of the truck, inside safe stopping distance, and slams on the brakes. Encroaching, whatever you call it, we both say ”shit”.

Damn, the site is gone. It was there, and my numbers were good (they were pretty old, though). I stand behind them. And again, if you can show better what idiots amateurs can be, please do. I hate irresponsible drivers sooooo much. Sammy D III (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Lorry in Australia.

Seeing as someone likes to keep changing this back, I would like to point out that a quick google search of "Use of the word Lorry in Australia" brings up several hits confirming that it is a word used here. So, stop changing it back. I don't particularly care if you think it's not a word still used here. It is, so end of story. BelziBhaal (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

BelziBhaal, welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for creating a new section here to discuss this. Right away I would like to warn you to please be WP:CIVIL, please do not WP:EDITWAR, and please assume WP:GOODFAITH. It's fine; I myself have been frustrated here on Wikipedia plenty of times so I know what it's like. We'll let other editors handle the rest of the discussion, but to start:

So, from what I understand you believe the term Truck is referred to as a Lorry in Australia? If this helps, I know that every content dispute on Wikipedia is settled with a WP:RELIABLE source and with WP:CONCENSUS. So now, BelziBhaal, would be a good time to produce a book, magazine, article, web page, etc. that reliably shows this and be ready to find other editors that agree with you. That goes for those who assert the term Truck is referred to as a Truck in Australia. Is that fair enough? Prhartcom (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Just to add, BelziBhaal, I gave your claim the benefit of the doubt and checked your claim about a Google search for myself: all I can see is that Google is smart enough to know that "lorry" translates to "truck" for Australian pages. Even if you're sure you are right, Wikipedia is built on reliable secondary sources. Check the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability, and in particular the sentence where it makes clear that Wikipedia's content "is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." Alfietucker (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

http://andrewnoske.com/wiki/Lost_in_translation http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=902101 Two examples that took me 15 seconds to find. BelziBhaal (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@BelziBhaal: Those two may be on the Internet, but as they are both pages from someone's discussion group, they are anecdotal and are not WP:RELIABLE sources, examples of which are stated clearly at that link, which only include reliable books, magazines, journals, and websites. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it is not like pages on other discussion groups and websites where your opinions may matter. Here, our opinions do not matter. Only reliable sources matter. All the rules are here: WP:PILLARS. Take the time to know where you are, what we do here, and what your behaviour is expected to be. If you have any questions you are welcome to post them here and we will try to answer them. Prhartcom (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

First truck

The argument could be made that Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot's "Fardier a Vapeur" was the first truck, rather than the first car. The term "fardier" means "dray", a low and sideless horse-drawn vehicle used for heavy loads. The phrase "fardier a vapeur" means "steam dray", essentially, a steam powered, low, and sideless wagon: one could call it a flatbed truck. — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 15:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Autonomous trucks

I am going to add a short section on autonomous trucks, e.g. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27485-autonomous-truck-cleared-to-drive-on-us-roads-for-the-first-time/ Where should this section go? In the history section or as an entirely new section? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

How about in the Operations issues section. The New Scientist article does mention safety benefits. —Bruce1ee^talk 12:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Amo f 15 3.gif Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Amo f 15 3.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Amo f 15 3.gif) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabartus (talk • contribs) 17:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

ENGVAR in Truck

Engvar maintains that the same variety of English should be used throughout an article. This applies to picture captions as well. Since this article is in American English, please refrain from changing the captions of british trucks to 'lorry'. They are trucks in this article. For comparison, see Sidewalk where the pictures of British 'pavements' are of course called 'sidewalks' to maintain consistency throughout an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:8C18:72E9:2CD3:2E3F (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Except that particular vehicle would never have been called a steam truck. Graham87 07:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Graham87, are you saying that a caption should have the discription of an object in it's own language, instead of the language used in the rest of the article? It is not a proper name, it describes what the object is. Sammy D III (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

• You are a biased POV-pushing editor whose only visible edits are to make just this sort of anti-ENGVAR POV push. Look at potato crisp, French fries and other articles. It's made more difficult to track you because of your continual IPsocking to hide the connnection between your actions, against WP:IPSOCK Andy Dingley (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Are you talking to me? I think you just didn't Show preview. Assuming you are correct, the number still has a good point. You may want to go up a couple sections to Lorry in Australia. Sammy D III (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't, unless you too have been IPsocking. However your similar changes at semi-trailer truck are nearly as bad. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

First, the number was pushing pro-ENGVAR. Second, at semi-trailer I was doing pro-ENGVAR conversions, after talk page discussion I offered to change everything back, but there had been other edits since then. If you don't like that or the rest of the editing I did on the article please get Hunster to let the whole article go back to before I got there. The only changes since then have been his conversions, otherwise it can all be reverted. Here I was trying to address Graham87 on the talk page about captions, as I should. I was not involved in the edit war, and I did not address the number. So you blow into town with your mini-Eurofan crusade and insult me. Did you even bother to go to Lorry in Australia? Sammy D III (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sammy D III: Yes, that's what I was saying, but the edits by Andy have made that point moot. Also, the IP is in the UK, but you are not per your user page, so both editors cannot be the same person. Graham87 06:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Graham87. I am not trying to be hostile, this comes up in my world. You seem to be on an anti-ENGVAR idea while some editors accuse others of doing that. What is the line, when can you disregard ENGVAR? Captions sort of make sense to me, but I haven't found the discussion. I haved seen people do it to whole sections, with similar reasons to your edit summaries.

I am from the US, I speak US English, and I usually edit in it. I don't see this as especially pro-US, I edit articles that are in US English. Like this one.

Just because Andy comes here, is very rude to me, and then, instead of discussing the matter, just goes out and starts doing things on his own anyway doesn't make it a moot point. It just makes Andy rude. Sammy D III (talk) 10:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I just think that localised versions of concepts should be described in the variety of English that applies to them, where this can be done without confusing the reader or breaking the flow of the article. Andy's edits helped out with that, IMO. I also don't have much time for single-purpose IP users, as seen above. Graham87 14:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree to disagree, I guess. I can not edit the article anyway, so whatever. Oh, and I do not care about the number, only its point. Thanks for talking, have a good day/night. Sammy D III (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

RfC on ENGVAR in International articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

{{rfc|econ|lang}} In an article that has very national sections, should there be straight ENGVAR or should each section be in it's own language? This is very noticeable in picture captions. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• Don't believe so, no -- This is the "en" subdomain of Wikipedia, so I believe it's fine to be ENGVAR entirely. Damotclese (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
• The purpose of ENGVAR is to avoid conflict tennis and back-and-forth changes for no purpose. Recognised needs to change an article are for internal consistency, and to make a change to match either a clear national tie, or an agree consensus. It is recognised that WP has no favoured language of itself.

I believe that for international articles, and this would be one (as is semi-trailer truck), then clearly distinct national sections within an article, where there is a language difference that is relevant to the article's topic, should not need to be language consistent across the whole article. Truck can call them "trucks" in the US section, "lorry" and "wagon" in the UK section, as appropriate.

I have no opinion on whether such an article, referring to "blue colored truck" in a US section, should use "red coloured lorry" / "yellow colored lorry" in a UK section; i.e. where "color" is a word that has no particular relevance to the article topic or international variations about that topic. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• Keep article-wide only. First, I don't think this RfC will get enough attention to decide this here; it needs to be on the Talk at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. This potentially affects all articles with a current ENGVAR, which could (arguably) be just about every single article in WP. To make this proposal work, we'd need to duplicate all ENGVAR templates from article-wide to section-wide, or the edit wars ENGVAR is meant to avoid will actually be encouraged.

More importantly, I'm worried it would create more edit wars even if per-section ENGVAR was fully supported. Some pro-Amer-Eng editors might be encouraged to go to current Brit-Eng articles and start new sections that "obviously" must be in their preferred ENGVAR, and vice versa. Then they'd "merge" old sections into their new ones while making ENGVAR across them "consistent" per their bias. ENGVAR currently says "colour" and "color" are both spelled correctly, so prohibits changing one to the other based on spelling. But now editors may argue about whether a picture of a lift in Britain or a picture of an elevator in America is a better picture, arguing disingenuous reasons about details of the pictures, which can't be prohibited by any wording in ENGVAR.

But, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe my worries are unfounded, and no editor will ever intentionally or unintentionally let their ENGVAR bias influence their editing; but even so, other editors may still suspect them of having done so.

The current article-wide ENGVAR works, barely. (I've seen it apparently abused repeatedly, and must force myself to AGF and do nothing). I don't think anyone prefers the "other" ENGVAR to their own; we just have to agree to disagree. It's difficult, but we've managed so far. But if we force greater mixing, I can only see we also force greater potential conflicts. Let's keep the matches and gasoline petrol as far apart as we can. --A D Monroe III (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• Keep article-wide, but interpret that judiciously. The logic of jumping from UK to US on, for example, WWII battles involving both US and UK or commonwealth troops, would result in linguistic chaos. However within sections and on photo captions, judgement should be used, it would be remiss on an article on football, to not note that it is not called that in the US, where the word has a different meaning, and a photo in such a section showing two US teams, could be captioned 'soccer', using the 'quote' marks if nec. An example given above is sidewalk, in which a London street is captioned 'a sidewalk in London'. That's anomalous to my eyes, would it really be a problem to caption 'a 'pavement' in London'. Judgement as to what best clarifies and informs is needed. To take Andy's example, if showing a very British vehicle, the text would note the different use somewhere and the caption might say "yellow colored Morris 'lorry' ". It would be a bit anomalous to call a vintage British vehicle, for example, a 'truck', when it never was called that anywhere, but would have been called that if it had happened to have been bought by an American. That's a bit like trying to call Julius Caeser an Italian. Pincrete (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree on not being totally absolute. The occasional French or Latin phrase is found in all variations of English; an article that this written in one version of English can make occasional use of another for the same reason -- where beneficial to the readers. I also agree that these exceptions should be highlighted or made distinct so that the difference in variation is obvious, such as by using quote marks or parentheses, similar to (but probably different from) the practice of foreign phrases being in italics. --A D Monroe III (talk) 13:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

About the "would have been called that" argument: True, but I don't think anyone argues that a vehicle should be called a 'truck' because it would have been called that if bought by an American. The argument is that it should be called a truck when it's actually referred to by an American. Think of a vehicle that spent its entire life in France, and no person before today has ever referred to it as anything but a 'camion'. But today an American wants to tell a story about it. He's not going to call it a 'camion'. American and British people have different words for things just as American and French people do; the word for an object depends on the language of the speaker, not on the circumstances of the object. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Article-wide only. Regional variation is in general a trivial thing; the simpler the rule for resolving a conflict between them the better (In fact, I'd go further and even support something that doesn't vary across articles). However, vocabulary differences are not trivial; a person could actually misunderstand an article written in some other country's vocabulary, so care has to be taken to be understandable to all audiences (in every section of an article) when you have a truck/lorry issue. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Dimensions? If this goes article wide, all dimensions should also be article wide? They should be converted into the same system article wide? They should use the same name for the same amount article wide? Example, it should be either "1000 kg" or "1 t" article wide? (That is a problem if you want to move from "kg" to "t" as you get larger, which I think some of Europe does). Thank you very much. Sammy D III (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

We pretty much never do that. We use the {{convert}} template to offer both. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

"Tonne" is clearly the right size here, but autos would be kg? Would a lorry use 1t to match other lorries? Would an auto use 1,000kg to match other autos? You are using two names for the same weight. You have to decide if and when to switch.

Could using "t" instead of "kg" be a civilian/military difference?

Side note: the word "ton" is commonly used in US military, but does not convert. I think it uses "short ton", which means nothing here. I think. Sammy D III (talk) 01:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• Keep article-wide only My interpretation of the question: Should ENGVAR be used for an article section? My answer: No, ENGVAR is used only for the whole article and it should stay as it is. Furthermore, articles written in an English variant (US, Canada, UK, Australia etc.) should be re-written in other English variants if there is any need for mixing different English variants in an article. My reasoning: Wikipedia articles in different variant of English should be treated the same as articles in different languages. This will give a reader broader picture about the topic and a writer opportunity to present the topic in language and country of choice. ENGVAR is a necessary shortcut. I support the Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) idea that this shortcut as a temporary solution should not vary across articles but have a fix dictionary. If I go even further with this idea, an article created and edited for US Wikipedia can be used in UK Wikipedia with re-direct (or similar) until new article is written specifically for that country. Note: I am a bit confused with both question and answers to the RfC. Why are you bringing up other topics (dimensions) instead of simple no/yes followed by an explanation? If I am really picky, keep-article-wide-only answers are also confusing as they don't actually state no. Gpeja (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

UK and US use different measuring systems. Isn't that the same thing? And I am asking for your comment, not giving mine. The third paragraph is off-topic, sorry. Sammy D III (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow you, but I think you're saying there should be multiple articles on the same topic, maintained in multiple variations of English. I would strongly oppose that as incredibly inefficient, especially considering my earlier statement that the issue is trivial. The difference between this and the concept of duplicating an article in both English and French is that the English variations are all mutually intelligible, except for some tiny areas of vocabulary that can be handled with glosses. My point about preferring one variation across all articles in the encyclopedia is that my preference is to have MOS state exactly one style. Ideally, it would be a synthesis of the best parts of all the common variations, but even if it were one traditional variation chosen at random, I'd prefer that to the current policy. That's somewhat off-topic; I brought it up only to stress how much I oppose mixing variations within a single article. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk)

• Why can't we use the foreign (non-US in my case) spelling if it's a foreign section or photo, but also include in parenthesis the US term? I just added metric tons to the tonnes caption in the article as an example. That way the item captures the local flavor of the item, but also is more informative to the readers of the local language who are most likely the ones reading the article.Timtempleton (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree, and I think that's the consensus so far. WP:ENGVAR specifically says to gloss for similar cases: the trunk (American English) or boot (British English) of a car ..... That can easily be applied to captions of pictures and the like. --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Too much US

I was very uncomfortable about putting the US first, I do believe that alpha is correct.

I am comfortable with a US truck in the lead. The one there is shiney, has a small name, and is not a semi. Something from the side might be better?

I think the space next to the table of contents should be filled, but not go longer, encroaching on History. The wood thing itself is good, but I think something else (Jeffrey Quad?) has to go.

I think the rest is pretty balanced, I found a flatbed from Myanmar.

"Image:Road Train Australia.jpg|thumb|A road train in Australia" needs to go somewhere. Sammy D III (talk) 22:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed Sammy D III however these ignorant Americans seem to assume they're the only country in the world and having a "Nationwide" article is just too much! - It all has to be American and american only!. –Davey2010^Talk 22:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm the ignorant American. I sort of fought to get all dimensions the same (right above). Then I tried to be netural, but screwed up by making US first instead of alpha in a couple of places. What do you think, did I get most of it netural? Any ideas? Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh damnit I'm so sorry!, Yeah it looks alot better me thinks - Thanks for your hard work in fixing and again sorry for the above comment, Happy editing, –Davey2010^Talk 23:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

But apparently the current layout "screws up the table of contents/History" though? I've put back all the older images for now so we can have a base to work on. In my previous edits I tried to strike a balance between US and UK images, but it's a bit hard since I can't see what I'm doing. :-) Graham87 05:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Graham87, I am so sorry, that is the problems with the table, too. I thought you were stabbing me in the back, I am so sorry for getting angry.

On the Maximum size by country table, that break and period you removed pushes the weight convert up to the top line, instead of a centered line it is on now. On the ones with only a length that break before the length convert pushes that line down, but it does not work up, that is what the period is for. That makes all the weights on the top line, and all the lengths on the bottom line. The one one period is hardly noticible. I will put it back, not waring, you can disappear it again if you want. A similar problem came up when you spelled out "New South Wales".

The pictures below the lead go one under the other down the side of the table of contents. They are too tall, longer than the table, so they encroach on the first section. The NW 1st lorry2.jpeg is oversize. It is not the most useful picture, but looks good, a museum truck. The different pictures are not right, someone else has to come here.

I just put up a picture of a Road Train, a semi with 4 trailers, right under that Maximum size table. Then I cropped it, adjusting the background out, you only see the truck, not the sky. Then I made it bigger, so it is almost as wide as that table. The biggest road legal truck on the planet, and it has a short wide picture. It sort of underlines the section.

Again, sorry for the tantrum. If I can help or make things clearer, please ask. I don't know how translating works, what it sounds like. And I have done a lot very fast, that must be confusing. Please ask. Sammy D III (talk) 06:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

EDIT: Someone just uncropped the Road train, now it is too tall. I do not know how to reach them, the link goes to a blank page. I will have to upload the cropped version somehow, it is just filling out license stuff. I hope. The number change you may notice is me trying to make it smaller. Sigh. Worked for a few minutes. Sammy D III (talk) 07:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I've summoned help at the help desk. The extra "." really does bother me because it's read out all on its own with my screen reader; there must be a better way. Graham87 16:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I can use that other places, too. Sammy D III (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Hand truck

Might it be appropriate to add a tiny section or mention of hand truck? I just added it to "See also". DavidMCEddy (talk) 03:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

m x n designation

What does the m x n designation mean, e.g., 6×4 (drivetrain), 4x2, 8x4, 10x4, 6x6? I'm guessing that m/2 = number of axles, and n/2 = number of powered axles. Is this correct? Is there some documentation of this?

Might it be appropriate to add something like this as a subsection of "anatomy"?

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 02:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I have been using "Number of wheels × number of powered wheels, with dual tires counted as a single wheel." Crismon, Fred W. (2001). Modern U.S. Military Vehicles. MBI Publishing. p. 10. ISBN 0-7603-0526-9. says: "The first number will represent the number of wheels on the ground, and the second number represents the number of wheels to which power is applied."..."The number of tires and rims bolted onto an axle does not alter the basic designation: even though a 6x6 may have ten or twelve tires on the ground, it is still a 6x6." This is a military source, but the designation is commonly used. Go to most truck sites, books, and manuals and you will see it and can look at the truck it belongs to. I don't often see an actual definition, tho. Sammy D III (talk) 04:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Curly Designs (Pinstriping)

Forgive the placement of this here but I can simply find no reference anywhere and I've not yet had the chance to ask a truck driver about it (I surely will when the opportunity arises). On many rigs one sees these strange (and I think personally ugly, but fascinating nonetheless) curly designs on most available panels. They are often seen on horse floats as well. I was wondering - does this artwork have a name or a tradition associated with it? Update - Ok now I know its called Pinstriping, but what I really want to know is this particular type of curly Pinstriping, where the lines get thicker and thinner and there are lots of 'chandelieresque' type shapes. 218.214.138.11 00:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't know what You mean, but maybe it's not a common phenomenon in Northern Europe? You wouldn't accidently have a picture You could upload or link to in order to gain knowledge? G®iffen 17:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

In Brazil, it used to be very common to have such 'pinstriping' with messages at the tail end asking for God's help. But the modern powerful lorries don't seem to have it. 12.146.221.194 01:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC) ANSWER: it's called scroll pinstriping and typically has a floral or leafy appearance similar to Victorian art. It's decorative artwork because who wants to see bland big rigs trucks on 15 hour cross country trips? www.curlyspinstriping.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysdalimit (talk • contribs) 08:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Hood/flat

I want to know why the american semis have bonnets for the engine and in UK they have a flush front. The haul weights are more in UK. And apparently, the long nosed front has more wind resistance. What is the benefit then.12.146.221.194 01:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the statement here on Wiki that the hooded/bonneted trucks give better engine cooling than the cabovers, but I'm not sure how much effect it has. I'd rather trust the fasion factor and that (according to my information) the cab length on a hooded truck is not included in the permitted vehicle length in US, while on a cabover the entire bumper-to-bumper length is included. G®iffen 19:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I read recently ("The Road To Muckle Flugga" by the late Phil Llewellin, if you're interested) that cabovers used to be a lot more popular in the US than they are now - some time in the early 80's Uncle Sam liberalised the length laws. This allowed longer tractor units and thus the installation of bigger sleepers behind the cab. Plus it's easier to get at the engine. I've tried to figure out how a US-stylee sleeper could be used in conjunction with a tilt cab, but have so far only succeeded in giving myself a headache... Here in Europe the overall permitted length of the vehicle is somewhat less, so a cabovers are almost universal except in rare circumstances such as tow trucks, rampant Americanophiles and the personal transport of retired middleweight boxers.Mr Larrington (talk) 13:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Naming

The Etymology section says that "truck" is "shortened from "motor truck", which dates back to 1916", but "motor truck" seems to be older. H.G. Wells in 1902 wrote about trucks "There will, first of all, be the motor truck for heavy traffic. Already such trucks are in evidence distributing goods and parcels of various sorts. And sooner or later, no doubt, the numerous advantages of such an arrangement will lead to the organization of large carrier companies, using such motor trucks to carry goods in bulk or parcels on the high roads." See http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19229/19229-h/19229-h.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oscaruzzo (talk • contribs) 20:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't know where you come from, but I'm British and believe your usage of truck is entirely colloquial; only other usage has come from Americans, "dump truck" and "fork-lift truck". I think what you mean is train carriage' for train-car. A quick check on http://dictionary.cambridge.org/ seems to confirm my belief for British English. Also, if you aren't going to put " "Truck" (American English) or "Lorry" (British English) " I don't see why "lorry" is given special treatment; I refer you to the colour debacle. mrhappyhour 18th Oct 2006

Just to confuse matters, in the north of England they are often known as "wagons".Mr Larrington (talk) 15:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to dig up this discussion (as the previous reply did) - but I've lived in the North of England my entire life and never heard the term 'Wagon' used in common Northern England English.
Thanks
--George2001hi (Discussion) 20:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to dig it up even further, I grew up in the north and recall hearing them referred to as wagons. The term usually seemed to describe those open-backed things, though. —Vom ^(talk) 04:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Since the United States Of America contains a majority of the native English speakers in the world, American usage of the English language is correct. To the majority of speakers of the language it is a "truck". Please refer to the articles on English and USA for references.(Drn8 (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC))

Australian Naming

Just for the record we in Australia also use the word "truck", not "lorry". But like our British friends we say "Bonnet" for the front of the car that lifts up, and "Boot" for the luggage compartment at the back. Even if cars have rear mounted engines we say the engine is "in the Boot". 218.214.138.11 00:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Originally the term lorry was used in Australia[2]. By about the 1950s truck was used more than the term lorry, though in official use lorry survived a while longer. To an Australian ear lorry now sounds very English.Ozdaren 23:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

More to the point, nobody (I know) in Australia calls a ute or a van a "truck". I've only ever known "truck" to mean those enormous things hauling one or more slabs of cargo. I think they're called semitrailers in the US? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.15.250 (talk) 09:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Steam Lorry Naming

As we seem to be on a bit of a theme today, thought I'd elaborate on my earlier edit summary.

In the UK for definite, and (judging by the Google results) elsewhere too, the following names are used (see traction engine for terminology):

• "steam wagon" (27500 Google hits) - this was the original name, I think, and tends to be used for the overtype examples, which show a traction engine ancestry
• "steam lorry" (11800 hits) - tends to be used for undertype variants, since they are very similar to contemporary lorries, but happen to be steam-powered!
• "steam waggon" (2440 hits) - a variant, but used by manufacturers (eg Sentinel Waggon Works)
• "steam truck" (757 hits) - I'd not come across this before. Probably used by same people who use the term 'truck' instead of 'lorry'

EdJogg 01:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

German Naming

The usual word is Lastwagen (load wagon) or the abbrev. "Lkw" from the word Lastkraftwagen. Lastkraftwagen is official language. The word Kraft (in the abbrev. Pkw or Lkw) doesn't mean carrying. The translation of Kraft is power, here in the meaning of engine powered in opposite of horse pulled waggons. The word Kraftwagen came up with the mortorization to tell cars apart from waggons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.172.105.201 (talk) 12:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Restructuring

Everything about trucks on wikipedia need a whole lotta restructuring. First, semi-trailer is more about highway heavy trucks than about semitrailers proper. Here's my understanding of the big world of trucks

• Trucks are motor vehicles designed to haul freight. (we should probably add something to differenciate them from trains & from passenger cars, oh, and from buses too).
  • Most of them are designed to travel on public highways.
    • There are a lot of light trucks such as SUVs, Vans, Pickups, etc.
    • Heavy trucks, who are often tractors in a tractor-trailer combination.
    • medium trucks, mostly for urban use
  • Then, there are special-purpose trucks
    • Some are almost freight trucks, like garbage trucks or dump trucks.
    • Emergency trucks like fire engines
    • Off-road trucks such as huge mining trucks (but some highway trucks go off-road too, like construction trucks)
  • The technical aspects of trucks. Most of them are built in a very similar way: chassis, cab, engine, tandems, suspension. But others are quite outlandish (Huge mining trucks with diesel-electric transmissions)
  • Trucks in the grand scheme of things: their economic importance, their relation to containers, boats & trains, the people who drive them & their lives, etc.
  • Somewhere in there, we have to add a few things: semitrailers vs. full trailers & types of freight bodies (flatbed, platform, van, tank, etc.).. I don't know where. Also, trucks vary a lot from country to country, with regulations mostly. we have to explain that.

So that would be the grand structure of this article, with sub-articles when section get too long. Céçaquiéça 07:20, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I concur with this plan fsiler

Another thing that I think should be added is a better definition for British usage. The article says 'The British term is, however, only used for the medium and heavy types (see below), i.e. a van, a pickup or a SUV would never be regarded a "lorry"'

This creates the impression that an SUV (as it's not referred to as a lorry) would be called a truck. This is not the case. A van in the UK is a road vehicle with a roof and no side windows used to transport goods, or a closed railway wagon used to transport luggage, goods, or mail.

The word truck here will usually refer to a railway wagon for carrying freight, though it has come to describe any vehicle for moving goods. The specific names for the types of vehicles will usually be used rather than calling them trucks, though it's becoming more common for people to refer to lorries as trucks, due to Americanisation.

Someone else could probably do a better job than me at describing this (as I am long winded), but I think it would be a good idea for it to have its own section to deal with this, rather than the obscur reference it has.--Jcvamp 19:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. If Van has its own separate page, so should Lorry. Coming to Wikipedia and searching for "Lorry" is currently an exercise in frustration. BrEng Lorry and USEng Truck are barely-overlapping sets, and the only reason there's any overlap is because everything in the US larger than a Sinclair C5 is called a "truck". If words matter so little, should we just redirect Lorry, Truck and Van all to "Vehicle"? 97.105.71.154 (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Attribution

Text and references copied from Michael H. Belzer to Truck. See former articles history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Text and references copied from Truck to Truck driver, See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)