Want to See A Real Cone Killer?
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 8,169
Likes: 52
From: 407 Miles E of the Dragon
Want to See A Real Cone Killer?
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 6,025
Likes: 1
From: BROOKVILLE
Well, I watched the video all the way through - if the trucker was hitting his horn at each curve and had his truck under control (it looked like he did) then, and please don't flame me - HE didn't break any laws! 
As long as a commercial hauler (in excess of 27,000 GVW) is on a public highway, exercising due caution, he is allowed to swing wide for curves, use berms, even obstruct the road. Now that doesn't mean he can run over cars, but unless this road is restricted to 19,000 GVW or less - (did you note the single axel truck going through the curve in the opposite dirrection?) the 18 wheelers can do exactly what this guy did without fear of the law. Of course, the "exercising due caution" means different things to different people, and sadly, the LEO's apply it unevenly all too often.
As long as a commercial hauler (in excess of 27,000 GVW) is on a public highway, exercising due caution, he is allowed to swing wide for curves, use berms, even obstruct the road. Now that doesn't mean he can run over cars, but unless this road is restricted to 19,000 GVW or less - (did you note the single axel truck going through the curve in the opposite dirrection?) the 18 wheelers can do exactly what this guy did without fear of the law. Of course, the "exercising due caution" means different things to different people, and sadly, the LEO's apply it unevenly all too often.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,426
Likes: 5
From: Royal Oak, Michigan
Originally Posted by LINESUPER' date='Jan 21 2009, 05:45 AM
Well, I watched the video all the way through - if the trucker was hitting his horn at each curve and had his truck under control (it looked like he did) then, and please don't flame me - HE didn't break any laws!
As long as a commercial hauler (in excess of 27,000 GVW) is on a public highway, exercising due caution, he is allowed to swing wide for curves, use berms, even obstruct the road. Now that doesn't mean he can run over cars, but unless this road is restricted to 19,000 GVW or less - (did you note the single axel truck going through the curve in the opposite dirrection?) the 18 wheelers can do exactly what this guy did without fear of the law. Of course, the "exercising due caution" means different things to different people, and sadly, the LEO's apply it unevenly all too often.
As long as a commercial hauler (in excess of 27,000 GVW) is on a public highway, exercising due caution, he is allowed to swing wide for curves, use berms, even obstruct the road. Now that doesn't mean he can run over cars, but unless this road is restricted to 19,000 GVW or less - (did you note the single axel truck going through the curve in the opposite dirrection?) the 18 wheelers can do exactly what this guy did without fear of the law. Of course, the "exercising due caution" means different things to different people, and sadly, the LEO's apply it unevenly all too often.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,426
Likes: 5
From: Royal Oak, Michigan
Linesuper, I have no desire to start an argument, but I feel the need to speak up because I think this involves a matter of safe driving. Therefore, I must disagree with your interpretation of the above cited code. While it may allow temporary use of the left hand lane, as it also does with passing (see subsection (a)), it does not allow such a use when that lane is rightfully occupied by another vehicle. In many instances, the driver in the video occupied the left hand lane when it was already in use by other vehicles proceeding in the opposite direction who had the right-of-way. As a result, I still take issue with your initial absolute statement that "He didn't break any laws". You were correct when you stated "that doesn't mean he can run over cars", but by extension of that, he can't intrude into a lane where there are vehicles that already occupy that lane and have the first right to occupy that lane. Doing so creates a real danger that he will run over other vehicles. It appeared to me that this particular driver did just that on several occasions throughout the video. This is just my opinion; I appreciate that you may not -- and nor do you have to -- agree with me.
It appears to me that both of us are somewhat bias, your company has similar commercial vehicles, and my practice includes plaintiff's personal injury litigation. That being said, I think the OP and many other lay people would look at that video and say that the trucker was not driving safely.
It appears to me that both of us are somewhat bias, your company has similar commercial vehicles, and my practice includes plaintiff's personal injury litigation. That being said, I think the OP and many other lay people would look at that video and say that the trucker was not driving safely.
Trending Topics
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 6,025
Likes: 1
From: BROOKVILLE
Originally Posted by Kamron' date='Jan 21 2009, 03:08 PM
Linesuper, I have no desire to start an argument, but I feel the need to speak up because I think this involves a matter of safe driving. Therefore, I must disagree with your interpretation of the above cited code. While it may allow temporary use of the left hand lane, as it also does with passing (see subsection (a)), it does not allow such a use when that lane is rightfully occupied by another vehicle. In many instances, the driver in the video occupied the left hand lane when it was already in use by other vehicles proceeding in the opposite direction who had the right-of-way. As a result, I still take issue with your initial absolute statement that "He didn't break any laws". You were correct when you stated "that doesn't mean he can run over cars", but by extension of that, he can't intrude into a lane where there are vehicles that already occupy that lane and have the first right to occupy that lane. Doing so creates a real danger that he will run over other vehicles. It appeared to me that this particular driver did just that on several occasions throughout the video. This is just my opinion; I appreciate that you may not -- and nor do you have to -- agree with me.
It appears to me that both of us are somewhat bias, your company has similar commercial vehicles, and my practice includes plaintiff's personal injury litigation. That being said, I think the OP and many other lay people would look at that video and say that the trucker was not driving safely.
It appears to me that both of us are somewhat bias, your company has similar commercial vehicles, and my practice includes plaintiff's personal injury litigation. That being said, I think the OP and many other lay people would look at that video and say that the trucker was not driving safely.
I expect most of the business's, including Fontana Village depend on the occasion truck delivery to do business. That given, the only way an 18 wheeler can make the trip is to use both sides of the road, so I expect the LEO's sort of "look the other way" when applying the code. It's not good, It's not safe, and if I had to make the delivery I would either run a 19,000 GVW single axel , or ask for the delivery through Robbinsville.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. By and by - are you going to make WTD this Year? It would be great to meet up and swap lies
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,426
Likes: 5
From: Royal Oak, Michigan
Oh, and to be honest, the instances where I saw him pass patrol cars, I don't think he was doing anything wrong because during those instances I don't think there were cars in the opposing lane (unless I missed something). And, I'm certainly not saying an 18 wheeler has no right to use the road either. Certainly, when there is less traffic an 18 wheeler can do it more safely (I've been on the dragon early in the morning and didn't see another car coming in the opposite direction the whole run).
And, yes, I've already registered for WTD07 and reserved a room at Fontana -- see you there!
And, yes, I've already registered for WTD07 and reserved a room at Fontana -- see you there!
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 93,305
Likes: 820
From: Nowhere
Originally Posted by LINESUPER' date='Jan 21 2009, 01:58 PM
I expect most of the business's, including Fontana Village depend on the occasion truck delivery to do business. That given, the only way an 18 wheeler can make the trip is to use both sides of the road, so I expect the LEO's sort of "look the other way" when applying the code. It's not good, It's not safe, and if I had to make the delivery I would either run a 19,000 GVW single axel , or ask for the delivery through Robbinsville.
What I've never been able to figure out is where the drivers would be coming from and going to. Unless their dispatch is using the "shortest route" option. 441 is a faster route for anything regional, except connecting Maryville to Robbinsville.