Shaman
Well-known member
Sometimes I wonder why some people get out of bed.
Petition to ban commercial vehicles from US129 (Deals Gap)
- Thread starter S500K
- Start date
you know you could be right.... I could see a rider with a darkside rear needing to walk a bike around a corner because their inability to corner... even if they were on an ebike...
It's referring to practical necessity to make a turn in tight quarters, regardless of the location or nature of those quarters.
The general Tennessee driver's manual makes note of yellow lines as an advisory mechanism to indicate where overtaking may or may not occur. It's not a blanket "do not cross" line. If it were, you wouldn't be able to make a left turn across one to enter a driveway.
In the case of large trucks, regulations requiring to travel on the right side of the road are augmented with the qualification of "as close as possible" to the right side. It may not always be possible to drive right against the right side of the lane. Clearly that does not mean that the truck is barred from entering the other lane if required because of tight turning quarters, otherwise the commercial truck license driver's manual would not be advising to do just that in such circumstances.
Besides, there is the practical aspect of matters. Let's say the truck can't make a turn without crossing the double yellow. What then? Is it now barred from further forward travel? Should it back up? Make a U-turn?
Of course not. It uses the room required to make the turn, yielding to oncoming traffic as best as possible, then returns to its lane when the turn is completed.
Going back to the real issue on US129, how does oncoming traffic fit in with this? The same way it deals with anything blocking or potentially blocking their way. They take caution. Ride or drive with caution. You can't going blasting blindly around the twisties without keeping potential obstructions around the next blind corner in the back of your mind, and riding in a way that you can stop if needed should you encounter such an obstruction.
Yes, it might be one of those evil trucks that shouldn't be there. Feel free to curse at it as you creep on by it. Or it could be the Tennessee State Police blocking the road at a crash site where a rider has gone down all on his own without a truck in sight.
Either way, you have to ride accordingly when your sightlines are limited, whether on US129 or at the Forks or in the middle of the city, despite the pathetic wisecracks from the peanut gallery here.
The most effective way to save the maximum number of riders' lives would be to close the highway to motorcycles.
In any case, saving lives of bikers and drivers? How many each year can be attributed to a truck's driving error vs the other party's (car or bike) excess speed or inattention?
Methinks that turbovision wasn't focused on the existence of signs prohibiting travel or vehicles of certain size, such as "Overheight When Flashing".. Otherwise, it would have come across a pretty obvious solution to barring vehicles that cannot make a corner while staying in their own lane from using certain roads 
OpenGambit
Banned
I think i totally get this thread.
Banning trucks from Ontario roads cause of noise = totally cool, completely not subject to any Charter scrutiny, BIKES ARE NEXT and thats totally cool too
Banning trucks from US 129 because they are a hazard to everyone on the road including themselves? = Everyone should just suck it up and its not unsafe, its just an inconvenience.
You are seriously like... "that guy"
Banning trucks from Ontario roads cause of noise = totally cool, completely not subject to any Charter scrutiny, BIKES ARE NEXT and thats totally cool too
Banning trucks from US 129 because they are a hazard to everyone on the road including themselves? = Everyone should just suck it up and its not unsafe, its just an inconvenience.
You are seriously like... "that guy"
Methinks that turbovision wasn't focused on the existence of signs prohibiting travel or vehicles of certain size, such as "Overheight When Flashing".. Otherwise, it would have come across a pretty obvious solution to barring vehicles that cannot make a corner while staying in their own lane from using certain roads
Turbovision? Grow up.
You talk of solutions? Is there really a problem that serious that a "solution" is needed here? Aren't you the one always railing on about unnecessary laws and unnecessary intrusion by the state in response to shrill advocacy groups? Are you now becoming part of one yourself?
There is somewhat of a difference between killing yourself, and killing someone else though your actions.
But the biggest impact, of transport trucks on US 129, is the number of times they result in the road being completely closed to passenger vehicle traffic.
I'm in favor of enforcing existing laws based on established legal principles, where needed. I am sure there are already laws in the books prohibiting vehicles that cannot travel certain roads safely from taking them. Example: You cannot take an e-bike on the 401. Unfortunately, due to my lack of turbomorality, I have to sadly oppose any extrajudicial punishment for the accused parties
... in which case, the cops would have some combination of flares, pylons or flashing lights with sirens at their disposal to make themselves noticeable. And, the foresight to park in the best, most visible possible place.
If trucks are a risk going down that road, and especially if their trips down that road are slow and counterproductive... why not ban or restrict them from that road? Sounds like win-win. No danger to the riders, and they can't be earning points with dispatch by taking corners @ 5mph on their way to Wal-Mart or McDonald's.
Are truckers somehow upset, and protesting civil rights, because they're not allowed on Forks of the Credit road? I'd love to hear about their ideological conflicts and scrutiny of statute.
Last edited:
You woudn't notice the roof or hood or trailer of a big *** truck ahead of you?
Big rigs cannot physically make it around the Forks of the Credit hairpin even with the use of both lanes, so statute isn't the restricting factor there. Also, unlike US129, there are two alternate east-west routes to the Forks route that don't require trucks to go dozens of miles out of their way to bypass the Forks.
even if there were not two alternate east west routes to the Forks trucks wouldn't be able to go down that road nice smoke you're blowing there
even if there were not two alternate east west routes to the Forks trucks wouldn't be able to go down that road nice smoke you're blowing there
The only smoke being blown is yours, again. Read the post again, specifically:
Holmes
Well-known member
Yes, this would be great for the comunity that is built on motorcycles in this area... Dude, think about what you say before you say it.
Not if it's hidden around a rock outcrop around 90° corner.
Do you think a trucker really wants to drive this? Do you think he/she'd mind going 10 miles down to the next road? Think this would save them time or be good for their brakes, clutch, tires, ...?
