Kentucky Supreme Court Got It Right

I'm suprised anyone can get away with towing a double trailer with
presumably an ordinary drivers license. My understanding is that
driving a commercial vehical with double trailers requires special
licensing that isn't covered by the basic CDL for towing a single
trailer or operating a large truck.

The onus is always on the passing vehicle operator to exercise caution
when attempting to pass any other vehicle. This is explicitly written
into every vehicle code I've looked at. I'ts prety insulting that the
judge disregarded this in the original case.

On a related note, this is why I refuse to ever wave someone by who is
too skiddish to pass. I'm afraid they'll put the blame on me if the
passing driver then causes an accident. One of my peeves is passing
drivers who cross over double yellow lines with less than 100ft of
separation from oncoming vehicles.

I wonder if he would feel the same way if HE was the car (or bicyclist)
being passed.

- -

Chris Zacho ~ "Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

"May you have the winds at your back,
And a really low gear for the hills!"

Chris'Z Corner
http://www.geocities.com/czcorner

"amakyonin" wrote ...

Quoted message said:

I'm suprised anyone can get away with towing a double trailer with
presumably an ordinary drivers license. My understanding is that
driving a commercial vehical with double trailers requires special
licensing that isn't covered by the basic CDL for towing a single
trailer or operating a large truck.

The onus is always on the passing vehicle operator to exercise caution
when attempting to pass any other vehicle. This is explicitly written
into every vehicle code I've looked at. I'ts prety insulting that the
judge disregarded this in the original case.

On a related note, this is why I refuse to ever wave someone by who is
too skiddish to pass. I'm afraid they'll put the blame on me if the
passing driver then causes an accident. One of my peeves is passing
drivers who cross over double yellow lines with less than 100ft of
separation from oncoming vehicles.

I frequently see double trailers around here towed by non-commercial
vehicles. These are usually recreational loads (dirt bikes, snow mobiles,
boats, camping trailers). I have always wondered if this is really legal,
and what sort of license is required.
--
mark

Rob Wesley <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Supreme Court of KY overturned a ruling concerning a woman on a bike
being hit by a passing driver (in a pickup truck towing two flatbed
trailers ~48 ft. of total vehicle). In the original trial the driver
was not found negligent.

http://162.114.92.72/Opinions/2004-SC-000131-DG.pdf has the details.

Interesting quote from the defendant about his understanding of
passing (a bike):
"My thought is, when I pass a grown person -- whether a lady or a man
-- I have no thought of trying to protect her...I mean, once I started
passing her, I felt it would be her obligation to allow me around
her."

I wonder if his view would have been the same if it were a car he was
passing?

This guy obviously comes from the "Family Guy" driving school.

But this is a weird case. I can't believe the trial and appeals courts
could possibly let somebody off from liability for smacking into a
vehicle of any kind in a botched pass, especially while driving the kind
of hillbilly rig described in the decisions. There had to have been
some miscogenistic or xenophobic or anti-bike thing going on.

But at the same time, if I'm driving a car and someone feels a need to
pass me on a road with one lane in each direction, I tap my brakes once
and take my foot off the gas till he's safely around; and I see that
pretty consistantly when I pass someone. Just because someone is a
moron doesn't mean he should get killed for it (unless you believe in
driving Darwinism) or that you should get killed for it.

--ag

mark said:

I frequently see double trailers around here towed by non-commercial
vehicles. These are usually recreational loads (dirt bikes, snow mobiles,
boats, camping trailers). I have always wondered if this is really legal,
and what sort of license is required.

It is legal in 37 U.S. states. Most states that do allow non commercial
tandems require the first trailer to be a 5th wheel, and in at least a
handful, the second trailer has to be a boat. Usually, both trailers are
required to have brakes, but not always.

I've heard the commercial rigs in Australia get as long as 7 trailers in
some places.

Austin

"AustinMN" wrote

Quoted message said:

I've heard the commercial rigs in Australia get as long as 7 trailers in
some places.

I'm told that they're known as road trains, and the operate in remote
stretches of the Outback with long, straight empty roads.
--
mark

Andy Gee said:

This guy obviously comes from the "Family Guy" driving school.

But this is a weird case. I can't believe the trial and appeals courts
could possibly let somebody off from liability for smacking into a
vehicle of any kind in a botched pass, especially while driving the kind
of hillbilly rig described in the decisions. There had to have been
some miscogenistic or xenophobic or anti-bike thing going on.

But at the same time, if I'm driving a car and someone feels a need to
pass me on a road with one lane in each direction, I tap my brakes once
and take my foot off the gas till he's safely around; and I see that
pretty consistantly when I pass someone. Just because someone is a
moron doesn't mean he should get killed for it (unless you believe in
driving Darwinism) or that you should get killed for it.

--ag

I agree with you that the defendant Dailey was an idiot and the jury
should not have returned a verdict in his favor. I also agree that
being a moron shouldn't be a capital crime. If it were, all of us would
be eligible for execution at one time or another. ;-)

That said, the final outcome of this case will be interesting to say
the least since the opinion reads in part:
"We hold that the trial court should have granted Previs a directed
verdict on the issue of Dailey's negligence. However, a jury is still
entitled to consider Previs's duties in operating her bicycle, and
apportion fault should it find that Previs was negligent as well. The
jury was given instructions on both Previs's duties and apportionment,
but was directed not to consider them upon finding for Dailey. On
remand, a jury must consider these additional issues."
Language like this is usually a higher court's way of saying that they
think there's *shared* blame and a settlement should be reached.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Rob Wesley said:

Interesting quote from the defendant about his understanding
of passing (a bike):
"My thought is, when I pass a grown person -- whether a lady
or a man -- I have no thought of trying to protect her..."

That must be the "No Thought Defense".

--
"Bicycling is a healthy and manly pursuit with much
to recommend it, and, unlike other foolish crazes,
it has not died out." -- The Daily Telegraph (1877)