Is it ok to filter to b 1st? - Page 12

fast4d · 10-15-2012, 10:24 AM

Quote:

"had to lay er down"

ask nicky hayden and ben spies if they should have laid it down during the last GP.

AZbiker · 10-15-2012, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Human Ills

Please explain to me how I made the wrong choice, you are very unclear.

Again. Slabbing on a congested freeway in the #1 lane. (this means cars ALL around doing 80)

Coming up to stopped traffic on freeway. (this means ALL cars which were previously doing 80 are now hard on their brakes)

Car behind me doesn't hit brakes. ( This means I am either occupying a space which is going to disappear or I'm between lanes or I'm on the shoulder (which is chock full of debris) because there are NO gaps IN LANES to be had)

I'm waiting for your very sage (I'm sure) response. With bated breath and all that.

I was agreeing with you.

larryboy · 10-15-2012, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AZbiker

I was agreeing with you.

That's how I read it too.

eatpasta · 10-15-2012, 10:58 AM

Wasn't this thread dead?!

larryboy · 10-15-2012, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eatpasta

Wasn't this thread dead?!

It's winter in some places, I expect this thread to die by June of 2013.

windmill · 10-15-2012, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilB

Interesting mix.

"Loud pipes saves lives" -- Rarely true, but possible. Sometimes the noise provides a clue to others. I don't find that worth the bad side of it.

"had to lay er down" -- False. You're right about this one.

"splitting for safety" -- Generally true. Splitting is safer, unless someone intentionally tries to hurt you for doing it.

"10 over for safety" -- Sort of true. In a car, the safest speed is the same as everyone else, keeping with the general flow of traffic. On a bike, the safest speed is just slightly faster than the general flow of traffic.

"Wheeling for railroad tracks" -- Sort of true. The best is to cross the tracks at as close to a right angle as possible, but if it is at an acute angle, that can be an edge trap for the front wheel, and getting it up and over might be the best answer.

"standing to see" -- How is that not true? Standing gives you a better field of vision, and can be useful.

Don't give up your day job and apply to work at MythBusters just yet.

PhilB

I was just pointing out actions that some justify with supposed safety excuses rather than admitting they do it because they want to. I wasn't questioning them on their real world merrit or lack of.

Human Ills · 10-15-2012, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AZbiker

I was agreeing with you.

Sorry.

PhilB · 10-15-2012, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by windmill

I was just pointing out actions that some justify with supposed safety excuses rather than admitting they do it because they want to. I wasn't questioning them on their real world merrit or lack of.

If it has real world merit, then it isn't just an excuse, now is it? That would make it a "reason", not an "excuse".

PhilB

windmill · 10-15-2012, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilB

If it has real world merit, then it isn't just an excuse, now is it? That would make it a "reason", not an "excuse".

PhilB

Remember the question is if it's ok to do where illegal just because you want to. It's not about doing it as an evasive manouver, and not if it should be legal.

Doing it as human ills did in his example it is a legitimate "reason".
Doing it just because traffic is stopped and you want to, then claiming it is for safety is an "excuse".

Human Ills · 10-15-2012, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by windmill

Remember the question is if it's ok to do where illegal just because you want to. It's not about doing it as an evasive manouver, and not if it should be legal.

Doing it as human ills did in his example it is a legitimate "reason".
Doing it just because traffic is stopped and you want to, then claiming it is for safety is an "excuse".

The point you are missing is simple. It was an option because I have no hang-up surrounding the action.

PhilB · 10-15-2012, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by windmill

Remember the question is if it's ok to do where illegal just because you want to. It's not about doing it as an evasive manouver, and not if it should be legal.

Doing it as human ills did in his example it is a legitimate "reason".
Doing it just because traffic is stopped and you want to, then claiming it is for safety is an "excuse".

Unless it is actually safer to split lanes instead of being a sitting duck, in which case it's a reason. Sheesh.

PhilB

AUSROB · 10-15-2012, 04:27 PM

If you have to ask permission just stay at the back,you don,t get riding.

windmill · 10-15-2012, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Human Ills

The point you are missing is simple. It was an option because I have no hang-up surrounding the action.

Hey,

Isn't this where we started? Personal oppinion vs. actual law.

Weeeeeeeeee. Whos turn to buy?

AZbiker · 10-15-2012, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Human Ills

Sorry.

No prob, friendly fire happens.

Human Ills · 10-16-2012, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by windmill

Hey,

Isn't this where we started? Personal oppinion vs. actual law.

Weeeeeeeeee. Whos turn to buy?

I'm not violating the law.

Weeeeeeeee

I'm sorry the riders in the rest of the country don't get to experience motorcycling to the fullest.

Still your turn to buy.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: .
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

10-15-2012, 04:27 PM	#177
AUSROB Adventurer Joined: Jun 2012 Oddometer: 12	If you have to ask permission just stay at the back,you don,t get riding.