Is it ok to filter to b 1st?

"Loud pipes saves lives"

"had to lay er down"

"splitting for safety"

"10 over for safety"

"Wheeling for railroad tracks"

"standing to see"



I have split" illegally", would like to do legally, and have no arguments against it.
I'm not going to use "what if's" to excuse my desires be it splitting, standing, speeding, what ever. Sometimes I do them in reaction to a situation, sometimes I do them because I want to, but I'm always honest with myself, don't insult the intellegence of others, or try to snow job the ignorant.

Doing it when actually needed but technically illegal is beyond the scope of this academic debate.

Ride your ride and take your medicine.

Jim

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

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.

yup. Even in a car, I prefer to engage with traffic from the front than the rear. It's safer to drive looking out the windshield than spending too much time driving in the rearview mirrors. (note I said "too much" time)

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

I was agreeing with you.

That's how I read it too.

Wasn't this thread dead?!

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

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.

Sorry.

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".

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

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

PhilB

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

Hey,

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

Weeeeeeeeee. Whos turn to buy?

No prob, friendly fire happens.

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.