Another recipient

[cycleguy2300]

Never once said "I'm in a car and I can't". You are making up stuff again.

Did say it runs a risk of damaging someone's car during a lane change (ain't worried about the bike, the idiot had it coming). Did ask what makes you special so that you think it is okay to break the law (we ain't in Cali) and run to the front of the line.

Ye spake:
"What makes you special that you get to cut to the front of the line?"

Ye meaneth:
"What makes you special that you get to cut to the front of the line of cars I am in?"

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

 

[oldag]

Ye spake:
"What makes you special that you get to cut to the front of the line?"

Ye meaneth:
"What makes you special that you get to cut to the front of the line of cars I am in?"

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

Bless your lil heart.

 

[gll]

I haven't ridden in 25 years, but when I did and the heavy rain and hail started, and traffic came to a stop, I didn't sit there and wait it out with the cars... or sit in the heat and asphyxiate.

Neither would I ever let myself get boxed in traffic, and I didn't care one bit how much the cars didn't like how I got out of the death box.

Motorcycles have no defense against cars except for a good offense. I can't tell you how many times, in my 20 years of riding and commuting, someone I knew would ask if I saw them on the expressway. Never... When you are riding a motorcycle, cars have about the personality of a power pole that moves. When I rode, I saw something like a chessboard or maybe a game of battleship, where I was trying to anticipate and hopefully avoid some car's next stupid move.

I can't imagine riding in traffic today...

 

[cycleguy2300]

Bless your lil heart.

Trying to deflect by not addressing the statement.

Like I said, I have yet to hear an argument against lane splitting/filtering that doesnt boil down to your position which summed up is "I'm in a car and can't, so why should they".

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

 

[GoPappy]

The main reason to allow motorcycles to filter to the front at a traffic light is that it helps the flow of traffic. Motorcycles accelerate from a dead stop faster than cars and trucks.

If you let the bikes filter to the front, they take off when the light turns green and are gone. It doesn’t slow the cars down at all.

I never did any lane splitting back when I rode. Even if it was legal in Texas (which it’s not), the public would have to be educated on it and learn to accept it.

Plus, look at all the people wandering all over the road because they’re too busy texting to pay attention to the road.

 

[Vaquero]

I got no problem with someone smaller and faster going by. Then again, I tow a travel trailer at 63 mph. Some of ya'll don't like me on the road either.

 

[BeatTheTunaUp]

Trying to deflect by not addressing the statement.

Like I said, I have yet to hear an argument against lane splitting/filtering that doesnt boil down to your position which summed up is "I'm in a car and can't, so why should they".

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

man to be honest he answered a few times. It boils down to safety. I wouldn't be expecting a motorcycle to split the lane and I could see accidents happening. You on the other hand don't have a better argument than because I can and continue to deflect back. You argue like a liberal.

 

[Moonpie]

If only there was a way JaDerek could have prevented this.

 

[oldag]

Trying to deflect by not addressing the statement.

Like I said, I have yet to hear an argument against lane splitting/filtering that doesnt boil down to your position which summed up is "I'm in a car and can't, so why should they".

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

You are suffering from a severe lack of reading comprehension. Or a case of liberal denial. What else is new, though.

Which part of safety do you not understand?

 

[Nightwatch]

It's not about safety, not about what one can easily do, opinions or rights.

It's clearly illegal. End of story. Not to be done until that law is changed...and all the energy expended trying to "make it all right" and explain the points of view isn't going to change the law.
Made a living a lot of years enforcing laws I thought were stupid, harmful, wasteful, and unfair...but they were the law.

We have been loudly crying that we're a nation of law and that immigration laws and election laws and others MUST be enforced...this is the law.
If we don't like it, we can change it.

 

[Axxe55]

It's not about safety, not about what one can easily do, opinions or rights.

It's clearly illegal. End of story. Not to be done until that law is changed...and all the energy expended trying to "make it all right" and explain the points of view isn't going to change the law.
Made a living a lot of years enforcing laws I thought were stupid, harmful, wasteful, and unfair...but they were the law.

We have been loudly crying that we're a nation of law and that immigration laws and election laws and others MUST be enforced...this is the law.
If we don't like it, we can change it.

^^^^This.^^^^

I hate seatbelt laws. I hate someone telling me that I have to wear one, or I will get a ticket for not wearing one if I get caught.

That said, I totally disagree with having a law that says I have to wear one, but I still will wear one. Even if there were no law saying i must wear one, I would still wear one because I know my odds are better in an accident if i wear one. I just hate not being able to make that decision for myself as an adult.

 

[seeker_two]

Only problem I have with splitting lanes like that is, after watching way too many Active Self Protection videos on Youtube, I reflexively draw my Roscoe when a moto comes up behind me like that. One of these days, I may end up giving one a Brazilian Off-Duty Cop Hello......

 

[gll]

It's not about safety, not about what one can easily do, opinions or rights.

It's clearly illegal. End of story. Not to be done until that law is changed...and all the energy expended trying to "make it all right" and explain the points of view isn't going to change the law.
Made a living a lot of years enforcing laws I thought were stupid, harmful, wasteful, and unfair...but they were the law.

We have been loudly crying that we're a nation of law and that immigration laws and election laws and others MUST be enforced...this is the law.
If we don't like it, we can change it.

When aliens illegally immigrate, or people manipulate the vote, they actually hurt me and you, by violating our rights. When a crotch rocket blasts past you at 120, they have hurt no one..., except maybe someone's feelz..., or maybe themselves on the next curve... There may be the potential for them to hurt someone, but that argument doesn't fly much better than speed limits on guns. People should concern themselves more with when rights of others are being violated, not just about what laws are being broken.

And yeah, I already know the arguments about how them on life support costs you and, guns are a right, driving isn't, bla da bla da, so don't waste your time... When the law becomes a burden, instead of a blessing, there is too much law and it's time for a reset.

And yeah, if enforcing the law is your job, by all means enforce it, but if it's not your job, you have the freedom to choose what laws really need to be enforced in the absence of LE. There are a whole shitload of violations of law that I don't care about and would never report anyone for, except maybe for vendetta...

I hate seatbelt laws. I hate someone telling me that I have to wear one, or I will get a ticket for not wearing one if I get caught.

That said, I totally disagree with having a law that says I have to wear one, but I still will wear one. Even if there were no law saying i must wear one, I would still wear one because I know my odds are better in an accident if i wear one. I just hate not being able to make that decision for myself as an adult.

Do you care if some person in another car wears a seat belt? The issue raised here isn't a question of what you do, but how you react to what others do.

I always wear a seat belt, except when I'm driving the 6 miles into town, or the two miles to my mailbox... so, not always... If there was no seat belt law, but there were still seatbelts, I would pick and choose when I wore them, just like now.

 

[Axxe55]

When aliens illegally immigrate, or people manipulate the vote, they actually hurt me and you, by violating our rights. When a crotch rocket blasts past you at 120, they have hurt no one..., except maybe someone's feelz..., or maybe themselves on the next curve... There may be the potential for them to hurt someone, but that argument doesn't fly much better than speed limits on guns. People should concern themselves more with when rights of others are being violated, not just about what laws are being broken.

And yeah, I already know the arguments about how them on life support costs you and, guns are a right, driving isn't, bla da bla da, so don't waste your time... When the law becomes a burden, instead of a blessing, there is too much law and it's time for a reset.

And yeah, if enforcing the law is your job, by all means enforce it, but if it's not your job, you have the freedom to choose what laws really need to be enforced in the absence of LE. There are a whole shitload of violations of law that I don't care about and would never report anyone for, except maybe for vendetta...

Do you care if some person in another car wears a seat belt? The issue raised here isn't a question of what you do, but how you react to what others do.

I always wear a seat belt, except when I'm driving the 6 miles into town, or the two miles to my mailbox... so, not always... If there was no seat belt law, but there were still seatbelts, I would pick and choose when I wore them, just like now.

The law still does exist. If you are on public roadway and get stopped not wearing a seatbelt, you are very likely going to get a ticket. You are choosing to not abide by the existing law.

Do I care if someone isn't wearing a seatbelt and I am? Not really. First of all, it's not place to enforce the laws. Second, I could report them. But that kind of seems like a huge waste of time, don't ya think? Third, if or when they get caught for the violation, they are the ones getting the ticket, not me. Fourth, and probably the most important, I really don't really get too concerned unless the actions of others, puts me at risk from their actions. Them not wearing a seatbelt doesn't endanger me in the least. So really it's none of my business.

 

[Renegade]

Hopefully he was not fully ventilated and was able to turn his life around by donating organs.

 

[cycleguy2300]

You are suffering from a severe lack of reading comprehension. Or a case of liberal denial. What else is new, though.

Which part of safety do you not understand?

Olhag, I fear it is another case of pearls before swine with you yet again, but alas, I'll try again...

I lead off with "when done safely" I am not talking about doing 100mph through cars doing 65, I am talking about doing 10 or 15 through cars stopped or nearly so.

There are two prime reasons to allow filtering:
First, being stopped at a light with traffic approaching from behind on a moto, is risk they should not be required to be exposed to when filtering is safe (as proven by Cali and other States)
Second, filtering allows motos to get out of the way of other drivers, helping traffic to flow faster. I recall a traffic study where if between 5%-15% of road users used a motorcycle and filtering was not prohibited, it would reduce traffic congestion by a number disproportionate to the number of riders (50%? 90? I dont remember but it was a lot!)

The laws governing lane use are as follows:

TC 545.060(a) An operator on a roadway divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic:
(1) shall drive as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane;  and
(2) may not move from the lane unless that movement can be made safely

Filtering is only against the law in Texas because the law requiring driving in "single lane" was was directed at four-wheeled vehicles, to keep them driving in a predictable path. A moto slowly passing stopped or nearly stopped vehicles is not a hazard or unpredictable and is SAFER than being stopped and getting hit from behind.

Motos can already ride two abreast (that's side-by-side for those of you in Rio Linda), riders don't have to wear seatbelts.

This bozo who got shot was the moto equivalent of a CC protester going into a bank with long guns to get support of people carrying firearms.

If you have something more logically substantial than your na-na-ne-boo-boo arguments let's hear it...

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

 

[cycleguy2300]

It's not about safety, not about what one can easily do, opinions or rights.

It's clearly illegal. End of story. Not to be done until that law is changed...and all the energy expended trying to "make it all right" and explain the points of view isn't going to change the law.
Made a living a lot of years enforcing laws I thought were stupid, harmful, wasteful, and unfair...but they were the law.

We have been loudly crying that we're a nation of law and that immigration laws and election laws and others MUST be enforced...this is the law.
If we don't like it, we can change it.

Where is it clearly illegal?

There is not a single law which explicitly states a moto cannot. It is the combined interpretation of 545.060 and some of the other passing laws that make it "illegal", but challenge you to cite where it is "CLEARLY ILLEGAL"

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

 

[benenglish]

The Idaho stop is a good or bad thing. Discuss.

I mean, as long as y'all want to go back and forth forever about something no one's gonna change their mind on...

 

[V-Tach]

Legal or not.....


Douche bags do it...........

Now let's argue about the definition of a douche bag.....

 

[candcallen]

Just an observation....

When someone, not point to anyone in particular cause I dont usually look at who made the post unless I'm quoting it but I think I read this 3 or 4 times here, calls another a liberal or Democrat cause they disagree with them they come across as a childish phuktard.

Unless said person is a self proclaimed liberal Democrat. God knows we got a few of those wondering from time to time.

You can disagree about a law or practice and politics have nothing to do with it.

Lane splitting seem oddly apolitical to me.

So does blocking a vehicle and pulling your gun on the driver. Now I would say dead men have no political affiliation or tell no tales but we all know that's not always true.