RandomHero
Well-known member
So in short you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. Thanks for the clarification. For future posts you may want to stick to your moronic one liners. It will save you some embarassment.
For those of you who filter
- Thread starter DOHC1
- Start date
So in short you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. Thanks for the clarification. For future posts you may want to stick to your moronic one liners. It will save you some embarassment.
OMGSelenaGomez
Well-known member
Motorcycles take off instantly whereas cagers will not. Motorcycles filtering does not affect the flow of traffic negatively. It takes me a fraction of a second to take off while a cager might take a second or two.
If you aren't intending to accelerate quickly while filtering, filtering isn't for you.
If thinking motorcycles are not zero dimensional makes me moron... well.. HERRP MEHH DERRRP!
Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2
i guess you didnt read the article
ill post it AGAIN
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring...uting-by-motorcycle-is-good-for-everyone.html
you can now read and understand better
Im working on it.Have you fixed the climate issues yet??
Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2
I call it "global warming"
RandomHero
Well-known member
I don't remember implying that at all, how convenient of you to translate what I said that way though. Glad you're taking my advice though, I don't feel the urge to facepalm anymore, I just feel bad for you.
Im working on it.
I call it "global warming"
Hahaha funny!
I'm just saying. If you filter past people you are slowing them down. Even if you launch hard when the light turns green you're still slowing them down. Filtering past them adds an additional delay during their commute.
Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2
& how about the case where the light's green but traffic's so backed up that no one else can proceed through the intersection (except a motorcycle who's filtering/splitting)? That would only hold if I was staying on this road for the next 18 kms and at some point I'd have to merge back in (which just isn't the case downtown)
Okay so riddle me this, you are next to a car
Light turns green
Who has the potential to casually get to the next set of lights faster?
Who will cover more ground faster?
Who has a higher accelerating speed?
A car in front of a car will be a bigger 'slow down' than a bike in front of a car, right?
The fact that the motorcyle in front gets 'out of the way faster' means that the car back in traffic will start moving ahead faster than if it had to wait for that motorcycle to wait for the car to start moving at a slower speed before accelerating at the same speed as a car instead of accelerating at the speed that a motorcycle does.
Therefore, a lane with a motorcycle in front of it has more chances of moving faster than a lane with a car in front of it.
That's something i apply when im stopping at lights and evalutating traffic ahead, should i get behind/follow the lancer evo or the sienna?
OMGSelenaGomez
Well-known member
Um... no. Anyone filtering is legitimately trying to get to their destination faster and will have the reflexes to react and get out of the way instantly. Cagers who know that traffic is congested aren't going to be racing to the next light. Those cagers are going to be a lot more docile and attempt to save some gas by not flooring it light to light.
....That is you in your avatar I'm assuming right?
You don't ride a scooter, moped or e-bike do you? I've dragged against my friends TLS to 80 and won by a long shot and I ride a GS500F [I launched at 9ish revs]. You throw any of the 650s or 600 supersports and they will likely beat every car up to, and including, souped up GTRs.
I really don't know what you're talking about, especially considering that most riders treat traffic lights as race lights lol
Sure, but no less than two years after it became law. I'm not going to be one of the early adopter statistics.
Don't know how to even get them changed, tried to talk to some politicians in Markham that my gf knew, they thought I was insane. -_-
awyala
Guest
Let's look at it again...
1(Most people will view it as you cutting in line) 2(and will react accordingly).
Caboose in segment 1 assumed how most people will view it, this is HIS opinion. He then goes on to say they will react accordingly to what people will perceive as cutting in line, accordingly. This is again his opinion. He then goes on to state what actions are "accordinglly". All of this is HIS opinion.
Had he said, "most people will view it as cutting in line, and will react accordingly, yelling, cussing, even blocking"....sure that could be "accordingly" behaviour, I might have accepted his opinion as sound and let it slide. But he a) goes on to add another action WHICH IS NOT "according" behaviour, and if it is mistakenly viewed as such, it would be criminal and extreme unwarranted behaviour. This confusion his view that people may feel it is "according" behaviour and what is actually criminal behaviour should have been clarified. Caboose does not make any of these distinctions and either a) believes such reactions are due course, or believes the majority of people believe such and he supports this view, rather than condemns it. He instead condemns the filterer, "legal or not" as he puts it. Keep in mind he used the word "accordingly" to quantify the response he claims to observe. Had he not used the word "accordingly" at all and the sentence would have had a less justified effect thus weakening his position. Rather he tried to swing the justification to his side of the argument.
I'll give you an example of how the language was misused.
sentence 1) Women should not wear revealing attire when going out at night, as some men might act "accordingly". Some may cat call, some may approach, and some may even rape you.
compare that to...sentence 2) Women should not wear revealing attire when going out at night, as some men may cat call, some may approach and some may even rape you.
Sentence 1 injects moral justification while sentence 2 is a warning of acts that are stated as fact, rather than quantified.
Try sentence 3) Women should not wear revealing attire when going out at night, as unpricipled men may cat call, some may approach and some may even rape you.
You see what I did there, in each sentence IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII changed the onus of morality and intention behind each caution. In the first case I put the moral onus on women, in the second I state fact, and in the third I issue a warning despite being in the moral right. My support is clearly on the side of women in the 3rd sentence and my warning is out of concern for them.
And if you think arguing semantics is futile you are the type to be misled by propaganda as semantics are weapons and tools of control. Armies can be rallied on cliches and slogans alone!
Last edited:
Sentence 4) It's illegal so do it if you choose, but don't whine when you have to take your lumps.
The one thing people are forgetting is that many/most/some... riders can't ride for ****, so having these people filter through cars may not be a good idea
I filter every morning, some people get ******, some others get out of the way, I don't care. I do however go out of my way not to inconvenience and delay any car due to my filtering/lane splitting
awyala
Guest
That's a good point. It is an advanced riding skill and not advisable.
