For those of you who filter

[bboySushi]

Forum Sponsor

-Why does this bother you?
WHAT?
Why does me passing you bother you?
YOU HAVE TO WAIT LIKE EVERYONE ELSE
-Doesn't less vehicles on the road mean less traffic, and therefore everyone gets out quicker?
*starts squinting and going "Ah...umm...." IT DOESN'T MATTER
-Think about that carefully while you sit in traffic, because I can do this and you cant
Ride away

+1! That made my evening.

 

[awyala]

Not really.

One has moving vehicles, one doesn't. Either way the cop can charge you for stunting. Check the law section.

Believe me I have checked. The fact that you suggested I look into that section means you haven't checked more than superficially yourself.

 

[awyala]

so in that last example, with only one vehicle at the front of each lane, you filter through them rather than have one vehicle in front of you? The primary reason to do that is to be first. To get ahead. There's no congestion, You end up first and accelerate ahead to give you more space. They catch up anyway. If you intend to travel at the prevailing rate of speed, when the traffic is that light why wouldn't you just stay with the traffic?

When traffic is light, say three cars deep at an intersection and traffic flow is free and fluid, I don't need to filter. Filtering becomes effective when in grid lock every light is 10 to 100+ cars deep.

Because you can fit, and because you can go faster.
Again, I don't believe the HTA is written in such a way that the fastest shall prevail, or if you can fit in a space, it's allowed.

Look into it, and understand the concept of traffic control, it is to control traffic for safety, not for the sake of control. It puts limitation on what is otherwise free will, not the other way around, otherwise liberating people from utter immobility. Until such time as and act is explicitly illegal, it is by default, legal.

The fact that there is a greater burden of proof required for proving careless or dangerous driving works in favour of filtering. I simply don't agree that it is completely legal because of the interpretations you've provided.

I didn't say it was completely legal. I said some forms of filtering are legal, while others are not, and to be cautious of the legal distinctions.

As i mentioned earlier though, I think the greater issue is acceptance by other motorists. That's a huge challenge to overcome, and I think the risk is much higher until it is either more widely accepted, or explicitly provided for in the Act.

Agreed. It was the same in the UK when critical mass and 2 insurance case rulings tipped the scale around 2006.

I would prefer to see it legalized in such a manner that it works in our favour - that is, it allows us to move through, but not a bigger vehicle to pull up beside (although we can manage a lo of that with blocking positions). That would also allow for very specific situations in which it is allowed.

I don't mind people pulling up next to me safely providing there is space. Fair is fair.

MFF

My comments in bold above.

 

[killvino]

its not me first mentality
its the same reason there is a passing lane and why are we allowed to pass on two-lane roads.
cause some people drive slower/accelerate slower and its just more efficient to be in front of them if we arent really slowing anyone down.
filtering if done properly is the same thing.

 

[caboose56]

its not me first mentality
its the same reason there is a passing lane and why are we allowed to pass on two-lane roads.
cause some people drive slower/accelerate slower and its just more efficient to be in front of them if we arent really slowing anyone down.
filtering if done properly is the same thing.

Swing and a miss.

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

 

[awyala]

Swing and a miss.

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

in depth rebuttal

 

[caboose56]

in depth rebuttal

In depth rebuttal not required. They're not the same.

The delusional people will continue to think what they do. There is no changing that. Your wall of text won't protect you if someday you filter past the wrong guy who had a really bad day and runs you off the road.

Legal or not. Most people will view it as you cutting in line and will react accordingly. Some will just mutter under their breath, some will honk and swear at you, others might cut you off and some might try to hit you.

It's selfish, plain and simple.

Any attempt to justify it as 'fewer cars on the road so less congestion' is retarded.

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Outlaws Justice]

In depth rebuttal not required. They're not the same.

The delusional people will continue to think what they do. There is no changing that. Your wall of text won't protect you if someday you filter past the wrong guy who had a really bad day and runs you off the road.

Legal or not. Most people will view it as you cutting in line and will react accordingly. Some will just mutter under their breath, some will honk and swear at you, others might cut you off and some might try to hit you.

It's selfish, plain and simple.

Any attempt to justify it as 'fewer cars on the road so less congestion' is retarded.

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

And people do the same when being passed even on a multilane road. I have had people speed up to prevent me from passing, and I have had someone actually try to block me as I signaled and started to pass. We are allowed to pass for various reasons on the road (And even on the right if circumstances are right) as has been stated filtering would be no different than passing.

 

[caboose56]

And people do the same when being passed even on a multilane road. I have had people speed up to prevent me from passing, and I have had someone actually try to block me as I signaled and started to pass. We are allowed to pass for various reasons on the road (And even on the right if circumstances are right) as has been stated filtering would be no different than passing.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Someone else being an ******* doesn't make it ok for you to be a selfish dick (in their eyes)

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

 

[RandomHero]

Any attempt to justify it as 'fewer cars on the road so less congestion' is retarded.

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

Have you actually been anywhere they allow it, or are you speaking from ignorance?

 

[Riceburner]

It's the me first, don't bud in line mentality that holds us back. If it was legal I'd do it.

Passing stopped traffic beside parked cars is a grey zone I think..... lol

 

[LePhillou]

repost

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/motorbikes/9272532/Why-commuting-by-motorcycle-is-good-for-everyone.html

 

[Rob MacLennan]

And people do the same when being passed even on a multilane road. I have had people speed up to prevent me from passing, and I have had someone actually try to block me as I signaled and started to pass. We are allowed to pass for various reasons on the road (And even on the right if circumstances are right) as has been stated filtering would be no different than passing.

Well at least in that case you have the law on your side, unlike with filtering and splitting, and the person who is doing that to you can actually be charged under HTA 172.

 

[caboose56]

Have you actually been anywhere they allow it, or are you speaking from ignorance?

Several drivers at a red light have motorcycle filter past them. They each now have an additional delay for one extra vehicle in front of them to start moving. There's even a good chance that a driver will not get through that green light who otherwise would have and now has to wait another cycle.

These drivers should be thankful that the rider is helping relieve congestion? Ok buddy!

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

 

[awyala]

In depth rebuttal not required. They're not the same.

The delusional people will continue to think what they do. And you have no delusions? Everyone else is wrong despite the argument for it? There is no changing that. Your wall of text won't protect you if someday you filter past the wrong guy who had a really bad day and runs you off the road. My wall of text won't protect me from a bad, vengeful psycho driver no. That makes no sense as an argument. General awareness as well as filter specific awareness will protect some people in some circumstances, but generally not against a psycho.

Legal or not. Most people will view it as you cutting in line (you obviously don't filter and do not do so regularly here or in places where it is explicitly legal) and will react accordingly (define "act accordingly", it seems you feel running someone off the road with a lethal weapon is justified). Some will just mutter under their breath, some will honk and swear at you, others might cut you off and some might try to hit you. Oh I see, this is all "acting accordingly" as you see it? And I am crazy? You seem to live in a black and white world.

Your snide pointless remarks appeal to me more than your sociopathic attempts at a rebuttal. Stick to your attempts at wit.

It's selfish, plain and simple. You don't seem to grasp the concept of passing.

Any attempt to justify it as 'fewer cars on the road so less congestion' is retarded. You have obviously never lived or commuted by motorcycle or car in a city that allows filtering and splitting. Take it from those that have (extensively). You're talking out of your arse mate.

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

Comments above.

 

[awyala]

Well at least in that case you have the law on your side, unlike with filtering and splitting, and the person who is doing that to you can actually be charged under HTA 172.

"can". And you "can" be charged with 172 for a myriad of other "offences" if the cop is having a bad day. If this is a general warning to be cautious of 172 and its abuses, fine, but if this is the "trump" card to any argument you fall foul of supporting 172.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Comments above.

Point of fact; it doesn't matter if it's legal elsewhere. It isn't here. Want to do it? Get the law changed.

"can". And you "can" be charged with 172 for a myriad of other "offences" if the cop is having a bad day. If this is a general warning to be cautious of 172 and its abuses, fine, but if this is the "trump" card to any argument you fall foul of supporting 172.

Except that sort of behaviour is EXPLICITLY outlined in ONT REG 455/07, in the definitions of racing.

 

[caboose56]

Comments above.

You're putting words in my mouth. I never mentioned how I would react or what I deem an 'appropriate reaction'. You can take your reductio ad obsurdium somewhere else.

It will take a lot more than the legalization of filtering to turn the GTA into a moto friendly environment.

Climate change, for starters. Once a moto becomes a practical year-round vehicle you might be able to build a case for making the GTA more moto friendly.

Until then you're just a selfish dick cutting in line.

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

 

[awyala]

Several drivers at a red light have motorcycle filter past them. They each now have an additional delay for one extra vehicle in front of them to start moving. There's even a good chance that a driver will not get through that green light who otherwise would have and now has to wait another cycle.

These drivers should be thankful that the rider is helping relieve congestion? Ok buddy!

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

What aaaaaaaaare you talking about?!?! Do you understand the characteristics of a motorcycle as compared to that of a car's?

What do you do, if the car ahead of you in a red light queue is slightly slow to respond and opens a gap of a car length or two? Do you ram them or cuss at them?

You got some issues bud. How do you sleep at night when a car merges into your lane, thus taking up a spot ahead of you? The inside of your cage must be a steamy seathing hot sweaty suana of rage; how do you even see through your fogged windscreen with all that rage of yours?

 

[油井緋色]

"can". And you "can" be charged with 172 for a myriad of other "offences" if the cop is having a bad day. If this is a general warning to be cautious of 172 and its abuses, fine, but if this is the "trump" card to any argument you fall foul of supporting 172.

Dude, I split and filter regularly. But the fact is I have been warned about it by a cop, and there is a damn law case stickied in the law section regarding this issue. -__-

The law is AGAINST your side in the event of an accident that occurs with you filter or splitting. Hell, I doubt even insurance will side with you.

If somebody purposely moved out last minute to hit you and wipe you out, I'm not sure if you could even charge them unless you went into civil court and tried to move that they had the intent to murder/hurt you.

Forum Sponsor