Inconsiderate N1 Bikers

[Geoff.D]

I am very glad you understand how a debate works....
but I still want to know, in the post you quoted, where do I mention breaking the law?
you come out guns blazing, yet you have no freaking clue what is going on.

having a debate with you is like having a debate with a creationist, Proof, fact, those things do not matter, opinion, that is all that matters...


now again. go back, find that post you quoted, quote it again, and this time highlight what I said that was illegal.
or come back and apologize for flying off the handle.

whoosh....

May I remind you of your earlier response in this thread to someone else?

Secondly, did you bother to read the reference I gave, regarding when lane splitting in South Africa is regarded as technically legal?

Then evaluate what you said and tell me if you not breaking those rules with what you posted.

 

[Baxteen]

May I remind you of your earlier response in this thread to someone else?

Secondly, did you bother to read the reference I gave, regarding when lane splitting in South Africa is regarded as technically legal?

Then evaluate what you said and tell me if you not breaking those rules with what you posted.

wait, so you are the one who proved that lane splitting is NOT illegal.
then you go and and say I am breaking the law because I lane split

and then you try and pawn off what you said as sarcasm, after you defended it as a serious action?
at least when I used sarcasm in my post, I changed the font size, the font and I made it italic.


this argument really is heading the same way as a creationist debate...

 

[supersunbird]

Oh, and another thing. This "Think Bike" campaign is utterly stupid and selfish.
Why should we be blackmailed into giving attention to just one user group of the roads?
If you are driving properly and behaving yourself on the roads then there is no need for anyone to give you special consideration.
Car drivers don't have to think bike. Bikers have to think like they are normal road users, not fairy princesses on their way to the grand ball.
Don't do stuff that normal road users wouldn't do, and then there is no need to be looked after and coddled like you are God's damn gift to the planet.

Cars turn out in front of bikers or across in front of bikers all the time, that they are less likely to do if a car was approaching or should I go find that video the other guy posted in the bad driving thread?

 

[Geoff.D]

Just to add to this... why are motorcycles the only class of vehicle that are mandated to have headlights on at all times? Even the law recognises that motorcycles deserve special consideration regarding safety.

Now that is an interesting debate all of its own. Someone will need to look it up and establish if the rules require bikers to keep their lights on, or if it is just another rule to help improve their visibility and if vehicle owners are also required to do the same by law or if it is just another rule for them as well.

Here is a reference from arrive alive on the subject about vehicles driving with their lights on
https://arrivealive.co.za/Lights-On

 

[Archer]

Now that is an interesting debate all of its own. Someone will need to look it up and establish if the rules require bikers to keep their lights on, or if it is just another rule to help improve their visibility and if vehicle owners are also required to do the same by law or if it is just another rule for them as well.

Debate what? The law is plain and simple. No mention is made of non motorcycles requiring the same.

2) No person shall operate on a public road a motorcycle, a motorcycle with a side car, a motor tricycle or motor quadrucycle, unless the headlamp of such vehicle is lighted at all times: Provided that the provisions of this subregulation shall not apply to a motorcycle, motorcycle with side car, motor tricycle or motor quadrucycle manufactured before 31 December 1960 which is used only during the period from sunrise to sunset.

Source: NRTA Chapter 6, Part 2, section 157

 

[SykomantiS]

Now that is an interesting debate all of its own. Someone will need to look it up and establish if the rules require bikers to keep their lights on, or if it is just another rule to help improve their visibility and if vehicle owners are also required to do the same by law or if it is just another rule for them as well.

Bikes don't have off switches for their headlights, since about 2000 I think. Bikes before that had switches for their lights. So I can't turn off my bike lights even if I tried- if the ignition is on, the lights are on. Only switch is for the brights.

 

[skeptic_SA]

Honest question,

Say the prevailing traffic is travelling at 40km/h an hour, and you are lane splitting at 100km/h. I try to change lanes and nearly take you out because I CAN'T see you and you are travelling to fast.... Do you expect me to apologise to you for you being a retard with a deathwish?

If traffic is at 40km/h I would personally never split at more than 5km/h (at a push 10km/h) than the cars. I've have experience with passengers opening their doors while I was splitting at slow speeds (approaching a red light) and I've ridden into a taxi passenger door before that was swung open in front me. School fees paid...

 

[Geoff.D]

I am very glad you understand how a debate works....
but I still want to know, in the post you quoted, where do I mention breaking the law?
you come out guns blazing, yet you have no freaking clue what is going on.

having a debate with you is like having a debate with a creationist, Proof, fact, those things do not matter, opinion, that is all that matters...


now again. go back, find that post you quoted, quote it again, and this time highlight what I said that was illegal.
or come back and apologize for flying off the handle.

whoosh....

wait, so you are the one who proved that lane splitting is NOT illegal.
then you go and and say I am breaking the law because I lane split

and then you try and pawn off what you said as sarcasm, after you defended it as a serious action?
at least when I used sarcasm in my post, I changed the font size, the font and I made it italic.


this argument really is heading the same way as a creationist debate...

I think we have clearly established that you have a problem reading what other post, and comprehending what is being said. It is you who criticized someone else for sarcasm, and then use sarcasm yourself when it suits you.

Your actions as described in your post about what you do daily, are in conflict with the rules as listed in the reference quoted by me, hence you are "breaking the law" regarding lane splitting.

(1) You should not travel faster than 20 km/hr above the prevailing speed on the road, and
(2) You should not lane split if the traffic is travelling above 50 km/hr anyway.

 

[Archer]

If traffic is at 40km/h I would personally never split at more than 5km/h (at a push 10km/h) than the cars. I've have experience with passengers opening their doors while I was splitting at slow speeds (approaching a red light) and I've ridden into a taxi passenger door before that was swung open in front me. School fees paid...

5km/h is a bit slow in my opinion, you're lingering in a cars blindspot for a good half second probably and you're taking about 4.5 seconds to completely pass the car.

 

[Archer]

I think we have clearly established that you have a problem reading what other post, and comprehending what is being said. It is you who criticized someone else for sarcasm, and then use sarcasm yourself when it suits you.

Your actions as described in your post about what you do daily, are in conflict with the rules as listed in the reference quoted by me, hence you are "breaking the law" regarding lane splitting.

(1) You should not travel faster than 20 km/hr above the prevailing speed on the road, and
(2) You should not lane split if the traffic is travelling above 50 km/hr anyway.

"Law"
You funny guy

 

[Baxteen]

I think we have clearly established that you have a problem reading what other post, and comprehending what is being said. It is you who criticized someone else for sarcasm, and then use sarcasm yourself when it suits you.

Your actions as described in your post about what you do daily, are in conflict with the rules as listed in the reference quoted by me, hence you are "breaking the law" regarding lane splitting.

(1) You should not travel faster than 20 km/hr above the prevailing speed on the road, and
(2) You should not lane split if the traffic is travelling above 50 km/hr anyway.

I missed the 50km per hour one. I conceded that point.

However I was pointing out to someone who was not getting sarcasm. You completely missed that part.

And I never do more than 20kmph more than the traffic.

But I do split over 50. I would lane split up to when I do 120. No faster than that. Then I pass or stay in the lane.

 

[Geoff.D]

Please then stop quoting my posts with reference to your responses to baxteen. You've been on here since 2005...

Actually, I have tried to see why this happens a few times and I think it is because there is a bug in the forum code, which does not clear previously quoted items properly. There are literally dozens of examples all over the forum where this has happened to many other persons (including yourself).

But yes I have gone back and corrected the posts where the quotes should have been cleared.

Thanks

 

[Pitbull]

Actually, I have tried to see why this happens a few times and I think it is because there is a bug in the forum code, which does not clear previously quoted items properly. There are literally dozens of examples all over the forum where this has happened to many other persons (including yourself).

But yes I have gone back and corrected the posts where the quotes should have been cleared.

Thanks

All cool.

It made me very confused No harm done

 

[AfricanTech]

Honest question,

Say the prevailing traffic is travelling at 40km/h an hour, and you are lane splitting at 100km/h. I try to change lanes and nearly take you out because I CAN'T see you and you are travelling to fast.... Do you expect me to apologise to you for you being a retard with a deathwish?

Any biker splitting at twice the speed of the prevailing traffic is crazy - car drivers are far too unpredictable to do so safely.

 

[ToxicBunny]

Any biker splitting at twice the speed of the prevailing traffic is crazy - car drivers are far too unpredictable to do so safely.

Not just the car drivers... EVERYONE is too unpredictable...

 

[Geoff.D]

Debate what? The law is plain and simple. No mention is made of non motorcycles requiring the same.



Source: NRTA Chapter 6, Part 2, section 157

Thanks for the reference regarding motor cyclists.
The debate is about other vehicles. Every year we get the annual appeal to motorists to keep their lights on during the holiday periods. But what about normally? When should one switch your headlights on during the day? And is it illegal for motorists in a vehicle to drive with his headlights on during the day or not? ( On bright or dimmed etc?)

 

[eth3rZA]

People drive like **** on our roads (cars & bikes). You can blame both sides, but it comes down to you to arrive at your destination (alive)... If you don't you either did something wrong or "**** happens" (someone else did something wrong). I ride a sports-bike and commute to work in CPT via N1 for years now. I chose a bike (and the danger that comes with it) as my form of transport. My safety is my own responsibility. Respect on the road for others are very limited these days, I do what I need to do to stay alive.

 

[LazyLion]

Cars turn out in front of bikers or across in front of bikers all the time, that they are less likely to do if a car was approaching or should I go find that video the other guy posted in the bad driving thread?

But those same issues all apply to other cars as well.
So I ask again, why special consideration for bikes alone?
People fail to see other cars all the time.

 

[Mike Hoxbig]

But those same issues all apply to other cars as well.
So I ask again, why special consideration for bikes alone?
People fail to see other cars all the time.

The answer to this is usually that bikers are more vulnerable. In which case I would counter that it was their choice to ride a bike, not the choice of other road users. They made the choice of getting to their destination sooner vs. a better chance of getting to their destination safely...

 

[Tacet]

I missed the 50km per hour one. I conceded that point.

The lane splitting "rules" quoted daniellgr are guidelines given by Arrive Alive. That doesn't make it law, so I can't see how breaking that is breaking the law.