Unresolved conversation...

[MSTRS]

Was talking to someone today re the rules at intersections controlled with a Stop sign. Obviously if you are the 'first' vehicle at the line you must stop before entering the intersection when it is safe etc to do so.
As I understand things, if you are not the lead vehicle (which is stopped), you are either stopped in the queue or are about to stop because there are stopped vehicles in front of you...then it is accepted practice that you may proceed through the intersection when those ahead of you do so, without also stopping, as long as the way is clear, just as you would at a Give Way. Nowhere can I find a written word that says so.
Assuming you are approaching that intersection when the stopped vehicles move off, what sort of distance behind the last one is considered 'ok' to not stop?
And what about passing on a bridge? It is my understanding that it is a no no, I have never done so because I don't consider it a safe practice (no escape route) but there is also nothing in writing re this.

[FROSTY]

my understanding is a bit different mate. As I understand matters you must pull up to the line STOP look then carry on. Ths is regardless of any traffic in front of you. Basicly stop means stop.
Overtaking on a bridge . A bridge is a normal part of the highway system and all normal road rules apply. 100m visibility etc.

[AllanB]

I got a lecture years ago for 'slip-streaming' around a stop sign in the manner you describe. The officer informed me that one should stop for at least 3 seconds. No ticket was issued - this was before quotas :Police:

I treat stop as each vehicle must stop, and I believe the law would read it in this manner if tested.

Bridges..........in theory if you have 100m clear visibility and the opposite side of the road is clear why not?

When is a bridge not a bridge - There are plenty of dual lane bridges on the Motorways in NZ.

[Mully]

my understanding is a bit different mate. As I understand matters you must pull up to the line STOP look then carry on. Ths is regardless of any traffic in front of you. Basicly stop means stop.
Overtaking on a bridge . A bridge is a normal part of the highway system and all normal road rules apply. 100m visibility etc.

+1. Never heard about the 3 second thing- but was always told you must come to a complete stop at a stop sign before proceeding.

[98tls]

Not sure on the bridge thing but in town stop means stop ie come to a complete halt,i recently got pinged $150 for not doing so,i was second in line and could see nothing was coming so just went with the first guy,this i explained but nope,wrong.

[Skyryder]

See my post #65 on GIVE WAY RULE

I think you need to come to a stop at a point where you can see 'clearly' both ways. I've never heard of any getting booked stopping in front of the line.


Skyryder

[scumdog]

A Stop sign? - Ya STOP and check the way is clear.

Doesn't have to be right on the line but you do have to stop - not do a 'Texas rolling stop' kinda stop.

"But I almost stopped, what's the difference"

"If I was whalin' the tar outa yore hide with my ba-ton which is different, almost stopping or actually stoppin?"
'That's the difference.'

[MSTRS]

I can understand the need to stop (if you are still moving as you approach and the vehicles ahead of you move off). But when have any of you seen every single vehicle in the queue stop as it reaches the yellow line?

[Mully]

But when have any of you seen every single vehicle in the queue stop as it reaches the yellow line?

[parent tone] if everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you do it too[/parent tone]

[MSTRS]

[parent tone] if everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you do it too[/parent tone]

If the river was deep enough....wheeeeeee.

[AllanB]

"If I was whalin' the tar outa yore hide with my ba-ton'


Some men pay good money for that kind of treatment. I suspect they are Suzuki riders..........<_<

[Ixion]

..
And what about passing on a bridge? It is my understanding that it is a no no, I have never done so because I don't consider it a safe practice (no escape route) but there is also nothing in writing re this.

Would make things a bit tricky on the Auckland Harbour Bridge. Not to mention the large numbers of bridges and viaducts on the motorways. One lane bridges, maybe another matter.

[Okey Dokey]

When I completed some bike training we went for a "graduation" ride in a group. TEC instructor went ballistic when most of the group passed through a STOP sign as one unit. He said, as scummie has said, a Stop sign means each vehicle stops at the line and looks.

[bsasuper]

You could always try "rolling on through" in front of an officer and see what happens if you think thats how its done, but he wont be able to give ya a talking to untill they scrape ya off the road.

[Virago]

I've always understood it as everyone stopping at the head of the queue.

I was all set to poke the borax at MSTRS over this, and went to the Road Code on the LTNZ website, to get the official wording.

Interestingly though, the wording is rather ambiguous:



Stop sign

At an intersection controlled by a Stop sign you must:

* come to a complete stop, not just slow down
* stop where you can see vehicles coming from all directions
* stay stopped and give way to all other vehicles (including bicycles, motorcycles etc)
* use the give way rules if you and another vehicle are coming towards each other and you are both at Stop signs
* not go until it is safe for you and all other traffic.

Double or single yellow lines are marked on sealed roads to help you stop where you can best see other traffic.

"Stop where you can see vehicles coming from all directions." In practice, this can be well back from the yellow lines in some cases. It is often well over the lines in other cases.

In theory, if you are second in a queue at a Stop Sign, and can clearly see in both directions, you can be deemed to be following the letter of the law if you don't stop again at the head of the queue.

Whether this is just an ambiguity on the LTNZ Website, or a hole in the actual law, is unclear.

[Headbanger]

Whether this is just an ambiguity on the LTNZ Website, or a hole in the actual law, is unclear.

Neither, Its a sensible law.

Stop, look, proceed.

[davereid]

"Stop where you can see vehicles coming from all directions." In practice, this can be well back from the yellow lines in some cases. It is often well over the lines in other cases.

In theory, if you are second in a queue at a Stop Sign, and can clearly see in both directions, you can be deemed to be following the letter of the law if you don't stop again at the head of the queue.

Whether this is just an ambiguity on the LTNZ Website, or a hole in the actual law, is unclear.

The markings on the road are intended as a guide as to where you should stop. You are completely within the law if you stop before them, even by a bikelength or more, as long as you have a clear view of the road from your chosen vantage point.

Its actually quite a sensible provision, trees, signs, etc can often mean stopping early, (or late) can give you a much better view.

[Virago]

The markings on the road are intended as a guide as to where you should stop. You are completely within the law if you stop before them, even by a bikelength or more, as long as you have a clear view of the road from your chosen vantage point.

Its actually quite a sensible provision, trees, signs, etc can often mean stopping early, (or late) can give you a much better view.

Precisely my point.

Nowhere does it say that if you are stopped with another vehicle in front of you, and can see clearly in both directions, that you must move forward and re-stop when the other vehicle moves.

[yungatart]

Precisely my point.

Nowhere does it say that if you are stopped with another vehicle in front of you, and can see clearly in both directions, that you must move forward and re-stop when the other vehicle moves.

Which is precisely the point Mstrs was trying to make.
This all came about due to a conversation we had with another biker where I said Mstrs had waved me through a Stop sign, much to the chagrin of the person we were talking to.
I had stopped behind Mstrs, when he took off he let me know that I could too.
I have to add, that I would not necessarily do this if anyone else had waved me through. Mstrs knows my riding style/ability etc...if he thought it was safe, who am i to argue.
He is not going to put his dearly beloved at unnecessary risk, is he?

[MSTRS]

So, basically we have what amounts to another grey area.....as long as you have stopped (within a queue or otherwise).
But no one has a problem with overtaking on an ordinary everyday two lane bridge (one each way)?

[scumdog]

Precisely my point.

Nowhere does it say that if you are stopped with another vehicle in front of you, and can see clearly in both directions, that you must move forward and re-stop when the other vehicle moves.

It doesn't.

And you don't have to.

[MSTRS]

It doesn't.

And you don't have to.

Yep, thanks Scummy, at least part of the answer I was looking for. At what point in the queue should the following vehicles stop before proceeding through? Let's assume a standard T intersection, country road meeting a main road, visibility for miles, even 50 feet back from the corner (yes, I realise that this would prolly be a give way but lets pretend...)

[scumdog]

Yep, thanks Scummy, at least part of the answer I was looking for. At what point in the queue should the following vehicles stop before proceeding through? Let's assume a standard T intersection, country road meeting a main road, visibility for miles, even 50 feet back from the corner (yes, I realise that this would prolly be a give way but lets pretend...)

You stopped where you could see CLEARLY to each side for a reasonable distance?

Feel free to carry on.

But 50 feet back from the corner would be pushing it on most occassions.

Back to TV1 draag racing.

[Max Preload]

Having personal experience with getting off a ticket for supposedly not stopping for a compulsory STOP sign, I can offer this: you do not have to be the vehicle closest to the limit line when you stop and the limit line is there only for a guide. That is to say, as in my case, when you are the second vehicle, come to a complete stop behind the first, then seeing the way is clear, proceed to follow the first vehicle through the STOP without stopping again, you are not breaking any regulations. That is to say, there is no requirement for each and every vehicle to stop in turn. As long as you stopped at a position where you can see that there are no vehicles which you must give way to, you're good to go.

[tigertim20]

my understanding is that when EACH vehicle arrives at the front, and is at the sign, they MUST stop, when you are in the queue, (sp) you have not yet arrived at the stop sign, and therefore need to stop when you actually reach the sign.
You need to check that it is safe for YOU to go, before going, e.g. the vehicle in front of you may enter the flow of traffic into a gap that only safely allows ONE vehicle to enter, additionally, if you just go, you are praying that the guy in front of you isnt being an idiot and pulling out at an unsafe time, you are putting you life in their hands.

[98tls]

It doesn't.

And you don't have to. Really?Well thats exactly what i got pinged for,line of cars at stop sign,he stopped i stopped,he went when clear so did i next thing the disco lights.SD you will know the stop sign i am on about,the one at the monument in Oamaru,visibility both ways aplenty.

[cowboyz]

Agreed that you do not have to stop on the line but have to stop in a position you can see the way is clear. What other road users are doing is of no consequence. To add though, a stop on a bike means that the bike stops moving and at least one foot touches the ground. It is not acceptable to stop while balancing the bike and then carrying on without putting your foot on the road.
As for bridges. No problem at all passing on them if there is no yellow lines and clear vision, it is just another road. There is a bridge shortly east of Ashhurst leading to the gorge. 300m bridge, striaght road. No problem at all passing on it.

[TLDV8]

my understanding is that when EACH vehicle arrives at the front, and is at the sign, they MUST stop, when you are in the queue, (sp) you have not yet arrived at the stop sign, and therefore need to stop when you actually reach the sign.
You need to check that it is safe for YOU to go, before going, e.g. the vehicle in front of you may enter the flow of traffic into a gap that only safely allows ONE vehicle to enter, additionally, if you just go, you are praying that the guy in front of you isnt being an idiot and pulling out at an unsafe time, you are putting you life in their hands.

Exactly,the other vehicles are irrelevant,it is aimed at a single vehicle coming to the stop sign.
One reason there will never be the rule back in NZ where you can turn left on a red light after coming to a stop then proceeding if safe to do so.
But i stopped 2/3/4/5 cars back and someone on the internet said it was ok :laugh:

How hard is it to pull up to a sign saying Stop,looking and then proceeding when deemed safe for you to do so.

What about two motorcycles pulling up to a stop sign side by side,i don't think the rode code mentions that so it must be ok.

[scumdog]

Really?Well thats exactly what i got pinged for,line of cars at stop sign,he stopped i stopped,he went when clear so did i next thing the disco lights.SD you will know the stop sign i am on about,the one at the monument in Oamaru,visibility both ways aplenty.

Doh! PM sent

[Max Preload]

my understanding is that when EACH vehicle arrives at the front, and is at the sign, they MUST stop, when you are in the queue, (sp) you have not yet arrived at the stop sign, and therefore need to stop when you actually reach the sign.

Common misconception, but nope.

From Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 (SR 2004/427) (as at 01 August 2008) (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/DLM303075.html#DLM303075)


A driver approaching or entering an intersection on a roadway where the vehicles that are moving in the direction in which that driver is travelling are controlled by a stop sign at or near the intersection must—

(a) stop his or her vehicle before entering the path of any possible vehicle flow at such a position as to be able to ascertain whether the way is clear for the driver to proceed

The limit lines mean nothing.

[scumdog]

Common misconception, but nope.

The limit lines mean nothing.


Yup, already said that.

[vifferman]

I think you need to come to a stop at a point where you can see 'clearly' both ways.
Correct.
That's the guts of the matter - coming to a complete stop at a point where you can see clearly, and precoeeding when the way is clear. If that menas you are second in the queue, and can see clearly from there, then you've satisfied the require ments for stopping, from a legal (and safety) perspective.

[LBD]

And a defination of a stop when on a bike, includes a foot on the ground, as it was explained to me when I got booked...:Oops:

Regarding the clear view either way...If you can move of from the stopped position without needing to recheck for on comming trafic then fine. If you move off from a stop, are rolling and then need to recheck for on comming traffic before moving on to the intersection, then you have not stopped in accordence with the law.

[peasea]

A Stop sign? - Ya STOP and check the way is clear.

Doesn't have to be right on the line but you do have to stop - not do a 'Texas rolling stop' kinda stop.

"But I almost stopped, what's the difference"

"If I was whalin' the tar outa yore hide with my ba-ton which is different, almost stopping or actually stoppin?"
'That's the difference.'

That's what the R/C says. Stop means stop.

Just like when you're havin' the time of of your life on top o' your cousin and she's screamin' "oh, no, no, no, no" she really means "put the kettle on".

It's pretty simple.

[Max Preload]

And a defination of a stop when on a bike, includes a foot on the ground, as it was explained to me when I got booked...:Oops:

Hope you fought that, because it's bullshit. I frequently stop at lights and stop signs without putting a foot down.


Yup, already said that.

Yeah, but it didn't seem to be sinking in judging by "my understanding" comment so I thought I'd quote the actual regulations to alleviate confusion. I do hope you don't mind.

[cowboyz]

I have recieved a warning for "balancing" at a stop sign instead of putting a foot on the ground. It is in the book of knowledge somewhere that putting a foot on the ground is part of the stopping procedure.

[Slyer]

That's dumb.
Maybe we should require that car drivers put a foot down too?

[peasea]

Back to TV1 draag racing.


Excellent final in T/A, wot?

[peasea]

That's dumb.
Maybe we should require that car drivers put a foot down too?

Not the right one I hope?

[CookMySock]

I think you need to come to a stop at a point where you can see 'clearly' both ways.Yes. The law clearly states YOU must come to a complete halt where you can clearly see in both directions, and proceed if the way is clear. Other vehicles in front of you are not related, or relevant.

The law does not say you must stop at the lines. If you can see clearly both ways from where you are stopped, then you satisfy the intent and the rule of the law, and you may proceed through the intersection, but you MUST have come to a complete halt at some stage in that process. This can be used as a loophole to get out of a "failed to stop" ticket. If the issuing officers' view of you when you were back from the intersection is obscured, you may be able to persuade him that you did indeed stop where he couldn't see you, and that you could indeed clearly see both ways, and then you proceeded through the intersection.

But generally I think you should stop at stop signs. I do.


Steve

[Ocean1]

a stop on a bike means that the bike stops moving and at least one foot touches the ground. It is not acceptable to stop while balancing the bike and then carrying on without putting your foot on the road.


And a defination of a stop when on a bike, includes a foot on the ground, as it was explained to me when I got booked...:Oops:



I have recieved a warning for "balancing" at a stop sign instead of putting a foot on the ground. It is in the book of knowledge somewhere that putting a foot on the ground is part of the stopping procedure.

Yup, was pinged for that bloody years ago. I even asked for chapter and verse at the time, wasn't supplied.

Often wondered if it's legally defined 'cause I still occasionally do it, just for the practice.

[peasea]

I have recieved a warning for "balancing" at a stop sign instead of putting a foot on the ground. It is in the book of knowledge somewhere that putting a foot on the ground is part of the stopping procedure.


True, and you were lucky to get a warning. Lucky me has had a ticket for "failing to come to a complete stop at a compulsory stop sign" but I am adamant I did, even though my feet didn't touch the ground. The stop was for a nanosecond, but I DID stop. Try and tell that to a judge. (Fuckers.)

[LBD]

Hope you fought that, because it's bullshit. I frequently stop at lights and stop signs without putting a foot down.

I will leave that for you to do one day....

[Max Preload]

I will leave that for you to do one day....

I would relish the opportunity. :yes:

[Swoop]

Having personal experience with getting off a ticket for supposedly not stopping for a compulsory STOP sign, I can offer this: you do not have to be the vehicle closest to the limit line when you stop and the limit line is there only for a guide.
As I was taught many moons ago, when dinosaurs roamed the earth... A nice policeman explained that so long as you come to a complete halt and ascertain that the way is clear, it doesn't matter if you are second in the queue.

[Skyryder]

Hope you fought that, because it's bullshit. I frequently stop at lights and stop signs without putting a foot down.

I got nailed in the old MOT days for this. Still pisses me off to this day. No money no job and all things going down hill fast.


Skyryder

[MarkH]

And a defination of a stop when on a bike, includes a foot on the ground, as it was explained to me when I got booked...:Oops:

My opinion is this:
If you stopped and carefully checked that no traffic was coming before proceeding through the intersection (i.e. rode safely) then the cop was a complete cunt for trying to find a technicality to enable him to give you a ticket anyway.

I Suppose some cops are just complete tools and have less interest in road safety and more interest in giving out tickets.

[Owl]

It's been many years since I passed my licence, but this was my understanding back then and still today. I could be wrong but........

Compulsory Stop: You're supposed to stop before you cross the first line, but must stop before you cross the second.
You may make your compulsory stop before the lines as long as you can see clearly in each direction, but you can't make your stop beyond the lines.

Like I said it's been a while, so how did I do Scumdog?:yes:....................:no:

[Max Preload]

it's been many years since i passed my licence, but this was my understanding back then and still today. I could be wrong but........

Compulsary stop: You're supposed to stop before you cross the first line, but must stop before you cross the second.
You may make your compulsary stop before the lines as long as you can see clearly in each direction, but you can't make your stop beyond the lines.

Like i said it's been a while, so how did i do scumdog?:yes:....................:no:


x

[Owl]

x


I'll wait for a real cop if you don't mind!:bleh:

[Max Preload]

I'll wait for a real cop if you don't mind!:bleh:

I'm not even a pretend one. I just know what's in the regulations.

[The Stranger]

I got nailed in the old MOT days for this. Still pisses me off to this day. No money no job and all things going down hill fast.


Skyryder

It wasn't under a national govt was it?
Because that would explain a lot.

[MarkH]

Compulsory Stop: You're supposed to stop before you cross the first line, but must stop before you cross the second.
You may make your compulsory stop before the lines as long as you can see clearly in each direction, but you can't make your stop beyond the lines.

Lol :killingme

So, what do you actually do when riding/driving and get to a stop sign, but can't see from behind the lines - due to parked cars or whatever?

[Vern]

I can understand the need to stop (if you are still moving as you approach and the vehicles ahead of you move off). But when have any of you seen every single vehicle in the queue stop as it reaches the yellow line?
Hi I live at Westshore and at the intersection by the Westshore motor camp every one has to stop on the like and the police are hiding up there catching anyone who does not stop up by the line. Vern:2guns:

[Owl]

Lol :killingme

So, what do you actually do when riding/driving and get to a stop sign, but can't see from behind the lines - due to parked cars or whatever?

I've never had to cross the line in order to see at a compulory stop! If that became an issue, I'd cross it!

I see Max Preload provided a link to the latest legislation in an earlier post. Different to what I remember, but his is up to date!

[Max Preload]

I've never had to cross the line in order to see at a compulory stop! If that became an issue, I'd cross it!

I have.


I see Max Preload provided a link to the latest legislation in an earlier post. Different to what I remember, but his is up to date!

I prefer to go to the definitive source... :msn-wink:

[Owl]

I prefer to go to the definitive source... :msn-wink:

So do I Max, but I have trouble finding them now!:laugh:

[MarkH]

I've never had to cross the line in order to see at a compulory stop! If that became an issue, I'd cross it!

I've lost track of the amount of times I have had to stop forward of the marked lines. This happens more in the car as there is more vehicle forward from where my eyes are. I got my license over 25 years ago and I have never heard of the idea that you should stop before the lines, only that you had to stop where you could safely see if the way was clear. As far as I have ever been aware the lines are painted on the road as a guide only.

[grusomhat]

I can understand the need to stop (if you are still moving as you approach and the vehicles ahead of you move off). But when have any of you seen every single vehicle in the queue stop as it reaches the yellow line?

How often do you see any car, regardless of position, stop at a stop sign. As people have said, Stop means Stop. Each and every vehicle must stop.

[The Stranger]

It's been many years since I passed my licence, but this was my understanding back then and still today. I could be wrong but........

Compulsory Stop: You're supposed to stop before you cross the first line, but must stop before you cross the second.
You may make your compulsory stop before the lines as long as you can see clearly in each direction, but you can't make your stop beyond the lines.

Like I said it's been a while, so how did I do Scumdog?:yes:....................:no:

This is yet another example of why I say everyone should have to pass a scratch and win test each time they renew their license. Wont fix bad driving, but at least it should help people get a handle on the road rules. How many other rules do you not know that you don't know?

[Max Preload]

This is yet another example of why I say everyone should have to pass a scratch and win test each time they renew their license. Wont fix bad driving, but at least it should help people get a handle on the road rules. How many other rules do you not know that you don't know?

I concur, at an absolute minimum. If nothing else it will force them to make at least some attempt to keep abreast teehee! of new regulations and perhaps alert them to bad habits they've inadvertently developed. Ideally, I'd like to see full retesting every 5-10 years - we'll never break this cycle of shit driving if we don't target the older generation that teaches the younger generation.

[Clubbie]

Holy cow that's a lot of posts for a stop sign!!

I read in another forum thread something along the lines of "stop and ask yourself if you'd do that with a cop immediately behind you"
Tis a good rule I think. :yes:

My $1.47 worth, just stop, then look, then go. In that order.

Been to a heap of crashes where riders and cars alike have been rolling slowly, while checking quickly, then going, then bang. :gob:

As for putting feet down, one foot two feet, just do either. But my thoughts are put a foot down, it shows you have stopped. (think cop behind you).

If you want to practice balance - which is a good thing to do - an intersection is probably not the ideal spot to do it.

[MSTRS]

"stop and ask yourself if you'd do that with a cop immediately behind you"


That's a biiiiig list. You a paid-up member of the FunPolice?

[Nasty]

That's a biiiiig list. You a paid-up member of the FunPolice?

With that number of crashes attended ... I would think so ... but I often regulate behaviour based on how close they are to catching me ;)

[Owl]

How many other rules do you not know that you don't know?

I don't plan on heading to Auckland anytime soon, so you'll be safe. Try not to lose sleep over it!

[The Stranger]

I don't plan on heading to Auckland anytime soon, so you'll be safe. Try not to lose sleep over it!

Unfortunately your ilk infest every corner of our otherwise lovely country - and they all have your cavalier "don't care" attitude too.

[Owl]

Unfortunately your ilk infest every corner of our otherwise lovely country - and they all have your cavalier "don't care" attitude too.

No, I was merely looking for a reply to satisfy my suspicions. Thanks for the confirmation!:msn-wink:

[Clubbie]

but I often regulate behaviour based on how close they are to catching me ;)


ROFL Nice.

No, not the fun police :Police: either team, just my humble opinion.
I have seen some stuff that does an excellent job of regulating my riding habits. :oi-grr:

[Hawkeye]

How many other rules do you not know that you don't know? I don't know:msn-wink::bleh:

[The Stranger]

No, I was merely looking for a reply to satisfy my suspicions. Thanks for the confirmation!:msn-wink:

What a crock of shit. There is nothing in that post that you couldn't tell from the last 3,000 - I don't hesitate to point out inconvenient truths.

Lets face it. My original quote of you in this thread shows your ignorance and your reply to max preload shows you are resistant to learning.
Stop trying to weasel and divert attention from the real issue. The sooner you acknowledge you have a problem the sooner you can begin your recovery.

[The Stranger]

I don't know:msn-wink::bleh:

Of course not, none amongst us do, myself included, hence the suggestion that we find out by doing a scratch and win at each license renewal.

[Owl]

What a crock of shit. There is nothing in that post that you couldn't tell from the last 3,000 - I don't hesitate to point out inconvenient truths.

Like you, I don't need to search through a mountain of threads to form an opinion. My initial thought was that you're an "Opinionated judgmental prick"! Now I'm thinking "Selective reading, opinionated judgmental prick"!

Perhaps I’m guilty of that too, but in this case I'll live with it!


Lets face it. My original quote of you in this thread shows your ignorance

I'm prepared to own that!


your reply to max preload shows you are resistant to learning.

Absolute crap! I replied to a big x, when I was wanting a reply from Scumdog. I'd missed Max's post with the link to Land Transport, so at that stage Max's rather basic reply meant nothing. I found his earlier post after looking further and acknowledged it in my later post. Perhaps you didn't get that, so maybe we should both be stoned to death?


Stop trying to weasel and divert attention from the real issue. The sooner you acknowledge you have a problem the sooner you can begin your recovery.

Not a lot to say to that really, accept maybe look in a mirror and take a chill pill!

This will be my last reply to you, so have a nice day!