Filtering again!!!!!!

Message

TC · #1 Post by TC » Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:01 pm

Remember the post a few I put up a few months ago (Davis v Scroggins) where a judge found in favour of a motorcyclist who was filtering?

Well, here is another more recent one (May 2007) where this time the Judges have found against the motorcyclist.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/403.html

So, it is back to being judged on the evidence and the circumstances!!!

which in fairness has or at least should be the case, but where we looked to be getting a helping hand from the judiciary, this now sets everything back and it will be a case of us having to fight our corner al over again.

Sorry about it being a bit of a long read, but worth it.

Samray · #2 Post by **Samray** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:20 pm

The law remains an ass.

D-Rider · #3 Post by **D-Rider** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:57 pm

I'm not sure that the overtaking manoeuvre was executed particulaly wisely but the analysis by the judges seems to be full of holes and inconsistencies.

What hope ? .....

Gio · #4 Post by **Gio** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:58 pm

Samray wrote:The law remains an ass.

Hardly surprising is it though, 90% of the human species have the intellect of a monkey.

I'm not in favour of the judiciary being in favour of people who ride motorbikes, regardless of how they ride.

We've already seen the preferential treatment handed out to bicycle riders who mostly deserve all the grief they get at the hands of other road users.

TC · #5 Post by TC » Fri Jun 08, 2007 6:35 pm

Sorry, I should have said that I was not in disagreement of the Judges findings, in fact given the circumstances I would have to agree with them (there were 3 Judges), but it does contradict the earlier case of Davis v Scroggins which found in favour of the rider even though he was travelling at around 50 mph quicker then in this case.

What it does now do though is take away our position of strength that we had in the earlier case, and for that reason I can see filtering cases becoming protracted as claimant and defence argue the merits of both cases in an attempt to reach a settlement.

On the plus side it does at least mean that no one will be able to throw Powell v Moody at us as a legal argument, cases will have to be judged on merit and will have to use the current and recent case law rather than case law which is over 40 years old.

#6 Post by **Kwackerz** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 6:53 pm

His ultimate submission is that both parties were negligent and that an apportionment on a 50:50 basis would be appropriate because each was culpably mindless of the foreseeable risk created by the other.

The car driver a knob for 'nose poking' and the Vespa rider a knob for overtaking a refuse wagon which had it's indicator on, in very brief summary?

TBH I'd have been more in favour of a 70 / 30 split on culpability, with the larger split being with the Scooterist. Defensive riding should've been employed and in a best practise situation would have been. Indicators flash at 21 watts for a reason. If the Truck is at a junction, indicator on and not moving, it doesnt take too much thought as youre about to overtake (filter) past it, to give it 'hmm.. there aint owt in front of it, wonder if something is coming out?' and to hang back til it moves.

All with hindsight of course.

Gio · #7 Post by **Gio** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 8:21 pm

Kwackerz wrote:he car driver a knob for 'nose poking'

Did he get arrested for displaying a sexual organ?

lazarus · #8 Post by **lazarus** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 8:38 pm

Kwackerz wrote: The car driver a knob for 'nose poking' and the Vespa rider a knob for overtaking a refuse wagon which had it's indicator on, in very brief summary?
.

OK kwaks - so if the car driver was wrong to stick his nose out, and the scooter driver was wrong to overtake, but the truck couldnt turn into the side road until the car had moved, how is the situation to be resolved. Or do they all stay there, stationary, until dibble arrives?

It is a difficult one, but overtaking at that speed in those circs was stupid. Maybe the scooter rider should have been the one to poke a nose out?

Mind you, its not what I would call filtering anyway.

#9 Post by **Kwackerz** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 8:40 pm

They were both in the wrong, but looking at it, the Car HAD to move, the PTW didnt.

snapdragon · #10 Post by **snapdragon** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:13 pm

shame though, that with our system of law this could be brought up again to give evidence against someone who isn't in quite the same circumstances but filtering