Another good result for a filtering motorcyclist

[TC]

But what is particularly interesting is that it was held that the rider was travelling too fast for the circumstances (albeit under the legal limit), but it was deemed that regardless, the driver carrying out the U turn was 100% liable. Here is the judgement -

MARCEL BEASLEY (BY HIS LITIGATION FRIEND CADELL BEASLEY) v PAUL ALEXANDER (2012)

A car driver who pulled out to execute a turn in the path of a motorcyclist was liable for injuries sustained by the latter because he had failed to ensure that the way was clear before making his manoeuvre. Even though the motorcyclist was travelling too fast, he would not have had time to avoid a serious accident if he had been travelling at a lesser speed and was therefore not contributorily negligent.

The court was required to apportion liability following a road traffic accident between the claimant motorcyclist (B) and the defendant car driver (D).

D had been stuck in traffic on a straight section of a single-lane A road subject to a 60 mph speed limit. B had been riding his motorcycle on the same road, in the same direction, behind D. D decided to execute a u-turn and go back in the opposite direction to escape the queue. In his statement made on the day of the accident, D stated that he had indicated for about 30 seconds before pulling out into the opposite lane. However, in a later witness statement he said that he had been indicating for 15 to 20 seconds before starting to turn. He had then collided with B, who was filtering past the queue of traffic and was thrown off his motorbike. B sustained severe injuries, including to his brain. Various witnesses gave evidence, including a driver who had been travelling in the opposite direction and who had just passed D when the collision occurred. The issues were whether D was liable for B's injuries; and if so, whether B was contributorily negligent.

HELD: On the evidence, D had turned immediately after the oncoming vehicle had passed: he might have halted briefly, but it was more likely that he had assumed his passage was then clear and that his wheels had kept turning. Once the oncoming car had passed, D had turned in a way which struck witnesses as sudden, and it was likely that his car, being powerful and light, moved significantly faster than the average vehicle. D's evidence as to when he turned on his indicator was contradictory. It had to be concluded that he had started indicating at the last moment once the oncoming car had passed and had not looked in his mirror properly, otherwise he would have seen B approaching him from behind. The probability was that, once the oncoming car had passed, D assumed that his passage was clear. There was no doubt that D had been negligent (see para.13 of judgment). (2) D had pulled out in front of B when he was only a short distance away, and B had had no chance of avoiding him. The expert evidence showed that B was most likely travelling at 45 mph before the collision. Although B might have been able to apply his brakes, he did not have time to reduce his speed by much or to avoid a serious accident. That conclusion was supported by independent eyewitness evidence. B was travelling somewhat too fast, as the top safe speed would have been 35 mph in the circumstances. However, even at that speed there would have still been an accident in which B would have sustained serious injury. Accordingly, there was no contributory negligence (paras 14-15, 17-18 of judgment).

Judgment for claimant

[SimonDk]

Interesting.... That story is especially poignant in combinantion with your signature.

[Falcopops]

This is especially interesting for me. I've just read that in Oz that filtering is not legal in any state. The term filtering or lane splitting or any other term that might describe it doesn't exist. Police can prosecute on a range of other offences, such as passing on the inside, passing where there's not enough room, changing lanes without indicating... the list goes on.

I used to commute daily in london by bike, so I'm used to filtering through traffic and still do it now in Oz, why ride a bike and be subject to the same queues and delays as a car, but I have had the odd toot while doing it.

Oddly enough (before I knew it was naughty and quite recently) I filtered passt 2 police cars in a queue within 200m of each other (I was going up the middle) without any notice being taken. I was going much slower than I would have been in London and the lanes were wide, so maybe they were exercising some reasonableness.

Anyway, the question is to TC, is filtering (or whatever it's called) actually legal in the UK. The comment about 35mph being a safe speed infers that it is.

Secondly, again to TC, are you aware of any accident data that suggests filtering is more or less dangerous than not filtering?

My gut feling is that filtering is inherently more dangerous than not doing it.

On the other hand I read an article on a study that demonstrated huge congestion and delay savings by increased motorcycle useage that specifically menitioned filtering to stop lines.

Phew!

[D-Rider]

I think there are different manoeuvres that may or may not constitute filtering - and I'm not sure exactly what the definition in court may be.
Passing traffic on the nearside - I think that's a bit dodgy.
Passing between 2 lanes of stationary or very slow moving traffic - safety depending on speed, gap observation etc. Can be dodgy but can just be a way to get to the front of a queue at traffic lights etc. This is the one I really regard as filtering.
There is the high speed version you see people doing from time to time on motorways - insane.

Then there's the one described in TCs post - passing on the outside - i.e. an overtake. I wouldn't call that filtering and it seems fine to me as long as you take the normal precautions in a potentially hazardous situation.

Not sore of how things stand in law but I don't think all types of what might be described as filtering are equal.

[TC]

Anyway, the question is to TC, is filtering (or whatever it's called) actually legal in the UK. The comment about 35mph being a safe speed infers that it is.

Secondly, again to TC, are you aware of any accident data that suggests filtering is more or less dangerous than not filtering?

My gut feling is that filtering is inherently more dangerous than not doing it.

Filtering is perfectly legal, providing that certain areas are complied with, namely -

Do not cross over or straddle a centre solid while line system

Do not filter past traffic between no overtaking signs

Do not cause other vehicles to alter course or speed

Be aware of the possibility of vehicles turning right across your path either travelling in the same or opposite direction.

Filtering is simply another word for overtaking, but it usually refers to going past other traffic that is stationary or queuing, but it is only in recent years that the courts have actually caught onto the fact that riders do filter, in most cases safely and sensibly (although you will always get the occasional numpty who thinks they are exempt from good behaviour, and so more cases are now going in favour of the filtering rider.

Even undertaking or the nearside overtake is not illegal here (contrary to popular belief), but that is a subject for another day.

Whilst many bar room experts and bar room lawyers will try to tell you that if you travel at x speed faster than the slower moving traffic when filtering it will leave you open to being held liable and/or prosecution in the event of a crash whilst filtering, this is actually incorrect as any degree of liability or prosecution has to be decided according to the evidence, and so there is no specific maximum or minimum speed, it is about what is appropriate or reasonable.

I have not seen any specific studies or data on filtering crashes (mainly because it is not something that is collected in the stats) but it is generally accepted that there is a risk, we as riders know the risks, and if drivers were better educated and actually drove properly and more carefully, filtering crashes would reduce.

[flatlander]

There is the high speed version you see people doing from time to time on motorways - insane.


Oops

[k1w1boy]

...traveling to Budapest this week, encountering a few tailbacks near big cities in Austria, I wondered what to do - filtering wise. My normal practice in the UK is to go up the middle below the speed limit. Most of the time cars hear/see me coming and do adjust their course to give me more room. I duly nod/wave as I pass them if they do this. There were sod all bikes out on my trip here - I was hoping to use the 'when-in-Rome' approach - and follow local bikers example. I filtered briefly near the Hungarian border and people gave me room a la in the UK.

Anyone know the 'rules' (written or unwritten) for filtering in Yurp?