Filtering

[T.C]

In response to the request for guidance regarding filtering, below is an item I wrote about 12 months ago which I hope will answer your questions about what you can and cannot do or liability

Filtering

One of the advantages of riding a motorcycle is that you can continue to make progress where other vehicles are unable to. When traffic is stationary or moving slowly in queues, motorcyclists can use their maneuverability and limited space requirements to continue on their journey relatively unimpeded. However with this benefit comes a high degree of responsibility.

The Highway Code; the Driving Standard Agency publication on Motorcycle Riding; and the Police Riders Handbook ? Motorcycle Road Craft, all mention filtering and states that it requires great care and attention from the motorcyclist. The Police and riding experts will advise that no offence is committed as long as the motorcyclist complies with all road traffic signs, road markings, road traffic regulations and filters with appropriate due care and attention with courtesy to other road users.

So what happens if you want to bring a civil claim for personal injury, loss and damage suffered in a collision whilst filtering? It may be worth noting that when a Judge is asked to make a decision who is to blame, they often refer to past cases particularly those which have been decided in a higher Court. These are what legal professionals call legal precedents.

The first major case decided by the Court of Appeal was Powell v Moody in 1966.

Briefly the circumstances of this accident were that there were two lanes of stationary traffic. The motorcyclist filtered along the offside of the second line of traffic when he came into collision with a car emerging from a side road on the nearside intending to turn right through a gap in the traffic. (which is generally what still happens today)

The Court described filtering as queue jumping which was a hazardous manoeuvre and which had to be carried out with a high degree of care by the motorcyclist. The Court said that it was effectively the burden of the motorcyclist to ensure that it was safe to overtake. As you will appreciate, the concept of queuing goes deep into our national psyche and there is a subconscious objection to those that ?jump the queue?. If an accident happens where someone is doing this, then the natural reaction has been to blame the person who is in breach of the natural order of queuing.

In this case, the Court held that the motorcyclist was 80% to blame. The effect of this is that the motorcyclist?s claim was reduced by 80%. You can appreciate how such a finding would drastically reduce the amount of compensation a motorcyclist would receive if he suffered serious injuries.

In the case of Leeson v Bevis and Tolchard (1972) a bike was filtering passed a single line of queuing traffic at about 15 mph. A van pulled out of a garage on the left in front of a lorry. A collision occurred between the bike and the van. This again went to the Court of Appeal and the biker was found 50% at fault.

We then go to the case of Worsfold v Howe (1980). This was a two lane road. The nearside was for traffic going straight ahead and the second lane was for traffic turning right. The biker was riding in the second lane at a speed of 10-30 mph. A tanker had left a large gap in front of it to allow traffic to emerge from a railway yard on the left. A car emerges very slowly in front of the tanker across both lanes to turn right. A collision occurred.

This also went to the Court of Appeal where the biker was found 50% at fault. The Court said that the biker was travelling too fast and that he had gone beyond his line of sight.

In the case of Pell v Moseley heard by the Court of Appeal in 2003, here we have a single lane carriage way in each direction subject to a 60 mph speed limit. The motorcyclist began to overtake a line of traffic when he came into collision with a car which intended to turn right into a field where a motor cross event was taking place. The Court of Appeal found the motorcyclist 50% to blame stating that the motorcyclist was negligent in that he failed to notice that the Defendants vehicle would have needed to slow down before turning right, a fact which should have been apparent despite her failure to indicate. Further the motorcyclist was aware of the motor cross event and should have considered the possibility that the Defendant may wish to turn into the field and as such should not have attempted to overtake as he did.

We then saw a chink of light in the case of Davis v Schrogin in 2006, heard by the Court of Appeal.

An accident occurred on a long straight section of road with one lane in each direction. There was a long queue of stationary/slow moving vehicles. A motorcyclist travelling in the same direction was overtaking at approximately 40 mph. He was half to two thirds of the way across from the central white line, was displaying a dipped headlight and a right hand indicator. He had been in that position for approximately half a mile and was not weaving in and out of traffic. A car driver lost patience and decided to carry out a U turn when the motorcycle was no more than five car lengths back. A collision occurred.

The Court found the car driver wholly at fault on the basis that the motorcyclist was there to be seen and that even if he had been travelling appreciably more slowly than he was, it would have made no difference because he had been right on top of the point of the accident when the Defendant first did anything to alert the motorcyclist of his intended manoeuvre This was a decision of sense having regard to the facts of the accident.

However, things became somewhat muddy when an article in one major motorcycle paper suggested that bikers could now filter in any circumstances and at any speed and recover 100% of their compensation.


That euphoria was short lived following the case of Farley v Buckley in 2007.

A motorcyclist was passing a refuse wagon which was travelling in the same direction and was indicating an intention to turn left into a side road. The lorry was unable to complete its turn as the side road was narrow and there was a car waiting to emerge and turn right. The motorcyclist travelling at a speed of about 30 mph overtook the refuse wagon with its wheels virtually on the centre white line when the car drove out in one continuous movement at approximately 5-8 miles per hour. A collision occurred.

The Court held the motorcyclist wholly at fault as it considered that the motorcyclist was travelling at a too high a speed which in the circumstances was reckless especially having regard to the nature of the manoeuvre that he had been carrying out, the lack of visibility to his left and the fact that the refuse wagon had been displaying its left indicator.

The final case that we can refer to is Higgins v Johnson 2008 which is a County Court decision. In this case, a car was approaching a rugby ground on the right and indicated to turn into it. The car had commenced its manoeuvre when it was struck by a motorcycle which was overtaking. The Court heard evidence that the car driver first indicated left, then right, then left and then finally right again. The motorcyclist held back but once he believed that the car driver appeared to have settled on a course of continuing straight ahead, he pulled out to overtake.

The Court accepted independent witness evidence that the car did indicate left, right, left and right.

The final indication happened when the motorcyclist had already begun to overtake. The Court held that the car driver failed to check her mirrors or look over her shoulder and had she done so, she would have seen the motorcyclist. However, the Court also found that the motorcyclist was aware that there was an indecisive, erratically indicating driver ahead of him yet he proceeded to overtake her on a yellow boxed junction. The Court found the motorcyclist 25% to blame on this basis.

The moral of this story is cases such as these are fact specific. That is, each case is determined on its own merits. The court will look at the manner in which each party was driving/riding, traffic and road conditions and all relevant issues.

So, what can you do to avoid an accident in the first place or give you a good change of getting 100% of your compensation?

1. Ride slowly and at a speed that you are able to stop if:-

Vehicles emerge or turn at junctions (be extra vigilant if your visibility is compromised by high sided vehicles)

Vehicles suddenly changing lanes or U-turning without warning

Vehicles suddenly opening their doors (especially if filtering along traffic that has been stationary for some time)

2. Watch for pedestrians and cyclists. Also other filtering motorcycles!

3. Be ready to brake or use your horn if you think you have not been seen

4. Use dipped headlights and wear florescent/reflective clothing

5. Watch for road studs, road paint, road defects and manhole covers which can throw the bike off line

6. Avoid conflict with other road users and be courteous

7. Comply with all road traffic signs, road markings and road traffic regulations

I hope that is of some help and assistance to you.

 

[Tinytim]

Hi T.C. ( is it T.C. as in Top Cat and by association Dibble? )

You give a number of case examples in your OP up as far as Pell v Moseley, which, solely on what you've described, the findings seem to be quite obvious and sensible in a common sense sort of way and without getting our "victimised biker hats" on. Your descriptions of events as I read them all logically and without bias led me to the same conclusions that were found by the courts.

However, you then state that

We then saw a chink of light in the case of Davis v Schrogin in 2006, heard by the Court of Appeal.

Are these your words? Why would it be a chink of light as the decisions on the previous cases seem, to ordinary bloke like me anyrode, to be right and proper and not darkness.?

Just one example of a question on one of your examples...filtering past traffic fine, but then you get to a very large moving slowly obstacle ( a lorry). What would you do...carry on or slow right down to an almost stop or even stop at the point on the lorry's offside where you can't see fekk all? It's all common sense .

Filtering IS a hazardous manouvre and so which has to be carried out with a high degree of care by the motorcyclist.

That says it all to me. Our safety is in our hands and to put it in any other fekkers hands is folly to say the least.

The "euphoria" bit. Whose "euphoria" is/was that then?

p0pc0rn41

 

[T.C]

The chink of light I referred to was by virtue of the fact that up until Davis v Schrogin, every previous case had found varying degrees of contributory negligence on the part of the rider, but in this case it was found 100% in favour of the rider despite the fact that the rider was filtering at what many would consider excessive speed for the conditions.

This is why now, every case has to be judged on its merits

 

[Tinytim]

The chink of light I referred to was by virtue of the fact that up until Davis v Schrogin, every previous case had found varying degrees of contributory negligence on the part of the rider, but in this case it was found 100% in favour of the rider despite the fact that the rider was filtering at what many would consider excessive speed for the conditions.

This is why now, every case has to be judged on its merits

Maybe that's because it was true? Davis V Schrogin? Hmm, that's a good one which on another day could have gone the other way surely. Think about it. Filtering a very long line of traffic on a very straight road. So cos you've passed one, two , three etc cars then you're safe to carry on and assume everyone else in the long line has seen you therefore it's carry on regardless? Sorry, but I'd carry out that manoeuvre in stages to give the cages time to see me, to light one up and lower my stress levels and to abuse the texters. Filter at 40? Fook that. How have you got time to asses all the idiots that have just switched back on and are planning to execute a surprise pull-out/uturn just as you "nail it" ( relatively speaking) past them .

:-:

 

[Boggymarsh]

Some interesting points here but if I can try and simplify things here. What TC has written here outlines some of the findings of cases that have ended up in court. What should be remembered is that not every rider who filters through traffic is involved in a collision and not every collision results in a prosecution and court case. The court cases would only have got to court because someone, somewhere down the line believed there was sufficient evidence to support a case of driving without due care and attention, dangerous driving or whatever but we should remember that this is, how can I put it...the extreme?

The vulnerability of motorcyclists, and similar modes if transport, is such that we should have a level of self preservation far higher than those who are encased in steel cages. The obligation for all road users to ensure the safety of others is the same but we know from experience that this is not always the case as otherwise, it could be argued, collisions would never occur. What this means is that we should always be mindful that what we do, what we see and how we react is not always seen or heard by those inside cages and so we should ride taking this into account - always expect the unexpected! Many millions of miles are ridden each year without incident and this will include overtaking and filtering. Filtering allows us to pass through either static or slow moving traffic, that is the joy of having a bike after all , but it's not a race. A sensible and planned path through that traffic is the key to making safe progress and this can be achieved without incident when executed well.

Ride safe one and all!

 

[T.C]

I will try and put it into some perspective.

Filtering, providing certain basic rules are followed is totally legal and permissible, and in 99% of cases, riders will filter on a daily basis without any issues what so ever.

But occasionally it goes belly up for whatever reason, usually because someone has pulled out of a junction on the left having been probably flashed out by another driver in the queue, and the emerging driver will invariably just pull out without making any allowances for the possibility of a bike filtering.

Nowadays, most defendant insurers/solicitors will accept that filtering is an accepted practice, but, in order to mitigate their losses, they will try and contest the claim in order to have a degree of contributory negligence apportioned thereby reducing their losses.

So, many defendant insurers and solicitors will navigate like a moth to a light bulb and focus on anything they think gives them a chance to either deny liability or substantially reduce their costs.

This is why writing down as much as you can and when you can after the crash is so important, because witnesses can sometimes be hostile, the defendant driver may try and concoct a story which differs from the facts of what actually happened, but in cases where the facts cannot be substantiated for sure, then there is a possibility that it will go to trial and a Judge will decide.

Even in cases where the rider is being prosecuted for an offence does not mean that they are going to lose a civil claim totally. If you have a claim that is worth for example ?100,000 and you are prosecuted for say Driving without due care and attention, it is still possible that the other driver may still have contributed to the cause of the crash even though he/she was not prosecuted.

So, if for example the rider in this case is held 75% liable, then the rider still has a claim worth ?25,000. Not as much as it would have been had the car driver been held fully liable, but better than a kick in the teeth that's for sure.

Also remember that unlike a Police prosecution where the facts have to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt, in civil law, liability only has to be established on the balance of probability of 51% or more to be able to run the case, so the burden of proof in civil cases is somewhat different.

This is why now, because of the cases that have gone to trial, each filtering case has to be judged and examined on its merits, and because so many people still believe filtering to be illegal, the arguments will continue, although fewer and fewer filtering cases are going to trial.

Hope that clarifies things a bit.

 

[Boggymarsh]

Having just read the last post, it was remiss of me not to have considered that we do ofcourse have both criminal and civil law to consider and that having re-read my post it was clear that I was writing with my Plod head on when talking about court cases... there you go, it just shows you that law is greyer than grey and never black and white!

 

[T.C]

Having just read the last post, it was remiss of me not to have considered that we do ofcourse have both criminal and civil law to consider and that having re-read my post it was clear that I was writing with my Plod head on when talking about court cases... there you go, it just shows you that law is greyer than grey and never black and white!

I was the same when I first retired, so you are not alone @tu*

It is worth remembering that in civil cases, 99% never get as far as going to trial, so 99% of cases are never reported. It is only those cases where it needs a decision from a Judge because the law is unclear that results in a trial, hence the reasons why we have case law or reported cases on filtering, hence they were referred to in my original post.