Motorcycling: Filtering Law Has Changed

sgtpepperband

War Hero
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#1
Further to recent threads regarding the animosity between driers and bikers, in particular over bikes that 'filter' between stationary or slow-moving traffic, here's an interesting article from Aug 2007's edition of "Bike" magazine (Britain's best-selling motorcycle magazine):

You're trickling past a queue of stationary cars when 'bang!'. One of them U-turns just in front of you and takes you out.
Fast-forward through the ambulance, smashed leg and months of recuperation, and your solicitor tells you that, under a judgement called Powell v Moody, you're 80% to blame. Your insurers agree.
And they're wrong. A 2006 appeal court ruling, Davis v Shrogin, means a bike filtering past crawling or stationary traffic cannot be to blame if the rider had no chance to take avoiding action. Yet it seems few solicitors know about the case, and the enormous difference it can make to compensation claims.
Peter Fisher was knocked off his BMW 650GS last October. "The car came from the left at 90 degrees", he recalls. His injuries were so severe that surgeons considered amputation, and he lost his job. "My solicitor said we'd proceed according to Powell v Moody, but I'd seen a three-line article somewhere that suggested it had been superseded. Eventually I found this new case, and we're proceeding with that. And oh boy, does it ever make a difference!"
"Peter is right", confirms motorcyclist expert Sarah White of McKeowns Solicitors. "This really does change the law on filtering. Previous landmark cases are Powell v Moody (1966), which established an 80/20 proportion of blame in favour of the car, and Leeson v Bevis and Tolchard (1972), which moved it to 50/50.
"Filtering collision cases are normally dealt with by a county court, which must look to the court of appeal for guidance. So they are going to have to abide by it."
Peter also had to explain the ruling to his insurers, and when he talked to two other solicitors specialising in bike cases, neither had heard of the new judgment.

So Is Filtering Legal?

In Peter Fisher's case (see above), he was passing stationary traffic when a car hit him sideways on. But lawyer Sarah White points out that filtering past moving traffic is still technically illegal. "At low speed a judge would never find that, but as the speed goes up it depends on his or her discretion. In my view, slow filtering is fine, but passing between moving cars at 60 or 70 isn't. The mid point in between is a grey area."
 
#2
To me and the Police say this also, filtering at low speed is fine (IE; when traffic is virtually at a standstill) but if you do it at silly speeds, then AFAIC, you only have yourself to blame.

I always filter when the traffic is slow moving or stopped and will continue to do so. I will not, however, do what some bikers do and that is hammer down the carriageway at 50-70 mph in between cars, just will not.
 
#3
as far as i am aware brigs.....that has always been the case ever since i've been riding (10 yrs) And with ya on the stupid filtering...... i like all my extremities where they are.
 
#4
brigham600 said:
I always filter when the traffic is slow moving or stopped and will continue to do so. I will not, however, do what some bikers do and that is hammer down the carriageway at 50-70 mph in between cars, just will not.
I agree with you on that Brigham, nothing annoys me more than to watch some twat screaming between lanes of traffic that are doing 70mph on the M27
Check out this link shippers
http://www.mac-pac.org/temp/motivation.html
 
#5
brigham600 said:
To me and the Police say this also, filtering at low speed is fine (IE; when traffic is virtually at a standstill) but if you do it at silly speeds, then AFAIC, you only have yourself to blame.

I always filter when the traffic is slow moving or stopped and will continue to do so. I will not, however, do what some bikers do and that is hammer down the carriageway at 50-70 mph in between cars, just will not.
I read the article and it made sense,

We ( Police) were taught and expected to filter between 2 lanes of slow moving traffic ( either opposing or same direction) otherwise you would never get anywhere in Glasgow especially when policing Old Firm games
 
#6
On my way to work there is a small stretch of Dual Carriageway straight after a roundabout. This AM .I got to the dual carriageway, checked my mirrors and indicated to overtake a wagon that had been holding myself and about 8-9 cars up. A motorbike came round the roundabout 'filtering' at about 70 to pass cars that were doing about 40, he had to make a left right S coming off the roundabout onto the dual carriageway where he had no way of knowing if anyone was overtaking as he would not have been able to see passed the raised roundabout, it is only by sheer good fortune that I managed to slam by brakes on and move back to my left, otherwise I would have been scraping idiot off the back of my car for the rest of the day.
 

FlagWagger

GCM
Book Reviewer
#7
mikh said:
On my way to work there is a small stretch of Dual Carriageway straight after a roundabout. This AM .I got to the dual carriageway, checked my mirrors and indicated to overtake a wagon that had been holding myself and about 8-9 cars up. A motorbike came round the roundabout 'filtering' at about 70 to pass cars that were doing about 40, he had to make a left right S coming off the roundabout onto the dual carriageway where he had no way of knowing if anyone was overtaking as he would not have been able to see passed the raised roundabout...
That is not filtering... its attempted suicide!
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
M Sports and Adventure Training 0

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top