Motorcycle 'filtering'.

[Kimosabe]

I'm a bit stuck with this one. It may seem slightly pedantic to some but all im really after is an informed opinion on correct practice.

It's not that I particularly mind it if a motorcyclist passes me in the same lane as I'm in, while i'm queueing in traffic as i'm used to it and I rarely haven't seen them coming but I do think it shows a lack of discipline on their part when they do use the gaps inbetween cars as their very own lane, realigning door mirrors as they go.

Apparently the excuse-name given to it is 'filtering' but there's a bit of confusion on my part because to me, as motorcyclists are on vehicles, they should act accordingly and take their place in a lane accordingly, unless they are overtaking as an advanced driver would in a car; this being a definite and safe manoeuvre and not something a Bombay cabbie would do.

The expectation is that cars should move over while in their lane to accommodate passing or filtering bikers and from what i can tell we do but I'm not so sure that doing so encourages good riding or driving practice and I haven't yet found the part in the HC which mentions 'filtering'.

Another point is that I have been watching an advanced biker's videos on YouTube for a few months and he is constantly (and rightly) bashing drivers for using phones, reading, smoking etc while driving. The thing is, that he records this by sliding up the inside aka 'filtering' of the dangerous drivers (who he doesnt yet know are doing anything wrong) and captures the offences on his helmet cam. The cruel irony in this is that the drivers are probably unaware he's even there and this could lead to an accident. If he had fallen in behind the last vehicle he couldn't legitimately overtake, this would not be as much of an issue but riding up the insides of queues of traffic just to reach the front, seems to me like an odd option for someone who expects to be treated like any other vehicle, until it goes wrong and then it's the car driver's fault for not being perfect.

So is this a point of discipline, is there support for 'filtering' in the HC and from ADs and even though I don't really mind, are riders right to do this?

Thanks.

[Gareth]

Easy to find out about this from an advanced riding perspective.

HTH.

[Ancient]

So is this a point of discipline, is there support for 'filtering' in the HC and from ADs and even though I don't really mind, are riders right to do this?

Thanks.

Easy to find out ... https://www.gov.uk/rules-motorcyclists- ... e-83-to-88

[Horse]

Linky to the vids?

Ta.

[Kimosabe]

Here's one example Horse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUN9FFWr5qM

This next video makes me wonder if there's any justification in the idea for the creation of a filtering lane for bikers to use. Something like parallel dotted lines either side of the white lane markers? This might also encourage drivers to leave more space between themselves so bikers won't have to weave about as much. See 3:56s, black car moving into lane from left. 4:33 double white line system. 6:36 I would call an undertake.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNiz-OC00vo

Thanks for the links guys. Good to gain some clarity on this.

[Ancient]

One of the (many) problems created by (pedal) cycle lanes is that drivers assume the lane gives the cyclists enough room on the road, encouraging dangerously close passes where the slipstream of the larger vehicle knocks the bike sideways even if there is no physical collision. Also the presence of such lanes, even when dangerously positioned (such as near-side at junctions, across drains and manholes), poorly repaired and full of debris, encourages drivers to believe that bikes do not belong on the 'vehicular' lanes.

No doubt the same drawbacks would apply to 'motorcycle lanes' for filtering.

[T.C]

I wrote this some time ago, but it is still relevant even though there have been a couple of new cases which have come out even further in favour of filtering motorcyclists.

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 manoeuvrability and limited space requirements to continue on their journey relatively unimpeded. However with this benefit comes a high degree of responsibility. Is it illegal? No its not.

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.

The Court described filtering as queue jumping which was a hazardous manoeuvre which had to be carried out with a high degree of care required 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 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 appreciatably 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

It is also worth bearing in mind that contrary to popular belief, undertaking or the nearside overtake is not illegal either.

The specific offence for the undertake was removed from the statute books prior to the introduction of the 1972 Road Traffic Act, and to be guilty of committing an offence the prosecution would have to prove careless or dangerous driving, and the specific act of undertaking is not on its own sufficient.

This makes allowances for the motorway lane hoggers for example, and there have also been a number of cases where the Courts have said that the undertaking rider was not liable for the cause of a crash where they were undertaking.

So hopefully that answers your initial query and explains things a bit.

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

The preceding post, apart from the last few sentences, seems to have been written from the viewpoint of justifying motorcyclist's actions, however stupid. If we apply the Mind Driving "risk equation" (risk = speed x surprise / space) to the filtering motorcyclist, it's clear that it's a very risky practice. Therefore the motorcyclist should be aware of the increased risk, and be extra cautious in their turn.

Filtering is an accepted practice, not illegal, but involving risk that the motorcyclist is in almost total control of. Incumbent on drivers is the responsibility to look out for overtaking motorcycles when manoeuvring, but "overtaking" should also be taken to include "at a sensible speed differential (speed), in a clearly visible position (space), and paying heed to the developing circumstances ahead (surprise)". It seems to me that the first few cases cited in the above post all broke one or more of those constraints on the overtaker.

So with regard to the OP's question, is there support for filtering among ADs? I'd say yes, if it's carried out sensibly. There will be times when it's not sensible to be offside of a car for one reason or another, and at those times the motorcyclist should be patient and adopt a position wholly within the lane of their choice, and at a sensible following distance from the vehicle ahead.

[7db]

I think when it comes to filtering, and reading the post above -- it's clear that filterers need to make good allowance for lateral intrusions when using the "distance that they can see to be clear and reasonably expect to remain so" to select their speed.

Also: overtaking when you can't see and the vehicle in front might manoeuvre is a no-no.

[T.C]

The preceding post, apart from the last few sentences, seems to have been written from the viewpoint of justifying motorcyclist's actions, however stupid.

I simply wrote the article from a motorcyclists perspective including some of the pitfalls that riders have fallen foul of in the past when they have been unfortunate enough to have been involved in a crash.

It is not for me to justify the motorcyclists actions, and unfortunately many drivers (even advanced drivers) still seem to be of the belief that filtering if not illegal should not be allowed, and then get their knickers in a twist when they get passed by riders filtering sensibly.

I was examining someone on test a while ago and an advanced driver displaying the badge of a well known advanced driving organisation deliberately tried to obstruct the rider who was filtering sensibly and slowly. So when I managed to pull alongside and ask this "Advanced" driver what he thought he was doing, well! The expletives I got cannot be repeated other than to be told that what we were doing was illegal.

When the driver was told that we were in the process of conducting an advanced test and what the candidate was doing was perfectly legal, the look on the drivers face was a delight.

So, again, I am not going to justify a riders actions when filtering, there are idiots on both 2 wheels and 4, there are some advanced drivers who should know better, there are ADI's that should know better, there are advanced motorcyclists who should also know better, but it does not get away from the fact that both the Highway Code and Roadcraft both cover the possibility of riders filtering, and in the current climate the majority (not all granted) of car drivers are being held liable for wiping out riders who are legitimately filltering

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

Fair enough. It was really the case descriptions that irked me. Despite the motorcyclist having displayed lack of foresight in a number of cases, the resumes said stuff like "we then saw a chink of light", implying that finally the hard-done-by motorcyclist would be able to claim compensation against the evil car driver. In that particular case the Court did indeed find the car driver wholly at fault. In the preceding cases, I thought the allocation of blame seemed very fair and reasonable, but the post concentrated on how the motorcyclists had been disadvantaged by not being able to claim the car drivers were 100% to blame.

I do know filtering is legal, but I do often find myself thinking that in the light of cases like the above, I'm being held responsible for the safety of motorcyclists who don't seem to have much consideration for their own. Drive along the M4 towards London in the morning rush hour and you'll see what I mean. "Filtering" becomes "weaving", often with a speed differential of several 10s of miles per hour. In those circumstances, motorists have to become paranoid, constantly monitoring both mirrors (I've been overtaken simultaneously by a motorcyclist on either side of the car before now) in case a speedy motorcyclist is about to come brushing past.

[T.C]

Fair enough. It was really the case descriptions that irked me. Despite the motorcyclist having displayed lack of foresight in a number of cases, the resumes said stuff like "we then saw a chink of light", implying that finally the hard-done-by motorcyclist would be able to claim compensation against the evil car driver. In that particular case the Court did indeed find the car driver wholly at fault. In the preceding cases, I thought the allocation of blame seemed very fair and reasonable, but the post concentrated on how the motorcyclists had been disadvantaged by not being able to claim the car drivers were 100% to blame.

Well first and foremost I am a motorcyclist so maybe I am biased, secondly I investigate motorcycle crashes for a living and advise on liability and thirdly as a bile and car examiner the sort of comment you make really irks me as even the legal profession has moved on, but so called expert drivers like you are still dinosaurs stuck in the bad old days where it appears you expect every one to sit in the queue rather than be able to take advantage of their lack of size.. I included the case law as a demonstration of how times have moved in the legal profession, and because now 99% of filtering crashes are caused by incompetent and careless drivers who are 99% of the time held liable.

Maybe I am posting out of term, and it is not meant to be offensive towards you, in which case I do apologise, but I get fed up having to defend the motorcyclist because when even so called expert drivers feel that they have to get on their high horses and feel that if they collide with a filtering bike they should not be held liable, which is how your post came across.

[7db]

How rude.

[Gareth]

Maybe I am posting out of term, and it is not meant to be offensive towards you, in which case I do apologise, but I get fed up having to defend the motorcyclist because when even so called expert drivers feel that they have to get on their high horses and feel that if they collide with a filtering bike they should not be held liable, which is how your post came across.

We've discussed this before when you appeared to be saying that motorcyclists should not be held responsible if an accident resulted after they had been careless as to their own safety, by filtering in such a way that a driver did not have sufficient warning to be able to start a deviation in safety, primarily because a rider was filtering with too high a speed differential.

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

Fair enough. It was really the case descriptions that irked me. Despite the motorcyclist having displayed lack of foresight in a number of cases, the resumes said stuff like "we then saw a chink of light", implying that finally the hard-done-by motorcyclist would be able to claim compensation against the evil car driver. In that particular case the Court did indeed find the car driver wholly at fault. In the preceding cases, I thought the allocation of blame seemed very fair and reasonable, but the post concentrated on how the motorcyclists had been disadvantaged by not being able to claim the car drivers were 100% to blame.

Well first and foremost I am a motorcyclist so maybe I am biased, secondly I investigate motorcycle crashes for a living and advise on liability and thirdly as a bile and car examiner the sort of comment you make really irks me as even the legal profession has moved on, but so called expert drivers like you are still dinosaurs stuck in the bad old days where it appears you expect every one to sit in the queue rather than be able to take advantage of their lack of size.. I included the case law as a demonstration of how times have moved in the legal profession, and because now 99% of filtering crashes are caused by incompetent and careless drivers who are 99% of the time held liable.

Maybe I am posting out of term, and it is not meant to be offensive towards you, in which case I do apologise, but I get fed up having to defend the motorcyclist because when even so called expert drivers feel that they have to get on their high horses and feel that if they collide with a filtering bike they should not be held liable, which is how your post came across.

So in your investigation of motorcycle crashes, do you always adjudicate that the car driver was 100% to blame? I sincerely hope not! Yet you quote 99% - you really don't believe the motorcyclist is creating extra risk by being in places where other road users don't expect them to be, with little notice of their approach, and expecting everyone else to look out for them? 99% seems so high to me as to be statistically very unlikely. Do you have official figures to back this up? I'm slightly concerned that as an accident investigator (I assume a Police officer), you admit you are biased in favour of one of the parties before you even start.

Let's both assume that we're intelligent and reasonable and not descend to the level of personal remarks.

Are you contending that in the early cases you posted, the car driver should have been held 100% responsible in all of them? Again, I hope not, because your remarks at the end suggest that you can see that both sides need to take responsibility for their own actions.

Reading the cases you posted, I don't see evidence of "times changing in the legal profession" so much as a more general awareness of the process of filtering, which has only really become necessary in more recent years due to weight of traffic, and some genuinely very different cases. As I said earlier, to me the judgments look fair, and take account of the responsibilities of both parties.

If you can point me to where I said either of the following:

"I expect everyone to sit in the queue"
"If I collide with a filtering bike I should not be held liable"

I will happily agree it was wrong, but I don't think I said either of those things.

Finally, the argument that motorcyclists "should be allowed to take advantage of their smaller size" would be fine if they didn't abuse that right, and continue to filter in situations where it causes risk for others apart from themselves. That was what I was trying to put across in my what you interpreted as dinosaur-ish remarks.