Motorcycle 'filtering'.

[Kimosabe]

Very interesting points being shared here and thanks for taking so much time to discuss this... evidently again. Won't be long before I install a radar next to my satnav and spinning blades on my hub caps.

There appear to be unmet expectations on both sides and plenty of transference going on too in what appears to be an us and them argument. I expect everyone to stay the hell away from me when I'm driving and bikers expect me to know that at any given moment, they are going to squeeze between me and the car beside me. For me we are all us and the only people i refer to as being 'them', are the zombies who ride cycles in the dark while doing their best to camouflage themselves like ninja with human rights. No lights, reflective clothing and only one tiny Green council to save them. A book I once read was called "the other idiot" and it suggested treating other motorists as idiots who were likely to do something really daft at any moment. Not sure I wholly agree with it but it did teach me to be more cautious when driving. The 'Think Bike' campaign was great for when one could fill ones pipe at a junction without causing a queue of satnaving juggernauts to fill yer mirror or bikers with helmet cams to peer at you and shake their helmets in dismay.... Interesting visual image there.

T.C. Thanks for being so candid about your experiences and opinions. Some of what you have written does suggest a bias against car drivers and though I would hope no such thing exists, I am very aware of how such beliefs can impair judgements. Are you able to chat openly at work and do your colleague's views differ from your own? I have regular supervision so that I ensure my client's issues don't become my own. I'm still fairly sane and the unicorns don't trouble me any more.

I'm on page 70 of Mind Driving which deals with rules and regulations. (Is there something similar for bikers?) I'm all too aware that there are limits to rules and I agree with the statement made on page 70 that;

"...they impart to you only a very basic level of ability."

So sticking rigidly to rules is not a very down to earth approach to some things.

There seems to be a principle being argued that filtering is not illegal, which going purely by the rules it isn't but I think we all agree that rules require an amount of wisdom and ability when they leave the confines of a book and to err is human after all. If there isn't enough time and space between the err and the human.....refer to earlier formula.

That there are different rules for drivers and riders, is bound to lead to misunderstandings and conflict if not properly explained. I would really dislike being told things like "if you did that and hit a motorcyclist" because it's not teaching, it's warning. One relies on reasoned explanation and the other on remembering a threat. When were we as drivers formally taught that bikers could filter and how it works? As Mr CW has said, its probably a matter of motorists adapting due to increased traffic volumes. Are bikers taught to empathise with drivers while being instructed in the mystic art of filtering? Yes it's on websites and no doubt in books too but is it discussed such that everyone knows enough about using their mirrors and windows to their advantage? I would like to see more written about filtering in roadcraft for drivers etc. I bet advanced bikers make good advanced drivers.

Since starting this AD lark, I've heard no mention of positioning in a lane while queuing in traffic so that I can accommodate filtering bikers. Perhaps it's just something that I do when possible but I'd say its a good habit to have. I might use this subject as a suggestion for an article in the next IAM and Roadar newsletters and perhaps ask if I can ride on the back of someone's bike so I can experience it first-ish hand.

Glad this came up. Thanks all

/>end digression and get back to work

[MGF]

John Measures' article on filtering

2012 updated version. Original 2008 article at bottom of page.

[Gareth]

John Measures' article on filtering

2012 updated version. Original 2008 article at bottom of page.

Both parts very interesting - thanks for point them out.

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, my heart sank when I read an article in one major motorcycle papers suggesting that bikers could now filter in any circumstances and at any speed and recover 100% of their compensation.

Based on this reported summary a good decision by the court and a wholly unreasonable interpretation in the biker press.


ETA: it looks like the information from John Measures at Barratts is what T.C was quoting from but not attributing to.

[Ancient]

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, my heart sank when I read an article in one major motorcycle papers suggesting that bikers could now filter in any circumstances and at any speed and recover 100% of their compensation.

Based on this reported summary a good decision by the court and a wholly unreasonable interpretation in the biker press.


ETA: it looks like the information from John Measures at Barratts is what T.C was quoting from but not attributing to.

Indeed, though this is not really an academic forum where sources are expected always to be quoted (AFAIK?) and as

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.

Which is all hardly indicative of an attitude that the car driver is always to blame which he has been accused of. TC was answering whether filtering was legal, not whether filtering is always perfectly carried out. I'm sure there are many perfect drivers on here, but when us mere mortals fail in perfection, we should expect some of the blame to be thereby attached to us. As indicated in the references to the HC etc, we should also, especially if we consider ourselves ADs, expect cyclists (motor or otherwise) to filter. Some will do so badly and we should be aware of (and practice) how to mitigate that where it is in our control. That this will allow some to 'get away' with rank stupidity is unfortunate, but IMO it is not our role to inflict serious injury or death as a punishment for stupidity (if fate does that for them, that is a different matter); YMMV.
Many cyclists (motor and otherwise) filter well. It is a fact of human nature that you'll not register these much. Many make serious errors, the ones I saw most often when I rode in London were riding into closing gaps and alongside manoevering large vehicles. The art of predicting where gaps will open in heavy traffic is not easy to acquire, it relies on observation not only of road conditions, but of driver behaviour, where their arms are, where they are looking (which is why they spot the users of hand-helds so often). The original question has, I think been answered: Filtering is perfectly legal. It is possible to filter badly and those doing so will be held proportionally responsible for the consequences if/when a case comes to court. I am at a loss as to why anyone would want to argue further.

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

Well, when someone posts some of their own words and some of other origins, without attributing the others to their owners, it's forgivable perhaps, if we assume they hold the opinions expressed in the whole of their posts*.

TC did express the opinion that "99% of filtering crashes are caused by incompetent and careless drivers" which does suggest some degree of bias, and confirmed this with "first and foremost I am a motorcyclist so maybe I am biased". On the other hand, he did post some useful more objective remarks at the end of his initial post, for which I gave him credit (ETA: although, reading the original Measures article, I see they are straight from that, too).

So it seems there are many possible points of view, and like all of us, TC is human and has personal beliefs that also intrude on his judgement of statistics. He sees things from the point of view of motorcyclists - mostly sensible ones who carry out filtering safely and are endangered by careless car drivers. I see things from the point of view of the car driver - I've been exposed to dangerous antics by less intelligent motorcyclists. We remember the ones that stand out, as you said.

(* - unless TC and John Measures are in fact, the same person)

[MGF]

... The original question has, I think been answered: Filtering is perfectly legal. ... I am at a loss as to why anyone would want to argue further.

That wasn't the original question. The original question came in three parts...

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.

It appears to me that there is plenty of scope for disagreement in the answers.

[T.C]

(* - unless TC and John Measures are in fact, the same person)

The original article is 100% mine and I am happy to show the national publications and dates that the article first appeared under my name.

I have had some of my article plagiarized before, and if it has been a straight lift or cut and paste of my original item, I would be interested, not that I mind them being used, but simply to ask the person to at least have the courtesy to ask before using them as I own the copyright which dates back to 2003 when the article first appeared and was updated about 18 months ago.

So if anyone can point me to where they found a copy of this article, I would be most obliged so that i can send a suitably worded letter.

[Gareth]

(* - unless TC and John Measures are in fact, the same person)

The original article is 100% mine ...

So if anyone can point me to where they found a copy of this article, I would be most obliged so that i can send a suitably worded letter.

I'm guessing that T.C and John Measures, the specialist motorcycle solicitor who until quite recently worked for Barratt, Goff & Tomlinson (solicitors), are not the same person as T.C's profile says he is located in Berkshire while John Measures' LinkedIn page says Nottingham.

[T.C]

I'm guessing that T.C and John Measures, the specialist motorcycle solicitor who until quite recently worked for Barratt, Goff & Tomlinson (solicitors), are not the same person as T.C's profile says he is located in Berkshire while John Measures' LinkedIn page says Nottingham.

I can assure you that we are not the same person and I had never heard of this bloke until mentioned here. And yes I am in Berkshire and not Nottingham, and the law firm I work for are nowhere near Nottingham.

[Gareth]

I can assure you that we are not the same person and I had never heard of this bloke until mentioned here.

Well, you asked about someone using those words - MGF provided a link earlier in the thread.

[Gareth]

The original article is 100% mine and I am happy to show the national publications and dates that the article first appeared under my name.

I have had some of my article plagiarized before, and if it has been a straight lift or cut and paste of my original item, I would be interested, not that I mind them being used, but simply to ask the person to at least have the courtesy to ask before using them as I own the copyright which dates back to 2003 when the article first appeared and was updated about 18 months ago.

I wonder if you would clarify which words are yours as the only online copies I could find are attributed to John Measures or claimed by him as his own words and published in 2008.

[Kimosabe]

Asking this question and learning from the replies has certainly been an education for me. Thanks all.

Filtering may well be legal but it ain't always the right thing to do.

[Ancient]

Asking this question and learning from the replies has certainly been an education for me. Thanks all.

Filtering may well be legal but it ain't always the right thing to do.

Agreed, but the same applies to any legal manoevre, even proceeding on a green light...

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

... and as if on cue, tonight someone posted this on my Facebook feed. I didn't ask for it. This is how car drivers see "filtering" motorcyclists sometimes. Do you blame us?


Which of the truck drivers should be held liable .... hmmmm

[fungus]

There's no question of blame. The biker can blame no one but himself.

Perhaps he needs to develop spatial awareness.