Filtering Crash - Recent case you may find of interest

Discussion on Advanced and Defensive Driving. IAM, RoSPA/RoADA, High Performance Course. All associated training. Motorcycle training.

Postby hir » Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:25 pm


T.C wrote:Until now, Davis v Scroggins (2006) has been the authority that has helped filtering riders claim 100% liability in filtering crashes. This case was particularly relevant as the filtering rider was travelling at speed despite the fact that he was travelling in excess of 50MPH whilst filtering.


However, yesterday a new case was reported on appeal where because of the high speed, the rider was held 80% liable with the car driver held only 20% liable.


I agree with Nick - these two cases are completely different and bear no resemblance to each other.

In the first case the car driver was wholly to blame whilst in the second case, the car driver was entirely blameless.
hir
 
Posts: 436
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:20 am

Postby vonhosen » Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:41 pm


hir wrote:
T.C wrote:Until now, Davis v Scroggins (2006) has been the authority that has helped filtering riders claim 100% liability in filtering crashes. This case was particularly relevant as the filtering rider was travelling at speed despite the fact that he was travelling in excess of 50MPH whilst filtering.


However, yesterday a new case was reported on appeal where because of the high speed, the rider was held 80% liable with the car driver held only 20% liable.


I agree with Nick - these two cases are completely different and bear no resemblance to each other.

In the first case the car driver was wholly to blame whilst in the second case, the car driver was entirely blameless.


Not entirely blameless, the court have said so.
Any views expressed are mine & mine alone.
I do not represent my employer or these forums.
vonhosen
 
Posts: 2624
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 8:18 pm
Location: Behind you !

Postby GJD » Fri Oct 21, 2011 10:10 pm


Mr Cholmondeley-Warner wrote:I'm also incredulous that any blame should attach to the driver.


I'm not.

Mr Cholmondeley-Warner wrote:One of the first things we're taught about overtaking, certainly as part of advanced driving, is not to overtake where there are blind junctions or entrances on either side, but particularly on the right.


Indeed. But that doesn't mean that if you do overtake me past a junction on the right, I turn right and we collide, that I am entirely blameless.

What seems relevant in this case (I've only read what the OP posted) is

T.C wrote:As the size of the vehicle behind E's car meant that E could not see clearly, he should have inched out. Where a driver could not see what was behind him, he had to take that step.


It seems the court felt that there was more the driver could have done. It's not sufficient to make a decision based on what you happen to be able to see. You have to consider whether you what you can see is enough, and if not, whether there's anything you can do about it. It seems the court felt there was something the car driver could have done about it, and that doesn't seem inconceivable to me.

The motorcyclist's part of the blame seems to be down to his speed. In that case, I think the question is, if the motorcyclist had arrived at the same point at the same time, but doing a speed that would be considered reasonable, and the car driver had done exactly what they did, would the collision still have occurred? If the answer is yes, then it's reasonable to think the car driver might share some of the blame.
GJD
 
Posts: 1316
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 5:26 pm
Location: Cambridge

Postby Mr Cholmondeley-Warner » Fri Oct 21, 2011 10:30 pm


Well, the court did decide the motorist was 20% to blame, so they must have decided he didn't do enough. I'm sure we'd all hope that, as that motorist, we'd see the motorcyclist, and all would be well. We don't have the full facts, so we don't know how far across his path the car got before he hit it. It could be that just by inching out, the car would still have been in his path. Too many unknowns. I'll leave the decision where it was made, in court.

If the overtaking vehicle had been another car, would we have had the same discussion?
User avatar
Mr Cholmondeley-Warner
 
Posts: 2928
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 12:03 am
Location: Swindon, Wilts




Postby vonhosen » Fri Oct 21, 2011 10:37 pm


Mr Cholmondeley-Warner wrote:Well, the court did decide the motorist was 20% to blame, so they must have decided he didn't do enough. I'm sure we'd all hope that, as that motorist, we'd see the motorcyclist, and all would be well. We don't have the full facts, so we don't know how far across his path the car got before he hit it. It could be that just by inching out, the car would still have been in his path. Too many unknowns. I'll leave the decision where it was made, in court.

If the overtaking vehicle had been another car, would we have had the same discussion?


I think we probably would. There is an expectation that you check it's safe to turn before you turn.
Any views expressed are mine & mine alone.
I do not represent my employer or these forums.
vonhosen
 
Posts: 2624
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 8:18 pm
Location: Behind you !

Postby Gareth » Sat Oct 22, 2011 10:50 am


Whether the driver could have done more (without deciding to abandon the right turn) must, in part, have depended on the sequence of events. For example, imagine yourself as driver positioning somewhat to the right of the lane prior to the point at which you would either be slow enough to start the turn or stopping to wait for oncoming traffic to clear. It seems entirely possible that the driver could have made a mirror check before starting to slow down and not seen the filtering motorcyclist, but after the lorry had closed behind the view to the rear would have been compromised, making it difficult to see a filtering motorcyclist unless he was alongside the lorry cab. In that sequence, to gain vision, it would be necessary to start to turn, potentially placing oneself in the path of a filtering motorcyclist, or abandon the turn and drive on.
there is only the road, nothing but the road ...
Gareth
 
Posts: 3604
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:58 pm
Location: Berkshire




Postby hir » Sat Oct 22, 2011 11:07 am


vonhosen wrote:Not entirely blameless, the court have said so.


Err...like wot I said before...

hir wrote:Unfortunately, it's yet another example of a judicial judgement being out of touch with the real world in which we live.
hir
 
Posts: 436
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:20 am

Postby vonhosen » Sat Oct 22, 2011 11:12 am


Gareth wrote:Whether the driver could have done more (without deciding to abandon the right turn) must, in part, have depended on the sequence of events. For example, imagine yourself as driver positioning somewhat to the right of the lane prior to the point at which you would either be slow enough to start the turn or stopping to wait for oncoming traffic to clear. It seems entirely possible that the driver could have made a mirror check before starting to slow down and not seen the filtering motorcyclist, but after the lorry had closed behind the view to the rear would have been compromised, making it difficult to see a filtering motorcyclist unless he was alongside the lorry cab. In that sequence, to gain vision, it would be necessary to start to turn, potentially placing oneself in the path of a filtering motorcyclist, or abandon the turn and drive on.


The danger has developed during the time he was in an unsighted position then. In those circumstances it is insufficient to rely on a mirror check that was made prior to going into the unsighted position. Another check is required prior & during the turn. If vision had been compromised at that point, surely best for you to move position slowly whilst checking for movement from the unsighted area ?

With the full facts the court have decided he not only could have done more than he did, but that he should have done more than he did.
Any views expressed are mine & mine alone.
I do not represent my employer or these forums.
vonhosen
 
Posts: 2624
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 8:18 pm
Location: Behind you !

Postby vonhosen » Sat Oct 22, 2011 11:15 am


hir wrote:
vonhosen wrote:Not entirely blameless, the court have said so.


Err...like wot I said before...

hir wrote:Unfortunately, it's yet another example of a judicial judgement being out of touch with the real world in which we live.


You might think so, but I don't.
Drivers can't turn with impunity, they have to take all reasonable care when doing so & whilst we don't have the full facts, which the court did, I don't see anything that suggests the driver did take all reasonable care expected of him, or that the court decision is perverse.
Any views expressed are mine & mine alone.
I do not represent my employer or these forums.
vonhosen
 
Posts: 2624
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 8:18 pm
Location: Behind you !

Postby TripleS » Sat Oct 22, 2011 11:40 am


In this case it seems to me the court got it about right.

The car driver could have done more to avoid the collision, but it sounds to me as if this was a situation that would probably have caught many drivers out, particularly given the excessive speed of the motorcyclist. Some situations are by no means easy to deal with and be sure you've got all the angles covered.

Best wishes all,
Dave.
TripleS
 
Posts: 6025
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 9:47 pm
Location: Briggswath, Whitby

Postby MGF » Sat Oct 22, 2011 12:25 pm


Having read Powell, Davis and a digest of Burton I do not agree that Davis & Burton are entirely different and that Davis supercedes Powell.

All of the cases involve a motorcyclist overtaking stationary traffic by off-siding/filtering and colliding with a vehicle emerging across its path. In all three cases the motorcyclist could not have avoided the collision once he saw the vehicle emerge.

However Powell can be distinguished from Davis. In Powell, a lorry driver was in a queue of stationary traffic and had invited another driver to emerge from his left and onto the other side of the road. It appears the motorcyclist could not see into the gap and failed to slow in anticipation of emerging traffic. He was held 80% to blame.

In Davis, the motorcyclist had a clear view of the stationary traffic. There was no gap out of which a vehicle could emerge. He had seen the car that he was to collide with but had no indication the driver would pull out across him. Accordingly he had no need to reduce his speed. He was blameless - legally at least.

Burton, in my analysis is closer to Powell than Davis. The driver in Burton (in a Vectra) had come to a virtual stop, intending to turn right into the pub car park but was waiting for traffic to leave the entrance to it. He had checked his mirors and indicated. However the following BMW 4X4 driver took a position closer to the centre line and obscured the Vectra driver's rearward view. Critically the motorcyclist could not see beyond the BMW and could not see the Vectra. He chose not to reduce his speed. He was also held 80% liable.

I don't see that the law has changed or is inconsistent. As TC has pointed out, filtering is an acceptable overtaking manoeuvre, when done correctly. What is a reasonable speed for it depends on the circumstances and more specifically on what the rider can see - and can't see - and what he can reasonably expect to happen.
MGF
 
Posts: 2547
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: Warwickshire

Postby 7db » Sat Oct 22, 2011 12:29 pm


Fascinating reading Appeal Court decisions. As always it's a joy to read clear thinking applied to unclear situations. The key phrase that leaps out of Davis vs Schrogin for me is this:-

"Everything depends in those cases and depends in this case on the point at which the overtaking driver was alerted or should have been alerted to the fact that there was any danger ahead."

As a driver, I take that to mean that I need to make myself visible and my intentions clear to any vehicle that I might share some joint liability for an accident, as well as attempting to see any such threat.

A technical point which comes out of both the cases is the speed with which the manoeuvre is executed affects the ability of the rider to react and the driver to take time to see. As the DSA put it so memorably: peep and creep. It's a general point to take into ones driving, that almost everything can be better done in an unhurried fashion -- both in terms of vehicle speed and driver work rate.
7db
 
Posts: 2724
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 12:19 pm
Location: London

Postby fungus » Sat Oct 22, 2011 8:43 pm


A question I would ask is what was the road lay out at the point of collision?

Was the junction on a slight left curve? This would make it more difficult for the car driver to see the motorcyclist, and as said, the lorry behind the right turning driver could obstruct the view of both the car driver, and the motorcyclist up to a point where the car driver is at the point of no return before they see the motorcyclist, especially if they were using a gap in the oncoming traffic to make the turn.
Nigel ADI
IAM observer
User avatar
fungus
 
Posts: 1739
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 8:16 pm
Location: Dorset

Postby Gareth » Thu Nov 24, 2011 9:59 pm


I was reminded of this thread this morning after I had joined a two-lane dual carriageway. I had been very kindly let into lane 1 and I needed to move across into lane 2. I noticed some spaces begin to develop and started indicating, counted a slow 4 as a space grew large enough for me to use, repeatedly checking the offside mirror. Just as I was about to move over I noticed a motorcyclist filtering between the lanes, so waited to see what he was going to do, my indicator still on and, no doubt, the driver behind my chosen space getting a bit impatient for me to move.

Blow me if the motorcyclist just rode past. It struck me that while he had his headlamp on and was wearing a hi-vis jacket, he was relying on being seen for his safety rather than seeing and avoiding potential hazards. I also wondered about the relative responsibility for observing potential hazards; I was making fairly good use of a door mirror while he appeared to be making very little use of his forward vision.
there is only the road, nothing but the road ...
Gareth
 
Posts: 3604
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:58 pm
Location: Berkshire




Postby morsing » Thu Nov 24, 2011 10:36 pm


And again I will never understand why filtering is still allowed - hopefully it won't be for much longer...
morsing
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 8:44 am
Location: Aylesbury, Bucks




PreviousNext

Return to Advanced Motorcycling Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


cron