T.C wrote:Whilst filtering cases have to be judged on merit, and if speed is kept to a reasonable level it should make no difference, just be aware that there is now a new weapon in the defendants armoury.
[...]
So word of warning guys, be carefull with your speed when filtering
Gareth wrote:Perhaps I don't understand how case law affects individual cases but I would have thought that the relative speed of a filtering motorcyclist is indirectly a crucial factor when apportioning blame, (since they might have not been in view if/when a motorist made a mirror check before changing course).
Beyond this, and from reading motorcyclist discussions arising from this kind of incident, there appears to be a willingness on the part of many motorcyclists to absolve themselves of responsibility for checking that their intended overtakee knows they are there and is not about to change course or direction before they pass by.
waremark wrote: If being followed by a lorry, how far across the road would he have had to proceed before he had sight of a motorcycle behind the lorry?
Is it really reasonable to think that he should have been looking in his mirror at that point?
To this should be added the stupidity of overtaking across an entrance on the right, when he had no view of the traffic ahead.
T.C wrote:These days, filtering cases are generally found in favour of the rider, but what this case does is temper that to a degree where riders will no longer be able to claim that speed was imaterial, it will now have a bearing, not so much in respect of liability but in respect of contributory negligence, which in the case of this guy was 80%, that is a big chunk to be deducted from his overall award.
TripleS wrote: Some of them don't seem to have much of a self-preservation instinct.
Gareth wrote:The more I think about this the more annoyed I feel - from the reported facts that unfortunate outcome appears to have lain entirely in the hands and poor judgement of the rider.
Mr Cholmondeley-Warner wrote:I
I note that the OP posts in the tone of "a warning to fellow motorcyclists" which seems to imply that there is a "them and us" situation out there, with motorists wilfully negligently injuring innocent motorcyclists. I hope and believe that, as another poster said, most motorcyclists would see the foolishness of driving up the outside of a queue of traffic, past an entrance, at 50mph, and that their sense of self-preservation would lead them to avoid such actions.
So I'd modify the warning in the last sentence of the OP along the lines of:
"So word of warning guys, keep your eyes open and assess the likely hazards when filtering, and if in doubt, slow down or stop".
* As Gareth said, assumed but not positively verifiable.
T.C. wrote:Whilst filtering cases have to be judged on merit, and if speed is kept to a reasonable level it should make no difference, just be aware that there is now a new weapon in the defendants armoury.
T.C. wrote:This made it easier for us to prove liability in filtering cases as it got rid of the original Powell v Moody (1966) that was the statutory defence previously.
Gareth wrote:I tried looking up Davis v Scroggins (2006) but the only references I've found are, apparently, your posts on various fora. For Powell v Moody (1966) I found a Wikipedia synopsis that may or may not be accurate, but taking it at face value it seems an entirely reasonable outcome. Perhaps you will explain how 'Davis v Scroggins (2006)' changed that position?
... more internet searching and there seem to be more hits for Davis v Shrogin (or) Schrogin (2006) and this seems to be an entirely different situation. Another case, Farley v Buckley (2007) seems broadly similar to the one from 1966. What I don't see is why anyone should think one case should dictate how future cases are likely to be resolved when the material facts will probably not be the same.
Return to Advanced Motorcycling Forum
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest