MGF wrote:John Measures' article on filtering
2012 updated version. Original 2008 article at bottom of page.
Barratts wrote: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.
Gareth wrote:Barratts wrote: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.
T.C wrote: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.
Ancient wrote:... 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.
Kimosabe wrote: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.
Mr Cholmondeley-Warner wrote:
(* - unless TC and John Measures are in fact, the same person)
T.C wrote:Mr Cholmondeley-Warner wrote:(* - 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.
Gareth wrote:
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 wrote:I can assure you that we are not the same person and I had never heard of this bloke until mentioned here.
T.C wrote: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.
Kimosabe wrote: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.
Return to Advanced Driving Forum
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests