Overtaking

It depends on what you are comfortable with really. Where I live currently they are building a pointless road across Norfolk and it's causing built up traffic along most of my route to work.

Most days I'll filter through and involves moving into middle of road, most drivers coming opposite way do move over to give that extra bit of room which I know they don't have to. Do get occasional person who refuses to though.

My mentality is to take it steady through it, been passed a few times by twats on peds who sit at 30 filtering regardless of hazards.

 

This photo is from the Highway Code

and she is overtaking. What is to stop her from claiming she was filtering past the slow moving cyclist and so it was OK for her to pull out into the face of oncoming traffic causing to slow down or move over to give that extra bit of room?

I agree with you but as I have said completely irrelevant to the discussion. We are discussing BFG filtering. On the video he is filtering. Not overtaking. It maybe be little risky for somebody, but perfectly 100% legal. In no point he is in the opposite lane or forcing somebody to swerve.

Here are the facts:

He is doing exactly what Highway code say:

http://i.imgur.com/VR6wnsr.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/nk7AOct.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/UtKH7Sz.jpg

As you can see he is staying in his lane and not in the opposite lane, no forcing the oposite traffic to swerve, hence this is filtering not overtaking. Hence you comments are not relevant

Unless you mean some other moment in the video. Which has been cut out by BFG. Like at 1:22

He is clever enough not to post public videos that may incriminate himself on the Interweb.

The moral of the story - if you ride like a dick have a decency not to post it on youtube

We will have to agree to disagree. The Highway Code does not specifically define filtering or overtaking. There is no example of what constitutes filtering.

There are examples of what is considered overtaking.

One example of what is overtaking is from rule 167, passing traffic queuing at junctions, which is what the queue he passes is doing. At 1.32 the reason for the queue is a traffic light controlled junction. That rule also specifies coming into conflict with other road users. He is coming into conflict because he is causing the oncoming vehicles to move to their left to give him more space. Most obvious is the Mondeo and two vehicles behind at 14.54 are driving inside the bus stop markings. They have clearly moved to the side to give the biker more room.

I saw a Baronthingy video once. If they rewrite the Highway Code anytime soon I'm hoping they'll ban him from making any more.

Filtering does have a legal term in law. is just another term for overtaking slow and stationary traffic and is perfectly legal if certain rules are complied with.

Davis v Schroggins (2006) is the relevant case law that kicked out previous case law, in particular Powell v Moody (1966)

If you do a search, I have covered this in a lot of detail with the relevant previous case law.

As far as crash claims are concerned, 99% now go in favour of the filtering rider.

The Davis vs Schrogin case details I can found refers to the act as filtering here;

https://www.clarkewillmott.com/case-studies/motorcycle-filtering-legitimised/

but overtaking in all of the following reports;

https://www.solicitorsjournal.com/case-reports/eric-davis-v-maxim-schrogin

http://www.motorcyclelawscotland.co.uk/why-choose-us/case-law/davis-v-schrogin-(2006/

http://lexisweb.co.uk/cases/2006/june/davis-v-schrogin

http://www.thesolicitorsgroup.com/Downloads/Articles/26Jan2012/PersonalInjuryClaimsInvolvingMotorcyclists.pdf

I cannot find the actual wording in the ruling, but from the majority of solicitor reports, it was overtaking.

I cannot find the actual wording in the ruling, but from the majority of solicitor reports, it was overtaking.

As I said, that is all filtering is, it is just another word for overtaking but slower moving or stationary traffic and had you asked I would have given you the link to the case law.

However, you also have to be aware of Farley v Buckley (2007) which superceded Dvae v Schroggins

http://www.pibriefupdate.com/content/pibulj-sec/312-30november2007pipractitioner

The scooter rider was found to be 100% liable, and so the directive was sent out from the RCJ in light of this case that judgement and liability had to be established based on the evidence.

But liability is still 99% in favour of the filtering rider providing the evidence is sound which keeps me busy

Can I get the link to the case law.

I cannot find the actual wording in the ruling, but from the majority of solicitor reports, it was overtaking.

 

As I said, that is all filtering is, it is just another word for overtaking but slower moving or stationary traffic and had you asked I would have given you the link to the case law.

Can I get a link to the case law.

However, you also have to be aware of Farley v Buckley (2007) which superceded Dvae v Schroggins

http://www.pibriefupdate.com/content/pibulj-sec/312-30november2007pipractitioner

The scooter rider was found to be 100% liable, and so the directive was sent out from the RCJ in light of this case that judgement and liability had to be established based on the evidence.

But liability is still 99% in favour of the filtering rider providing the evidence is sound which keeps me busy

Again, that refers to overtaking. Since the Highway Code refers to both filtering and overtaking, I take it to be they are different, but you and others are defining it as the same thing and when one refers to overtaking, you then call it filtering.

I stand by my original claim that the act of passing a line of queuing vehicles at a junction is overtaking and not filtering because the Highway Code describes it as overtaking.

I stand by my original claim that the act of passing a line of queuing vehicles at a junction is overtaking and not filtering because the Highway Code describes it as overtaking.

Fine, whatever !

The Highway Code is a set of guidelines, it is not the law. It is therefore written to be easily understood, not in legal language.

Part of the Highway Code is obviously to explain the law, because those rules are absolutes, but other parts are just best practices for the safety of all road users.

But it is not meant to have its language taken so literally as to define legal concepts or find loopholes. And even where it does give legal guidance it is only a layman's explanation, not the letter of the law. It comes with a, perhaps naïve, expectation of common sense being applied to it.

Overtaking is pulling out of the regular flow of traffic to make progress past slower moving or stationary vehicles, how can anyone think that filtering is anything other than a particular type of overtake?

You can overtake without filtering, but you cannot filter without overtaking.

The Highway Code is a set of guidelines, it is not the law. It is therefore written to be easily understood, not in legal language.

Part of the Highway Code is obviously to explain the law, because those rules are absolutes, but other parts are just best practices for the safety of all road users.

But it is not meant to have its language taken so literally as to define legal concepts or find loopholes. And even where it does give legal guidance it is only a layman's explanation, not the letter of the law. It comes with a, perhaps naïve, expectation of common sense being applied to it.

Overtaking is pulling out of the regular flow of traffic to make progress past slower moving or stationary vehicles, how can anyone think that filtering is anything other than a particular type of overtake?

You can overtake without filtering, but you cannot filter without overtaking.

Some of it IS LAW and it gives you the reference to the relevant legal bit

Yes, but no.

As I said, it explains the law. And as you say, it gives a reference to the specific section of legislation when it does.

But those parts of the Highway Code themselves are not the law, only a layman's interpretation of it, mainly condensing everything into bullet points.

My point being that arguing over the semantics of it as though that has any legal relevance, as the discussion here did, is a waste of time. All that is meaningful is what it describes, when it refers to "overtaking" or "filtering" it is does not intend to give any special meaning to those terms or imply that as both are used in different places they must be mutually exclusive.

I do not even think the sections of the Highway Code which mention filtering are ones referencing a particular item of law anyway.

The problem is bikers who claim they are filtering, because they know it comes with a protection that other roads users have to watch out for filtering bikes (Rules 160 and 211 put the onus on drivers) for pretty much every passing manoeuvre except the overtake of one moving vehicle.

Rule 88 states "Additionally, when filtering in slow-moving traffic, take care and keep your speed low" and that is what I take filtering to be, passing through the gaps where there are slow moving vehicles. That is further clarified in Rule 211 which states "It is often difficult to see motorcyclists and cyclists, especially when they are coming up from behind, coming out of junctions, at roundabouts, overtaking you or filtering through traffic." Overtaking is different from filtering which is passing "through".

Filtering means you are going through the gaps as the traffic is moving slowly forward. I would respectfully suggest that everything else should be treated as overtaking with the additional care that requires.

Looks fine to me, ive done worse tbh