Jump to content

Filtering, or overtaking?


Throttled
 Share

Recommended Posts

From another topic about zig-zag crossings and filtering, I think there is a cross over between filtering and overtaking and it needs to be made clearer which is which.


I think that filtering is moving between vehicles all moving or stationary but will move in the same direction, so on the motorway, a dual carriageway or one way street. It would also apply when on a single carriageway one lane in each direction when both directions are stationary or queuing and moving occasionally and slowly.


I think anything else is overtaking, so where your side of the road is stationary or queuing and moving occasionally and slowly and you ride past, that is overtaking.


The Highway Code is not clear;


"Rule 88 -

Manoeuvring. You should be aware of what is behind and to the sides before manoeuvring. Look behind you; use mirrors if they are fitted. When in traffic queues look out for pedestrians crossing between vehicles and vehicles emerging from junctions or changing lanes. Position yourself so that drivers in front can see you in their mirrors. Additionally, when filtering in slow-moving traffic, take care and keep your speed low."


"Rule 211 -

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."


It is not helped by legal advice which treats the two as synonyms;


http://www.markthompsonlaw.com/motorcycle-filtering-through-traffic/accident-and-personal-injury-case-examples/


"The case of Powell v Moody (1966) found the motorcyclist to be 80% to blame for an accident where a motorist collided with the filtering motorcycle. The circumstances were that a motorbike was slowly overtaking a lorry which had waved a car on to pull out in front of him on the main road. As the car pulled across the front of the lorry to turn in front of it the motorbike collided with it."


That is not filtering, it is overtaking a long queue of traffic. I think it is important to differentiate between the two as bikers claim filtering as a legal right, when in fact they are overtaking and so need to comply with the Highway Code of not causing other vehicles to have to adjust speed and position and to watch for merging vehicle and junctions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Powell v Moody used to be the statutory defence. It does not even get a mention these days in live cases. I wrote this a couple of months ago and a slightly edited version will soon be on our website


I deal with and advise with regards to liability in filtering cases on a daily basis. I also cover undertaking in this piece as well


One of the advantages of riding a motorcycle is that we as riders can continue to make progress where other vehicles are unable to. When traffic is stationary or moving slowly in queues, motorcyclists can use their manoeuvrability and limited space requirements to continue on their journey relatively unimpeded. However, with this benefit comes a high degree of responsibility.


Is it illegal? No, its not, although may would have you believe that it is.


The Highway Code; the Driving Standard Agency publication on Motorcycle Riding; and the Police Riders Handbook – Motorcycle Road Craft, all mention filtering and states that it requires great care and attention from the motorcyclist. The Police and riding experts will advise that no offence is committed if the motorcyclist complies with all road traffic signs, road markings, road traffic regulations and filters with appropriate due care and attention with courtesy to other road users.


Some people have been as bold to suggest that if a rider filters at 15mph or faster than the slowest moving vehicle, then that would constitute an offence, either dangerous or careless driving. There is no minimum or maximum limit, it is about what is appropriate for the conditions as I will explain.


Unfortunately, too many riders are injured because of filtering, so this begs the question of what happens if you want to bring a civil claim for personal injury, loss and damage suffered in a collision whilst filtering? It may be worth noting that when a Judge is asked to make a decision who is to blame, they often refer to past cases particularly those which have been decided in a higher Court. These are what legal professionals call legal precedents.


The first major case decided by the Court of Appeal was Powell v Moody in 1966.

Briefly the circumstances of this accident were that there were two lanes of stationary traffic. The motorcyclist filtered along the offside of the second line of traffic when he came into collision with a car emerging from a side road on the nearside intending to turn right through a gap in the traffic.


The Court described filtering as queue jumping which was a hazardous manoeuvre which had to be carried out with a high degree of care required by the motorcyclist. The Court said that it was effectively the burden of the motorcyclist to ensure that it was safe to overtake. As you will appreciate, the concept of queuing goes deep into our national psyche and there is a subconscious objection to those that “jump the queue”. If an accident happens where someone is doing this, then the natural reaction has been to blame the person who is in breach of the natural order of queuing. In this case, the Court held that the motorcyclist was 80% to blame. The effect of this is that the motorcyclist’s claim was reduced by 80%. You can appreciate how such a finding would drastically reduce the amount of compensation a motorcyclist would receive if he suffered serious injuries.


In the case of Leeson v Bevis and Tolchard (1972) a bike was filtering and passed a single line of queuing traffic at about 15 mph. A van pulled out of a garage on the left in front of a lorry. A collision occurred between the bike and the van. This again went to the Court of Appeal and the biker was found 50% at fault.


The next incident of any significance was the case of Worsfold v Howe (1980). This was a two lane road. The nearside was for traffic going straight ahead and the second lane was for traffic turning right. The biker was riding in the second lane at a speed of 10-30 mph. A tanker had left a large gap in front of it to allow traffic to emerge from a railway yard on the left. A car emerges very slowly in front of the tanker across both lanes to turn right. A collision occurred. This also went to the Court of Appeal where the biker was found 50% at fault. The Court said that the biker was travelling too fast and that he had gone beyond his line of sight.


Things then remained fairly stagnant for a while until we got the case of Pell v Moseley heard by the Court of Appeal in 2003.


Here we have a single lane carriage way in each direction subject to a 60 mph speed limit. The motorcyclist began to overtake a line of traffic when he came into collision with a car which intended to turn right into a field where a motor cross event was taking place. The Court of Appeal found the motorcyclist 50% to blame stating that the motorcyclist was negligent in that he failed to notice that the Defendants vehicle would have needed to slow down before turning right, a fact which should have been apparent despite her failure to indicate. Further the motorcyclist was aware of the motor cross event and should have considered the possibility that the Defendant may wish to turn into the field and as such should not have attempted to overtake as he did.


3 years later, we then saw a Chinese 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 appreciably 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, things became somewhat muddy when an article in one major motorcycle paper suggested that bikers could now filter in any circumstances and at any speed and recover 100% of their compensation.


That euphoria was short lived following the case of Farley v Buckley in 2007.


A motorcyclist was passing a refuse wagon which was travelling in the same direction and was indicating an intention to turn left into a side road. The lorry was unable to complete its turn as the side road was narrow and there was a car waiting to emerge and turn right. The motorcyclist travelling at a speed of about 30 mph overtook the refuse wagon with its wheels virtually on the centre white line when the car drove out in one continuous movement at approximately 5-8 miles per hour. A collision occurred.


The Court held the motorcyclist wholly at fault as it considered that the motorcyclist was travelling at a too high a speed which in the circumstances was reckless especially having regard to the nature of the manoeuvre that he had been carrying out, the lack of visibility to his left and the fact that the refuse wagon had been displaying its left indicator.

The final case that we can refer to is Higgins v Johnson 2008 which is a County Court decision. In this case, a car was approaching a rugby ground on the right and indicated to turn into it. The car had commenced its manoeuvre when it was struck by a motorcycle which was overtaking. The Court heard evidence that the car driver first indicated left, then right, then left and then finally right again. The motorcyclist held back but once he believed that the car driver appeared to have settled on a course of continuing straight ahead, he pulled out to overtake.


The Court accepted independent witness evidence that the car did indicate left, right, left and right.

The final indication happened when the motorcyclist had already begun to overtake. The Court held that the car driver failed to check her mirrors or look over her shoulder and had she done so, she would have seen the motorcyclist. However, the Court also found that the motorcyclist was aware that there was an indecisive, erratically indicating driver ahead of him yet he proceeded to overtake her on a yellow boxed junction. The Court found the motorcyclist 25% to blame on this basis.


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.


So, what can you do to avoid an accident in the first place or give you a good change of getting 100% of your compensation?


Ride slowly and at a speed that you are able to stop if:-


Vehicles emerge or turn at junctions (be extra vigilant if your visibility is compromised by high sided vehicles)


Vehicles suddenly changing lanes or U-turning without warning


Vehicles suddenly opening their doors (especially if filtering along traffic that has been stationary for some time)


Watch for pedestrians and cyclists. Also other filtering motorcycles!


Be ready to brake or use your horn if you think you have not been seen


Use dipped headlights and wear florescent/reflective clothing


Watch for road studs, road paint, road defects and manhole covers which can throw the bike off line


Avoid conflict with other road users and be courteous


Comply with all road traffic signs, road markings and road traffic regulations


It is the old story, that if it feels wrong, it probably is wrong, but filter with care, and you should not have any problems, as each case has to be decided on its merits and the evidence available.


I often get asked about undertaking or what is referred to as the nearside overtake. The most common example is usually found on a Motorway when it is clear and we get the centre lane hogger.


Many TV programmes over the years have gone on about it being illegal, but the reality is that nowhere in current traffic law does it say that an undertake is illegal. The reason for this is that apart from the centre lane hogger, congestion is often found close to Motorway slip roads during the rush hour and traffic build up becomes substantial. It is not unusual for lanes 2 and 3 (the centre and outside lanes) to be stationary whilst lane 1 (the left hand lane) remains empty. If traffic was prohibited from passing along the nearside, then the congestion would be worse than we currently experience. At the same time, (going back to the centre lane hogger) it is not always practical or safe when you are travelling at 70 and someone is doing 50 in lane 2 to go from lane 1 to lane 3, bearing in mind that lane 1 is the normal driving lane.


So is it legal to undertake? Well it is not illegal. The only offence open to the prosecution is either dangerous or careless driving, but to prove these offences it has to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the standard of driving fell well below that of a reasonably safe and competent driver, therefore the sole act of a nearside overtake is insufficient. However, weave from lane to lane at high speed, then it may be a different story.


So this raises the question of "What if I decide to undertake and the car in the centre lane decides to move back into the inside lane?"


The driver in the centre lane however does commit the offence of driving without reasonable consideration for other road users (which is a subsection of careless driving), and they also have a statutory duty of care to ensure that it is safe to return to that lane before they actually start to change position.


Now, I am not suggesting for one minute that we all go around undertaking every time we are on a Motorway, but there are occasions when it is reasonable for a number of reasons, and the courts are now recognising this and have found in favour of riders who have undertaken, where before the rider may have decided against making a claim on the basis that they believed that they committed an offence.


Again, it all comes down to the circumstances and the evidence available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All good stuff!

I actually make a habit of undertaking the middle lane hoggers becaue as you say it's not practical to move from lane 1 to lane three just to get past them. Sometimes they take the hint and move over but most of the time they continue completely oblivious to the car that just past them... It's scary who we share the roads with!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


The Highway Code is not clear;

 

 

I meant to say the Highway Code is quite clear


Rule 160


be aware of other road users, especially cycles and motorcycles who may be filtering through the traffic. These are more difficult to see than larger vehicles and their riders are particularly vulnerable. Give them plenty of room, especially if you are driving a long vehicle or towing a trailer


And then as far as compying with the rules are concerned, a judge will look at these key points and look to see if Rule 165 was complied with


Rule 165 states


You MUST NOT overtake


if you would have to cross or straddle double white lines with a solid line nearest to you (but see Rule 129)

if you would have to enter an area designed to divide traffic, if it is surrounded by a solid white line

the nearest vehicle to a pedestrian crossing, especially when it has stopped to let pedestrians cross

if you would have to enter a lane reserved for buses, trams or cycles during its hours of operation

after a ‘No Overtaking’ sign and until you pass a sign cancelling the restriction.


Laws RTA 1988 sect 36, TSRGD regs 10, 22, 23 & 24, & ZPPPCRGD reg 24


And these are the points I covered in my piece.


So if those elements were complied with, then there is no doubt.


From a civil law point of view, the only other issue that does pop up from time to time is where the rider has filtered past a vehicle close to a junction on the right and the car turns and a collision occurs.


This is where there will be a valid argument for contributory negligence on the part of the rider, but the courts have usually found the car driver to be primarily liable as that driver still has a fiduciary duty of care to ensure it is safe to commence the turn. Simply saying that they turned on their indicator is insufficient.


In thesse cases it can go 70/30 or 60/40 in favour of the rider, in some cases I have seen 75/25 in favour of the rider, but again it comes down to circumstances and evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All good stuff!

I actually make a habit of undertaking the middle lane hoggers becaue as you say it's not practical to move from lane 1 to lane three just to get past them. Sometimes they take the hint and move over but most of the time they continue completely oblivious to the car that just past them... It's scary who we share the roads with!

 

As a driver of a vehicle that is not allowed by law in the outside lane of a three lane or more (dual lane is allowed) motorway and is limited to 56mph it raises the conundrum of especially on three laned motorways vehicles travelling in lane2 at 50mph and have no intention of moving into lane1 .

A i could remain in lane 1 and reduce my speed to not undertake

B move into lane 2 and announce my prescence and intentions but in a non aggresive manner and keep behind the vehicle if they do not acknowledge and move to lane1

C move into lane 2 and use the size and other methods of my vehicle to force them to move into lane 1 (but a ... not my style and b .its quite a predominantly yellow highly liveried vehicle of a well known association.)


D. As legally i can only use two lanes and by rule 268


Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake. In congested conditions, where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, traffic in left-hand lanes may sometimes be moving faster than traffic to the right. In these conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right. Do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake.

I stay in lane 1 and pass


I am technically keeping up with traffic in lane 1 generally 56mph hgvs and lane 2 is technically congested by the vehicle traveling at 50mph

I am also not weaving across lanes after to gain advantage .

But there is always that riskof them suddenly realising they are hogging lane 2 and manoeuvring into lane1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All good stuff!

I actually make a habit of undertaking the middle lane hoggers becaue as you say it's not practical to move from lane 1 to lane three just to get past them. Sometimes they take the hint and move over but most of the time they continue completely oblivious to the car that just past them... It's scary who we share the roads with!

 

I do it the other way if they are in lane, approach in lane 1 flick out to lane 3 over take then flip back to lane 1. Although reading this "Do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake." I am committing more of and offence than you are..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've gone down the inside of lane hoggers before, usually to prove a point. I drive a 1.2 Punto and if someone is going to sit doing 65ish in lane 3 then I like to show them ridiculous they are by flying past in a slow Punto. Don't like to make a habit of it though, if they're that oblivious to sit in lane 2 or 3 when others are clear, they definitely aren't checking their mirrors when they finally move over to the left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All good stuff!

I actually make a habit of undertaking the middle lane hoggers becaue as you say it's not practical to move from lane 1 to lane three just to get past them. Sometimes they take the hint and move over but most of the time they continue completely oblivious to the car that just past them... It's scary who we share the roads with!

 


Me to and give em the look and shake of head as I go past , but as you stay they just sit there oblivious

Link to comment
Share on other sites


The Highway Code is not clear;

 

 

I meant to say the Highway Code is quite clear


Rule 160


be aware of other road users, especially cycles and motorcycles who may be filtering through the traffic. These are more difficult to see than larger vehicles and their riders are particularly vulnerable. Give them plenty of room, especially if you are driving a long vehicle or towing a trailer


And then as far as compying with the rules are concerned, a judge will look at these key points and look to see if Rule 165 was complied with


Rule 165 states


You MUST NOT overtake


if you would have to cross or straddle double white lines with a solid line nearest to you (but see Rule 129)

if you would have to enter an area designed to divide traffic, if it is surrounded by a solid white line

the nearest vehicle to a pedestrian crossing, especially when it has stopped to let pedestrians cross

if you would have to enter a lane reserved for buses, trams or cycles during its hours of operation

after a ‘No Overtaking’ sign and until you pass a sign cancelling the restriction.


Laws RTA 1988 sect 36, TSRGD regs 10, 22, 23 & 24, & ZPPPCRGD reg 24


And these are the points I covered in my piece.


So if those elements were complied with, then there is no doubt.


From a civil law point of view, the only other issue that does pop up from time to time is where the rider has filtered past a vehicle close to a junction on the right and the car turns and a collision occurs.


This is where there will be a valid argument for contributory negligence on the part of the rider, but the courts have usually found the car driver to be primarily liable as that driver still has a fiduciary duty of care to ensure it is safe to commence the turn. Simply saying that they turned on their indicator is insufficient.


In thesse cases it can go 70/30 or 60/40 in favour of the rider, in some cases I have seen 75/25 in favour of the rider, but again it comes down to circumstances and evidence.

 

I do not see where that shows clarity on what is filtering and how it differentiates from overtaking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've gone down the inside of lane hoggers before, usually to prove a point. I drive a 1.2 Punto and if someone is going to sit doing 65ish in lane 3 then I like to show them ridiculous they are by flying past in a slow Punto. Don't like to make a habit of it though, if they're that oblivious to sit in lane 2 or 3 when others are clear, they definitely aren't checking their mirrors when they finally move over to the left.

 

I had a 1.2 Punto, most reliable car I ever owned. In three years the only thing that failed was the windscreen wiper motor suddenly packed in.


I too undertake, a lot, due to using the motorway near me a lot and at points it is up to 6 lanes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In written legislation is there any difference between filtering and overtaking? I'm not aware of filtering being mentioned anywhere in the Road Traffic Act.


Bearing in mind that something being written in the highway code does not make it law, and where the highway code refers to something that is law it will be preceded by "MUST".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was filtering on the way home on the north circular and went past a motorbike policeman who was waiting in traffic. As he didn't chase me down I am assuming it's legal :mrgreen: although I did feel naughty going past him!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there a tl;dr? I just gun it down between lanes of traffic on the white lines regardless of the speed they're going (as long as it's less than 70 cos my bike doesn't go any faster...) Is that okay? If I get taken out it's probably my fault, I get that.

Edited by geofferz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not see where that shows clarity on what is filtering and how it differentiates from overtaking.

 

Because filtering is overtaking and overtaking is filtering, there is no differentiation, and therefore the clarity is that both are perfecty acceptable.


The only variable is the speeds and the volume of traffic, but it still remains an overtake.

 

In written legislation is there any difference between filtering and overtaking? I'm not aware of filtering being mentioned anywhere in the Road Traffic Act.

 

As per my reply above. It is not written into the road traffic act. It is no different to the fact that nowhere in the road traffic act does it say we must drive on the left. If driving on the right was illegal then so would filtering/overtaking.

 

Is there a tl;dr? I just gun it down between lanes of traffic on the white lines regardless of speed at speed they're going (as long as it's less than 70 cos my bike doesn't go any faster...) Is that okay? If I get taken out it's probably my fault,

 

It all depends on circumstances. There are numerous offences you may commit, there may be a few you do commit, but it all comes down to circumstances.


If you get taken out, then whether you have a claim or not again depends on the circumstances.


You could be convicted of an offence in the magistrates court, but that does not mean that you are automatically barred from making a claim for injuries.


In civil law we work on balance of probability of 51% chance of success or better, whereas to secure a conviction the prosecution have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt. They are very different tests and only occasionally do they cross over and compliment one another.


For example, you could choose to ride your bike without your helmet on or not securely fastened. Both are illegal and are a 3 point and £100 fine minimum. Most people think that if you were that stupid and then got knocked off and sustained a head injury, then because you carried out an illegal act, namely you rode with your helmet undone or missing, then you are recluded from making a claim...


Wrong!


Your compensation may be reduced by up to a maximum of 25%, that is up to a maximum, it may only be 5 or 10% on the basis that the courts take the view that it is unlikely that the injury would have been sustained despite the illegal act had it not been for the negligent or careless act of the third party. So then it has to be decided to what degree the injury could have been avoided had the rider been wearing the helmet or if it had been secured..


Ckoose to ride without any protective kit at all other than a helmet, there is no deduction at all.


Someone may allege that you were speeding at the time of or prior to a collision and therefore contributed to the cause of the crash. It is not for you to prove that you were riding at or under the speed limit, it os for the other side to prove that you were over the limit, and that is unlikely unless a full crash investigation was carried out (which only tends to happen in fatals these days), or someone like me is an independent witness and I was to give expert evidence of opinion with regards to speed (which all servng and retired traffic cops are allowed to do).


Defendants often play on excess speed for contributory negligence purposes, but they very rarely succeed, unless........There are multiple independent witnesses who give consistent evidence to support excess speed. Very rarely happens.


The point is, in civil law, although someone may be guilty of committing an offence or several offences, it does not always mean that you are screwed if you are taken out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks. What offences could one commit whilst doing what I do? Let's assume I don't crash or speed or cause any trouble - is there an undertaking law I'm breaking? Or can biked generally be on their merry way riding white lines when they please as long as they're careful and attentive?


I stay in the left lane when I'm happy with my speed, or overtake normally - I don't ride on the lines for the fun of it, just when over/undertaking traffic on both sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[For example, you could choose to ride your bike without your helmet on or not securely fastened. Both are illegal and are a 3 point and £100 fine minimum.

I saw a thing on TV with James May - he rode about with no lid in London and stated the fine was £30 only if he got stuck on, which he didn't.


True or TV bollocks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks. What offences could one commit whilst doing what I do? Let's assume I don't crash or speed or cause any trouble - is there an undertaking law I'm breaking? Or can biked generally be on their merry way riding white lines when they please as long as they're careful and attentive?


I stay in the left lane when I'm happy with my speed, or overtake normally - I don't ride on the lines for the fun of it, just when over/undertaking traffic on both sides.

 

There is no such offence as undertaking. If you read the 2nd post of this thread, I explain that.


As I say, the offences you possibly commit could be wide and varied. I have not seen what you are doing specifically, but work on the general adage of if it feels wrong it usually is wrong.


Remember that unlike crime, road traffic offences can change on nearly a daily basis, and you can commit any offence ranging from dangerous driving to failing to conform to a traffic sign. The list is endless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[For example, you could choose to ride your bike without your helmet on or not securely fastened. Both are illegal and are a 3 point and £100 fine minimum.

I saw a thing on TV with James May - he rode about with no lid in London and stated the fine was £30 only if he got stuck on, which he didn't.


True or TV bollocks?

 

The James May issue was over 6 years ago if I remember correctly.


The specific legislation sections 16 & 17 & Motorcycle (Protective Headgear) Regulations act 1988 as amended by regulation 4


Yep, sorry, there are no points and the fine is now £60. My mistake re the points. The point in my thread still stands with regards to contrib thogh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about this scenario: on my commute to work I pass a few junctions like this - left lane is straight ahead, right lane is right turn only. How would you treat the junction on a bike?

 

Capture.thumb.JPG.78aa761c4c2dfaaaaf113ec0a953f1bc.JPG

 

Very few people turn right, and the road ahead is fairly wide where it goes down to one lane again. If there's a queue of traffic in the left lane, and the right lane is empty or has a decent gap between the cars at the front when the lights are on red, I'll head to the front and then nip ahead when the lights change. If traffic is flowing ok then I just stay in lane with the cars.


I'm still very cautious/timid about filtering, but feel pretty comfortable getting to the front of the queue in situations like this. However, whilst it's all good and well that I can do it, is there any legal issue with going down the right-turn lane to then effectively jump the queue heading straight on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is there any legal issue with going down the right-turn lane to then effectively jump the queue heading straight on?

 

Legally there is no issue.


If a crash occured, as I have to keep repeating when people ask here whose fault is it, it all depends on the circumstances in respect of liability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is there any legal issue with going down the right-turn lane to then effectively jump the queue heading straight on?

 

Legally there is no issue.


If a crash occured, as I have to keep repeating when people ask here whose fault is it, it all depends on the circumstances in respect of liability.

Cheers. :thumb:


Taking the approach of "if it feels wrong, it probably is", I'm very much erring on the side of caution at the moment, and until I'm more confident I'm tending only to filter/overtake where there is a LOT of room to spare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Taking the approach of "if it feels wrong, it probably is", I'm very much erring on the side of caution at the moment, and until I'm more confident I'm tending only to filter/overtake where there is a LOT of room to spare.

 

Aye this is the best approach I think! sometimes I'd rather just wait in traffic especially if I'm tired or it's dark and wet and windy and horrible. or sometimes I just can't be arsed for the sake of 2 minutes :lol: Oh and sometimes I like to stop in traffic so I can take up the whole lane and stretch out my legs wheeeeeeeeeeee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is there any legal issue with going down the right-turn lane to then effectively jump the queue heading straight on?

 

Legally there is no issue.


If a crash occured, as I have to keep repeating when people ask here whose fault is it, it all depends on the circumstances in respect of liability.

 

Is it also the case if..if road markings say as above straight on and right turn only your fine as long as not seperate traffic light controlled on a staggered setting where you may breach an ASL on the right turn.


BUT if road markings and a sign stating lane directions then you can be at risk of prosecution for not complying (heard this from IAM observer ) .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is such a common error of positioning. Filter lane and motorcyclists take the green line. Car decides its not that turning, it's the next one and then go into the left lane to go straight without looking.


Take the red line...

231422147_Capture_2017-02-17-21-24-57.thumb.png.9726d8fcf3aaeb5e341ac84b47355dca.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Welcome to The Motorbike Forum.

    Sign in or register an account to join in.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Please Sign In or Sign Up