Filtering.

[Lonewolf]

Yep, filtering or lane splitting as its sometimes called. I had an email yesterday from the bike coordinator of our local RoSPA group and in and amongst a few other things he mentioned that there had recently been a court case involving filtering. No other details at this time but I was wondering, is anyone familiar with the case he is referring to? I'm hoping to get to their monthly meet this evening at Wakefield, providing I'm not too busy at work. It is apparantly one of the topics which is going to be discussed.
Any ideas anyone?

[Therenback]

Be interested here more details if you get em LR

[Mogster]

I did hear that the plod were using the ASBO law to cover 'agressive filtering' as it could be deemed an 'anti social act', but i'm fairly sure that if they wanted the plod could do you for 'driving without due consideration for other road users'.

Hopefully the rider concerned got good legal cover as usually when you go before the courts you get judged by a school teacher, a housewife and a retired major. All of which think Bikers should be taken outside and flogged.

[Cartman]

Not illegal if carried out correctly, as Highway Code describes, but there is a distinction apparently between filtering and lane splitting, and according to my local force it's speed. Sadly like so much it's open to interpretation.

[Lonewolf]

I don't believe there is anything wrong personally with filtering unless of course it is done in an inconsiderate and aggressive manner. Yes, speed is something which is taken into consideration whilst filtering if it all goes wrong but there is no maximum figure in writing which is deemed to be acceptable.

It's that old chestnut, everything is open to interpretation based on all the other factors present at the time, type of road, width of road, weather, general visibility, speed of other vehicles, speed of your vehicle relative to the other vehicles, your visibility, likelihood of other vehicles having to change lanes in anticipation of approaching junctions, other visible hazards, hazards which may not yet be apparant, etc, the list goes on and on.

I don't see how the ASBO policy can be connected to filtering, if anything you'd get a S59 warning  for due care. There is however talk of a ticket in the pipeline for due care which I don't think is a good idea because it could be open to abuse dependant on who was permitted to issue it.

[Cartman]

Spot on Mr Wolf, as always .

I do despair though, it's all new regs and tickets but there is no one to enforce them , counted the number of people on their phone yesterday. Over a 70 mile journey to work, 78!, and that's just the ones I saw.

[Lonewolf]

Cartman, 78 on their phone, holy smoke!!
I can laugh about it now but I wasn't laughing at the time. I once nearly got shafted big style at work for the way I dealt with someone who was on their phone and nearly knocked me down along with three others. Anyway I digress ;D

[cpettifer]

Slightly off-topic...

Are the panniers wider than the mirrors? Anyone clonked 'em on anything while performing said filtering / lane splitting manoeuvres?

[Therenback]

not had any scrapes while filtering yet, think mirrors just top it but sure it that wrong an oracle with a tape measure will correct my simple self  :-X

[Rusty]

A mon avis .... for what it's worth .... I think the ASBO bit is Bollox to be honest .. just can't see anyone at CPS writing that one up  ;D
This whole issue brings into question 2 points for me.
1. The whole subject of filtering is just so subjective that you could show a bit of video of said filtering to several different " experts " for example.... Traffic Officers, ROSPA examiners, barristers and they would all give you a different view as to wether it was anti social or dangerous or careless .... It really would not be worth following that one through the courts as you could guarantee that wether found proved or not the other side would appeal against conviction time and time again until a Crown Court Judge knocked it on the head to stop wasting public time and money or the other party just gave up.
2. The officer who has instigated this has better have a good case as to why he didn't go down the lines of a much simpler Sec 59 there and then ... that to me is what that particular legislation was bought in for ... sort things out on the spot there and then.
There you have it, according to Rusty  ;D

[Lonewolf]

Well having just got back from the RoSPA meet this evening it would appear that there is now a new train of thought in respect of blame worthyness re filtering and then having an off as a result of a sucessful Crown Court appeal from 2011.
Let me have a read through it all to make sure I have my facts right and to digest it and then I'll put some info on here for peoples thoughts. It makes interesting reading though and may just make you stop and consider whether you really want to filter the next time an opportuunity presents itself.

[Rusty]

This is going to create an awful lot of typing .... you know that don't you ?  ;D

[Lonewolf]

There will be an update tomorrow after Ive finished my last shift, I'm too knackered now.

[Martin#30]

..... No other details at this time but I was wondering, is anyone familiar with the case he is referring to?

Posted by a friendly forum accident investigator on another forum I frequent, not sure if this is the same case that your RoSPA contact was referring to. Looks like common sense to me, if we are filtering on our bikes, we *should* exhibit caution and not feel we can filter at speed with impunity.

Martin.

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.


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.


BURTON v EVITT (2011)

CA (Civ Div) (Sir Anthony May (President QBD), Black LJ, Kitchin LJ) 18/10/2011

PERSONAL INJURY - ROAD TRAFFIC

APPORTIONMENT : DRIVERS : MOTORCYCLES : ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS : APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY : INABILITY OF DRIVER TO SEE BEHIND VEHICLE WHEN DRIVING

A driver was found to be 20 per cent liable for a road traffic accident caused when he turned whilst being unable to see an approaching motorcycle being driven quickly and overtaking other vehicles. Where a driver was unable to see what was behind him it was necessary for him to inch out to gain a better view.

The appellant (E) appealed against a decision that he had been negligent and was one-third responsible for a road traffic accident involving E and the respondent (B). E was driving his car at the front of a queue of traffic. He slowed down, looked in his mirror and saw nothing except a larger vehicle behind him. E, when almost at a standstill, then started to turn right into a car park. The driver of the vehicle behind E then saw a motorcycle, driven by B, at the corner of his vehicle, overtaking. B drove forwards, collided with E's car and sustained severe injuries. At trial the judge found that B was driving at an unsafe speed and in such a way that he could not deal with an emergency and so was negligent. However, it was also found that it was E's duty to move his car closer to, and perhaps over, the centre of the line in the road so that, using his wing mirror, he could have seen B approaching and that E's failure to do so meant that he was causatively responsible for the accident. It was found that B was two-thirds responsible and E one-third responsible for the accident. E submitted that although any driver should have been aware of any other driver overtaking on the outside, he had slowed down and checked just before he turned and, to require more, was a counsel of perfection.

HELD: (1) It was common ground that in driving along such a road, there was a need to be particularly aware of the presence of motorcycles and that they might overtake lines of cars. E initially acted with considerable care but, when crawling, he could not see what might be coming up on the offside. 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. E's appeal in respect of negligence was therefore unsuccessful. (2) B's negligence was of a very high order and contributed to what happened. The issue of blameworthiness of E and B required greater analysis than it received. Proper apportionment had to take into account the different negligence issues in respect of E and B. It was appropriate to set aside the trial judge's apportionment and replace it with apportionment that B was 80 per cent and E 20 per cent liable.

Appeal allowed in part

So word of warning guys, be carefull with your speed when filtering

[mecki]

I'm not so sure I would call this a case of filtering.
Sounds more like a dangerous overtaking manoeuvre that went bad to me.
If the car driver indicated he wanted to turn right I'd say it wasn't his fault at all and the biker shouldn't have tried to overtake him.
If he didn't indicate he would be partly at fault, though.
The biker should nevertheless have expected that the car at the front of the queue wanted to turn right, taken more care and he would still be OK.
Even if he thought it was "unexpected" behaviour for a car slowing down before a carpark entrance on the right with oncoming traffic  ;D ;D

He should have asked himself, 'why did that car slow down to cause the queue?'
If this would have been a multiple choice question it would probably look like this
a) it has broken down - so I have to expect that the lorry behind it will pull out in front of me once there is a gap in oncoming traffic.
b) he wants to turn into the carpark on the right - so he will pull out as well once there is a gap.
c) there is some sort of obstacle in front of him that I can't see because of the lorry - same as above.
d) Any one of the above
e) Everyone has seen me and thinks I am Valentino Rossi. They will admire me speeding past them - open up the throttle and give em all a thrill.
Mr B obviously thought option e) was the right answer and found out the hard way that he was wrong.
My reaction - slow down, keep an eye on the front wheel of the car in front of you and prepare to hit the brakes at any time.
It's absolute madness to speed past a potentially dangerous spot like that.

We don't just need a Think Bike! but also a Biker Think! campaign.

While we are at the subject of filtering.
I saw a documentary on TV the other day about how our brains filter information.
Their is a flood of signals bombarding the brain at any time, but it can only process a limited amount of data in a given time frame.
One of the mechanisms to solve that conflict is for the brain to suppress irrelevant signals.
That's why most people miss the guy in the gorilla suit walking through the picture when they concentrate on the action in the foreground and car drivers literally don't see a bike when they turn because they are only looking for other cars.
Interesting to know the next time somebody says, 'I really didn't see you'. They are probably telling you the truth.