Filtering, The Law and You
Filtering or Lane Splitting’ on a grand scale in Taiwan. Image: Wikimedia |
This is the third Legal Eagle article by our guest writer Tony Carter. Tony is a former Police instructor and RoSPA examiner and a trained accident investigator. He works for the well-known legal firm of McMillan Williams, whose highly qualified team specialises in motorcycling and the law, from insurance claims to motoring offences.
Here, Tony talks about filtering, or ‘lane splitting’ – a controversial subject and about which there is much confusion. Riding like this is illegal in the US but it’s OK in the UK, where being passed by a biker while stationary in your car is not unusual. For many bikers, especially those that live in cities, filtering is central to why they want a bike in the first place; to make progress in a gridlocked world, to be free. But with freedom comes risk and responsibility, as Tony explains. |
Freedom to Filter..
One of the advantages of riding a motorcycle is that we as riders can continue to make progress where other vehicles can’t. When traffic is stationary or moving slowly in queues, motorcyclists can use their maneuverability and size to continue relatively unimpeded. However with this benefit comes a high degree of responsibility. And is it actually illegal? When does filtering become an overtake?
Well, to begin with, filtering is not in itself illegal. And speed is not necessarily the issue either. What counts are the individual circumstances of the case, including whether it is safe and reasonable to filter and whether all other regulations and laws are complied with. The Highway Code and the Police Riders Handbook – ‘Road Craft’, all mention filtering and state that it requires great care and attention from the motorcyclist. But crucially, no offence is committed as long as 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.  Image: Wikimedia. The Blame Game
However, too many riders are injured as a result of filtering, so danger in carrying out the manoeuvre is very real. What happens if an accident occurs? Who’s to blame and who must pay? In England, such cases are often dealt with by reference to legal precedents – previous accidents and on which judgement has been passed. The first major case decided by the Court of Appeal was Powell v Moody in 1966. The circumstances of this accident were that the motorcyclist filtered along the offside of two lanes of stationary 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 and stated that it was effectively the burden of the motorcyclist to ensure that it was safe to overtake. The concept of queuing goes deep into the British psyche and there is a subconscious objection to those that “jump the queue”. If an accident happens where someone is doing this, the reaction has always been to blame the person who is in breach of what’s seen as the natural order. In this case, the Court held that the motorcyclist was 80% to blame and his claim was reduced by the same amount. A similar incident occurred in Leeson v Bevis and Tolchard (1972) when a bike was filtering and passed a single line of queuing traffic at 15 mph. A van pulled out 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. In 1980 came the case of Worsfold v Howe (1980). This happened on 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 10-30 mph. A tanker had left a gap in front of it to allow traffic to emerge from a yard on the left. A car emerged slowly in front of the tanker across both lanes to turn right and 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. Then we got the case of Pell v Moseley heard by the Court of Appeal in 2003. Here we had a single lane carriage way in each direction subject to a 60 mph limit. The motorcyclist began to overtake a line of traffic when he came into collision with a car which intended to turn right where a motocross event was taking place. The Court of Appeal found the motorcyclist 50% to blame stating that the motorcyclist failed to notice that the Defendant’s 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 motocross event and should have considered 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 came the case of Davis v Schrogin in 2006, heard by the Court of Appeal. Here, an accident occurred on a long straight 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. A car lost patience and carried out a U turn when the motorcycle was close, consequently 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.  The risk of collision is always present when filtering. Pic: Bournemouth Echo. Unfortunately the motorcycling press over-reacted to this case, one paper suggesting that bikers could now filter in any circumstances and recover 100% of their compensation. That euphoria was short lived following the case of Farley v Buckley in 2007. Here, 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 30 mph overtook the wagon, when the car drove out in one continuous movement at 5-8 miles per hour. A collision occurred. Back to Top >
 Pic: Daily Telegraph Back to Top >
|
|
