Motorists 'filtering', particularly when there's a queue, can often lead to road traffic accidents, and there are several good examples of case law
The Highway Code gives guidance for drivers and riders on filtering, with Section 167 stating you shouldn't overtake where you might 'come into conflict with other road users'.
It gives examples of not overtaking when approaching or at a junction on either side of the road, where traffic is queuing at junctions, or when a road user is indicating right – even if you believe the signal should have been cancelled.
Section 211 advises drivers that it's often difficult to see motorcyclists and cyclists when they are executing certain manoeuvres, including filtering through traffic. It also states that when turning right across a line of slow-moving or stationary traffic, look out for cyclists or motorcyclists on the inside of the traffic you are crossing.
Whilst the Highway Code undoubtedly helps, the cases below – including some High Court appeals – highlight the dangers.
Powell v Moody (1966)
The defendant was exiting a minor road onto a main road. There was a queue of traffic on the main road, and he was invited to leave the minor road by a driver on the main road in the queue of traffic.
As he did so the claimant, on a motorbike, was riding along the offside of the queue and collided with the defendant's vehicle.
The judge found the claimant to be 80% to blame, as any party jumping a queue of stationary vehicles is 'undertaking an operation fraught with great hazard'.
Clarke v Winchurch (1969)
Here, the defendant drove his car from the kerb, facing oncoming traffic when a bus stopped to allow him to cross.
The claimant was riding a moped, overtaking the stationary traffic and bus, and collided with the defendant's vehicle.
The judge considered the claimant wholly to blame for the accident.
Of great importance here was that the bus was stopped, but not at a bus stop, and this should have alerted the claimant travelling around it.
Leeson v Bevis & Tolchard Ltd (1972)
In this case, a van driver was coming out of a driveway and was flashed by a lorry driver who had stopped on the main road to let the van driver emerge. A motorcyclist overtook the lorry and collided with the van.
The judge held that the van driver and motorcyclist were equally to blame.
At appeal it was said that the motorcyclist should have observed the gap opposite the driveway, and should therefore have been aware.
Worsfold v Howe (1980)
A motorcyclist was proceeding in a second lane of traffic with the nearside lane stationary due to a queue of vehicles.
A driver pulled out from a side road and it was found that there is no principle of law that a driver was entitled to emerge blind from a minor road onto a major road by inching forward beyond his line of vision and that if he did so he was under no liability.
The judge found the parties equally to blame, the motorcyclist for again not considering the implications of a gap in the nearside lane of traffic.
Hillman v Tompkins (1995)
The defendant was driving a car in slow moving traffic approaching traffic signals. A motorcyclist was filtering past in same direction.
The defendant signalled to turn right into a junction. The judge found the car had not moved clear of the line of traffic and the motorcycle was 'speeding' at 30-40mph. Blame was apportioned 50/50.
Brooks v Burgess (1996)
There was a collision between the parties when the motorist crossed a junction in front of a stationary coach at 5 to 10 mph, in the path of a motorcycle travelling along the nearside of the coach at 20 mph.
The car driver was held primarily responsible for the accident because she was travelling along a minor road across a major road and should have been aware of the gap along the nearside of the coach and of the possibility that a motorcycle, bicycle or pedestrian might be travelling along the major road across the junction.
It was held on appeal that both parties were equally to blame for the accident. Both parties were performing dangerous manoeuvres and each should have been aware of the obvious risk involved.
Davis v Schrogin (2006)
This case also went to appeal. The defendant was stuck in a traffic jam on a straight road, with the claimant riding his motorcycle on the same road in the same direction.
As there was no traffic coming from the other direction, the motorcyclist was overtaking the stationary traffic. The defendant had decided to perform a U-turn to get out of the queue and moved to the left of the queue before beginning the U-turn.
The judge found that the defendant had been negligent in not looking properly before beginning his turn. He also did not believe that the motorcyclist had time to see the defendant's manoeuvre, and that the claimant couldn't have done anything to avoid the accident.
On appeal, it was decided that once the judge had found as a primary fact that the motorcyclist was so close to the point of impact that he could not have avoided the collision, there was simply no basis for any finding of contributory negligence. The judge's decision would be upheld.
No hard and fast rule
What all of these cases show is that each is decided on its merits. There are no hard and fast rules, and courts will look at all of the evidence.
Access Legal, from Shoosmiths often hears people talking about judges being 'anti-biker', but what these cases show is that judges look at the facts.
Any party jumping a queue of stationary vehicles is 'undertaking an operation fraught with great hazard'.
Judges accept that bikes filter. "Undesirable as it may be, motorcyclists do and can be expected to overtake in circumstances of this kind," one judge is quoted as saying.
Both parties' behaviour leading up to an accident and the full circumstances of it are considered. Speeding past a queue of traffic at a dangerous speed and ignoring a big gap in front of a bus are likely to lead to problems if a car emerges from a side road into that gap. When filtering, do so with care and anticipate the actions of other road users.
I don't think there is a problem then taking a position just in front of the ASL, and I have done that.
