It's completely legal to filter.

[Yammi Dodger]

Looks like the Law might be voting in our favour for once. Filtering past stationary traffic is no longer a grey area - it's completely legal.



Filtering law revised in the UK

 

[dpaul007]

Really wish this would catch on more here in the US. Even though I never have to worry about traffic jams.

 

[lawlberg]

Rub it in why don't you!?

It'll be a long time and countless pairs of sweat-soaked boxers before we're as lucky over here. Heck, I'd be just as happy with a gray area.

 

[DavesFZ]

Rub it in why don't you!?

It'll be a long time and countless pairs of sweat-soaked boxers before we're as lucky over here. Heck, I'd be just as happy with a gray area.

Didn't you say you filtered on occasion anyways? :spank:

 

[FZ09Bandit]

It does not say its illegal in Arkansas but its like people think your saying **** you to them when you filter past

 

[rumblestrip]

Looks like the Law might be voting in our favour for once. Filtering past stationary traffic is no longer a grey area - it's completely legal.

I cannot begin to tell you how jealous I am. :spank: Good for you, though. :thumbup:

 

[Tailgate]

In ways, the US is to this day still relatively uncultured and elementary. The differences between Europe and US can be dramatic. At times, I'm embarassed to be an American. Fortunately, where I live (California) it's the one state where people don't get underwear in a bunch over motorcyclists casually maneuvering between lanes on an everyday basis. Don't ask me why it's only California allowing this practice. It's still a BFD if, for example, a female sheds her top on a public beach or free TV, or if an 18 year-old tries to buy a beer here (cops set up "sting" operations). I probably filter lanes every single day and... barely even think about it when I do it. Go Britain!

 

[lawlberg]

Didn't you say you filtered on occasion anyways? :spank:

You know me too well - There's a spot on my commute that I'd love to filter through - the cops in that town are too strict for me to risk it there though, as much as it pains me, I'd rather sweat a bit more than waste a perfectly good ticket on impatience. But yeah - if there's a wreck and the freeways are packed, I'll split through stopped traffic.

 

[iSteve]

Tailgate: You're embarrassed to be a American, yet you live in California.

I'm not sure what my state laws about this are, but where I live traffic jams only last about 30 seconds and don't usually involve more then 5 or 6 cars.

 

[Botch]

It'll be ....countless pairs of sweat-soaked boxers before we're as lucky over here. Heck, I'd be just as happy with a gray area.

I've had enough sweat-soaked boxers that I've got a couple gray areas already.


:BLAA:

 

[VEGASRIDER]

Well the state of Nevada was soooo close to legalizing it. But close doesn't cut it. Now they have wait another two years to introduce the bill.

AB236 Defeated In Nevada Senate » Lane Splitting is Legal in California

 

[Cloggy]

Looks like the Law might be voting in our favour for once. Filtering past stationary traffic is no longer a grey area - it's completely legal.

Filtering law revised in the UK

Unfortunately It seems like this is an old story and there is not much changed
I copied this article from The Spin Doctors facebook page:

*** TIPS ON TUESDAY *** Filtering & Case Law Precedents As a wholly inaccurate filtering article has reared its head again, we're going to look over the thorny issue of who's responsible in filtering accidents.

We thought this particular article was dead and buried in the mists of time but as is increasingly the way of the internet, search engines turn up old stories which are then accepted as g...ospel truth as they go viral.

In this case, we first came across the article which concerns filtering back in 2007. It can be found on the Motorbikes Today website (I'm not going to further propagate the link) and written by someone called Simon Bradley, who is a former "endurance racer, Nurburgring riding coach and occasional advanced instructor".

The article states that the law on filtering has been changed by a case heard in the Court of Appeal back in 2006.

The writer says this:

"...in the case of Davis vs Shrogin, the judge found that "a filtering motorcyclist passing stationary or very slow moving traffic could not be to blame if a collision occurred if the rider had no chance to take avoiding action"."

Bradley then jumped to the conclusion:

"Ladies and Gentlemen, filtering past stationary traffic is no longer a grey area - it's completely legal".

Unfortunately, this statement is far from accurate as the legal eagles on our discussion board back in 2007 explained.

First of all there's no "change in the law" as the article claims. The Highway Code says in the section entitled 'Road users requiring extra care; Section 211 Motorcyclists and cyclists':

"It is often difficult to see motorcyclists and cyclists, especially when they are coming up from behind, coming out of junctions, overtaking you or filtering through traffic. Always look out for them before you emerge from a junction; they could be approaching faster than you think. 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. Be especially careful when turning, and when changing direction or lane. Be sure to check mirrors and blind spots carefully."

Over to former law student 'Biker Breaker':

"Magistrate's court, crown court and county court do not provide binding judgements, even on themselves although judges will look at previous decisions if the case is sufficiently similar.

Higher court judgements, such as the Court of Appeal, are binding on themselves and lower courts except for the House of Lords who can change their minds any time they want unless contravening statute or, nowadays, EU law and judgements.

"Until this happens, or the law changes, the last judgement stands except [where] it can be shown that the case has enough differences to claim it should be decided on its own facts [and not be bound by precedent... If the manoeuvre was felt to be sufficiently different, the judge can distinguish it from the previous case by pointing out the relevant differences and not be bound by it."

In other words, each case will be judged on its merits. The precise circumstances of the accident involving Messrs Schrogin and Davis was that Mr Shroggin was stopped in a traffic jam in his car on a straight road, whilst Davis was overtaking the stationary queue on his motorcycle as nothing was coming in the opposite direction.

Mr Schrogin decided to leave the queue by executing a U-turn and failed to see the approaching bike, accepting in evidence that he had looked the wrong way. Mr Davis admitted seeing Mr Schrogin's car moving towards the kerb in preparation for the U-turn but claimed that as he was no more than five cars' length back from the point of impact, he had no chance to stop.

The trial judge found Mr Schrogin negligent in making the U-turn without looking properly, and that Mr Davis was not to blame. Mr Schrogin argued that Mr Davis had accepted that he had paused to react and was contributory negligent.

The case went to the Court of Appeal which held that Mr Davis was so close to the point of impact that he could not have avoided the collision, so there was no basis for a finding of contributory negligence.

The worrying thing is that this article has been written in such a way that it seems to give carte blanche to riders to filter and be damned to the consequences. We particularly disliked the attitude of the writer in penning this kind of statement:

"In 1972 a second case changed the finding, making it 50/50. Better but still not really acceptable. I mean, you're filtering past stationary cars and some clown t-bones you and you have to pick up half the bill?"

One thing we always suggest is that riders try to see any potentially hazardous situation from the other road user's perspective. The writer is probably referring to the case of Leeson vs. Bevis Transport (1972), where the motorcyclist was found equally responsible for an accident where a van driver emerged from a side road. Let's look from the van driver's perspective. It would be easy to rewrite the statement above as:

"YI'm trying to pull out of a side-turning into a busy street with parked vehicles on either side making it almost impossible to see, and some clown filtering past the bus that has kindly let me out t-bones me and I have to pick up half the bill?"

A key point in this particular case was almost certainly that Mr Schrogin accepted that he hadn't looked properly. Had he not accepted blame in that way, things might have been different, because we were rather surprised that the rider wasn't held to be at least partially responsible.

Given five car lengths distance in which to stop, a reasonably skilled and alert rider prepared to brake hard could have stopped safely from any speed up to about 30mph. The implication is either that the rider wasn't alert, wasn't skilled... or was travelling faster than 30mph past a stationary queue. For the record, during 16 years and about half a million miles of despatching the only thing I ever hit when filtering was a taxi driver's door on a one way street when he opened it to empty his ash tray.

So there you have it. Case law sets a precedent but a precedent that only applies in identical circumstances and the assessment of an individual case will depend heavily on statements and witnesses.

And in any case, being on the right side of insurance claim doesn't mean that doing nothing to maintain our own safety in any riding situation is the right and sensible option! If an injury is on the cards if things go wrong - and filtering accidents lead to more injuries and fatalities than most riders realise - then avoiding getting into a potentially dangerous situation is something worth avoiding!

There's not much point in being in the legal 'right' if we're carted off in a pine box!

 

[greg]

as the police told me, "isn't this one of the reasons you got a bike?"

it was a grey area as it is mentioned in the highway code, but not talked about specifically

 

[mylo]

ive been on bikes 13 years now and have filtered from the start - i live in Dublin city center if i was to wait in traffic behind cars id pull my hair out, that defeats the purpose of having a bike in my opinion , ive filtered past garda (police) 1000s of times ,im unaware of any law against filtering in Ireland and if there is one the vast majority of Irish bikers dont know about it/pay attention to it and neither do the garda :thumbup:

 

[greg]

a slightly more recent judgement is the following (nicked from another forum I'm on)

MARCEL BEASLEY (BY HIS LITIGATION FRIEND CADELL BEASLEY) v PAUL ALEXANDER (2012)

A car driver who pulled out to execute a turn in the path of a motorcyclist was liable for injuries sustained by the latter because he had failed to ensure that the way was clear before making his manoeuvre. Even though the motorcyclist was travelling too fast, he would not have had time to avoid a serious accident if he had been travelling at a lesser speed and was therefore not contributorily negligent.

The court was required to apportion liability following a road traffic accident between the claimant motorcyclist (B) and the defendant car driver (D).

D had been stuck in traffic on a straight section of a single-lane A road subject to a 60 mph speed limit. B had been riding his motorcycle on the same road, in the same direction, behind D. D decided to execute a u-turn and go back in the opposite direction to escape the queue. In his statement made on the day of the accident, D stated that he had indicated for about 30 seconds before pulling out into the opposite lane. However, in a later witness statement he said that he had been indicating for 15 to 20 seconds before starting to turn. He had then collided with B, who was filtering past the queue of traffic and was thrown off his motorbike. B sustained severe injuries, including to his brain. Various witnesses gave evidence, including a driver who had been travelling in the opposite direction and who had just passed D when the collision occurred. The issues were whether D was liable for B's injuries; and if so, whether B was contributorily negligent.

HELD: On the evidence, D had turned immediately after the oncoming vehicle had passed: he might have halted briefly, but it was more likely that he had assumed his passage was then clear and that his wheels had kept turning. Once the oncoming car had passed, D had turned in a way which struck witnesses as sudden, and it was likely that his car, being powerful and light, moved significantly faster than the average vehicle. D's evidence as to when he turned on his indicator was contradictory. It had to be concluded that he had started indicating at the last moment once the oncoming car had passed and had not looked in his mirror properly, otherwise he would have seen B approaching him from behind. The probability was that, once the oncoming car had passed, D assumed that his passage was clear. There was no doubt that D had been negligent (see para.13 of judgment). (2) D had pulled out in front of B when he was only a short distance away, and B had had no chance of avoiding him. The expert evidence showed that B was most likely travelling at 45 mph before the collision. Although B might have been able to apply his brakes, he did not have time to reduce his speed by much or to avoid a serious accident. That conclusion was supported by independent eyewitness evidence. B was travelling somewhat too fast, as the top safe speed would have been 35 mph in the circumstances. However, even at that speed there would have still been an accident in which B would have sustained serious injury. Accordingly, there was no contributory negligence (paras 14-15, 17-18 of judgment).

The summary is to be that the motorcyclist was found not at fault as he had no time to react, despite speeding, the car driver may have indicated too, but didn't check it was clear.

The full case is here: Beasley v Alexander [2012] EWHC 2197 (QB) (27 July 2012)

 

[Nelly]

ive been on bikes 13 years now and have filtered from the start - i live in Dublin city center if i was to wait in traffic behind cars id pull my hair out, that defeats the purpose of having a bike in my opinion , ive filtered past garda (police) 1000s of times ,im unaware of any law against filtering in Ireland and if there is one the vast majority of Irish bikers dont know about it/pay attention to it and neither do the garda :thumbup:

I was up in Dublin today for a conference at the Royal College of Physicians, it's ages since I have ridden in proper traffic. I filtered from Lucan all the way in to Kildare street. I was wondering if it was legal? I saw a few bikes doing it so I followed suit.
I also used the bus lanes but couldn't work out from the signs if it was permitted or not?

Neil

 

[mylo]

I was up in Dublin today for a conference at the Royal College of Physicians, it's ages since I have ridden in proper traffic. I filtered from Lucan all the way in to Kildare street. I was wondering if it was legal? I saw a few bikes doing it so I followed suit.
I also used the bus lanes but couldn't work out from the signs if it was permitted or not?

Neil

i drive from city center past Lucan to Lexlip most days also use bus lanes but that is illegal (but not after the times stated on the bus lane sign which is usually 7am-7pm which means all traffic can use them after 7pm although some are 24 hours and can only be used by busses) ive been stopped before for doing it by a garda trying to catch out cars using lanes to get through traffic quicker but the gardai didnt do anything just said dont drive in bus lanes until the allowed times , i just said i wasnt waiting in the traffic behind cars and it was safer to use the buslane as i didnt want to drive to close to the slow moving/stationary cars and he said fair point and off i went :thumbup: i was in London the weekend and seen motorbikes can use buslanes there so its weird how different countries have different rules

 

[nivag]

i drive from city center past Lucan to Lexlip most days also use bus lanes but that is illegal (but not after the times stated on the bus lane sign which is usually 7am-7pm which means all traffic can use them after 7pm although some are 24 hours and can only be used by busses) ive been stopped before for doing it by a garda trying to catch out cars using lanes to get through traffic quicker but the gardai didnt do anything just said dont drive in bus lanes until the allowed times , i just said i wasnt waiting in the traffic behind cars and it was safer to use the buslane as i didnt want to drive to close to the slow moving/stationary cars and he said fair point and off i went :thumbup: i was in London the weekend and seen motorbikes can use buslanes there so its weird how different countries have different rules

Be careful of the bus lanes in London, you need to check the signs to see if it's ok to be in them, otherwise a camera will catch you and send a fine in the post... It's just not cricket being caught like that!

 

[pookamatic]

I've pretty much stopped filtering 100%. I'll never get the image I saw in the mirror of the guy who intentionally tried clip me.

I soooooo look forward to the day it is legal in the US. Sadly, the motivation$ for the government just isn't there.

 

[pookamatic]

Has there been any attempts to start a petition on the White House page?