Car drivers = grrr!

Markyt

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

B011ockl5

My Police Motorcycle Handbook says otherwise.

Gordon861

If you want an interesting read take a look at : http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme5/indepthstudyofmotorcycleacc.pdf

It's a government study on motorcycle accidents from 2004, and probably a good read for any new motorcyclist or car driver to see what to look out for.

It has examples of accidents and what causes them.

The largest cause is ROWVs (Right of Way Violations)

Of the total cases, 681 (38%) involve ROWVs. However, less than 20% of these
involve a motorcyclist who rated as either fully or partly to blame for the accident.
The majority of motorcycle ROWVaccidents have been found to be primarily the
fault of other motorists. This is an even higher level of ‘non-blameworthiness’ in
ROWVaccidents than that observed in other in-depth studies, e.g. Hurt et al. (1981)

The majority of ROWVs occur at T-junctions, which are three times as common as
roundabouts or crossroads. This finding is in accordance with the work of Hole,
Tyrell and Langham (1996), who found that the majority of such accidents occurred
at ‘uncontrolled’ (i.e. no stop light or sign with only give-way markings and/or signs

present) T-junctions in urban environments.

When these cases are examined, it can be seen that the most common failure of
other drivers in motorcycle accidents is a failure in the continuity of their
observation of the road scene. Over 65% of ROWVaccidents where the motorcyclist
is not regarded as to blame involve a driver who somehow fails to see a motorcyclist
who should be in clear view, and, indeed, frequently is in view to witnesses or other
road users in the area. Failures of observation that involve drivers failing to take
account of restricted views of one kind or another, and failing to judge the approach
speed and/or distance of a motorcyclist, are not included in this category.
Sometimes, accident-involved drivers in motorcycle accidents fail to see riders even
when they are verifiably using visibility aids, such as daytime running lights and
high-visibility protective clothing. This occurs in over 12% of such cases (but the
level of use of these aids to visibility is felt to be under-reported by police).

The discussion bit from page 46 is really worth reading.

FakeIrish

johnsm wrote: »

Bikers don't filter filter at 100mph, and I haven't seen any biker filter faster that what's appropriate

Some do indeed filter at such speed! And equally, some also filter faster than what is deemed appropriate!

negg

I've never seen a bike filter at 100mph - probably it's impossible to do!

Do not mix up filtering with overtaking.

Overtaking is ... well we all know what that is!

Filtering is when in a traffic jam, the biker goes down the dotted lines a little faster than the other traffic with the traffic on both sides of him/her.

FakeIrish

negg wrote: »

I've never seen a bike filter at 100mph - probably it's impossible to do!

Do not mix up filtering with overtaking.

Overtaking is ... well we all know what that is!

Filtering is when in a traffic jam, the biker goes down the dotted lines a little faster than the other traffic with the traffic on both sides of him/her.

No it's not impossible - I used to do it:eek: No need to pat me on the back for achieving the "impossible" or rant at me - I don't do it anymore:p

cyclonebri1

Barny1979 wrote: »

Bike riders don't overtake cars usually, they undertake them

Can you be more precise??

Or at least add something to the discusion

Altarf

johnsm wrote: »

We're talking about filtering, which is legal.

But only in very specific circumstances - In 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 occured if the rider had no chance to take avoiding action"

So if the motorcyclist is passing between cars that are anything other than stationary or moving very slow (5mph?) and anything happens, then they are at least partly to blame.

And if they are passing on the outside of a traffic queue, then they are simply overtaking and the Highway Code rules apply. Lets pick a selection -

163 - Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should
* not get too close to the vehicle you intend to overtake
* stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues.

167 - DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example
* approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road
* where traffic is queuing at junctions or road works

johnfarquhar74

Altarf wrote: »

And if they are passing on the outside of a traffic queue, then they are simply overtaking and the Highway Code rules apply. Lets pick a selection -

163 - Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should
* not get too close to the vehicle you intend to overtake
* stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues.

167 - DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example
* approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road
* where traffic is queuing at junctions or road works

The way I was told it by a former police motorcyclist instructor, filtering and overtaking are two completely different maneouvres. Basically, as I remember it, overtaking was generally when you pass 1 or 2 vehicles travelling at road speed. Filtering, as the name suggests, is when faster/lighter modes of transport pass through a congested zone of traffic without breaking any laws. The 'former' police instructor took great care to highlight laws and not highway code as there can be many codes depending on your mode of transport(highway code generally being the most widely recognised) but only the law can be referred to in court.
They then went on to suggest filtering was perfectly legal if the speed of 'filter' did not generally exceed +10mph of the congested traffic. I have never seen this written down anywhere so can only assume it was an interpretation and not a widely recognised rule.

Gordon861

Something else that should be pointed out is the fact that the Highway Code is not the law. It is guidance and a code of conduct for using the road.

The only law that really matters is the Road Traffic Act and it's amendments.

A very good example is the signs that are on a lot of buses saying "Give way to the bus, Highway Code rule XX" (sorry don't remember the number). This is a suggestion not a rule/law.

In fact from : http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070236

Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. An explanation of the abbreviations can be found in 'The road user and the law'.

Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see 'The road user and the law') to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.

So as you can see from Altarf's quote above and the use of the words 'should' and 'Do Not' these don't fit within the codes own guide to the actual law. In fact the only one within that area of rules (overtaking : http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070314) that mentions MUST NOT also includes the actual RTA details as well.

165


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]

I really wish people would read the actual laws relating to issues rather than taking the easy Tabloid version of the laws when trying to make these arguements.

dizzybuff

its a well known fact that bus drivers are taught 2 flashes and pull out regardless of whats on the road .

A signal is exactly that , a sigle of what you wish / intend to do . Just because u signal to go into a lane give you the automatic right 2 manuvour into that lane.
and plus you give way if it is safe to do so in the case of buses or any other traffic .. I would NOT give way if i had a line of traffic behind me , the bus can frankly wait as i will not jeapodise the people in the cars by breaking, in a car or on a bike...