If a car and motorcycle collide, who's at fault in this scenario?

mark1959

DoaM wrote: »

When I used to ride I'd never dream of filtering at 20 mph differential ... more like 10 mph for me. (20 mph doesn't give any time to react if a driver of another vehicle does something stupid like change lanes without indicating, or closes the gap "because bikes shouldn't be allowed to filter").

This, all day long. The amount of drivers who seem to get annoyed that i'm filtering [i.e. getting past them] is, well, quite a few. This doesn't include those who are staring at their phones.

C_Mababejive

matttye wrote: »

I can’t think why you’d want to wait all day rather than just pull out when people are being courteous?

There are junctions on my way to work where I’d be sat there for about an hour in the morning traffic if people didn’t stop to let cars out.

My view is that I and I alone will decide when and how the vehicle im driving will move because i have ultimate responsibility for it.

It is fine to assist the flow of traffic safely in the manner you describe. I do it myself when appropriate,,but i am referring to situations where there is un-necessary courtesy and a rewriting of the highway code which leads to greater danger.

almillar

And tonight the challenge is for anyone to find a valid legal rule that says filtering is an acceptable practice.

It's not filtering its overtaking

You just trolling (motor)cyclists?

Overtaking requires use of a lane, filtering does not, at a very basic level. And is perfectly acceptable, whether there's a statute in law or not. Onus is put on the filterer to do it safely, and if other road users are following the rules (not laws, again), they will be fine.

Also, post 19!

Car_54

almillar wrote: »

You just trolling (motor)cyclists?

Overtaking requires use of a lane, filtering does not, at a very basic level. And is perfectly acceptable, whether there's a statute in law or not. Onus is put on the filterer to do it safely, and if other road users are following the rules (not laws, again), they will be fine.

Also, post 19!

FWIW the only legal definition of overtaking that I'm aware of is



"(a)to pass ahead of the foremost part of any other motor vehicle proceeding in the same direction; or

(b)to pass ahead of the foremost part of a vehicle which is stationary for the purpose of complying with the indication given by a traffic light signal for controlling vehicular traffic."


[The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, section 28(1)]


It follows that use of a separate lane is not required, and also that filtering is overtaking.



It is also clear that any anyone who filters in a no-overtaking area is committing an offence.

DoaM

[quote=[Deleted User];74978811]It is also clear that any anyone who filters in a no-overtaking area is committing an offence.[/QUOTE]

Are you saying that a (motor)cyclist cannot overtake where there are solid white lines, even if they don't cross the white line to perform the manoeuvre? (A vehicle with more than 2 wheels is highly unlikely to do the same without crossing the white line).

Or are you talking about areas where specific No Overtaking signage is present?

Car_54

DoaM wrote: »

Are you saying that a (motor)cyclist cannot overtake where there are solid white lines, even if they don't cross the white line to perform the manoeuvre? (A vehicle with more than 2 wheels is highly unlikely to do the same without crossing the white line).

Or are you talking about areas where specific No Overtaking signage is present?

The latter. The DWL prohibition says "... every vehicle proceeding on any length of road along which the marking has been so placed that, as viewed in the direction of travel of the vehicle, a continuous line is on the left of a broken line or of another continuous line, shall be so driven as to keep the first-mentioned continuous line on the right hand or off side of the vehicle."


So a motorcyclist is OK provided the WHOLE of the bike (including rider) keeps to the left of the line.

reeac

There is an important practical difference between filtering and overtaking in this scenario. That difference is visibility. The motor bike in this case was overtaking in which case there is no way that it would be visible to the car driver if it was overtaking a bus or lorry. I know because this happened to me in East Finchley High Street a year or so ago. No collision because I was watching (both directions!) very carefully and stopped in time. The biker did a minimal swerve plus some shouting. If he had been filtering then I would have been able to see him approach despite parked vehicles. The situation demonstrates the reason for banning overtaking at the approach to a junction.

unholyangel

[quote=[Deleted User];74978811]FWIW the only legal definition of overtaking that I'm aware of is



"(a)to pass ahead of the foremost part of any other motor vehicle proceeding in the same direction; or

(b)to pass ahead of the foremost part of a vehicle which is stationary for the purpose of complying with the indication given by a traffic light signal for controlling vehicular traffic."


[The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, section 28(1)]


It follows that use of a separate lane is not required, and also that filtering is overtaking.



It is also clear that any anyone who filters in a no-overtaking area is committing an offence.[/QUOTE]

The section you've quoted isn't about overtaking (let alone a definition of it). Its conveying a prohibition on motorvehicles within the confines of zigzags approaching signal controlled crossings.

28.—(1) Without prejudice to regulation 27, a zig-zag line shall convey the requirement that, whilst any motor vehicle (in this regulation called “the approaching vehicle”) or any part of it is within the limits of a controlled area and is proceeding towards the signal-controlled crossing facility to which the controlled area relates, the driver of the vehicle shall not cause it or any part of it—

(a)to pass ahead of the foremost part of any other motor vehicle proceeding in the same direction; or
(b)to pass ahead of the foremost part of a vehicle which is stationary for the purpose of complying with the indication given by a traffic light signal for controlling vehicular traffic.

Car_54

unholyangel wrote: »

The section you've quoted isn't about overtaking (let alone a definition of it). Its conveying a prohibition on motorvehicles within the confines of zigzags approaching signal controlled crossings.

If it isn’t about overtaking, why is it entitled “Road marking shown in diagram 1001.3 : zig-zag lines - no overtaking”?

Do you know any other definition within the legislation?

Can you think of a better definition than that in (a)?

unholyangel

[quote=[Deleted User];74980596]If it isn’t about overtaking, why is it entitled “Road marking shown in diagram 1001.3 : zig-zag lines - no overtaking”?

Do you know any other definition within the legislation?

Can you think of a better definition than that in (a)?[/QUOTE]

As I said, its conveying a prohibition on motorvehicles within the confines of zigzag lines approaching a signal controlled crossing. Its only setting rules on zigzags , its not setting any rules about overtaking.

If its about overtaking and not about zigzags, why is it in the traffic sign regulations under section 4 for road markings?