Filtering vs Overtaking

[timwilky]

Originally Posted by Noufy

Isn't that for single white lines and they must be doing 10mph or less?

Applies to doubles as well. I did say slow moving although you are quite correct with the definition at < 10mph

we learn everyday

as far as im concerned, filtering is going past anything on the road, but cutting it close

trick

filtering . . . alot of people think bikes arnt allowed to. . .but its a grey area,

double white lines - see 108 of the highway code.

Originally Posted by BillyC

Absolutely not... it's a manouvre clearly described in the Highway Code, as one that car drivers should be very aware of.

However, it can often be seen as overtaking, and when a car pulls out infront of you knocking you off - because they didn't look; the motorcyclist can often end up with the blame.

Someone (LynW) has provided this argument on Filtering, and the responsibilities of drivers to look when they decide to change direction!

www.feelthecheese.com/Filtering.htm

Hi

Where is Filtering defined in the Highway code? I've just looked online and can't find a definition.

Also, what's the context behind your link to the Filtering page? It looks like a very poorly argued insurance claim, but doesn't include any information on the outcome or counter-arguments. Does it come from a site with a better definition of filtering?

Thanks

Rob

Originally Posted by Muttley

No, but illiterate posters should be.

HTH.

soz im dyslexic not a gr8 speller

A lot of the filtering stuff comes down to personal choice - personally I find that filtering at more than 30mph than the other traffic sets of alarm bells and can be unpleasant, 20mph feels safer though it needs to drop even more if space is tighter, like in central London. Best to adjust filtering speed to each situation.

Sometimes it's safer to use the torque and blast past quickly rather than be stuck alongside someone doing just 5mph more than them. 15mph is a handy guidline but not good for all situations.

Overtaking on solid whites is fine. Crossing them is also fine if you assess the situation and decide it's safe (that means no danger and no police too, capiche? - if you're not certain of either, best to hold back!). And as with all filtering/overtaking type stuff, consider what risk you're taking and whether you're being reasonable. I find it's easy to be stuck behind someone at slightly less than the limit and want to overtake, but if there's a small town coming up with a 30 limit, an unfamiliar road, limited vision, etc. then it's not worth the hassle to save a few seconds. Part of filtering and overtaking is knowing when not to do it, as well as knowing when to do it. Good fun though

Originally Posted by timwilky

Can you please direct me at the appropriate pieces of legislation that states the above.

Also where do people get off thinking a double white line means "No Overtaking" It simply means do not cross or straddle. It is perfectly legal to overtake/filter where double whites exist. You are also permitted to cross to overtake cyclists, parked cars, and slow moving road maintenance vehicle

What tim said. This is guidance not set in stone or law. Otherwise the gixxers doing 80 through the traffic on the A2 in the mornings wouldnt have licences. Though at times Im amazed they still have their lives

and robaker, dont use the letter then. FYI, that "poorly argued" letter got me a 100% settlement with 3rd party admitting full liability. Better than the current case law I think.

The point of that letter was to reiterate the onus on the driver to carry out BASIC checks to make sure his manouver is safe BEFORE doing it. I did everything possible to ensure I was safe [given he moved when my body was LEVEL with his ie my front wheel was in front of him too and I would not have proceeded if there was a hint of him doing what he was about to do] I proved his negligence.

Originally Posted by lynw

and robaker, dont use the letter then. FYI, that "poorly argued" letter got me a 100% settlement with 3rd party admitting full liability. Better than the current case law I think.

The point of that letter was to reiterate the onus on the driver to carry out BASIC checks to make sure his manouver is safe BEFORE doing it. I did everything possible to ensure I was safe [given he moved when my body was LEVEL with his ie my front wheel was in front of him too and I would not have proceeded if there was a hint of him doing what he was about to do] I proved his negligence.

Hi lynw

Whoops! Looks like I ruffled some feathers there. I didn't mean to say the insurance claim was poorly-argued, I meant that one part of an insurance claim was a poor argument for the validity of filtering. My mistake and I apologise for any offence I may have caused. Your response does provide some of the context I was seeking though, and I think it highlights just how inappropriate the letter is in regard to showing that filtering is ok - you and your bike could have been parachuted in to that location and still been awarded full recompense because, as you point out, the mechanism by which you got into that position doesn't excuse the driver for not performing his checks.

Originally Posted by robaker

Hi lynw

Whoops! Looks like I ruffled some feathers there. I didn't mean to say the insurance claim was poorly-argued, I meant that one part of an insurance claim was a poor argument for the validity of filtering. My mistake and I apologise for any offence I may have caused. Your response does provide some of the context I was seeking though, and I think it highlights just how inappropriate the letter is in regard to showing that filtering is ok - you and your bike could have been parachuted in to that location and still been awarded full recompense because, as you point out, the mechanism by which you got into that position doesn't excuse the driver for not performing his checks.

No offence taken. Just dont do soggy all day very well followed by a bad journey home. probably should have just chilled before posting. sorry.

It has concerned me that that letter seemed to end up on every bike forum as a caveat to filter and that wasnt my intention. I posted it at a time 3 or 4 people here all had accidents being taken out by people not bothering to look.

It was never meant to be a caveat to filter irresponsibly. Its better to get where youre going in one piece than to have to use that letter imho. And I won because I effectively proved I did everything I possibly could and effectively the accident happened for one reason - guy couldnt be arsed to wait for red light and didnt look. Had I been faster, not looked, whatever I wouldve taken some blame for my actions.

And Im so much more careful these days. Find Im not putting myself in that position when theres even a remote possibility of a u turn.