Right or Wrong?

essex-commuter

A colleague of mine rode into a car door this morning on the way to work. A vehicle coming the other way turned right into a side road, he didn't see it and hit the door.

However, the car turning right was 'flashed' by a car that was stationary in traffic in the opposite direction..saying you can turn right in front of me. My colleague was cycling up the inside of the stationary traffic...and rode into the door.

Is the cyclist in the right or in the wrong?

asprilla

Technically he's right.

Flashing lights means 'I am here' not 'Please, after you, I insist' and so it's up to the driver crossing to make sure that there is no other traffic coming.

However, as a cyclist you really should be paying attention to any traffic that stops and leaves a gap for someone to cross and giving way accordingly. Being 'technically right' doesn't help bones heal quicker.

W1

Asprilla wrote:

Technically he's right.

Flashing lights means 'I am here' not 'Please, after you, I insist' and so it's up to the driver crossing to make sure that there is no other traffic coming.

However, as a cyclist you really should be paying attention to any traffic that stops and leaves a gap for someone to cross and giving way accordingly. Being 'technically right' doesn't help bones heal quicker.

This.

The car that turned accross him should not have turned until it was clear, and was obliged to give way to oncoming traffic.

Still, it's not great to be right but dead.

notsoblue

Hmmm. If you're filtering then you have to assume that nobody else has spotted you. If I'm filtering on the inside and I notice that a gap has opened up in front of a car I'm about to pass, I always slow down to avoid this kind of situation. And if it was a van or other large vehicle that had let the car go through, then theres no chance that the right turning car would be able to see the cyclist.

I have no idea what the law is, but I'd suspect that there isn't a right of way for cyclists filtering on the inside and that if it was tested, the cyclist would be found in the wrong.

lost_in_thought

W1 wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

Technically he's right.

Flashing lights means 'I am here' not 'Please, after you, I insist' and so it's up to the driver crossing to make sure that there is no other traffic coming.

However, as a cyclist you really should be paying attention to any traffic that stops and leaves a gap for someone to cross and giving way accordingly. Being 'technically right' doesn't help bones heal quicker.

This.

The car that turned accross him should not have turned until it was clear, and was obliged to give way to oncoming traffic.

Still, it's not great to be right but dead.

+1

rick_chasey

This used to happen a lot to me in Cambridge on Hills Road, with the only difference being that there was a painted cycle lane on the side of the road - does that change the issue regarding filtering?

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

This used to happen a lot to me in Cambridge on Hills Road, with the only difference being that there was a painted cycle lane on the side of the road - does that change the issue regarding filtering?

I would suggest (but would need to check) that a cycle lane is akin to a bus lane (i.e. it's a lane of traffic) and as such has priority. Even without a cycle lane, the cyclists still has a right of way over turning traffic - although hurtling down the left side of cars at speed would be (at least) contributory negligence, in which case you may be legally in the right but in effect get little/no compensation.

flicksta

Rick Chasey wrote:

This used to happen a lot to me in Cambridge on Hills Road, with the only difference being that there was a painted cycle lane on the side of the road - does that change the issue regarding filtering?

Yes, although there aren't any 'rules'. I know the bit of Hills Road you mean, and if a car is turning right over a cycle lane, and there are clear, long, uniterrupted cycle lanes on both sides of the road, they must see if it is clear as it is actually a traffic lane.

If you are filtering up the left of cars and approaching a side road, and carry on filtering without anticipating that someone might turn right having been flashed, I think you are a bit naive.

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

This used to happen a lot to me in Cambridge on Hills Road, with the only difference being that there was a painted cycle lane on the side of the road - does that change the issue regarding filtering?

I would suggest (but would need to check) that a cycle lane is akin to a bus lane (i.e. it's a lane of traffic) and as such has priority. Even without a cycle lane, the cyclists still has a right of way over turning traffic - although hurtling down the left side of cars at speed would be (at least) contributory negligence, in which case you may be legally in the right but in effect get little/no compensation.

Really?
Even if there's gridlock on the road and a free cycle lane > which was usually the case?

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

This used to happen a lot to me in Cambridge on Hills Road, with the only difference being that there was a painted cycle lane on the side of the road - does that change the issue regarding filtering?

I would suggest (but would need to check) that a cycle lane is akin to a bus lane (i.e. it's a lane of traffic) and as such has priority. Even without a cycle lane, the cyclists still has a right of way over turning traffic - although hurtling down the left side of cars at speed would be (at least) contributory negligence, in which case you may be legally in the right but in effect get little/no compensation.

Really?
Even if there's gridlock on the road and a free cycle lane > which was usually the case?

The cycle still forms part of the traffic - and most cycle lanes are to the left of cars (supporting the proposition that passing on the left is allowed - much like a bus lane). In which case the basis principle is, I would suggest, that the cyclist has the right of way over the turning traffic. However that doesn't remove the obligation to still take care, and failure to do so will reduce any payment if there is an accident.

gbsahne001

similar thing happened this morning; filtering up inside of stationary traffic, traffic moves forward a bit and the artic I'm going up the inside off (I know but there was a 3' gap) stops. Rather than go racing forward, I edge forward to find he's stopped to let a ped cross; which I also do.

Had I not being paying attention, then I'd have probably hit the pedestrian,

Kieran_Burns

Rule 211:

Motorcyclists and cyclists
211

It is often difficult to see motorcyclists and cyclists, especially when they are coming up from behind, coming out of junctions, at roundabouts, 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.

asprilla

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

This used to happen a lot to me in Cambridge on Hills Road, with the only difference being that there was a painted cycle lane on the side of the road - does that change the issue regarding filtering?

I would suggest (but would need to check) that a cycle lane is akin to a bus lane (i.e. it's a lane of traffic) and as such has priority. Even without a cycle lane, the cyclists still has a right of way over turning traffic - although hurtling down the left side of cars at speed would be (at least) contributory negligence, in which case you may be legally in the right but in effect get little/no compensation.

Really?
Even if there's gridlock on the road and a free cycle lane > which was usually the case?

The cycle still forms part of the traffic - and most cycle lanes are to the left of cars (supporting the proposition that passing on the left is allowed - much like a bus lane). In which case the basis principle is, I would suggest, that the cyclist has the right of way over the turning traffic. However that doesn't remove the obligation to still take care, and failure to do so will reduce any payment if there is an accident.

The cyclist will always have right of way since the car is crossing their lane.

PBo

whilst kieran's quote tells motorists to look out for filterers, I'm pretty sure that if i could be bothered to look, I'd also find bits of the code that technically say you can't "undertake" unless there is two lanes and right lane is naturally flowing slower, or you are undertaking traffic waiting to turn right. Does filtering in the same lane in staionary/slow moving traffic count the same? I suspect not. However, certainly you are allowed to filter in a cycle lane, and motorists turning right across the lane need to give way (as do cars turning left travelling in the same direction).

Just because the HC advises motorists to look out for filterers, this does not mean that filtering is allowed or has right of way...

My instinct? cyclist is technically in the wrong if he was just filtering up the inside, rather than in an inside/bicycle lane.... but I cheerfully admit I could be wrong - I sometimes think the HC mix of advice/guidance and regurgitation of some traffic laws can be more confusing than helpful.

Bottom line though - whatever the technical rules are, all road users need to keep wits about them and try and anticipate these kinds of events.....

Kieran_Burns

PBo wrote:

whilst kieran's quote tells motorists to look out for filterers, I'm pretty sure that if i could be bothered to look, I'd also find bits of the code that technically say you can't "undertake" unless there is two lanes and right lane is naturally flowing slower, or you are undertaking traffic waiting to turn right. Does filtering in the same lane in staionary/slow moving traffic count the same? I suspect not. However, certainly you are allowed to filter in a cycle lane, and motorists turning right across the lane need to give way (as do cars turning left travelling in the same direction).

I disagree - and I'm not the only one:

LANE SPLITTING
In some US States, so called 'lane splitting' by cyclists is illegal. Lane splitting is where a cyclist under- or over-takes in a stream of traffic.

In Australia and in the UK, lane splitting is legal, although requires rapt attention because motorists can switch lanes suddenly. Many motorists fail to look out for cyclists when switching lanes but it's also important for cyclists to recognise that they may be riding in a motorist's 'blind' zone.

According to CTC's Roger Geffen, there used to be an element of doubt about whether or not lane splitting was contrary to the UK Highway Code and hence whether cyclists who did it could potentially be prosecuted for a general offence such as “careless” or “inconsiderate” cycling. But this has now been cleared up in the latest version of the Highway Code.

The old Highway Code (1998 version) had two rules which, in different ways, told drivers not to change lanes to overtake on the left. The old Rule 129 (which was about driving in slow-moving traffic) said:


129. You should

• […]

• not change lanes to the left to overtake
And old rule 139 (which was about overtaking) said:
139. Overtake only when it is safe to do so. You should

• […]

• only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so

• stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left
The problem was that it was never really clear how this last bullet-point applied to a cyclist. The traffic on his/her right might be moving more slowly, but the cyclist him/herself wouldn’t be moving slowly in a queue, nor was there a lane that they should stay in (unless there was a marked cycle lane).

The new Highway Code has cleared up the uncertainty. Old rule 129 has been replaced by new rule 151, which has a new bullet-point on the end:
151 In slow-moving traffic. You should

• […]

• be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side
So cyclists and motorcyclists overtaking slow-moving traffic on either the left or the right can now say that this is sanctioned by the Highway Code, as it alerts drivers to both possibilities.

from: http://www.bikeforall.net/content/cycli ... he_law.php

dhope

essex-commuter wrote:

A colleague of mine rode into a car door this morning on the way to work. A vehicle coming the other way turned right into a side road, he didn't see it and hit the door.

However, the car turning right was 'flashed' by a car that was stationary in traffic in the opposite direction..saying you can turn right in front of me. My colleague was cycling up the inside of the stationary traffic...and rode into the door.

Is the cyclist in the right or in the wrong?

He's in the right. Same thing that happened to me (well, not sure if the guy was flashed through).
The car that flashed was indicating that he was prepared to let the other car go, he wasn't indicating that the entire road was clear and that it was safe for the car to go. It's the person turning's responsibility to be certain it's safe to turn across a lane of traffic.

My incident was the basically the same (gap in stationary traffic, someone turned into a sideroad and collided with me as I was cycling on the left of traffic passing said sideroad). Their insurance company had no issue with it being the drivers fault and they paid for damages without the slightest argument.

Zachariah

I've slammed into the tail end of a car doing exactly this. If I'd known then what I know now, I'd have probably got a few quid out of it as I broke my toe. Live and learn.

Headhuunter

dhope wrote:

essex-commuter wrote:

A colleague of mine rode into a car door this morning on the way to work. A vehicle coming the other way turned right into a side road, he didn't see it and hit the door.

However, the car turning right was 'flashed' by a car that was stationary in traffic in the opposite direction..saying you can turn right in front of me. My colleague was cycling up the inside of the stationary traffic...and rode into the door.

Is the cyclist in the right or in the wrong?

He's in the right. Same thing that happened to me (well, not sure if the guy was flashed through).
The car that flashed was indicating that he was prepared to let the other car go, he wasn't indicating that the entire road was clear and that it was safe for the car to go. It's the person turning's responsibility to be certain it's safe to turn across a lane of traffic.

My incident was the basically the same (gap in stationary traffic, someone turned into a sideroad and collided with me as I was cycling on the left of traffic passing said sideroad). Their insurance company had no issue with it being the drivers fault and they paid for damages without the slightest argument.

I was going to say, this sounds very familiar! I'm always nervous of people turning right across my path, it happened to me in Nov 09 and has almost happened before and since. Drivers get flashed and then tend to try to accelerate through the gap as quickly as possibly so as not to inconvenience the waiting car, but generally fail to check if anyone is coming through on a bike which they are required to do.

PBo

interesting stuff kb.

but doesn't this still boil down to what's guidance and what's based on law in the HC? to me, those words do not sanction undertaking, and it doesn't say " you MUST give way etc..."

rule 163 on overtaking (for all motorists) says
only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so

and even that rule 151 you quote - which is relevant to all road users says not to go left to overtake in slow moving traffic.

a warning to look out for a potential hazard is not an endorsement of that hazard....

so i don't see how that stuff overrides this.....particularly as rule 72 - a cyclist specific rule - says:

When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road.

so, they have to "look out" for us, we have to "watch out" for them - how does that define a priority?

the problem is, the rules are still not clear over "lane splitting". i do not believe that the change has clarified this.

also note, though,, that the stuff on overtaking isn't a MUST/NOT either .....!

Headhuunter

PBo wrote:

interesting stuff kb.

but doesn't this still boil down to what's guidance and what's based on law in the HC? to me, those words do not sanction undertaking, and it doesn't say " you MUST give way etc..."

rule 163 on overtaking (for all motorists) says
only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so

and even that rule 151 you quote - which is relevant to all road users says not to go left to overtake in slow moving traffic.

a warning to look out for a potential hazard is not an endorsement of that hazard....

so i don't see how that stuff overrides this.....particularly as rule 72 - a cyclist specific rule - says:

When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road.

so, they have to "look out" for us, we have to "watch out" for them - how does that define a priority?

the problem is, the rules are still not clear over "lane splitting". i do not believe that the change has clarified this.

also note, though,, that the stuff on overtaking isn't a MUST/NOT either .....!

However when a cyclist or motorcyclist is passing through gridlocked traffic it's called "filtering", not overtaking, we are allowed to filter on the left of traffic, or wherever there is space.

It seems clear that the motorist should be responsible for checking for moving traffic in this type of situation. The motorist turning right is crossing a possibly moving section of traffic going straight on. If there were 2 lanes of MOTOR traffic and a car in 1 lane flashes a driver turning right, that doesn't mean they can accelerate through both lanes knowing that anyone in the second lane still moving has to yield to them! Why should it be any different for a cyclists or motorcyclist? If as a pedestrian a car flashed me to let me cross a road with 2 lanes of traffic, I do not then automatically assume I have the right to walk straight across the road without care knowing that all other cars have to yield to me! Anyway, dhope was offered compensation money by the drivers insurance company which illustrates that they felt there was guilt on the drivers side

PBo

I'm not posting to claim some definitive answer- more to point out how unclear it all us. I mean, where is filtering defined as different from undertaking, and deemed 'allowed' as you claim? Maybe it is - or maybe it's just some cyclist lore that we all perpetuate.

I can't help feeling that we want our cake and eat it here. We're all on our high horses about motorists not following highway code, and we assert our right to primary because it suits us to just "be part of the traffic". But we want invent a different name for dodgy undertakng manoeuvres which contradict the code.
I'm not having a go at anyone- just musing....

PBo

The point about the insurance payout was interesting- forgot to say

Headhuunter

Quick scan of HC has this entry:

88 (for motorcyclists)
Manoeuvring. You should be aware of what is behind and to the sides before manoeuvring. Look behind you; use mirrors if they are fitted. When in traffic queues look out for pedestrians crossing between vehicles and vehicles emerging from junctions or changing lanes. Position yourself so that drivers in front can see you in their mirrors. Additionally, when filtering in slow-moving traffic, take care and keep your speed low.

160 (aimed at drivers)
Once moving you should...be aware of other road users, especially cycles and motorcycles who may be filtering through the traffic.

Which indicates that filtering is indeed legal. Being able to proceed straight on, along a traffic lane or filter straight on without being run down by someone turning across my path does not strike me as "having my cake and eating it".

Equally cycling courses always recommend taking primary or riding "assertively" (not aggressively) when necessary. This is perfectly acceptable, nowhere is it required that we remain in the gutter at all times!

wgwarburton

PBo wrote:

I'm not posting to claim some definitive answer- more to point out how unclear it all us. I mean, where is filtering defined as different from undertaking, and deemed 'allowed' as you claim? Maybe it is - or maybe it's just some cyclist lore that we all perpetuate.

I can't help feeling that we want our cake and eat it here. We're all on our high horses about motorists not following highway code, and we assert our right to primary because it suits us to just "be part of the traffic". But we want invent a different name for dodgy undertakng manoeuvres which contradict the code.
I'm not having a go at anyone- just musing....

No, I disagree with that- We are part of the traffic but we are not cars. We shouldn't be expected to behave like cars and cars should not behave like bicycles.

Vehicles have different characteristics and road users need to understand & tolerate them. Taking primary when it isn't safe to be overtaken is legitimate. So is filtering. Car drivers should expect it, much as we expect cars to be doing 50mph plus on open A-roads.
Roads are for people to use, whether they are in a car, on a bike or horse or driving a truck. The difference is that using a car (other motor vehicles are also available) on a public road isn't a right, it's a (revocable) privilige.

Cheers,
W.

Headhuunter

WGWarburton wrote:

PBo wrote:

I'm not posting to claim some definitive answer- more to point out how unclear it all us. I mean, where is filtering defined as different from undertaking, and deemed 'allowed' as you claim? Maybe it is - or maybe it's just some cyclist lore that we all perpetuate.

I can't help feeling that we want our cake and eat it here. We're all on our high horses about motorists not following highway code, and we assert our right to primary because it suits us to just "be part of the traffic". But we want invent a different name for dodgy undertakng manoeuvres which contradict the code.
I'm not having a go at anyone- just musing....

No, I disagree with that- We are part of the traffic but we are not cars. We shouldn't be expected to behave like cars and cars should not behave like bicycles.

Vehicles have different characteristics and road users need to understand & tolerate them. Taking primary when it isn't safe to be overtaken is legitimate. So is filtering. Car drivers should expect it, much as we expect cars to be doing 50mph plus on open A-roads.
Roads are for people to use, whether they are in a car, on a bike or horse or driving a truck. The difference is that using a car (other motor vehicles are also available) on a public road isn't a right, it's a (revocable) privilige.

Cheers,
W.

Yes, despite the fact that most people here know that drivers don't pay "road" tax and don't fund the roads, there is often a general assumption that car is king in attitudes. We as cyclists have as much right to roads as that guy in his Audi, if we feel safer in primary then why shouldn't we take it? We also paid for the roads. I'm not trying to argue that cyclists should always sit in primary and "take the streets", but cars don't have an automatic right to pass us at all times or to turn across our paths etc.

rick_chasey

Pbo, does the argument with regard to filtering change when the cyclist is cycling within a painted on cycle lane?

wgwarburton

Headhuunter wrote:

.... We as cyclists have as much right to roads as that guy in his Audi, ....

Technically, more. Though it's the sort of technicality that can get you killed.

As far as I know, you have a right to use a public road on a bicycle- ever hear of anyone being banned?

If you want to drive, you need a licence (which requires passing a test and can be revoked) and a car that is either almost new or tested for roadworthiness. You need to have paid a specific tax on the car and you need to have third party liability insurance (or have posted a bond etc).

It's a privilige... and a pity more don't respect it as such!

Cheers,
W.

PBo

Rick Chasey wrote:

Pbo, does the argument with regard to filtering change when the cyclist is cycling within a painted on cycle lane?

I do believe so. essentially you are then in a separate lane, which is moving more quickly than the outside lane - this is allowed.

I know that one can extrapolate and then say that pragmatically filtering is the same, just no road markings - but I'm talking about interpreting the highway code (not easy!) and whether we really are allowed to filter.

No, I disagree with that- We are part of the traffic but we are not cars. We shouldn't be expected to behave like cars and cars should not behave like bicycles.

Vehicles have different characteristics and road users need to understand & tolerate them. Taking primary when it isn't safe to be overtaken is legitimate. So is filtering. Car drivers should expect it, much as we expect cars to be doing 50mph plus on open A-roads.
Roads are for people to use, whether they are in a car, on a bike or horse or driving a truck. The difference is that using a car (other motor vehicles are also available) on a public road isn't a right, it's a (revocable) privilige.

I didn't write the highway code, I'm just trying to interpret it!! but it does seem to me that filtering is essentially undertaking. It's all very well to say "we are all traffic, but different vehicles are treated differently" - but unless there's specific points addressed at your vehicle in the highway code, you are essentially treated the same on most points. Doesn't matter what we think SHOULD be the case, doesn't matter about licenses, attitudes, history or anything - I'm talking about what's in the HC and that as "traffic" we must adhere to.

(I have not, in any way, dissed taking primary, it was just an example of us being entitled to do something because we are "traffic").

I still maintain - and this is my point - that I can interpret the highway code as filtering being "undertaking" - and I don't see it being endorsed. An aknowledgment that it happens and to be wary about it could just be a pragmatic warning, not tacit approval. I'm not even dead certain about my interpretation, and I understand totally the counterpoints made. But the fact that it IS debatable does not reflect well on the HC.....

Having said all that, I still think that wanting to be allowed to filter (which I do!) is - objectively - still a little bit "cake and eat it"!! But isn't that one of the reasons we cycle???

Headhuunter

PBo wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Pbo, does the argument with regard to filtering change when the cyclist is cycling within a painted on cycle lane?

I do believe so. essentially you are then in a separate lane, which is moving more quickly than the outside lane - this is allowed.

I know that one can extrapolate and then say that pragmatically filtering is the same, just no road markings - but I'm talking about interpreting the highway code (not easy!) and whether we really are allowed to filter.

No, I disagree with that- We are part of the traffic but we are not cars. We shouldn't be expected to behave like cars and cars should not behave like bicycles.

Vehicles have different characteristics and road users need to understand & tolerate them. Taking primary when it isn't safe to be overtaken is legitimate. So is filtering. Car drivers should expect it, much as we expect cars to be doing 50mph plus on open A-roads.
Roads are for people to use, whether they are in a car, on a bike or horse or driving a truck. The difference is that using a car (other motor vehicles are also available) on a public road isn't a right, it's a (revocable) privilige.

I didn't write the highway code, I'm just trying to interpret it!! but it does seem to me that filtering is essentially undertaking. It's all very well to say "we are all traffic, but different vehicles are treated differently" - but unless there's specific points addressed at your vehicle in the highway code, you are essentially treated the same on most points. Doesn't matter what we think SHOULD be the case, doesn't matter about licenses, attitudes, history or anything - I'm talking about what's in the HC and that as "traffic" we must adhere to.

(I have not, in any way, dissed taking primary, it was just an example of us being entitled to do something because we are "traffic").

I still maintain - and this is my point - that I can interpret the highway code as filtering being "undertaking" - and I don't see it being endorsed. An aknowledgment that it happens and to be wary about it could just be a pragmatic warning, not tacit approval. I'm not even dead certain about my interpretation, and I understand totally the counterpoints made. But the fact that it IS debatable does not reflect well on the HC.....

Having said all that, I still think that wanting to be allowed to filter (which I do!) is - objectively - still a little bit "cake and eat it"!! But isn't that one of the reasons we cycle???

But filtering is alllowed!! Did you not see my post above with quotes from the HC referring to cyclists filtering through traffic?!

PBo

Headhuunter wrote:

But filtering is alllowed!! Did you not see my post above with quotes from the HC referring to cyclists filtering through traffic?!

And didn't you read where I said that I don't see how a warning to look out for filtering is definitely tacit approval? The HC isn't just rules - a lot of it isn't backed up by law - but "best practice" for want of a better word. Telling people to watch out for filterers could be interpreted as "best practice".

Cyclists are told to look out for people turning across them at a left hand junction - does that mean that the cars are allowed to turn in front of the bike, just because they are "watching out for it"?

Seriously, the bits you quoted in no way say filtering is allowed.

Headhuunter

PBo wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

But filtering is alllowed!! Did you not see my post above with quotes from the HC referring to cyclists filtering through traffic?!

And didn't you read where I said that I don't see how a warning to look out for filtering is definitely tacit approval? The HC isn't just rules - a lot of it isn't backed up by law - but "best practice" for want of a better word. Telling people to watch out for filterers could be interpreted as "best practice".

Cyclists are told to look out for people turning across them at a left hand junction - does that mean that the cars are allowed to turn in front of the bike, just because they are "watching out for it"?

Seriously, the bits you quoted in no way say filtering is allowed.

Yet the insurance company for the car that dhope ran into offered a few thousand in compensation without any court action or solicitors involved...