Right or Wrong?

jedster

I'd just make a slightly different point about this:

filtering is legal providing it is done with proper care and attention. Just the same as turning right is legal if done with proper care and attention.

In the situation that the OP described, it may not have been POSSIBLE for the driver to see the cyclist EVEN IF THEY WERE LOOKING CAREFULLY depending on the size of the vehicle that he was filtering inside and the speed he was travelling at. Also note that the cyclist hit the side of the car not the car hitting the side of the cyclist. This suggests to me that the cyclist should have been travelling slower and covering their brakes. It is conceivable (at least to me!) that the cyclist displaid less care and attention than the motorist in this incident. Equally, it could have been that any driver who was half awake would have seen the cyclist and would have waited.

My real point here is that just because we are allowed to filter does not mean a driver is automatically at fault in a collision like this. Just imagine a cyclist filtering inside a double-decker bus in stationary traffic. A driver is waiting to turn right in front of the bus. No amount of care and attention could guarantee that he would see the cyclist.

I think in court, liability wuld be determined by the specifics of the case - speeds, sight lines, etc.

The main point is probably that you need to be damn careful with your speed and be very watchful for junctions and blind spots when filtering.

J

dhope

jedster wrote:

Just imagine a cyclist filtering inside a double-decker bus in stationary traffic. A driver is waiting to turn right in front of the bus. No amount of care and attention could guarantee that he would see the cyclist.

I think in court, liability wuld be determined by the specifics of the case - speeds, sight lines, etc.

Recent experience says otherwise. My incident was as you described. Limited visibility for the driver and limited for me. We were both going fairly slowly, him clearly not enough as he couldn't stop in time, me clearly not enough as I couldn't stop in time.
Didn't go into his side, he didn't go into mine, it was more of a glancing blow (though enough to knock me off and metres or two clear of the bike).

His insurance company were very clear it was his fault as he was crossing my path, without any insistence or threatening action on my part.

jedster wrote:

The main point is probably that you need to be damn careful with your speed and be very watchful for junctions and blind spots when filtering.

Recent experience agrees wholeheartedly.

Headhuunter

dhope wrote:

jedster wrote:

Just imagine a cyclist filtering inside a double-decker bus in stationary traffic. A driver is waiting to turn right in front of the bus. No amount of care and attention could guarantee that he would see the cyclist.

I think in court, liability wuld be determined by the specifics of the case - speeds, sight lines, etc.

Recent experience says otherwise. My incident was as you described. Limited visibility for the driver and limited for me. We were both going fairly slowly, him clearly not enough as he couldn't stop in time, me clearly not enough as I couldn't stop in time.
Didn't go into his side, he didn't go into mine, it was more of a glancing blow (though enough to knock me off and metres or two clear of the bike).

His insurance company were very clear it was his fault as he was crossing my path, without any insistence or threatening action on my part.

jedster wrote:

The main point is probably that you need to be damn careful with your speed and be very watchful for junctions and blind spots when filtering.

Recent experience agrees wholeheartedly.

I also got knocked over by a right turning car and awarded several thousand in compensation and the driver was sent on a driver awareness course by police. However my situation was slightly different, the driver had clear view of me yet still decided to pull across and I was passing through a green traffic light rather than filtering...

dhope

Headhuunter wrote:

dhope wrote:

jedster wrote:

Just imagine a cyclist filtering inside a double-decker bus in stationary traffic. A driver is waiting to turn right in front of the bus. No amount of care and attention could guarantee that he would see the cyclist.

I think in court, liability wuld be determined by the specifics of the case - speeds, sight lines, etc.

Recent experience says otherwise. My incident was as you described. Limited visibility for the driver and limited for me. We were both going fairly slowly, him clearly not enough as he couldn't stop in time, me clearly not enough as I couldn't stop in time.
Didn't go into his side, he didn't go into mine, it was more of a glancing blow (though enough to knock me off and metres or two clear of the bike).

His insurance company were very clear it was his fault as he was crossing my path, without any insistence or threatening action on my part.

jedster wrote:

The main point is probably that you need to be damn careful with your speed and be very watchful for junctions and blind spots when filtering.

Recent experience agrees wholeheartedly.

I also got knocked over by a right turning car and awarded several thousand in compensation and the driver was sent on a driver awareness course by police. However my situation was slightly different, the driver had clear view of me yet still decided to pull across and I was passing through a green traffic light rather than filtering...

Yeah, in your case the driver was dangerous and in the wrong.
In mine the driver was careless but possibly unfortunate and in the wrong.

jedster

dhope,

I'm sure that the presumption would be that the right-turning vehicle would have the greater responsibility, but I still think that in court if the driver had been obviously careful and the cyclist had been obviously going much to fast, that presumption could be rebutted - that's my point really. In your case it sounds more 50/50 and there you'd expect the presumption to hold. No?

J

shouldbeinbed

Flashing has no basis in law (where is Spen BTW) Mrs SBIB is an advanced driver and they are very insistent you never flash another vehicle as it is not your road and yours alone to dictate who does what on. any motorist flashing anoter should be really sure that they arent placing someone else in danger, not just a filtering cyclist but a pedestrain crossing the turned into road.

sadly cars see cars better than cars see the rest of us and and at the end of the day sod being right, I'll take being alive thanks

PBo

Headhuunter wrote:

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...

Agree totally, this suggests filtering is ok - whoever heard of an insurance company not playing every card in the book eh?

Still maintain the HC could do a better job of defining and clarifying on filtering though.....

Clarion

Be careful about this. there is case law to say that the cyclist would be held partially responsible. Insane, I know, but let's face it, our judges are sometimes just insane. Doesn't change the standing of the law.

rolf_f

shouldbeinbed wrote:

Flashing has no basis in law (where is Spen BTW) Mrs SBIB is an advanced driver and they are very insistent you never flash another vehicle as it is not your road and yours alone to dictate who does what on. any motorist flashing anoter should be really sure that they arent placing someone else in danger, not just a filtering cyclist but a pedestrain crossing the turned into road.

sadly cars see cars better than cars see the rest of us and and at the end of the day sod being right, I'll take being alive thanks

Yes, this is true. However, flashing lights isn't the whole issue. Commonly, there is a continuous stream of slow moving cars on busy roads. If other cars do not pause to let cars out or off the main road, they would be permanently blocked. Traffic has to allow other cars in or out whether or not they flash their lights. Obviously, it is up to the car pulling across to be responsible for their own actions but, as has been said several times, better alive than dead and in the right.

attica

shouldbeinbed wrote:

Flashing has no basis in law (where is Spen BTW) Mrs SBIB is an advanced driver and they are very insistent you never flash another vehicle as it is not your road and yours alone to dictate who does what on. any motorist flashing anoter should be really sure that they arent placing someone else in danger, not just a filtering cyclist but a pedestrain crossing the turned into road.

sadly cars see cars better than cars see the rest of us and and at the end of the day sod being right, I'll take being alive thanks

+1

I had a near miss some time ago that still sends shivers down my spine.

I was driving my car along a fast A-road, speed limit 60mph. Three cars in front of me in formation. All of us travelling at 50+ mph.

All three cars indicate right and move into the filter lane in order to turn right.
I continue ahead and catch the smallest glimpse of car bodywork moving into my path between the cars that I am now legitimately passing on the left and slam the anchors on. I very nearly collected the car that had pulled out from the right after being flashed out by the leader of the three cars turning right. I count myself rather lucky, but also perhaps my cycling style spidey sense helped me out. My passenger was left flabbergasted that I'd seen anything between the cars at all

Flashing is bad m'kay.

PBo

Attica wrote:

Flashing is bad m'kay.

[pervy mind] snigger[/pervy mind]

attica

Cripes, is it Attica Innuendo Day today?

FIrst my ring gets mangled, now I'm flashing.

Headhuunter

Rolf F wrote:

shouldbeinbed wrote:

Flashing has no basis in law (where is Spen BTW) Mrs SBIB is an advanced driver and they are very insistent you never flash another vehicle as it is not your road and yours alone to dictate who does what on. any motorist flashing anoter should be really sure that they arent placing someone else in danger, not just a filtering cyclist but a pedestrain crossing the turned into road.

sadly cars see cars better than cars see the rest of us and and at the end of the day sod being right, I'll take being alive thanks

Yes, this is true. However, flashing lights isn't the whole issue. Commonly, there is a continuous stream of slow moving cars on busy roads. If other cars do not pause to let cars out or off the main road, they would be permanently blocked. Traffic has to allow other cars in or out whether or not they flash their lights. Obviously, it is up to the car pulling across to be responsible for their own actions but, as has been said several times, better alive than dead and in the right.

In reality, if this is "commonly" the case then the junction in question needs restructuring with traffic lights or a roundabout. It shouldn't be necessary for cars to have to "flash" on another to aid traffic flow...