Losing His License !

[SimonsMerc]

I'm not going to further argue the law on crossing the white lines Simon - your quote actually contradicts the point you are making entirely.

Sp!ke, how exactly does it contradict? I'll paste it again - the words are very clear:

If you can get passed without crossing the solid white line, then you can pass queuing traffic.

Hence, if you cannot get past without crossing the solid white line, you cannot pass queuing traffic.

That is unequivocally supportive of my point. Filtering is legal in most situations. However you cannot cross a solid white line to filter.

-simon

 

[Dieselman]

Dieselman - Do you really think the biker deliberately drove into the side of a car that was pulling out? Come on, think about it...

Ahem... lets not forget that the procecution service also shares my views.

I am NOT biased, I am right.

No I think the biker couldn't see well enough to react in time. Remember it was raining and it has already been said that vision is reduced with a wet visor.
The car was not "invisible", merely not as easy to see as the others due to being sideways.

 

[Dieselman]

There are many types of road user all sharing the same roadspace and we all need to coexist side by side and be tolerent of each other.

Bugger that! Think once, think twice, think kill a biker!

Woah!..only joking..

Unfortunately this thread is rather devoid of facts. What we have is one sided hearsay information describing a chain of events. If we look at what little facts we have, perhaps things may become clearer. (If I am wrong on any of these facts then I'm happy to revise them btw)

1. There was a traffic accident involving a car and a motorcycle.
2. The accident was serious enough to require police attendance.
3. Both parties were questioned by the police on scene.
4. The police on scene examined the evidence at the scene of the accident.
5. Based on the evidence, the police at the scene deemed that the driver of the car should be reported for a traffic offence. (I'm not sure if the offence has been made clear but the assumption is that he has been given an NIP for driving with undue care and attention).
6. The motorcyclist was not reported for an offence.
7. The report was submitted to the CPS, who further examined the evidence put to them and concluded that there were sufficiant grounds to warrant a procecution.
8. A plea was then submitted by post by the defendant which would have then been examined by a senior prosecutor who then concluded that the offence was too serious to be able to accept a plea in writing and the defendant was subsequently served with a summons to attend court.
9. A court hearing has now been scheduled.

Now, those that have been arguing that the bike rider was at fault or that he was in breach of the highway code are doing so in spite of the fact that they are doing so direct contradiction to the views of the traffic officers on scene, the specialist motoring lawyer at the CPS who brought about the case and the senior prosecutor of the court who deemed it necessary for the defendant to attend in person - all of whom were privvy to the facts of the case, unlike ourselves.

Completely different accident scinario but I know someone who went through this whole rigmarole as the defendant and was looking at a possible ban for dangerous driving.
He defended himself and was easily able to prove that the situation was not as had been recorded. The Police evidence was one sided and flawed to say the least.
The liability was reversed in court and subsequently the insurance companies.

The CPS will act on the information provided which is not necessarily accurate.

 

[Benzowner]

prprandall51 I'm not going to quote your post, it would only waste space. The driver in question from the first posting was NOT turning right, there was NO junction opposite, HE decided to attempt a U turn and pulled in front of a motorcyclist.

 

[Sp!ke]

Sp!ke, how exactly does it contradict? I'll paste it again - the words are very clear:



Hence, if you cannot get past without crossing the solid white line, you cannot pass queuing traffic.

That is unequivocally supportive of my point. Filtering is legal in most situations. However you cannot cross a solid white line to filter.

-simon

.... paste the next sentance too Simon and compare it to the actual highway code reference. It really is quite clear. As I said this has been done to death already and I really cant be bothered arguing this point further since the highway code has already been quoted earlier in the thread and it has been established that it is legal to cross the white line for both car and bike if the vehicle being overtaken is stationary or moving slowly.

 

[Shude]

That is unequivocally supportive of my point. Filtering is legal in most situations. However you cannot cross a solid white line to filter.

The document you refer to states that filtering is basically overtaking and that it is perfectly legal straddle or cross solid while lines in order to overtake stationary or slow (<10 mph) vehicles.

In this case a car was carrying out a 3-point-turn while in a queue of stationary cars (not a u-turn) and a motorbike was overtaking (aka filtering) these cars. If the bike was doing 10-20mph and it was dark and rainy then I would suggest that the car driver would have little chance of differentiating between the headlamps of other queueing cars and the approaching bike. The person with the most visibility would be the biker as he has a commanding view of the road and he is sitting outside of the queue on the other side of the road (and solid white lines, which in this case were perfectly telegraphing a hazard ahead! ).

I do not have a problem with filtering as described in the linked page it is the filtering that apparently occurs in my blind spot at 70mph+ on the motorway.

 

[Dieselman]

I do not have a problem with filtering as described in the linked page it is the filtering that apparently occurs in my blind spot at 70mph+ on the motorway.

Which in particular do you have a problem with, is it the undertaking or the overtaking when you're in the outside lane?

 

[Satch]

Sp!ke - in this country, one is innocent until proven guilty. Your statement above shows that you consider the car driver guilty until proven innocent. This is simply wrong.

The "facts" you have stated don't actually cover the most important fact - the motorist in this case is currently innocent. Until a court of law decides that he is guilty, none of your "facts" have any meaning, and you cannot use them to support "your case" - which seems to be to exonerate the motorcyclist at all costs.

-simon

Davis v Schrogin was a civil personal injury compensation case, not criminal. Very different issues at work

 

[Shude]

Which in particular do you have a problem with, is it the undertaking or the overtaking when you're in the outside lane?

"now you see him"

 

[DITTRICH]

It is interesting that the Davis v Schrogin case was quoted earlier but several paragraphs earlier on were not. Here they are...

Overtaking

One of the most frequent accident situations that we come across is where the biker is filtering past a queue of stationary vehicles. In the very famous case of Powell v Moody, the biker was overtaking the queue when the car driver pulled out of a road on the motorcyclist's left, passing through a gap in the queue to turn right, having been signalled out by another vehicle. The car driver inched out and the motorcyclist collided with him. In this case the motorcyclist was found to be 80% to blame.

The Court of Appeal said that any vehicle which jumped a queue was 'undertaking an operation fraught with great hazard and which had to be carried out with great care. There was always difficulty in such circumstances seeing what was happening especially emerging from gaps.'

In Clark v Winchurch, the Court came down 100% against the motorcyclist. In Worsfold v Howe the determination was 50/50. In the case of Hillman v Tomkins in 1995 the Judge in finding both parties equally to blame said 'undesirable as it may be, motorcyclists do and can be expected to overtake in circumstances of this kind and in my judgment the Defendant was negligent in failing to see the Plaintiff as he approached.' The car in this case was turning out of the traffic queue and the fact that there was a junction approaching on his right increased the necessary standard of care on the biker. He was travelling too fast at 30 to 40 mph.

The Highway Code tells riders to look out for vehicles emerging from junctions when overtaking stationary traffic and tells drivers not to assume that another driver flashing headlights is giving a signal to go. You should not overtake 'approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road.'

No two cases are exactly the same and accordingly it cannot be taken as read that what has happened in these previously decided cases and others will ultimately prove to be so in your case, but they give us a good indication of the likely issues to be considered by the judge in reaching a determination.

So it is not as one sided as some would make out - it depends on the circumstances

Les

 

[SimonsMerc]

.... paste the next sentance too Simon and compare it to the actual highway code reference. It really is quite clear. As I said this has been done to death already and I really cant be bothered arguing this point further since the highway code has already been quoted earlier in the thread and it has been established that it is legal to cross the white line for both car and bike if the vehicle being overtaken is stationary or moving slowly.

Here you go, with the next sentence:

If you can get passed without crossing the solid white line, then you can pass queuing traffic. If the traffic is turning or meets the criteria for slow moving, you can pass.

It seems to say that you can pass without crossing the solid white line, as long as the traffic is slow moving or queuing. It even warns you in the next sentence that this passing will leave you with a very small space. Whatever - perhaps I'm reading it differently to that way you read it.

Either way, I personally feel (and note that this is the first time in this thread that I'm giving my own opinion, rather than making observations) that "filtering" is something that motorcyclists should do with far more care than many of them do.

-simon

 

[Sp!ke]

I agree, the earlier cases were as much as 50 years ago when traffic conditions were very different to the way they are today.

You so rightly say that each case should be judged upon its own merits. The key point to this Davis v Schrogin case is that it dispels the assumption made by earlier cases such as the Powell v Moody case that both parties were automatically to blame. If an insurer tries to play this hand again (as they have done to date) either party can cite the Davis v Schrogin case saying that the case would need to be judged on its individual circumstances rather than an automatic share of the blame.

The case has overridden this previous precedent and now creates a level playing field from which either party can fight their own corner depending on their own particular case.

In terms of the thread topic, we have no real detail or evidence that can appoint blame other than the fact that only one party has been summonsed before the court.

What I have been defending so vehemently against up to this point is the amount of people saying the bike must have been in breach of the law by overtaking on white lines or that he must have been speeding or that he didn't have the right of way or that he must share a proportion of the responsibility of the accident etc etc . When pushed, (and I have been pushing ), not one accusation or assumption has yet had any legal foundation despite so many peoples initial protestations. My defence of the motorcyclists situation still holds very firm ground.

The above referenced case clearly shows that it is indeed possible for the overtaking vehicle (again a bike filtering) to bear no proportion of blame whatsoever if the rider was so close to the point of impact of a vehicle executing a u-turn that he could not have avoided the resulting collision.

The relevent bit from the highway code is thus Simon:-

108: Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10mph or less.Laws RTA sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26

 

[Dieselman]

You may cross the line if necessary to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10mph or less.Laws RTA sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26

Your quote here quite correctly states "a" vehicle, not overtake a line of queuing traffic.

This comment does NOT mean I want this thread to start up again, I am just pointing out that if you want to quote the highway code , you need to be accurate as to what it says and means. You cannot cherry pick the bits that suit and make them fit the scenario.

 

[Sp!ke]

Not wishing to infer you are being a pedant or anything Dieselman, but I have to point out that you can only overtake a single vehicle at one time if they are in a single line

 

[Dieselman]

It seems to say that you can pass without crossing the solid white line, as long as the traffic is slow moving or queuing. It even warns you in the next sentence that this passing will leave you with a very small space. Whatever - perhaps I'm reading it differently to that way you read it.

I am trying to differentiate between passing a single vehicle and passing a line of vehicles.

I'm not being pedantic, just accurate.
The code has different rules for passing single and multiple vehicles where a continuous white line situation occurs.

 

[andy_k]

just to throw in another interesting point...

The highway code makes a distinction between stationary or slow moving. In the case of slow moving it actually specifies what you can overtake - I'm not seeing any mention of a queue of cars there.

I don't think that you can call a traffic jam like this "stationary" as the cars were in fact moving (albeit very slowly) so if the biker crossed the white lines he could well be in the wrong.

Isn't this just another case of people selectively deciding which laws they want to see enforced? Sp!ke you've made no secret of the fact you have little respect for speed limits so why is it so unreasonable for Marcos' Dad who has probably never exceeded a speed limit in his life to not bother about this particular "lilttle" law?

Andy

Andy

 

[Sp!ke]

Thats not up for debate here is it really?

....but if you would like to start a new thread on the subject then I would open it up by saying if I find a quiet piece of road and go fast, as long as I'm not endangering anyones life but my own then whose business is it to say anything?

 

[glojo]

I am not taking sides here, but what everyone should hopefully accept is that motorcyclists have a disproportionate amount of accidents per number of vehicles on the road?

When overtaking (NOT undertaking) slow moving traffic then my advice to the rider is to give yourself enough space to see and be seen. In other words move out onto the offside of the road. If there are double white line markings, with the solid white line to the nearside then if your simply overtaking slower moving traffic in my opinion your leaving yourself open to prosecution. If you remain on the correct side of the road then you are hiding yourself from the view of vehicles only a short distance in front of you. If you straddle these white lines in the wet, then more fool you. These white line markings can be very slippery.

I am NOT saying who is right and who is wrong, I am merely saying being the meat in a sandwich is always dodgy does. In fact it is a fat lot of good being in the right if the manouvre results in broken bones or worse.

My old Sergeant might have even said this

I am an ex biker and nothing annoys me more than to hear someone say, "The bike must have been speeding, it wasn't there when I looked!" Even if a bike was speeding, it just does not APPEAR.

Regards,
John

 

[SimonsMerc]

The relevent bit from the highway code is thus Simon:-

108: Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10mph or less.Laws RTA sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26

Sp!ke:

The very bit you put in bold states that you cannot cross it? I think you're getting confused. This is a list - perhaps it will help your understanding if I present it in a format that is easier to read? The sentence says:

You may cross the line if necessary to:
1) pass a stationary vehicle, or
2) overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10mph or less.

This is the only possible reading - the "if they are traveling at 10mph or less" cannot apply to a stationary vehicle, because by definition a stationary vehicle is not moving at all. This says nothing about crossing the line to pass in moving traffic. I really think you're reading it wrong.

-simon

 

[andy_k]

Thats not up for debate here is it really?

....but if you would like to start a new thread on the subject then I would open it up by saying if I find a quiet piece of road and go fast, as long as I'm not endangering anyones life but my own then whose business is it to say anything?

The person pulling out of a side road, drive or similar not expecting to find a motorcyclist smashing into the side of his car and then holding him responsible

Andy