Reasons why I love my SClass!

[Sp!ke]

What point are you making Dieselman.

The traffic was slow moving according to the OP, so filtering is fine and dandy.

The corsa driver is now (according to case law) automatically at fault *unless* she can prove a level of contributory negligence on behalf of the rider.

The corsa driver I suspect would need to *prove* that the rider was going too fast for the conditions.

The key point is that the burden of proof has been reversed.

[edit] It is interesting that in the Davis Vs Schrogin precedent, the rider was filtering past traffic at 40-45 miles an hour and yet still the driver and not the motorcyclist was found to be negligent, so I'm not sure what the possible defence could be for the corsa driver.

 

[Dieselman]

The key point is that the burden of proof has been reversed.

Only in the exact conditions that case covered and not in dissimilar ones, which this is.
A single case doesn't mean that burdon of proof is reversed at all for other cases, each one will be reviewed on it's own merit.

Twice in this thread you've made comment about me appearing to be against filtering when in actual fact I've presented fact as opposed to opinion.
That is exactly the point that people have been trying to make, that bikers always make car drivers out to be biased and wrong.
Personally I couldn't give a rats ass whether filtering is right or wrong, but it isn't automatically right and sounds as if in the prevailing conditions it was wrong in this instance.

Crowded road of slow moving (not stationary) traffic, wet conditions, riding too fast, unable to stop in the distance he could see in.

You are omitting to say the Davis Vs Schrogin case was involving a motorcycle in another lane, not one filtering in the same lane or between lanes.
Effectively it was performing an overtake manouver and the car pulled out into the lane the bike was in by performing a U turn.

The defendant was in a largish saloon car trapped in a substantial traffic jam with cars in a queue about a half a mile, or perhaps more, long. As with many such queues, it was either stationary or inching forward. The claimant was riding a motorcycle in the same direction. Because there was nothing at all oncoming in the eastbound lane, and because the road was straight with excellent visibility for half a mile or so, the claimant was able to overtake the stationary queue. The defendant decided to get out of the queue by executing a U-turn and going back the way he had come. As he emerged from the queue in the course of that U-turn there was a collision between his car,

The claimant on his motorcycle was well out into the oncoming lane about half or two thirds of the way across it from the central white line. That was so as to make himself as visible as possible. He had his headlight on, dipped, his right hand indicator was flashing and he was travelling at something between 40 and 45 miles per hour. He had been in that position for about half a mile. He was not weaving in and out of the traffic.

BTW.
Didn't one of our members Father have an exactly similar collision...I wonder if this is their case.?

 

[Sp!ke]

Interesting point regarding the Member in the same position. It does sound identical as you say although that wasn't how you viewed it at the time.

You disagreed with me then, same as you do now IIRC. With the exception that back then you argued vehemently that the cases were totally different and yet now exactly the same.

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cach...+Vs+Schrogin+defence&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=uk

 

[Sp!ke]

I just couldnt resist throwing this link in regarding the last time this Davis Vs Schrogin case was brought up here.

http://www.mbclub.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=314159&postcount=60

 

[Birdman]

The firm involved in the appeal case states that a new principle - that there is no general rule concerning contributory negligence by the motorcyclist - has been established which will apply to any case involving a motorcyclist overtaking a queue of cars that collides with a vehicle pulling out of the line of overtaken traffic. That said, the case will turn on the facts.

This from Clarke Wilmott's website.
Davis v Schrogin
"We successfully defended an appeal to the Court of Appeal in June 2006. The case, Davis v Schrogin, is of significance because the Court of Appeal set out the important principle that there is no general rule for motorcyclists that overtaking a stationary queue of vehicles will always amount to an act of contributory negligence where a 3rd party pulls out of the traffic into collision with the motorcyclist."
http://www.cwseriousinjury.co.uk/news

I would suggest that following this ruling a judge would place considerable weight on whether or not the emerging vehicle's driver should have proceeded with the manoeuvre in light of the fact that motorcyclists have a general right to overtake a line of slow moving traffic. It isn't enough for the driver to say s/he looked but didn't see the motorcyclist until too late, as it had a right to be there in the first place. That, as I see it, is the new principle Davis v Schrogin established.

 

[PJayUK]

Interesting point about the burden of proof being reversed to the driver of the Corsa, but she has three witnesses in her favour one being a professional articulated lorry driver. So I think she's in a pretty good position, especially considering the riders aggressive and threatening response to her following the accident.

How does having witnesses affect a case like this?

 

[HowardD]

I was stuck on the M25 tonight for quite a while, and with time on my hands I started thinking of 10 reasons why I love driving my SClass....

Thought I would share them with you, of course all of this is purely subjective!

1 Because I love the look of hate on the faces of the lesbians that drive 900cc peace wagons as I loom up behind them.

2 It makes me feel like an eastern European dictator

3 Because I could knock of the cocks on motorbikes that filter at ridiculous speeds in slow traffic putting my safety at risk, and not really feel them

4 I can close my electric rear blinds so i cant see the tossers in white vans or M3's as I cruise in the outside lane observing the speed limit

5 Its cheaper to maintain than my Subaru Forester or my wifes Alfa Romeo Spider

6 I still manage to find new features on it that I never new about

7 Because its finished properly by using dead animal skin and felled timber

8 Its designed logically and I am able to fathom many problems out myself, unlike the designer of my Subaru that must have been on mushrooms when he designed it

9 Its not a BMW

10 I can stack the CD changer with my collection of classic rock and Norwegian death metal and not any of the wifes crap.

Clearly I am sure you'll agree.....

But you - "Want a C63 AMG...................."

Me too!!

 

[Sp!ke]

Interesting point about the burden of proof being reversed to the driver of the Corsa, but she has three witnesses in her favour one being a professional articulated lorry driver. So I think she's in a pretty good position, especially considering the riders aggressive and threatening response to her following the accident.

How does having witnesses affect a case like this?

The witnesses will cooberate the events that took place. They do not make the decision over fault.

It is likely in this incident that the corsa driver will be found culpable because she changed lane into the path of another vehicle without first making sure it was safe to do so. (the witnesses will cooberate this)

She may face undue care and attention charges also.

As for being aggressive after being knocked off... how do you think you'd behave if some plank pulled out into your path without looking? If said corsa driver was a bloke, I'd dare say the rider would have swung at him. Perfectly normal reaction immediately after a near death experience.

 

[PJayUK]

True well whatever way it goes I hope that the decision is fairly considered.

I must say that after this I have been much more aware of motorcyclists, even if some (a minority) ride like nutters.

Seemed that the sunny weather today brought them out in droves today, I was visiting some colleagues in Aldershot earlier and the A3 was like donnington park...

Still I was driving a Caterham so didnt care...

 

[kwakdonut]

Still I was driving a Caterham so didnt care...

And I bet they still blitzed past you!

 

[Dieselman]

This from Clarke Wilmott's website.
Davis v Schrogin
"We successfully defended an appeal to the Court of Appeal in June 2006. The case, Davis v Schrogin, is of significance because the Court of Appeal set out the important principle that there is no general rule for motorcyclists that overtaking a stationary queue of vehicles will always amount to an act of contributory negligence where a 3rd party pulls out of the traffic into collision with the motorcyclist."
http://www.cwseriousinjury.co.uk/news

Forget Davis v Schrogin as it's a completely different set of circumstances and bears no resemblance to this issue.

In ALL other civil cases involving motorcyclists being knocked off while filtering, the motorcyclist has been found at least 50% at fault and usually 80% or 100% at fault.

It didn't set any legal statute, just that when all the events were considered it was found the car driver acted negligently and the motorcyclist had acted in a manner which should have put him in a safe position. He was in a completely separate lane so wasn't filtering as such, but was overtaking and correctly positioned for such a maneuver.

In this current issue the motorcyclist was sharing the lane with the car driver and effectively undertaking. Is that allowed in the highway code or road law.?

 

[Dieselman]

You disagreed with me then, same as you do now IIRC.

You're getting confused in your red mist..

http://www.mbclub.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=313808&postcount=14

I do agree with this particular situation being the car drivers fault

 

[Dieselman]

In case anyone thinks filtering isn't a dangerous act, here is the view of an experienced motorcyclist who is very pro biker and anti driver.

filtering between lanes on a dual carriageway. This is more dangerous than filtering on a single carriageway. On a dual carriageway you have dangers from all sides. Cars changing lane both from both left and right.

Extract from
http://www.mbclub.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=313795&postcount=11

What amazes me is that bikers always go on about other road users having to give them space and watch out for them on safety grounds, then they go and use space not allocated for them and put themselves in a dangerous position.
One can't have it both ways.

 

[Birdman]

Dieselman, I respect your opinion on matters in your area of technical competence. And by all means share your opinion about the content of my posts. But please do not dismiss them in a discourteous a manner. I think just a little humility is called for in a subject as complex as the one we are attempting to understand here.

 

[Dieselman]

Well, it wasn't meant to be discourteous and I apologies if you think it was.

However the case highlighted isn't really a case of filtering in traffic, or actually filtering at all.
It was acknowledged that the bike rider took all reasonable steps to ensure their safety and was correctly positioned on the road for maximum visibility.

The car driver performed a single U turn without looking and at a speed that gave the rider no chance to avoid collision.

The point I was attempting to convey is that whilst people refer to the Davis V Schrogin case, it shouldn't be referred to as a filtering case, but invariably is.
Would it have been called filtering if it was a car performing the overtaking maneuver.?

Again, apologies if it came across differently.

 

[amwebby]

Filtering is not perfectly legal. One case of a bike passing through slow moving traffic (and not filtering at all but in a proper lane) being judged not the bikers fault does not make a perfect legal precedent.

The instruction in the HC to "not get too close to the vehicle you intend to overtake" and to "Allow plenty of room." (163) should also be considered.

I learnt to drive on a bike many years ago and I would never filter except in stationary traffic and even then with extreme caution.

P.S. I like driving my CL500 (a two door S-Class for those who don't know) because the villain in Bond films invariably drives a Mercedes-Benz!

 

[Dieselman]

It is likely in this incident that the corsa driver will be found culpable because she changed lane into the path of another vehicle .

So which lane was the motorcycle in.?
I thought he was passing between lanes, quite possibly in the same lane as the Corsa.

Did she indeed cross the line prior to impact, if not the biker is 100% at fault and may well face dangerous driving charges.

 

[greggster]

what a fantastic thread, kept me amused for minutes!! :bannana:

i see a new Clarkson emerging!

 

[Sp!ke]

So which lane was the motorcycle in.?
I thought he was passing between lanes, quite possibly in the same lane as the Corsa.

Did she indeed cross the line prior to impact, if not the biker is 100% at fault and may well face dangerous driving charges.

You see that's where the law has become much clearer whereas previously it was a shade of grey.

It is now accepted in motoring law that motorcycles can and do filter past slow moving traffic (this includes splitting lanes). As such, a driver should anticipate that a motorcycle may be making progress in this manner and therefore be expected to look out for not only typical behavioral patterns of cars but motorcycles also.

It certainly sounds like in this instance one party changed direction into the path of another without first making sure it was safe to do so.

Your only argument seems to be that the motorcycle shouldn't have been there in the first place but in law this point of law is now clear.

[EDIT] You clearly dont like me or other motorcycles do you Dieselman!

 

[amwebby]

As the motorcycle in the case cited was clearly not "splitting lanes", I fail to see where the legal support for this resides.