 |
|
 |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| duhawkz |
This post is not being displayed .
|
duhawkz
World Chat Champion
Joined: 03 Dec 2006
Karma : 
|
 Posted: 10:00 - 06 Oct 2009  Post subject: filtering accindents - davis V's Shrogin (100% fault car) |
 |
|
If you have a claim on going for an accident while filtering then you should have a look at the case of Davis V's Shrogin (2006) which found the car driver 100% to blame and means "filtering is perfectly acceptable and drivers have a duty of care to ensure that riders are not filtering before they pull out or change speed or direction"
full details are below
| Quote: | If any of you have been involved are currently have accidents where filtering is involved currently on the go, no doubt the other side have tried to throw Powell v Moody (1966) at you on the basis that this case law is the only relevant matter and therefore the fact that you were filtering means that you are liable.
Well, from now on you can tell the other side who quotes this to shove it where the sun don't shine
I knew that this case was due to be heard, but now it has been dealt with, the outcome is that the rider won 100% despite the fact that the filtering rider was quite brisk and was beyond the centre white line. It was a typical filtering type of accident.
Sorry it is a bit of a long read, but it is useful and very important case law as it is the first time in the court of appeal that a direct case of filtering has gone this far and the Appeal court has said that filtering is perfectly acceptable and drivers have a duty of care to ensure that riders are not filtering before they pull out or change speed or direction. So, if anyone has a case pending which they are having difficulty supplying their legal representatives or insurance companies with ammunition, then this is the chappy. Here goes, sorry again for the long read, but as i say it may be worth even saving it on your computer for future reference.
1. LORD JUSTICE HUGHES: This is a defendant's appeal in a running down action. The judge held him solely to blame for the accident. His contention is that there should have been a finding of some measure of contributory negligence. The accident occurred on the main A40 road in Oxfordshire on a long straight section where there is one lane each way. Both the claimant and the defendant were travelling westwards. 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, by now roughly broadside across the eastbound lane, and the claimant's motorcycle. It was a nasty collision and the claimant sustained serious injuries. This all happened at about 6.30 pm on a summer evening. The weather was fine, the road was dry, the visibility was excellent for both drivers some hundreds of yards in each direction from the point of impact.
2. The judge's primary findings of fact were these:
1) both drivers were responsible, respectable people. The claimant was a careful and experienced rider, doing a journey that he did regularly. The defendant, who was a visitor from abroad, was a very experienced driver, both in his home in the United States and also in Europe, and as the judge said no doubt ordinarily an exemplary driver.
2) 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.
3) The stationary queue then nudged forward about one or one-and-a-third car lengths. The defendant moved over towards the left hand kerb. He then pulled out to make his U-turn.
4) The claimant's motorcycle was there to be seen when the defendant did that, but the defendant did not see it until the collision. The defendant was looking the wrong way. He was concentrating on looking to his left westwards along the road. The judge's finding to that effect was squarely based on the defendant's own evidence that that is what he was doing.
5) At the time when the claimant first spotted the defendant moving leftwards towards the kerb preparatory, as it turned out, to a U-turn, the claimant was no more than five cars' length back from the point of impact.
6) The defendant had become impatient. He was on the wrong road for his destination and stuck in a traffic jam to boot. He had said in evidence in a single answer that he was possibly a bit annoyed. The judge found that he was sure that it was significantly more than that and that that was a significant factor in explaining the error that the defendant had made.
3. On those facts the judge found first that the defendant was negligent in making his U-turn without looking properly, or indeed at all, to his right. There is not and cannot be any challenge to that finding. Indeed; that the defendant was negligent in that way was conceded at the trial. The judge found that the claimant was not to blame. He held that there was nothing he could have done to avoid the accident. He had indicated in the course of argument that his first reaction to the evidence was that the claimant was perhaps travelling faster than he should have been, but after argument and further consideration he concluded that that was not a legitimate criticism. But in any event he held that even if the claimant had been travelling appreciably more slowly than he was, it would have made no difference, because he had been right on top of the point of accident when the defendant first did anything to excite anxiety. In other words the judge held that even had there been any excess speed, it was not causative of the collision.
4. Ms Perry has helpfully taken us to short notes of two cases noted in Bingham's Motor Claims Cases. It does not seem to me that authorities on a point such as this are in the end of great assistance. That in different situations an overtaking driver may well be guilty of contributory negligence is something about which there can be no debate. But it does not follow that every such driver is. The cases to which we have been referred are both cases in which this court said no more than that there were no grounds to interfere with the findings of the judge below.
5. Everything depends in those cases and depends in this case on the point at which the overtaking driver was alerted or should have been alerted to the fact that there was any danger ahead. With two exceptions, the appellant defendant does not challenge the judge's primary findings of fact. In two respects however, he does. We should remind ourselves, as it seems to me, that the judge heard the evidence and saw the witnesses. He saw not only what they said but how they said it, and it seems to me that we should be very slow in this court to attempt to second guess his findings as to primary fact.
6. The challenge to the primary findings comes to the last two findings that I have listed, namely first that the defendant acted when annoyed or irritated and secondly, to the finding that the claimant had no time to react to what was happening ahead of him. As to the first, it seems to me that the judge was entitled to find that annoyance was a significant factor in causing the defendant to make his U-turn and to make it without looking in one direction at all. It is said that that finding is inconsistent with the evidence before the judge. In particular it is said that the evidence of an independent witness, Mr Howard, to the effect that the defendant emerged very slowly, indeed barely moving, is inconsistent with it. It was, as it seems to me, for the judge to assess which parts of whose evidence he accepted. But in any event the defendant did not have to move rapidly in order to present a sudden and unexpected obstacle to the claimant. To the extent that it is suggested that a second witness, Mrs Waters, whose short statement to the police officer was before the judge though she did not give evidence, supported the suggestion that the defendant was moving very slowly, I for my part cannot see that that can be related to what she says. Indeed, she said it all happened very fast.
7. As to the critical finding that the claimant had no time to react, the defendant's case was put to the judge on the basis of the defendant's own evidence that there elapsed five to ten seconds between the defendant's movement to his near side and the collision. It is no doubt true that if that time had elapsed, that would have given the claimant something like 100 or 200 yards in which to react. It is worth observing that the defendant had not recalled moving to his near side until he saw the claimant's statement to that effect. That might alone be thought to cast some doubt on any estimate that he made of the time elapsed after such movement, but in any event if there had been that kind of time for the claimant to react, it would have meant that for most of 100 or 200 yards the defendant was to be seen emerging and that the claimant had simply ridden straight into him. The judge was plainly right, as it seems to me, to say that that was simply not plausible.
8. The appellant's written grounds of appeal begin with the contention that the judge apparently accepted the evidence that the claimant had those five or ten seconds in which to react. The judge's findings make it perfectly clear that he did not. He recited the defendant's evidence to that effect, but his critical finding was that the claimant was only about five car lengths away when he saw the first leftwards movement of the defendant, followed immediately by the U-turn. It is perfectly plain that the judge did not accept the five or ten-second time lapse.
9. Here in this court the appellant defendant's case has been presented in a more refined form. Here the contention has become that the claimant must have been further back than five cars' length, because at 40 miles per hour he would cover that kind of distance, say about 20 yards, in about a second, and the U-turn manoeuvre, it is suggested, must have taken longer than that. That is an argument or a proposition which was not presented to the trial judge. Running down arithmetic is notoriously dangerous. This car only needed to move a very short distance in order to block something like two thirds, or perhaps a little more, of the lane in which the claimant motorcyclist was travelling.
10. It seems to me that it does not follow that when the claimant saw one car in a queue of traffic which he was overtaking nudge to the nearside, he should necessarily be expected to anticipate that what it was going to do was not only a U-turn which would completely block his path, but also that it would be done without the driver pausing to look his way. It is true that the claimant, with a candour that he shared with the defendant in evidence, said himself that he had seen the movement towards the nearside and he went on to say this:
"At that point alarm bells were ringing, but it was so instantaneous after that that I didn't have time to react to anything."
He added that he had thought that the car driver might be doing something different to what the rest of the traffic was continuing to do.
11. It does not, as it seems to me, follow from that that he was at that point sufficiently on enquiry of the prospect of a U-turn. But in any event on the judge's primary findings, whether the estimate of five car lengths is a mathematically precise one or not, the claimant was right on top of the scene and the point of impact when the defendant emerged from the line of traffic without looking. There is, as it seems to me, simply no basis for challenging the judge's finding upon causation. Once it is held, as the judge was plainly entitled to hold, that the claimant was so close to the point of impact that he could not avoid the collision, then there is simply no basis for any finding of contributory negligence.
12. I would for those reasons uphold the judge's finding and dismiss this appeal.
13. LORD JUSTICE HOOPER: I agree
14. LORD JUSTICE AULD: I also agree that the appeal should be dismissed for the reasons given by my Lord, Lord Justice Hughes.
Order: Appeal dismissed with costs.
3 Law lords all agreeing with the motorcyclist, what more ammunition do you need?
|
|
|
| Back to top |
  |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| Mr.Everready |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Mr.Everready
World Chat Champion
Joined: 28 Mar 2003
Karma : 
|
| Posted: 10:06 - 06 Oct 2009 Post subject: |
|
|
It's been on a couple of times before.
This was T.C.'s reply from 2 years ago. 
Before you all get too excited, this piece of case law was then counteracted by Farley v Buckley (2007)where the filtering motorcyclist was found 100% liable despite the case law of Davis v Scrogin (2006)
If you look back you will find I covered this in some depth, suffice to say that each case has to be looked at on its merits not simply because of two pieces of case law because of the conflict which makes my job considerably more difficult now!
In Davis v Scrogin, the speed of the motorcyclist was actually quite high whereas in Farley v Buckley the riders speed was far more consistant with that of a filtering rider.
The Highway Code is not law, it is advice for the benefit of all road users which can be used to support law, but we are talking ciil litigation not road traffic and there is a difference between the wo.
Either way, filtering is perfectly legal providing certain conditions are complied with, just don't assume that because of the 2006 case law you are going to win hands down, the 2007 case will also be considered and then a judgement made upon the merit of the case.
You may not want to read it as it is a little drawn out but the findings of the 07 case are
1. Many road traffic accidents involve collisions between two vehicles one of which has turned right from a minor road onto a major road along which the other was proceeding. In the great majority of such cases the driver who comes from the minor road attracts most if not all of the blame. The present appeal is from a judgment and order of Swift J who held that, in the particular circumstances of this case, the negligence was entirely that of the claimant in the action, who had been riding his motor scooter along a major road when it collided with the car of the defendant as he turned right out of a minor road.
2. At about 9.40 on the morning of 26 June 2002, Mr Farley was riding his Vespa scooter along Bolton Road in the direction of Bury. Bolton Road is a major road and contains a number of junctions with minor roads. Mr Farley was approaching a point where, on his left-hand side, Glenboro Avenue meets Bolton Road. To his right, directly opposite Glenboro Avenue, another minor road, Procter Street, meets Bolton Road. Glenboro Avenue is 6.9 metres wide until it opens out at the junction. Entry of traffic from Glenboro Avenue onto Bolton Road is governed by double broken white lines, indicating that traffic emerging from Glenboro Avenue should give way to traffic travelling along Bolton Road. The total width of the carriageway of Bolton Road is 10.65m but there are cycle lanes, 1.3m wide, running along the edge of the carriageway in both directions. Thus, the vehicular carriageway is reduced to a total of 13 ft 4 inches or 6 ft 10 inches in each direction. In the centre of the carriageway there is a broken white line of the type which indicates that there is a hazard ahead. At the time of the accident the weather was fine and dry and visibility was good. The speed limit on that part of Bolton Road is 30 miles per hour.
3. As Mr Farley approached the junction with Glenboro Avenue, he was overtaking a long refuse wagon which was travelling in the same direction. It was indicating an intention to turn left into Glenboro Avenue. However, the refuse lorry was 8 ft
4 inches wide and 34 ft long and it would not have been able to effect such a left turn until a Ford Escort car, which was being driven by Mr Buckley, had turned out of Glenboro Avenue into Bolton Road. It was the intention of Mr Buckley to effect a right hand turn so as to travel towards Bolton. The driver of the refuse wagon, Mr Nieland, slowed down, thus creating a space between his vehicle and the one ahead of him and enabling Mr Buckley to drive out of Glenboro Avenue. Mr Buckley had paused at the junction until there was a gap in the traffic moving along Bolton Road in both directions, whereupon he drove out of Glenboro Avenue and across the front of the refuse wagon. As the front of his car advanced beyond the front offside of the refuse wagon, there was a collision between the car and Mr Farley's scooter as it completed the overtaking of the refuse wagon. The point of the collision was above the offside front wheel arch of the car. The middle of the front wheel arch is 2 ft 10 inches from the front of the car.
4. In addition to those facts, which were largely undisputed at trial, the judge made the following findings:
"… the traffic travelling in the direction of Bury was heavy and slow moving … [the refuse wagon] was in an almost central position between the central white line and the edge of the cycle lane … there would have been about 2½ft of the carriageway on either side of it. On the nearside of the wagon there would have been an additional 4 or 5 ft, being the width of the cycle lane … Before the accident (Mr Nieland) had not brought his vehicle to a complete halt, but was still moving very slowly … the claimant was travelling at a speed of about 30 miles per hour as he overtook the refuse wagon … there would have been a distance of only 2½ft between the offside of the wagon and the centre of the road. The claimant's motor scooter was 2½ft wide and he must have allowed some clearance, at least a foot – most probably more – between the side of the refuse wagon and the edge of his motor scooter. Accordingly, I find that, as he overtook the wagon, he must have been travelling with the wheels of his motor scooter on, or virtually on, the centre white line and with some part of the body of the scooter over the white line … The defendant stopped at the junction and waited until his path appeared clear in both directions. He then moved out … He did so in one continuous movement, travelling slowly at about 5 – 8 miles per hour all the while … I do not accept his evidence that he slowed his speed. I accept Mr Nieland's evidence that it was one continuous movement at the same speed … The defendant's car travelled across the Bury-bound carriageway at about 5 – 8 miles per hour and … the collision occurred when it was in motion at that speed and at a point when the centre of the front wheel arch of the car … was virtually on the centre line. That would mean that the front of the car was protruding about 5ft or so beyond the offside of the refuse wagon. I find that the car moved only a short distance, if at all, in a forward direction after the collision. This supports my finding that it was moving at a slow speed at the time of the impact."
5. The judge then expressed her conclusions on liability, dealing first with Mr Farley and then with Mr Buckley. Of the former, she said:
"He chose to overtake a line of slow-moving traffic in busy traffic conditions and on an urban road which he knew to have a number of road junctions … [He] had been unable to see the junction because of the presence of the refuse wagon. … He chose to overtake a vehicle which was so large and bulky that, before he began to overtake it, it completely blocked his view to the left and in front. It was inevitable that it would continue to block his view to the left at all times until he emerged beyond the front of its cab. He no doubt assumed that the refuse wagon had slowed almost to a standstill, because of the presence of traffic immediately in front. However, he was unable because of the presence and position of the refuse wagon to verify that assumption before embarking upon his overtaking manoeuvre. As it happens, the assumption was of course incorrect. He would probably have been unable, until he was in the act of overtaking, to see that a sizeable gap had developed between the refuse wagon and the traffic in front and to appreciate that the refuse wagon had slowed for a reason other than slow-moving traffic in front. By that time it would be too late to act. He had voluntarily put himself in the position where he was unable to see any traffic which might be emerging from a junction to the left, or indeed any pedestrians who may be crossing the road in front of the refuse wagon … [He] either failed to notice the indicators because he was overtaking the refuse wagon as part of a line of traffic and looking ahead of him or noticed them but failed to heed their significance. Either way, there was a serious want of care on his part. The other important aspect is the claimant's speed. I have found this to be 30 miles per hour, which was the maximum speed at which traffic was permitted to travel on this stretch of road. It is speed which one would expect to be attained in clear road conditions by a vehicle with a clear unobstructed view of the road ahead. Here the claimant was performing a hazardous manoeuvre in circumstances in which he was unable to see to his left or in front of the vehicle he was overtaking. It behoved him, if he was to undertake this manoeuvre at all, to do so at such a speed that he could stop within a very short distance indeed … The claimant's speed made it completely impossible for him to deal with an emergency of the type which he faced as he overtook the refuse wagon. It is conceded on his behalf that his speed was excessive, having regard to the road conditions. I would go further than that and say that he was travelling at a speed which was reckless having regard in particular to the nature of the manoeuvre which he was carrying out, the lack of visibility to his left and the fact that the refuse wagon (albeit probably unnoticed by him) was displaying its left indicators."
6. Turning to the driving of the car by Mr Buckley, the judge said:
"There is no doubt that he waited until gaps had occurred in the traffic travelling in both directions. The refuse wagon plainly presented no hazard and Mrs Finch's car [which was travelling along Bolton Road in the direction of Bolton] was sufficiently far from the junction to allow ample time for the defendant to turn. It is not the case that he was taking a chance and making a quick turn in circumstances when it was unsafe to do so. Indeed, it is clear that he proceeded slowly and cautiously and I have accepted that he was travelling at a slow speed when the accident occurred."
7. The submission made on behalf of Mr Farley at trial was that Mr Buckley, on his own admission, was aware that vehicles did sometimes overtake slow moving traffic at the approach to this junction before turning right into Procter Street and that, being aware of that possibility, once he reached the offside of the refuse wagon, he should have stopped with only about 1 or 2ft of the front of his car protruding beyond the refuse wagon. Although he would not at that point have had any view down the far side of the refuse wagon, such a manoeuvre would have had the effect of warning an overtaking driver or rider of his presence, thereby enabling that driver or rider if not to stop, at least to swerve so as to avoid a collision. In other words, rather than emerging in a continuous movement, Mr Buckley ought to have engaged in what came to be described as "nose-poking". The judge rejected this submission describing it as a counsel of perfection. She said:
"As he looked to his right from the mouth of Glenboro Avenue, the defendant would have seen that the cycle lane was unoccupied and that traffic had built up behind the refuse wagon. He was aware that, until he left the junction, the refuse wagon could not make its left turn. He saw the refuse wagon's indicator and might well have thought, as did his wife (who was in the front passenger seat), that it was obvious to traffic travelling behind the refuse wagon what was going on. In those circumstances, he would not have expected traffic to have been overtaking the refuse wagon. The wagon was occupying the whole or virtually the whole of the Bury-bound carriageway, so that, if any vehicle were to overtake, it would have had to have been travelling on or very close to the white line or on the wrong side of the road. That factor would make it even less likely that there would be any traffic overtaking. Moreover, even if the defendant did have in mind the possibility that there might be overtaking vehicles intending to turn into Procter Street, he could reasonably have expected them to be moving at a very slow speed as they approached the junction and prepared to make their right turn. The defendant emerged into the junction at a slow speed. For the first part of his turn he was protected by the refuse wagon. He moved gradually beyond that protection. He could not obtain a line of vision along the side of the refuse wagon until he had moved out much further. So he continued to move slowly forward. His wife said that he was travelling so slowly that she became concerned that the gap in the Bolton-bound traffic might close. I have found that at the time of the accident he had advanced only about 5ft beyond the offside of the refuse wagon. In moving slowly as he did, it seems to me that the defendant was taking all reasonable precautions against the possibility, however remote, that there might be a vehicle overtaking the refuse wagon. He could not, in my judgment, have foreseen that there would be an overtaking vehicle which would have ignored the hazards I have previously mentioned and be travelling straight across the junction at a speed which would not allow it to stop when it saw the defendant's car. It seems to me, that in all the circumstances of this case, to stop his car just beyond the offside of the refuse wagon would have been to go beyond the duty of reasonable care."
8. On behalf of Mr Farley, Mr Redfern QC points to the difference between what Mr Buckley said he did and what the judge found. In evidence, Mr Buckley had described himself as "crawling out" and "edging forward bit by bit, rather than going at any speed, so that anything could see the front side of my car". In other words, nose-poking. That account was rejected by the judge in favour of "one continuous movement at the same speed", namely "about 5 – 8 miles per hour". Mr Redfern's central submission is a simple one, namely that if Mr Buckley had been driving as he described in evidence, he would not have been driving negligently and the accident would either not have happened or would have been less serious. On the other hand, upon the basis of the judge's findings of fact, the driving was negligent. His ultimate submission is that both parties were negligent and that an apportionment on a 50:50 basis would be appropriate because each was culpably mindless of the foreseeable risk created by the other. The question for this court is therefore whether the judge was wrong to conclude that the approach contended for by Mr Redfern amounted to a counsel of perfection rather than indisputable evidence of negligence.
9. In my judgment, the conclusion of the judge was a permissible one. The finding that Mr Buckley was travelling at "about 5 - 8 miles per hour" is given a prominent part in Mr Redfern's submissions. He suggests that such a speed cannot properly be described as "slow" because it approximates to a very fast walking pace or perhaps a child's running speed. However, although this finding as to speed was made by the judge, it has to be seen in context. Its source was the evidence of Mr Nieland who had stated in his witness statement:
"The movement was continuous but not particularly fast – I would estimate at somewhere between 5 and 8 miles an hour."
10. When cross examined, he was challenged as to his evidence of continuous movement but not specifically on his estimate of the speed. The judge also accepted the evidence of Mrs Finch to the effect that Mr Buckley was moving slowly and cautiously and the evidence of Mr Buckley's wife that he was moving so slowly that she became concerned that the available gap in the Bolton-bound traffic might close. It is apparent from the several passages in her judgment to which I referred earlier that the judge was satisfied that Mr Buckley proceeded "slowly and cautiously". That is a finding based on impressions gleaned from several sources. I would describe it as a firm or hard finding. Very often in cases such as this reliable impressions are more probative than arithmetical estimates. The finding of "about 5 - 8 miles per hour", on the other hand, I would describe as a relatively soft finding. It is in terms an approximation and it is based on the observation of a person whose ability to give accurate evidence of speed was necessarily limited. All that Mr Nieland was able to see was a car travelling across the front of the refuse wagon from a standing start for a distance of less than two car lengths. That would enable him to give clear evidence of continuity of movement but any evidence he could give by way of an estimate of speed could not have the same cogency. It seems to me that the real issue in this case is whether it was negligent of Mr Buckley to effect a continuous movement rather than to nose-poke. On the particular facts of this case, I am satisfied that the judge was entitled to find as she did. Whilst it was foreseeable that a motorcycle might be overtaking the refuse wagon at modest speed with a view to turning right into Procter Street (as Mr Buckley accepted in evidence) or even to continue ahead with an appropriate degree of care, it was not foreseeable that a motorcycle would be overtaking the refuse wagon in the reckless manner found by the judge. Her use of the word "reckless" was apt. Moreover, given the short space between the offside of the refuse wagon and the centre of the carriageway, the difference between continuous movement and nose-poking in this case was extremely slight. It would be too much to expect a driver in the position of Mr Buckley to calculate to a nicety the number of inches which it would be prudent to nose-poke. Moreover, nose-poking carries risks of its own, in particular it may provoke an overtaking motorcyclist into a hazardous swerve.
11. It follows from what I have said that, in my judgment, the judge considered the implications of this case with conspicuous care and reached an appropriate conclusion. That is not to say that in all such cases a driver who fails to nose-poke or emerges continuously at "about 5 – 8 miles per hour" will avoid a finding of negligence. It is common ground in this case and bears emphasis that cases such as this are very fact-sensitive. On the unique facts found by the judge, I consider that she was entitled to find an absence of negligence on the part of Mr Buckley and I would dismiss this appeal.
Lord Justice Wall:
12. I agree that this appeal should be dismissed for the reasons given by Maurice Kay LJ. I would like in particular to associate myself with everything he says in paragraph 11 of his judgment.
Lord Justice Pill:
13. I also agree, and for the reasons given by Maurice Kay LJ. The judge was entitled to conclude that Mr Farley should bear full responsibility for the collision. The judge was entitled to regard his conduct in overtaking a slow moving line of traffic at 30miles an hour on an urban street as "reckless" and his lack of anticipation as showing a "serious want of care".
14. My conclusion does not detract from or diminish the care to be expected from a driver turning right, as Mr Buckley was, in circumstances such as these. Great care is required.
15. The judge's finding that Mr Buckley emerged from the minor road at "about 5-8 miles per hour" was based on a statement of Mr Nieland, the driver of the refuse wagon, which was not challenged in cross-examination, though contrary to Mr Buckley's evidence. The finding is difficult to reconcile with her finding that Mr Buckley was proceeding "slowly and cautiously", was "moving at a slow speed" and moved forward "only a short distance, if at all" after the collision, and with her overall assessment of Mr Buckley's conduct.
16. This case is not authority for the proposition that emerging from a minor road at 5 to 8 miles an hour, in circumstances such as the present, is generally an acceptable manoeuvre.
____________________
the undemocratically unelected mod of the Scottish section |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| iooi |
This post is not being displayed .
|
iooi
Super Spammer
Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Karma : 
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Devils Advocate |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Devils Advocate
World Chat Champion
Joined: 18 Apr 2009
Karma :  
|
| Posted: 11:22 - 06 Oct 2009 Post subject: |
|
|
I got lectured by the rozzers once for filtering in the way i`d seen other riders do it.....but was told it was actually illegal and next time i`d get a fine/points.
Basically they (the rozzers) told me filtering is a grey area as far as they`re concerned and the only way it`s legal is if the vehicle in front moves over to allow you enough space to pass on the right in the same lane..The emphasis being on in the same lane/on the right
Most of the time when i filter,usually on motorways,i find myself crossing the white lines and going straight through the middle of a stretch of cars in lanes 2/3.....so i`m always changing lanes to get past instead of waiting for someone to kindly move over and let me pass to the right.
Apparently...this is when filtering`s illegal and can get you a pull.
Some of you might know this already,if it`s true,but i didnt.
I was told i was actually undertaking most of the time and was commiting an ofence by doing so 
Last edited by Devils Advocate on 11:27 - 06 Oct 2009; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| the grim reaper |
This post is not being displayed .
|
the grim reaper
World Chat Champion
Joined: 29 Jun 2005
Karma : 
|
| Posted: 11:27 - 06 Oct 2009 Post subject: |
|
|
| max power wrote: | I got lectured by the rozzers once for filtering in the way i`d seen other riders do it.....but was told it was actually illegal and next time i`d get a fine/points.
Basically they (the rozzers) told me filtering is a grey area as far as they`re concerned and the only way it`s legal is if the vehicle in front moves over to allow you enough space to pass on the right in the same lane.The emphasis being on in the same lane
Most of the time when i filter,usually on motorways,i find myself crossing the white lines and going straight through the middle of a stretch of cars in lanes 2/3.....so i`m always changing lanes to get past instead of waiting for someone to kindly move over and let me pass to the right.
Apparently...this is when filtering`s illegal and can get you a pull.
Some of you might know this already,if it`s true,but i didnt.
I was told i was actually undertaking most of the time and was commiting an ofence by doing so |
The only time you have to stay in your lane is for double white lines, when filtering can be tight.
Overtaking queuing traffic on the left is a bollocks excuse and the Police are wrong. What happens if lane 2 is moving faster than lane 3? Are all the cars overtaking on the left? I don't think so. Filtering is legal in this country, although it is also risky and should be treated as such.
Cheers
Grim
____________________
Adverts don't always work: Remember that advert, where the army are running across the desert and they have a wounded man on a stretcher. They get to a ravine, the bridge is down and a caption pops up that says, 'What are you thinking?'. I don't know about you but I was thinking, 'Christ, I'm glad I'm not in the f***ing army'. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Mystery |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Mystery
World Chat Champion
Joined: 23 Jul 2009
Karma : 
|
| Posted: 11:27 - 06 Oct 2009 Post subject: |
|
|
| max power wrote: | I got lectured by the rozzers once for filtering in the way i`d seen other riders do it.....but was told it was actually illegal and next time i`d get a fine/points.
Basically they (the rozzers) told me filtering is a grey area as far as they`re concerned and the only way it`s legal is if the vehicle in front moves over to allow you enough space to pass on the right in the same lane.The emphasis being on in the same lane
Most of the time when i filter,usually on motorways,i find myself crossing the white lines and going straight through the middle of a stretch of cars in lanes 2/3.....so i`m always changing lanes to get past instead of waiting for someone to kindly move over and let me pass to the right.
Apparently...this is when filtering`s illegal and can get you a pull.
Some of you might know this already,if it`s true,but i didnt.
I was told i was actually undertaking most of the time and was commiting an ofence by doing so |
if its a gray area and your doing that the chance of the same cops seeing you again could be quiet low so you would get off with another warning, or just sit behind the cop till they move over and you the chance to over take then start doing that again
____________________
Carbon knuckles assure you maximum protect against debris and unfortunate accidents or if someone cuts you off, their side mirror.Mopeds are like chubby chicks.. they are really fun to ride until you're friends catch you on one |
|
| Back to top |
 |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Devils Advocate |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Devils Advocate
World Chat Champion
Joined: 18 Apr 2009
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
Old Thread Alert!
The last post was made 16 years, 340 days ago. Instead of replying here, would creating a new thread be more useful? |
 |
|
|
This page may contain affiliate links, which means we may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. By clicking on an affiliate link, you accept that third-party cookies will be set.
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
Read the Terms of Use! - Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
Debug Mode: ON - Server: birks (www) - Page Generation Time: 0.18 Sec - Server Load: 0.77 - MySQL Queries: 13 - Page Size: 90.37 Kb
|
Help & FAQs
Search BCF
Members
Groups
Events Calendar
rating
rating