# Filtering/undertaking



## Domestique (7 Sep 2008)

What is the legal position when filtering or undertaking on the left hand side of slow moving or stationary traffic?
Yesterday I had a driver of parked car, on my left hand side, decide to pull out, and I was at fault and a silly cow as another car had stopped in the very slow moving traffic to let him do so. 
I dont want to start the painted cycle lane debate, but, imo at least it would clearly show you had a right to be on the road. 
Im peed off


----------



## BentMikey (7 Sep 2008)

What happened exactly? Did they indicate before pulling out, were you hit, and are you ok?

Drivers will always try to blame you in this sort of collision. In reality, they need to check their surroundings before pulling off. Filtering is quite legal. There is quite a lot of onus on us, though, to filter carefully and well.

I would also say that overtaking, i.e. filtering on the right, is usually the better option than undertaking. Undertaking leads to the undertakers, and whilst I do undertake, it's usually with extreme care. To be fair though, any form of filtering needs to be done with lots of care.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Sep 2008)

See rule 151:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070309

and rule 88:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069854

If you google motorcycles and filtering, there's quite a lot of subject matter.


----------



## Domestique (7 Sep 2008)

I had seen the indicator on the car going and he quite clearly saw me. As I see this, I am on the carrigeway and he is pulling onto it, I have the right of way regardless of other traffic.
Btw it was a miss, and not even a near miss as I had anticpated what was going to happen. He still pulled alongside further up the road and had his say though
Thanks BM, I like rule 151. I may have to quote that as my reply when this happens again.


----------



## Joe24 (7 Sep 2008)

Wouldnt he have seen you in his mirror before he pulled off, which should of been checked before she pulled out?
But when i've been in the car with mum, we were half way down the side of a car which had pulled over to let someone out, and had been passed by alot of people in the que of cars from the lights just tried to pull and barge her way into the que again.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Sep 2008)

You don't have right of way, you might have had priority, though I agree, he should have waited.

According to his "small willy" mindset, you're an unimportant pleb on a bike, so you should always give way to Very Important Drivers like him. Hence the abuse. He's not worth another thought, unlike your own riding/driving. I think I would have done much the same as you did, avoiding the initial incident and then questioning my own riding to see if I could improve anything. It sounds like you did everything right to me.


----------



## MessenJah (7 Sep 2008)

Sometimes undertaking is ok, depending on the situation, but I usually avoid it unless it is the only option and it's definitely safe. Once, when I was less experienced, I was in a hurry, it was freezing cold and I just wanted to get where I was going, and I thought 'just go'. I unthinkingly undertook a load of cars and this happened:







The woman who hit me asked if I was ok, I just said "I'm fine" in a disgruntled voice and rode off, but to this day I still feel guilty 'cause it was my fault and I probably made her feel pretty bad for hitting me.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Sep 2008)

*cough* your fault? Isn't it her responsibility to check it's clear before turning? I would say it was your failure to ride defensively, but both legal and moral blame would be on the red car driver.


----------



## John Ponting (8 Sep 2008)

generic said:


> Thanks BM, I like rule 151. I may have to quote that as my reply when this happens again.



Rule 151(5) allows for the situation to arise as well as Rule 151(6) being a usefull response.

I (personally) think that Rule 88 is the one to be remembered at all times . I have a major vested interest in MY safety as well as that of others.


btw I'm more _commuter_ motorcyclist than cyclist. I have never cycled near central London and haven't commuted regularly for about 8 years. I am sure that conditions and densities have increased dramatically. Bike show in October by motorbike will give me an update.


----------



## Cab (8 Sep 2008)

BentMikey said:


> *cough* your fault? Isn't it her responsibility to check it's clear before turning? I would say it was your failure to ride defensively, but both legal and moral blame would be on the red car driver.



And that really sums the whole thing up nicely. Look out for your own safety, thats the right thing to do, but at the same time that doesn't mean that when the other person breaks the rules and endangers you it becomes your fault. Her mistake, her fault, but if you can avoid it then do so.


----------



## John Ponting (8 Sep 2008)

Cab, I think that's what I was trying to suggest but you put it much better.


----------



## Jaded (8 Sep 2008)

Regardless of the HC and priority and so on, there's one adage that is far more important than what a driver *should* do.

That is, always think of what the drivers expect to happen. 

Drivers don't normally expect someone to come up on the inside
Drivers don't normally expect a stationary line of cars to suddenly change into a moving one (like the turning right example above)

You can argue until blue in the face about what these drivers should do, about being in the right, about doing the right thing, but if you don't think about what drivers expect to happen then you stand a greater chance of being in the right, but injured.


----------



## MessenJah (8 Sep 2008)

BentMikey said:


> *cough* your fault? Isn't it her responsibility to check it's clear before turning? I would say it was your failure to ride defensively, but both legal and moral blame would be on the red car driver.



But she _did_ check, and it _was_ clear, that is until I suddenly emerged from beside the blue vehicle.

She did spot me and her brakes were on when the car hit me, and thus it was barely a knock; I don't even think I fell off the bike.

But you can't expect all motorists to have superhuman powers of vision, they don't have x-ray eyes, and you certainly can't blame them for your own stupidity.


----------



## BentMikey (8 Sep 2008)

She can't have checked properly then, and should have. Filtering cyclists are extremely common in London, you can't say it's something that drivers don't and shouldn't expect.

OTOH I'd probably feel the brunt of my own failure to predict the obvious if I'd done the same as messenjah. Still doesn't change the fact that the driver screwed up and would be liable for any damages.


----------



## Cab (8 Sep 2008)

BentMikey said:


> She can't have checked properly then, and should have. Filtering cyclists are extremely common in London, you can't say it's something that drivers don't and shouldn't expect.
> 
> OTOH I'd probably feel the brunt of my own failure to predict the obvious if I'd done the same as messenjah. Still doesn't change the fact that the driver screwed up and would be liable for any damages.



Although were this to end up in court then the extent of damages may well be rather less than would be the case had the cyclist not filtered; the motorist may argue that the cyclist wasn't visible due to the presence of other traffic, and it is the responsibility of every road user to think for themselves to minimise risk. Still the motorists fault, but like most accidents there are contributory factors outside of each individuals influence.


----------



## Jaded (8 Sep 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Filtering cyclists are extremely common in London, you can't say it's something that drivers don't and shouldn't expect.



London and other cities, and towns with a cycle culture, but I can think of plenty of places where they are rare.

You may say that drivers should expect, but you cannot assume they will.


----------



## Cab (8 Sep 2008)

Jaded said:


> London and other cities, and towns with a cycle culture, but I can think of plenty of places where they are rare.
> 
> You may say that drivers should expect, but you cannot assume they will.



I don't believe that anyone said that they will, in fact everyone who has thus far commented seems to agree that the problem is that very often they won't. That they _should_ means that if they do not then any accident resulting from that is their fault. That does not mean that it is a good idea to plough on regardless, because we all know that sometimes (often in some towns) that's risky.


----------



## MessenJah (8 Sep 2008)

I find it quite sad that people would still blame the driver despite the fact that (a) they weren't at fault and ( the cyclist has taken responsibility.

That kind of attitude probably does cyclists more harm than good.


----------



## BentMikey (8 Sep 2008)

Jaded said:


> You may say that drivers should expect, but you cannot assume they will.



It sounds like you're making out that I should know this and don't, when it's what I've said from the start. DKUATB!!!

What Cab said, basically.

Messenjah, it's very possible to take responsibility for something that isn't your fault, legally. This is why insurance co.s tell you never to admit fault. I think we all accept that you should have ridden differently there, i.e. more defensively, but that doesn't change the fact that it's the driver's fault.


----------



## Disgruntled Goat (8 Sep 2008)

I'm going to court on 10th November to prosecute a driver who left hooked me whilst I was filtering on the left. I'll let you know what the verdict is. I must admit things don't seem clear re filtering but I believe the driver has a duty of care (as does the cyclist).


----------



## Cab (8 Sep 2008)

MessenJah said:


> I find it quite sad that people would still blame the driver despite the fact that (a) they weren't at fault and ( the cyclist has taken responsibility.
> 
> That kind of attitude probably does cyclists more harm than good.



The motorist was at fault. If the cyclist has accepted responsibility, he is in error. That the cyclist could have avoided the incident doesn't make it his fault; why should it?

It is the attitude that motorists should not be expected to obey the law that does us more harm than anything else.


----------



## col (8 Sep 2008)

BentMikey said:


> She can't have checked properly then, and should have. Filtering cyclists are extremely common in London, you can't say it's something that drivers don't and shouldn't expect.
> 
> OTOH I'd probably feel the brunt of my own failure to predict the obvious if I'd done the same as messenjah. Still doesn't change the fact that the driver screwed up and would be liable for any damages.



Its unfair to say she didnt check properly,how far can you see if a large vehicle is there,also i dont suppose anyone expects an undertake at a junction
when they are turning?As cyclists we cant say they didnt check properly,when we should also be checking to see if anything is coming and reacting accordingly.Its too easy to say its their fault,we should be looking too?Now if it was a motor vehicle that had appeared from behind the vehicle as we were turning right?i wonder if you would be saying the same thing?


----------



## Jaded (8 Sep 2008)

col said:


> Its unfair to say she didnt check properly,how far can you see if a large vehicle is there,also *i dont suppose anyone expects an undertake at a junction*
> when they are turning?As cyclists we cant say they didnt check properly,when we should also be checking to see if anything is coming and reacting accordingly.Its too easy to say its their fault,we should be looking too?Now if it was a motor vehicle that had appeared from behind the vehicle as we were turning right?i wonder if you would be saying the same thing?



This is a key point.


----------



## Cab (8 Sep 2008)

Jaded said:


> This is a key point.



Is it? Sorry, why? Where does it say anywhere in the highway code or anywhere else that filtering on the left is LESS likely at a junction?


----------



## Jaded (8 Sep 2008)

The HC is a book.

The roads are for real.


----------



## mr_cellophane (8 Sep 2008)

Any filtering is risky whether on the left or right of stationary traffic. On the left there is the danger of cars turning right into a junction and on te right there is the danger of cars pulling out from a junction to turn right.
I always watch for large gaps in queues of traffic and assume that a car is about to appear from it.


----------



## swee'pea99 (8 Sep 2008)

I have to say I'm baffled by some of the comments that appear on these boards. As Messenjah says, what else could the driver have done? Short of having x-ray eyes. 

As for Messenjah, he's conceded - quite rightly in my view - that he was at fault, for riding into a blind spot at a speed that made him unable to stop in time if something turned out to be there. What if a pedestrian had been crossing the road at that point (through the stationary traffic)? They do, you know. Or should I say, 'we do, you know'.

Personally I would never undertake - or overtake for that matter - into a blind spot like that at anything above walking speed: ie, a speed from which I'd be able to prevent an accident even if the worst possible scenario - a mother pushing a tot in a pushchair, say - were to happen. 

Blaming drivers for their lack of x-ray eyes seems to me an odd way of making friends and influencing people.


----------



## BentMikey (8 Sep 2008)

If you're turning right, you're responsible for checking that it's safe to proceed. Just because motor vehicles are stopped and/or have left a gap for you to turn across the junction, doesn't mean that it's clear to go. You're still responsible for checking for filtering two-wheeled and other traffic, and not to do so is stupid. Filtering PTWs and bicycles are *extremely* common, so the driver has no excuse for not knowing about the possibility.

As a driver I expect to turn carefully in this situation, and I expect to have to check both sides of the queue in turn to make sure that it's safe for me to cross. It's not difficult, and nor is checking for and allowing pedestrians to cross the side road.

I'd bet that that sort of driver will have had previous, and possibly also previous with pedestrians crossing the side road, despite the highway code advice on this.


----------



## Baggy (8 Sep 2008)

swee said:


> I've done almost exactly the same as Messenjah (when I was new to cycling), but without crashing. Difference was that I was in a dedicated cycle lane...the driver was very apologetic and now I'm always very careful in that kind of situation.
> 
> I felt as if it was my fault for not double checking, but the bike lane should have reminded the driver to have double checked as well.
> 
> The driver should have checked, but then I was blatting along pretty quickly and should have been more cautious. In cases like this sometimes there's no blame, just two people not quite doing the right thing.


----------



## Jaded (8 Sep 2008)

Well put, Mr P.


----------



## swee'pea99 (8 Sep 2008)

So what's a driver to do in that situation? Not go at all, on account of some cyclist *may* come speeding through on the inside? 

"As a driver I expect to turn carefully in this situation, and I expect to have to check both sides of the queue in turn to make sure that it's safe for me to cross."

Sorry, but that's palpable nonsense. By the time the right-turning driver is in a position to see up the inside of the stopped vehicle, his/her bonnet is already a metre up the side road. 

By Messenjah's account, the turning driver had done everything that could reasonably have been asked of her. To turn around and start declaring her 'at fault' is totally unrealistic, and can only serve to heighten antagonism between road-users, as well as strengthen the conviction among many that we ('self-righteous/arrogant') cyclists don't live in the real world.


----------



## BentMikey (8 Sep 2008)

Sweetpea, it's you that's talking nonsense. I think what you really mean is that you want to turn right quickly and impatiently, and don't want to spare the time to look properly as the highway code demands of you.

Rule 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."

Rule 170 and 180 state much the same thing: Rule 180:
Rule 180:
*"*Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle. Watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and other road users. Check your mirrors and blind spot again to make sure you are not being overtaken, then make the turn. Do not cut the corner. Take great care when turning into a main road; you will need to watch for traffic in both directions and wait for a safe gap."


----------



## swee'pea99 (8 Sep 2008)

No, BM, as ever, what I mean is what I say. Certainly "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." But there's nothing in Messenjah's account to suggest the driver wasn't doing exactly that. To the extent that anyone (without x-ray eyes) can.

The fact remains, in tight traffic, given that the driver's head is seven or eight feet behind the end of the bonnet, the front of a right-turning vehicle is going to be into the side street before the driver can physically see up the inside of, say, a bus or van.

A cyclist riding at speed into a blind spot has only themselves to blame if they come a cropper. And if they hurt anyone else, shame on them.


----------



## John the Monkey (8 Sep 2008)

Just to play Devil's avocado for a minute here, if the onus is on the driver (as they are crossing the traffic, in this case) to make the turn safely, *should* they be turning if they can't see around the vehicles forming the "gap" enough to be sure that their way is clear?


----------



## BentMikey (8 Sep 2008)

John the Monkey said:


> Just to play Devil's avocado for a minute here, if the onus is on the driver (as they are crossing the traffic, in this case) to make the turn safely, *should* they be turning if they can't see around the vehicles forming the "gap" enough to be sure that their way is clear?



Exactly.

Sweatpea extreme example of the bonnet getting in the way is very unlikely. For the most part only a small fraction of the bonnet will stick out, the right corner. His example length will only apply if the car has already turned right through 90 degrees. In perhaps 95% of traffic situations I've been driving in, it's always been easily possible to see down either side of the queueing traffic.

If you take the example of riding down a bus lane, or Baggy's cycle lane, then there is no excuse for the driver not having looked properly. They were crossing a second lane of traffic where they couldn't see, and yet sweatpea says this isn't the driver's fault.


----------



## hackbike 6 (8 Sep 2008)

I think both should take the responsibility.

I know it's easy to get caught out in these situations.


----------



## MessenJah (8 Sep 2008)

Cab said:


> The motorist was at fault. If the cyclist has accepted responsibility, he is in error. That the cyclist could have avoided the incident doesn't make it his fault; why should it?
> 
> It is the attitude that motorists should not be expected to obey the law that does us more harm than anything else.


Sorry, but who was driving the car and who was on the bike? You?

She was already most of the way through the turn when I emerged from beside the vehicle in front. The fact that she slammed on the brakes well before she could cause me any damage showed that at least she was paying attention to what was in front of her, that she was alert and that she has a decent reaction time.

Tell me, how could the woman have possibly seen me until it was too late?

Should she have been driving at 0.05mph and wearing infra-red goggles _just in case_ a muppet on a bike happened to suddenly appear from behind a vehicle?


----------



## BentMikey (8 Sep 2008)

So you're saying both you and the driver were steaming headlong into a spot where you couldn't see if you needed to stop!!

We all know what both should have done better in terms of defensive riding and driving, but this is about actual fault. Who had priority, and who failed to cede priority?


----------



## Cab (8 Sep 2008)

MessenJah said:


> Sorry, but who was driving the car and who was on the bike? You?
> 
> She was already most of the way through the turn when I emerged from beside the vehicle in front. The fact that she slammed on the brakes well before she could cause me any damage showed that at least she was paying attention to what was in front of her, that she was alert and that she has a decent reaction time.
> 
> ...



Mmmh hm. She was aware enough to stop and not trundle straight over you. She did this, thus you survived. She's turned across in front of you, and didn't kill you... And thats whats meant to happen. Had she properly levelled you, i.e. if you emerged very fast from the blind spot and got flattened, it would have been her fault, and should there have been a court case then your actions would count against you in deciding her penalty and any compensation. 

This really is what several people have been saying, in one way or another; that its the fault of a motorist in such a situation is clearly true (and thats the law, live with it). That a cyclist must do what he may to reduce risk is also true. The latter does not change the former. Don't like it? Write to your MP.


----------



## swee'pea99 (8 Sep 2008)

Come on, give it up Messenjah - what do you know? You were only there.


----------



## Cab (8 Sep 2008)

[quote name='swee'pea99']Come on, give it up Messenjah - what do you know? You were only there.[/QUOTE]

A fair point well made 

If Messenjah wants to take responsibility for anything at all, right or wrong, thats up to him. Good luck to you Messenjah, hope things work out well for you.


----------



## swee'pea99 (8 Sep 2008)

C'mon Messenjah, what do you know? You were only there...


----------



## swee'pea99 (8 Sep 2008)

Oops, trouble wit' browser. Sorry for duplication.


----------



## John Ponting (8 Sep 2008)

swee said:


> problem with Browser or User's Fingers ?


----------



## Jaded (8 Sep 2008)

Cab said:


> If Messenjah wants to take responsibility for anything at all, right or wrong, thats up to him. Good luck to you Messenjah, hope things work out well for you.




It sounds to me that he takes responsibility for his safety.


----------



## Domestique (12 Sep 2008)

Imo a car turning right is at fault. She pulled accross the road without making sure it was clear.
Thats what happened to me about 15 years ago. Despite the police telling me i was at fault whilst i waited to get my face put back together. The BCF solicitor saw it differently.
I do agree that you should never assume right of way, but thats more to do with self preservation than law.


----------



## Dan (31 Oct 2010)

Disgruntled Goat said:


> I'm going to court on 10th November to prosecute a driver who left hooked me whilst I was filtering on the left. I'll let you know what the verdict is. I must admit things don't seem clear re filtering but I believe the driver has a duty of care (as does the cyclist).



Sorry to raise an old topic, I just wondered how you got on? I was travelling down a one way street yesterday, came to a set of traffic lights and was filtering on the inside of a van who decided to turned left and knocked me off. 

I'm not sure whether how I would get on persueing it, as he said he had his indicator on (I can't honestly remember if he did or didnt).

Thanks guys!

Dan


----------



## jimboalee (31 Oct 2010)

The HC rules quoted are "You should" rules ( or advice ) and don't have a Road Traffic law attached.

Look through the HC for a rule with "You must" in it and then look at the attached Road Law.

In a case where a vehicle changes lane and collides with a vehicle approaching in the destination lane, it would be 'Driving without due care' if brought to court. Otherwise, it is an exchange of documents if no-one is injured.

If there are injuries or a fatality, the police get involved.

For a cyclist riding between the curb and traffic, or between parked cars and traffic, "Keep your bloody eyes open."


----------

