Biker hits pedestrian whilst filtering - who's fault?

[TheCrow]

Caselaw still disagrees with you apart from in a very narrow situation.

http://www.motorbikestoday.com/news/Articles/filtering_law.htm

Filtering on motorways, dual carriageways or in anything other than very slow moving traffic is still entirely the bikers responsibility, exactly as it should be. No driver should have to not only watch the legitimate lanes, but try to guess where bikers have made extra ones as well.

but this was slow moving traffic, it was stationary traffic, so whos responsibility is that?

Every road user needs to check there surroundings not just lanes. i.e something at the side of the road, just because its not in an "official" lane dont mean you ignore it.

 

[Freefaller]

Ultimately and realistically it will be 50/50 I'd have thought. Though in my eyes and I think the eyes of the majority we can all agree the Ped was a **** and it serves him right. Shame not all bikes have a reverse gear

 

[PardonTheWait]

Sounds about 50/50 to me.

Ped should have looked, biker shouldn't have been filtering so fast.

In stationary traffic I filter at <10mph, in moving traffic I filter <10mph quicker than cars usually.

 

[Dolph]

but this was slow moving traffic, it was stationary traffic, so whos responsibility is that?

If the biker didn't have clear vision of the road ahead, the bikers.

Every road user needs to check there surroundings not just lanes. i.e something at the side of the road, just because its not in an "official" lane dont mean you ignore it.

It doesn't mean you ignore it, but it does mean that if someone chooses to make it it's at their own risk and they are responsible for it. That's how the law stands, and it's a very sensible one. If you treat the rules of the road as guidelines, you are responsible for ensuring that your bending of them is safe, not everyone else who is obeying the standard rules.

 

[Vasquez]

peds fault, this is why we have designated crossings. I've had so many people miss me while filtering its unreal.

 

[cyclops12]

If the biker didn't have clear vision of the road ahead, the bikers.



It doesn't mean you ignore it, but it does mean that if someone chooses to make it it's at their own risk and they are responsible for it. That's how the law stands, and it's a very sensible one. If you treat the rules of the road as guidelines, you are responsible for ensuring that your bending of them is safe, not everyone else who is obeying the standard rules.

and what does the high way code say about ped's crossing the road anyware apart from a proper crossing ?
"make it at their own risk"

i think the fact that the law says you can filter and the fact there was a crossing near by means its the peds fault

if i ran accross the road and you run me down can i just say you should have seen me?
or should i of used a crossing

 

[z0mbi3]

if i ran accross the road and you run me down can i just say you should have seen me?
or should i of used a crossing

Running across the road is different to stepping out from in front of a high roof van.

The way I see it is that bikers should exercise some extra caution if they're filtering, especially when there's a high roof vehicle present. Pedestrians should be more careful too.

The op did think the bikers speed played a significant part in this too, don't know if the law will recognise that or not but it's obviously important.

 

[cyclops12]

i see what dolph is sayin
but if the ped had looked instead of just stepping out from behind a van he would have seen the bike
as for the speed its very hard to filter at 30/40 mph and as said when your sitting still 10 mph looks quite quick
i mean what are we all tought when we were young use a crossing
like dolph says the biker is taking his own risk filtering
are you sayin the ped isnt when crossing the road not using a crossing

 

[Dolph]

and what does the high way code say about ped's crossing the road anyware apart from a proper crossing ?
"make it at their own risk"

i think the fact that the law says you can filter and the fact there was a crossing near by means its the peds fault

if i ran accross the road and you run me down can i just say you should have seen me?
or should i of used a crossing

The other traffic was stationary/slow moving, the biker was making the at risk movement and therefore responsible for ensuring he could see what was ahead.

The car equivilent is overtaking a line of traffic including a bus, then hitting something coming round a bend that you couldn't see because of the bus. that's in no way anything other than the driver's fault for not checking their observation distance and insuring they can see.

i see what dolph is sayin
but if the ped had looked instead of just stepping out from behind a van he would have seen the bike
as for the speed its very hard to filter at 30/40 mph and as said when your sitting still 10 mph looks quite quick
i mean what are we all tought when we were young use a crossing
like dolph says the biker is taking his own risk filtering
are you sayin the ped isnt when crossing the road not using a crossing

I agree the pedestrian should have used to crossing, but disagree this is the pedestrian's fault because they didn't. It's that assumption I talked of earlier that people should watch out for bikers doing non-standard (by the highway code) behaviours. If the biker had been in a marked lane correctly, it would be entirely the pedestrian's fault.

Incidentally, are we talking insurance or criminal liability? I'd be very surprised if either of them were deemed to have committed any criminal act, and I'd be surprised if any insurance claim went against the pedestrian at all...

 

[Fireskull]

Caselaw still disagrees with you apart from in a very narrow situation.

http://www.motorbikestoday.com/news/Articles/filtering_law.htm

Filtering on motorways, dual carriageways or in anything other than very slow moving traffic is still entirely the bikers responsibility, exactly as it should be. No driver should have to not only watch the legitimate lanes, but try to guess where bikers have made extra ones as well.

Im not disagreeing with the bikers responsibility, im just saying that if other road users followed what they were tought IE, mirror signal manouver and blind spot checks a lot of bikers and cyclists would still be alive, its not hard to check over your shoulder for 1 second before you move lane, I ride and drive and have never had a situation where ive not seen a biker and I drive a lot in london, maybe thats just my better observations from being a biker but ill see the biker a good 3 or 4 cars back, the only reason for pulling out on one is that the driver is an idiot who has no care for his surroundings.

 

[Dolph]

Im not disagreeing with the bikers responsibility, im just saying that if other road users followed what they were tought IE, mirror signal manouver and blind spot checks a lot of bikers and cyclists would still be alive, its not hard to check over your shoulder for 1 second before you move lane, I ride and drive and have never had a situation where ive not seen a biker and I drive a lot in london, maybe thats just my better observations from being a biker but ill see the biker a good 3 or 4 cars back, the only reason for pulling out on one is that the driver is an idiot who has no care for his surroundings.

But alternatively, if bikers and cyclists followed the standard laws of the road exactly, there would be a lot less dead ones too.

Swings and roundabouts. Incidentally what about people who can't do a blindspot check (either because of being unable to turn their head or simply because they are in a van) but have to rely on mirrors?

BTW, if you check over your shoulder for 1 second before you change lanes at some of the speeds bikers are known to filter at, you've travelled a massive distance where you can't watch the road in front of you...

It could be an area thing, Bikers in london might well be more sensible than Bikers down here (I know that was the case when I was regularly going to London 7 or 8 years ago), round here most of the bikers seem to ride like utter planks who think the law doesn't apply to them and when it goes wrong blame everyone but themselves, so that may be colouring my view. I have no problem with sensible filtering, but the vast majority of filtering that I see doesn't qualify as that.

 

[Fireskull]

True, in london cars and bikers have the same view lol that everyone is out to get them so you ride and drive defensively, but yea down here that just dosent work, bikes arent an everyday thing so drivers arent looking out for them.

But yea with vans and lorries any rider with abit of sense knows their visiblity is less so you get past them with caution or do it as quick as possible, usually I find lorry drivers are really good and will spot me at their rear and will wave me on.

 

[RDM]

As a biker I would say....it was the bikers fault. Filtering is an "at risk" activity and you should always be much more aware of what is going on. Filtering in areas where pedestrians are is even more of a risk especially if the traffic isn't moving.

The general guidelines are 20/20. Only filter if the traffic is going less than 20mph and only go a max of 20mph above the speed of the traffic. I would however be lying if I said I always followed said rule...

 

[Flukester]

one thing confuses me here, someone said 'peds have right of way', do they ?, on a road ?, I very much doubt it.

 

[Fireskull]

In reality it should be the peds fauly, anyone with common sense would know its a road, a road is for cars/bikes/lorries, pavements and crossings are for pedestrians, the fact still remains the pedestrian should not have been on the road, but of course with the justice system in this country thats not how the law will see it.

The ammount of pedestrians I have nearly seen flattened in london is crazy where a 2 lane traffic lights, left hand lane red to go left but right hand lane can go straight on and pedestrians just walk out without looking right after the stationery cars :/

 

[RDM]

one thing confuses me here, someone said 'peds have right of way', do they ?, on a road ?, I very much doubt it.

In most cases, yes they do.

 

[Dogbreath]

As a biker I would say....it was the bikers fault. Filtering is an "at risk" activity and you should always be much more aware of what is going on. Filtering in areas where pedestrians are is even more of a risk especially if the traffic isn't moving.

Yep, filtering is essentially the same as overtaking, so the biker has to be prepared to accept the consequences of the risk. Filtering near junctions is one of the most hazardous places, so the biker should have been moving slowly and expecting trouble. There are several precedents that have gone against bikers who have had accidents whilst filtering, so he will very likely get the majority of the blame.

 

[Freefaller]

****ing pedestrians. Hate 'em!

 

[Linwig]

I very much doubt the biker will take responsibility for that, the highway code will be on his side all the way. If he uses a semi decent solicitor or well worded letter anyway

 

[Mr Jack]

The car equivilent is overtaking a line of traffic including a bus, then hitting something coming round a bend that you couldn't see because of the bus. that's in no way anything other than the driver's fault for not checking their observation distance and insuring they can see.

No, it's not. It's like overtaking a bus, and then some plank of a pedestrian stepping out two feet in front of you.