Helmet cam evidence

Craig321 said:
So having a quick read through that, it looks like if the traffic is stationary or moving at <10mph then you can cross to overtake. However, I think the key word there is 'if necessary'... but then I don't know how the law actually reads that?
Click to expand...

The key bit is actually the stationary bit where people get mixed up, understandably so. The police take the view that a stationary vehicle is parked up at the side of the road, so a car sitting in a queue of traffic, even if not moving, is technically/legally not stationary.

Plenty of posts around the internet of motorcyclists getting a FPN for crossing a solid white to filter past non-moving traffic.
 
Phantom Shadow said:
The key bit is actually the stationary bit where people get mixed up, understandably so. The police take the view that a stationary vehicle is parked up at the side of the road, so a car sitting in a queue of traffic, even if not moving, is technically/legally not stationary.

Plenty of posts around the internet of motorcyclists getting a FPN for crossing a solid white to filter past non-moving traffic.
Click to expand...

But were those FPNs because the officer didn't know about the stationary / <10mph rule? i.e. if they had taken it to court, they may have won?

Stationary is stationary, regardless of whether it's parked up or in traffic, surely? The rule doesn't mention anything about being parked or traffic.
 
Last edited:
Craig321 said:
But were those FPNs because the officer didn't know about the stationary / <10mph rule? i.e. if they had taken it to court, they may have won?

Stationary is stationary, regardless of whether it's parked up or in traffic, surely? The rule doesn't mention anything about being parked or traffic.
Click to expand...

As far as I'm aware, no one has tried taking it to court to test the definition of stationary. It seems reasonable that stationary means just that, not moving - but the police take the opinion it means parked and will say this when giving the ticket.

Without a case to set the precedent it's not defined legally, so who knows? The law is weird and doesn't always just follow the dictionary definition of things, it's open for interpretation.

The police can give you a ticket for it and you'd need to take it court, so sensible to just not do it around police. Hopefully someone does take it to court at time point, I'd certainly be interested to see how it plays out.
 
Phantom Shadow said:
The police can give you a ticket for it and you'd need to take it court, so sensible to just not do it around police. Hopefully someone does take it to court at time point, I'd certainly be interested to see how it plays out.
Click to expand...

Haha, true, I wouldn't do it around police to be safe. It just interests me at the moment as I know somebody dealing with insurance where the accident happened while filtering (should say, overtaking) over double whites passed stationary cars.

No idea if the outcome will reflect what would happen in court, but will update here with results :)
 
Last edited:
Well, in case anyone's interested - the case where the biker was filtering over double whites passed stationary cars and got knocked off because the car decided to do a u-turn was won by the biker. ;)

To me that says filtering over double whites is fine passed stationary traffic as per rule 128. If it wasn't, it would have surely gone 50 50.
 
Last edited:
Ah that confirms it then :)

I've heard that some advanced riding groups are now training people to filter over solid whites passed stationary vehicles. The posts I'd seen about people getting tickets were probably a couple of years old so I'm guessing sometime in the past few years a case has made it to court to decide how rule 128 should apply.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom