Poll: who is at fault here

[Chuk_Chuk]

Someone stepping out from between stationary cars on an urban road with a pavement etc is to be 'expected'

But she didn’t “step” out. She ran out into traffic.

 

[McBain]

Biker going too fast

Woman not looking

Both at fault.

 

[Curlyriff]

I can't / don't agree remotely with this, he didn't stop in time to an 'expected' hazard in that situation so 20MPH was too fast for him to react/stop and that's basically where it all falls down. (No excuse for the idiot woman of course, but thats not the point).

It's all risk based, in slow moving traffic, i.e. non stationary, your hazards switch focus to cars and other road users.. When in stationary traffic you still have hazards from cars and other road users, but the risk of pedestrians stepping out in front suddenly increases in likelyhood and should be taken in to account. Someone stepping out from between stationary cars on an urban road with a pavement etc is to be 'expected', i.e. it's a real hazard that reasonable could be expected to occur and should therefore be something you are taking in to account. In this case the guy couldn't stop, he had no 'escape route' and hit the lady. We all agree she was stupid and has her part to play and has contravened highway code guidance, that doesn't mean
the rider should not also be following the highway code.

And here is a good summary of all HWC points: HWC summary


The fact he hit the woman who was a pedestrian crossing between vehicles means he was either not looking out for her or he was travelling too fast..

You mentioned the IAM and 20MPH, here is one article of theres on filtering : IAM Link


Sounds to me like the IAM would suggest no more than 15MPH (considering a stationary car) and that is a maximum. the 20mph is the max traffic speed.

With the new hierachy of vulnerability it changes things, it actually does (or is intended) to put that responsibility on the motorcyclist in this case, i.e. both where negligent, both ignored highway code rules, but the lady is the more vulnerable.

I don't like the principle of a hierachy it implies pedestrians (or cyclists etc) can simply do what they want and put all the responsibility on the motorcyclists/cars etc.. however, I would say it's a bit clearer cut in this case when both ignored rules, so it should work.

Oh that is intersting regarding the latest IAM link. The reason 20mph is used is that it is the same speed limit set for a housing estate and you would be also reacting to very similar 'expected' hazards there too. 10mph would have been fast if he was 1m further up the road, then what? Should we just push the motor vehicle down the road in case of 'expected' hazards. Also look up the 20/20 rule which is what is generally taught still (as of last week when was at course).

To note the other part that the highway code also covers for the pedestrian are:

should be used if provided. Where possible, avoid being next to the kerb with your back to the traffic. If you have to step into the road, look both ways first. Always remain aware of your environment and avoid unnecessary distractions. Always show due care and consideration for others.

Rule 7​

The Green Cross Code. The advice given below on crossing the road is for all pedestrians. Children should be taught the Code and should not be allowed out alone until they can understand and use it properly. The age when they can do this is different for each child. Many children cannot judge how fast vehicles are going or how far away they are. Children learn by example, so parents and carers should always use the Code in full when out with their children. They are responsible for deciding at what age children can use it safely by themselves.

A First find a safe place to cross and where there is space to reach the pavement on the other side. Where there is a crossing nearby, use it. It is safer to cross using a subway, a footbridge, an island, a zebra, pelican, toucan or puffin crossing, or where there is a crossing point controlled by a police officer, a school crossing patrol or a traffic warden. Otherwise choose a place where you can see clearly in all directions. Try to avoid crossing between parked cars (see Rule 14), on a blind bend, or close to the brow of a hill. Move to a space where drivers and riders can see you clearly. Do not cross the road diagonally.

B Stop just before you get to the kerb, where you can see if anything is coming. Do not get too close to the traffic. If there’s no pavement, keep back from the edge of the road but make sure you can still see approaching traffic.

C Look all around for traffic and listen. Traffic could come from any direction. Listen as well, because you can sometimes hear traffic before you see it.

D If traffic is coming, let it pass. Look all around again and listen. Do not cross until there is a safe gap in the traffic and you are certain that there is plenty of time. Remember, even if traffic is a long way off, it may be approaching very quickly.

E When it is safe, go straight across the road – do not run. Keep looking and listening for traffic while you cross, in case there is any traffic you did not see, or in case other traffic appears suddenly. Look out for cyclists and motorcyclists travelling between lanes of traffic. Do not walk diagonally across the road.

Rule 14​

Parked vehicles. If you have to cross between parked vehicles, use the outside edges of the vehicles as if they were the kerb. Stop there and make sure you can see all around and that the traffic can see you. Make sure there is a gap between any parked vehicles on the other side, so you can reach the pavement. Never cross the road in front of, or behind, any vehicle with its engine running, especially a large vehicle, as the driver may not be able to see you.

So in this situation where the lady doesn't

• look
• listen
• let the traffic pass
• look out for motorcyclists travelling between lanes of traffic
• walk perpendicular to the road
• Move the 'kerb' line to the edge of the stationary car she walked between

All of these are failed elements of the highway code of rules as they stand now. There is no defined highway code that puts the rider at fault here. Everyone is judging on their own merit of speed. Also to note the hierachy implied is still only utlised for Rule 8. The redefined rule being H2

Rule 8​

At a junction. When you are crossing or waiting to cross the road, other traffic should give way. Look out for traffic turning into the road, especially from behind you, and cross at a place where drivers can see you. If you have started crossing and traffic wants to turn into the road, you have priority and they should give way (see Rules H2 and 170).

 

[melmac]

Is there an actual legal requirement to stay under 20MPH while filtering?

 

[Curlyriff]

Is there an actual legal requirement to stay under 20MPH while filtering?

Nope. Just reasonable speed as a judgment. But 20mph used to be taken as the 20/20 rule and housing estates have a speed limit of 20mph because it deemed appropriate.

 

[Demon]

Oh that is intersting regarding the latest IAM link. The reason 20mph is used is that it is the same speed limit set for a housing estate and you would be also reacting to very similar 'expected' hazards there too. 10mph would have been fast if he was 1m further up the road, then what? Should we just push the motor vehicle down the road in case of 'expected' hazards. Also look up the 20/20 rule which is what is generally taught still (as of last week when was at course).

To note the other part that the highway code also covers for the pedestrian are:





So in this situation where the lady doesn't

• look
• listen
• let the traffic pass
• look out for motorcyclists travelling between lanes of traffic
• walk perpendicular to the road
• Move the 'kerb' line to the edge of the stationary car she walked between

All of these are failed elements of the highway code of rules as they stand now. There is no defined highway code that puts the rider at fault here. Everyone is judging on their own merit of speed. Also to note the hierachy implied is still only utlised for Rule 8. The redefined rule being H2

Sadly, and I don't necessarily agree with this btw, but if both parties are breaking the highway code, then the new hierarchy of vulnerability would stack against the motorcycle IMO.

And no, hyperbole aside, we don't need to drive at 10 mph everywhere just in case. Filtering is risky, it puts you in a situation which many people wouldn't be expecting you to be so as with any other higher risk situations then you do have to take care, hence all the advice for filtering which tells you to look out and ride slowly.

Put it this way, if the bike was not filtering but just going down the street at 30 mph in the road as normal and that idiot woman ran out, she would 100% be at fault with zero responsibility on the motorcyclist.but had the motorcyclist been doing 60 mph in a 30 and that happened, I'd wager they also put the responsibility on the motorcyclist.

I love motorbikes and as mentioned heavily filter, and I may at times ride recklessly, but I just can't agree that riding as he did would not make me feel it is risky, I'd have been riding slowly in that situation, I'd have been able to stop.. I've had several near misses whilst filtering, but avoided them all and in each vase whilst I could have blamed everyone but me, I know that filtering puts me at more risk and take some responsibility myself.

 

[Curlyriff]

Sadly, and I don't necessarily agree with this btw, but if both parties are breaking the highway code, then the new hierarchy of vulnerability would stack against the motorcycle IMO.

And no, hyperbole aside, we don't need to drive at 10 mph everywhere just in case. Filtering is risky, it puts you in a situation which many people wouldn't be expecting you to be so as with any other higher risk situations then you do have to take care, hence all the advice for filtering which tells you to look out and ride slowly.

Put it this way, if the bike was not filtering but just going down the street at 30 mph in the road as normal and that idiot woman ran out, she would 100% be at fault with zero responsibility on the motorcyclist.but had the motorcyclist been doing 60 mph in a 30 and that happened, I'd wager they also put the responsibility on the motorcyclist.

I love motorbikes and as mentioned heavily filter, and I may at times ride recklessly, but I just can't agree that riding as he did would not make me feel it is risky, I'd have been riding slowly in that situation, I'd have been able to stop.. I've had several near misses whilst filtering, but avoided them all and in each vase whilst I could have blamed everyone but me, I know that filtering puts me at more risk and take some responsibility myself.

But he isn't breaking the highway code. Whet rule has he broken? There is no given speed limit in the highway code and at least in my view and such from other sources as noted 15-20mph is safe. If the rider is doing more then okay but we can't know that.

The judge had it gone to court would be the only person whom could determine if doing 20mph is in their view safe.

We are going of the comment of the rider of their speed which doesn't also account for possibly doing 18mph or 19mph as saying 20mph like that is a simple reply to when you need to defend.

The additional in your speed comparisons is pointless because yes the biker is breaking the law in terms of speed on that particular road if doing over 30mph as it is so it's moot. Course the biker is then % responsible and it would be something like 70-80% based on other such cases that you can Google for.

None of that though changes that rider was not at fault from the highway code or the law unlike the lady crossing the road.

 

[dlockers]

But he isn't breaking the highway code. Whet rule has he broken? There is no given speed limit in the highway code and at least in my view and such from other sources as noted 15-20mph is safe. If the rider is doing more then okay but we can't know that.

The judge had it gone to court would be the only person whom could determine if doing 20mph is in their view safe.

We are going of the comment of the rider of their speed which doesn't also account for possibly doing 18mph or 19mph as saying 20mph like that is a simple reply to when you need to defend.

The additional in your speed comparisons is pointless because yes the biker is breaking the law in terms of speed on that particular road if doing over 30mph as it is so it's moot. Course the biker is then % responsible and it would be something like 70-80% based on other such cases that you can Google for.

None of that though changes that rider was not at fault from the highway code or the law unlike the lady crossing the road.

Lane splitting in city traffic at 20mph is not safe at all. Know why? People cross the road without expecting to see a bike lane splitting at 20mph. Source? Video in the OP.

 

[Devilman]

Lane splitting in city traffic at 20mph is not safe at all. Know why? People cross the road without expecting to see a bike lane splitting at 20mph. Source? Video in the OP.

Circular argument. A single example is not representative of "what people expect to see".

 

[Curlyriff]

Lane splitting in city traffic at 20mph is not safe at all. Know why? People cross the road without expecting to see a bike lane splitting at 20mph. Source? Video in the OP.

Okay but myself and many others have lane split at 20mph. Every day going into Oxford for 6 months required that with stationary Oxford traffic and bikes and mopeds are constantly lane splitting there.

In that time not once was it a problem. However yes accidents happen but that is because the daft woman didn't look.

I've had drivers open car doors when going 10mph and knocked me off from not looking. So then what. Reasonable is in context as a total, not from isolated incidents when it takes more than one factor.

The factor in this is the dumb lady for not following the highway code at any point. She is the only one of the two to categorically fail multiple highway code rules as shown the OP video.

 

[dowie]

Is bike filtering illegal?

Contrary to popular belief, filtering through stationary or slow-moving traffic is not illegal. In fact, one of the many attractions of riding a motorcycle is the ability to get through traffic quickly and safely by filtering, which is a fundamental skill learned by most motorcyclists.

Yeah it's perfectly fine, he's perhaps going a little bit too fast but it didn't seem to be excessive, claims he's only going 20, but it's totally legal to filter on a bike.

The woman was easily more at fault here, failed to do the most basic thing when crossing a road: look both ways!

 

[Demon]

But he isn't breaking the highway code. Whet rule has he broken? There is no given speed limit in the highway code and at least in my view and such from other sources as noted 15-20mph is safe. If the rider is doing more then okay but we can't know that.

The judge had it gone to court would be the only person whom could determine if doing 20mph is in their view safe.

We are going of the comment of the rider of their speed which doesn't also account for possibly doing 18mph or 19mph as saying 20mph like that is a simple reply to when you need to defend.

The additional in your speed comparisons is pointless because yes the biker is breaking the law in terms of speed on that particular road if doing over 30mph as it is so it's moot. Course the biker is then % responsible and it would be something like 70-80% based on other such cases that you can Google for.

None of that though changes that rider was not at fault from the highway code or the law unlike the lady crossing the road.

It's been pointed out several times, Rule 88:

Rule 88​

Manoeuvring. You should be aware of what is behind and to the sides before manoeuvring. Look behind you; use mirrors if they are fitted. When in traffic queues look out for pedestrians crossing between vehicles and vehicles emerging from junctions or changing lanes. Position yourself so that drivers in front can see you in their mirrors. Additionally, when filtering in slow-moving traffic, take care and keep your speed low.

Speciflcally "When in traffic queues look out for pedestrians crossing between vehicles " and "Additionally, when filtering in slow-moving traffic, take care and keep your speed low."

Filtering is a risky manoevre, it's legal to do so, but you have to take care and be aware of obvious hazards. You seem hung up on the exact speed as if some magic number of mph makes it OK.. The (sad) fact is, if you can't react and stop in time to a hazard that you are told to be aware of, you are going too fast.. he didn't react and hit the woman, therefore he was going too fast for the situation.. simple as really.

It in no way absolves the woman of her part in this, she is absolutely equally to blame, but as mentioned, the hierachy of vulnerability means the balance will tip against the motorcycle IMO (but only IMO, the new rules are a bit weird).

 

[kindai]

100% the bike no debate at all.

On frame 1 of the conveniently clipped video, you can see the white of the ladies coat just poking out from behind the silver car, so we know in previous moments that she was visible.

Now if you look behind the silver car, theres a micra, a small car that the bike will be able to see over with ease and most likely, if they were paying attention, would have seen the lady moving across the pavement towards the road.

Its basic hazard perception, and if the biker didnt see this coming then frankly he should have to re-take his test.

 

[builder22]

20mph through stand still traffic might not be illegal but definitely pushing it, if the traffic had been moving at all it would be different but it's not the 'case' here

Google Search

 

[dlockers]

20mph through stand still traffic might not be illegal but definitely pushing it, if the traffic had been moving at all it would be different but it's not the 'case' here

Google Search

The people defending the motorbiker say it themselves:

Yeah it's perfectly fine, he's perhaps going a little bit too fast

 

[Mr Jack]

Lane splitting in city traffic at 20mph is not safe at all. Know why? People cross the road without expecting to see a bike lane splitting at 20mph. Source? Video in the OP.

"Lane splitting"? The rider was filtering as permitted in the Highway Code and all British laws.

If pedestrians aren't expecting that, then we should probably be educating them about road traffic so they don't run into the path of oncoming vehicles.

No-one in this thread would be defending the woman if she'd run past parked cars into car traffic, motorcyclists don't deserve less respect than car drivers.

 

[Mr Jack]

Its basic hazard perception, and if the biker didnt see this coming then frankly he should have to re-take his test.

Stupid comment, frankly. Whether you see the hazard or not is irrelevant to fault. A car pulling out of a side road is a hazard. It's still their fault.

 

[dlockers]

Stupid comment, frankly. Whether you see the hazard or not is irrelevant to fault. A car pulling out of a side road is a hazard. It's still their fault.

A car is 4 times wide and not likely to go between 2 rows of cars on a 2 lane road. Bikers are dangerous, and barely a step up from cyclists for their arrogance.

Edit: flame suit on

"Lane splitting"? The rider was filtering as permitted in the Highway Code and all British laws.

If pedestrians aren't expecting that, then we should probably be educating them about road traffic so they don't run into the path of oncoming vehicles.

No-one in this thread would be defending the woman if she'd run past parked cars into car traffic, motorcyclists don't deserve less respect than car drivers.

There are more pedestrians than bikers, and bikers need to pass a test. Easier to train bikers to be aware of their death machine (to them, and others) than training all pedestrians to look out for that once in a lifetime kill hit.

 

[Rroff]

I dunno about legally but simple really, the pedestrian appears to have walked out without looking but there was plenty of opportunity for the biker to have seen and reacted to the pedestrian stepping out if they'd been filtering at a more appropriate speed.

Though the camera height and field of view makes it look like the biker was doing quicker than it was it was still an inadvisable speed for those conditions.

Both of them are stupid IMO.

EDIT: As an aside it appears to be a head mounted camera so has a clearer view over the cars than the rider - which just increases how much slower they should have been going to accommodate the conditions.

The factor in this is the dumb lady for not following the highway code at any point. She is the only one of the two to categorically fail multiple highway code rules as shown the OP video.

Think it would be the crux of it ultimately, without video footage the rider would almost certainly catch the blame, but there is video evidence she was reckless in adhering to the highway code - pedestrians still have a responsibility legally to cross safely.

 

[Mr Jack]

A car is 4 times wide and not likely to go between 2 rows of cars on a 2 lane road. Bikers are dangerous, and barely a step up from cyclists for their arrogance.

The sound you just heard is the point sailing over your head.

Easier to train bikers to be aware of their death machine (to them, and others) than training all pedestrians to look out for that once in a lifetime kill hit.

"Kill hit"? Who died?

The rules of the road are supposed to sensibly balance the different users. In our system we overly favour cars ahead of others including both pedestrians and motorcycles.