An issue often raised when it comes to motorcycle liability is filtering. Motorcycles can and do filter, but where do riders stand legally?

The Highway Code gives guidance for drivers and riders on filtering. In particular, Rule 88 states that a driver or rider in traffic queues should be particularly wary of vehicles emerging from junctions, and states that when filtering in slow moving traffic you should take care and keep to a slow speed.

Rules 162 and 163 advise that you only overtake when the road is sufficiently clear ahead.

Rule 166 states that you must not overtake if there is any doubt, or where you cannot see far enough ahead to be sure it is safe.

In Powell v Moody [1966], the defendant car driver was waiting to emerge from a side road to turn right onto a main road. A lorry driver already on the main road and in traffic left a gap ahead and invited the defendant to exit the side road. As the defendant did so, the claimant, who was riding a motorcycle and filtering past the queuing traffic, collided with the defendant.

The trial judge found the claimant motorcyclist 80% to blame. Lord Justice Salmon made an interesting comment. He said that the motorcyclist was 'undertaking an operation fraught with great hazard'.

In Clarke v Winchurch [1969] case, the judge at appeal found the moped rider filtering past a bus completely liable when a car pulled out of a side road in front of the bus (although they felt this should have been an 80/20 in the car driver's favour – see full judgment).

And Worsfold v Howe [1979] is definitely worth a mention. The circumstances were again that a car was proceeding out of a minor road to turn right. A petrol tanker had stopped in heavy traffic in the nearside lane, but left a gap for the car in the minor road.

The defendant emerged slowly, but a motorcyclist in the offside lane collided with the defendant's vehicle. This case went to appeal and was decided on a 50/50 apportionment of blame.

Hillman v Tomkins [1995] involved a defendant on a main road who turned right and collided with a motorcycle filtering past the cars on the road. The recorder decided that the defendant was not positioned clear of the line of traffic and was under 'a great duty' to check that all was clear from behind, but also that the claimant motorcyclist was travelling at such a speed that he was unable to take any avoiding action.

The recorder said: "...the fact of that matter is, undesirable as it might be motorcyclists do and can be expected to overtake in circumstances of this kind..." Based on the findings he apportioned blame equally.

In Pell v Moseley [2003] the road layout was the same as it was in the Hillman case. However, the side road in this case led to a motocross event. The claimant was filtering past vehicles, when he came across the defendant who turned right into the motocross event and collided with his motorcycle.

On appeal the police interview was looked at again, which confirmed that the claimant knew there was a motocross event happening in the field and he saw the defendant start to turn and change her mind.  The judge said that to overtake in such circumstances was a matter that ought to give rise to a finding of contributory negligence and held both parties equally to blame.

In Davis v Schrogin [2006], the defendant was in a queue in a car. He decided to get out of the queue by performing a U-turn and going back the way he had come. As he emerged from the queue he collided with a motorcycle. The claimant was filtering, but was there to be seen.

The trial judge found that the defendant was negligent in making his U-turn without looking properly to his right, and the claimant could not have avoided the collision.

In Farley v Buckley [2007] a scooter rider who was filtering at some considerable speed around a large lorry, that was indicating left, collided with a vehicle as it exited a side road in front of the lorry. The judge said it was not foreseeable that a motorcycle would be overtaking the lorry at such speed and found in favour of the car driver.

And in Ben Woodham v Turner [2011], the judge said the defendant driver emerging from a side road bore the greater share of responsibility. However, the claimant's lack of 'due heed' for his own safety made him substantially responsible, and the judge concluded that the defendant should bear 70% of the blame, and the claimant 30%.

So, you must:
• ride or drive in such a way that you can immediately deal with an emergency
• contemplate the possibility of vehicles giving warning of their presence by inching out
• organise your driving to guard against this possibility
• travel at speeds so you are able to take avoiding action

* This article by Simon Richards first appeared in South East Biker magazine

Tell us what you think

All documents should be read and used in accordance with the terms and conditions. This document is for your general information only and is not a detailed statement of the law. It is provided to you free of charge and should not be used as a substitute for specific legal advice. If you require specific legal advice please contact our helpline on 03700 86 86 86.