Was travelling down a normal A road yesterday, it's straight as you like, it's lit but it was darkish so everyone has lights on.

I was following a council tree/rubbish van thing with a cage on the back, there were a line of cars coming the other way ...... BANG... I even let out a small scream in shock, a bike had clipped my wing mirror, I quickly looked in my rear view mirror and could see him trying to regain control on my side of the road. Luckily for him he did and moved back to his side.

I checked my mirror casing and it's damaged, he hit it about 3 inches in.

A very very lucky man as I had cars behind and he'd stupidly overtaken lots of cars his side.

It makes me think about motorways, I don't think they should be freely zip up the inside of the 3rd lane just to overtake. I always move to allow them to, but think its wrong and that it's undertaking.

What do you think?

iPhone using Tapatalk

Firstly sorry to hear about the damage to the car :(

what he was doing is what motorcyclists call Filtering, Sadly this is perfectly legal to do and i for one think it should be banned, the problem is more often than not i've found that its not done with any care as in your case.

It's a combination problem, because many bikes do it at great speed and don't look, which causes problems like you have seen.

On the other hand many drives jump lanes in traffic without looking and some end up collecting a bike on the way.

you could argue the bike should have been going slower or the car should have looked more, but either way you look at it, there are many issues with it causing accidents.

Firstly sorry to hear about the damage to the car :(

what he was doing is what motorcyclists call Filtering, Sadly this is perfectly legal to do and i for one think it should be banned, the problem is more often than not i've found that its not done with any care as in your case.

This wasn't filtering, it sounds more like dangerous overtaking through a gap that was too narrow.

Filtering should be carried out in stationary or slow moving traffic. The motorcyclist in question will soon be bloody veneer on the road if he carries on riding like that.

This wasn't filtering, it sounds more like dangerous overtaking through a gap that was too narrow.

Filtering should be carried out in stationary or slow moving traffic. The motorcyclist in question will soon be bloody veneer on the road if he carries on riding like that.

+ 1 sounds like he was a tool. Nothing wrong with filtering, just have to keep your wits about you for the car passenger who opens her door on the outside lane of the M1 in slow moving traffic (yes it happened!)

Filtering by bikes and overtaking lines of traffic is a very grey area. It is one of the benefits of using a bike but too many people take it far to far. I will slip past a line of traffic if safe to do so, not when there is opposing traffic though. On Dual and motorway when it is backed up again go for it but realise you are at risk and don't do 70 between stationary traffic.

I have spoken to police riders about it and there is no hard and fast rules on it. Some say if the gap isn't big enough for a car then don't do it, others say 10ish mph difference max. The insurance companies have in quite a few instances dictated that any accident while filtering is the riders fault without actually looking at what happened. All vehicle drivers/riders should be aware of what is going on around them but within reason.

I have seen lots of bikes and scooters taking absolutely stupid risks to gain a few seconds and they scare me as they are so unpredictable.

It sounds like in this situation that it was the biker being stupid. Luckily it sounds like no one got hurt.

I thought filtering is only legal between static lines of cars.

Sounds like the guy was being a tool and taking chances.

As ive always said...if you cant get a car safely between then you shouldnt attempt it on a motorbike!!!....Bikers always say treat us like cars!!!...Works both ways!!

Does sound like he was attempting a dangerous overtake though!!

K

If I'm understanding the OP correctly (bike was travelling in opposite direction) that wasn't filtering but dangerous driving.

My understanding was that filtering can only be done between lines of traffic moving in a single direction.

It's a combination problem, because many bikes do it at great speed and don't look, which causes problems like you have seen.

On the other hand many drives jump lanes in traffic without looking and some end up collecting a bike on the way.

you could argue the bike should have been going slower or the car should have looked more, but either way you look at it, there are many issues with it causing accidents.

You could also argue (more strongly in my opinion) that if bikes didn't attempt to overtake, or justify this dangerous manouver by calling by a fancy name, then there would be a lot less accidents.

It's the old story - think bike, think cycle, think pedestrian, think horse etc etc but all these people often need to think car and stop thinking they are always in the right.

Edited 23 November, 201114 yr by slider

You could also argue (more strongly in my opinion) that if bikes didn't attempt to overtake, or justift this dangerous manouver by calling by a fancy name, then there would be a lot less accidents.

It's the old story - think bike, think cycle, think pedestrian, think horse etc etc but all these people often need to think car and stop thinking they are always in the right.

+1

It should be BIKER think!

Edited 23 November, 201114 yr by taff170

Shame no-one got his reg no., he's damaged your car and is legally bound to report the incident to the police.

Similar subject this morning on the way in to work - stopped at traffic lights in the nearside lane in a queue and a guy on a lambretta thing decides to squeeze up the inside by leaning his bike over so it doesn;t catch the wing mirrors of the cars... lights change and the guy a couple of cars in front who hadn't seen him sets off with him alongside, causing lambretta guy to swerve all over the place and nearly get flattened by the wagon in front of me.

Why for the sake of 20 yards given he would have got through the lights on the same change anyway???

The bike rider is clearly a muppet.

There are so many people that have taken up riding in the last decade or so, many who past their test 20+years ago. They go out and buy the latest fandango bike the press is banging on about, not realising that performance has moved on massively since their youth. A refresher in riding with a instructor would help them alot. Riding a bike from 20 years ago to now is very different.

A current 1000cc sportsbike is knocking out 180+bhp that needs a very confident rider to be used properly.

I've been riding for some years and have/had some quick bikes. Over the years I've done some advanced riding and quite a few track days. That has taught me when and where to overtake and how to use the power. But some folk I know are scary riders(though only quick in a straight line or easy roads they know) and think they own the road, needless to say I don't join them to often.

All I can say is that there are bad riders and bad drivers, we just have to live with both.

The bike rider is clearly a muppet.

There are so many people that have taken up riding in the last decade or so, many who past their test 20+years ago. They go out and buy the latest fandango bike the press is banging on about, not realising that performance has moved on massively since their youth. A refresher in riding with a instructor would help them alot. Riding a bike from 20 years ago to now is very different.

A current 1000cc sportsbike is knocking out 180+bhp that needs a very confident rider to be used properly.

I've been riding for some years and have/had some quick bikes. Over the years I've done some advanced riding and quite a few track days. That has taught me when and where to overtake and how to use the power. But some folk I know are scary riders(though only quick in a straight line or easy roads they know) and think they own the road, needless to say I don't join them to often.

All I can say is that there are bad riders and bad drivers, we just have to live with both.

The bike rider is NOT a muppet, he's an dangerous imbecile and should not have a motorcycle licence.

Filtering is legal, as mentioned earlier, but undertaking on motorways is NOT.

I have a full motorcycle licence and would NEVER dream of 'putting myself at risk' because I have la wife & 3 kids I want to stay with. :love:

I often take the boys out but only on dry sunny days, and when they have for their leathers on :yes: Lucky for me Callum and Liam are twins, so they share the same leathers

As others have said, passing on the inside (on motorways or other roads) is just as illegal as cars doing it unless in slow moving or stationary traffic.

Sounds like the Biker is obviously at fault here and it's a shame no one got his reg but lets hope this close shave will teach his a lesson and calm him down.

Where did undertaking come from, the motorbike was overtaking...

Where did undertaking come from, the motorbike was overtaking...

Last paragraph on post one. Passing cars on the inside on a motorway, also known as undertaking.

What a thread wish I had not stumbled upon it now lol. All well intentioned comments on the whole but personal opinions thrown in too for good measure . At the end of the day as I see it everyone knows how they should drive to be safe and competent road users and as a part of that we all know that there are "others" to be avoided.

I am not having a go in any way but in response to OP as I was not there and didn't see it or positions of all vehicles etc I can only go off what's written. My key points I read from the above are:

1, car and bike collided travelling in opposite directions.

2, you were travelling behind a larger taller vehicle.

3, you were not aware of the oncoming vehicle (bike) until you both had collided.

4, you first attained visual contact with bike after it had passed you whilst regaining control (brown trousers)

5, he regained control on your side of road (having lost control could acceptably ended up there)

6, there were cars behind you that had an out of control bike coming towards him but managed to not collide with it.

From those points I might therefore assume that you were behind a truck and couldn't see past it enough to see the bike coming towards you, that in itself to me would suggest you were possibly travelling too close to the vehicle in front. (careless driving)

Bike travelling in the other direction overtaking car presumably but having not seen it before hand can this be confirmed? (bike may have been to the right of his lane/ bike may have already been out of control for whatever reason) Again I wasn't there just from what written in OP.

Bike didn't make contact with a wider vehicle directly in front of you which would suggest you were further to the right than vehicle in front making you - to right of lane, on or over the line wing mirror overhangs of course all the more.

As a summary someone could conclude based only on the above information you have given which may be incomplete that car might have been travelling behind a truck which they couldn't see past enough to see an oncoming vehicle immediately in their path (bike being in the right or wrong regardless for that point) may have been moving over to see if safe to overtake, may not but for a bike to collide with wing mirror after safely not hitting the wider vehicle in front an then coming into contact with a car ...

May sound totally unfair to put it like that but say biker had gone down and ended up under a car behind and killed no witness stopping going in other direction to prove otherwise (or even just confirm all you have said in here) you saying the above to the police who turn up could land you with a prison sentence for causing death by dangerous driving.

Drastic but plausible I would also be VERY careful about posting such stories no matter how innocent they appear in a public forum for your own sake. In the UK the CPS have successfully used evidence against people from their own posts made on public forums many times now on motoring offences. Bike will have been damaged too and possibly the biker injured if you have not reported this to the police and biker has your already on the back foot for failing to stop and failing to report the matter.

Words can be twisted or taken out of context I didn't even need to above keep yourself right delete the post lol.

my own opinion over all mirroring most on here biker was making a third lane overtaking riding dangerously for that reason! But how you didn't see something coming the other way eludes me too.

What a thread wish I had not stumbled upon it now lol. All well intentioned comments on the whole but personal opinions thrown in too for good measure . At the end of the day as I see it everyone knows how they should drive to be safe and competent road users and as a part of that we all know that there are "others" to be avoided.

I am not having a go in any way but in response to OP as I was not there and didn't see it or positions of all vehicles etc I can only go off what's written. My key points I read from the above are:

1, car and bike collided travelling in opposite directions.

2, you were travelling behind a larger taller vehicle.

3, you were not aware of the oncoming vehicle (bike) until you both had collided.

4, you first attained visual contact with bike after it had passed you whilst regaining control (brown trousers)

5, he regained control on your side of road (having lost control could acceptably ended up there)

6, there were cars behind you that had an out of control bike coming towards him but managed to not collide with it.

From those points I would therefore assume that you were behind a truck and couldn't see past it enough to see the bike coming towards you, that in itself to me would suggest you were possibly travelling too close to the vehicle in front. (careless driving criminal offence)

Bike travelling in the other direction overtaking car presumably but having not seen it before hand can this be confirmed? (bike may have been to the right of his lane) Again I wasn't there just from what written in OP.

Bike didn't make contact with a wider vehicle directly in front of you which would suggest you were to right of lane before, on or over the line wing mirror overhangs of course.

As a summary someone could conclude based only on the above information which may be incomplete that car might have been travelling behind a truck which they couldn't see past enough to see an oncoming vehicle immediately in their path ("driving without due care and attention". resulting in a collision likely now "Dangerous Driving") may have been moving over to see if safe to overtake may not but for a bike to collide with wing mirror after safely not hitting the wider vehicle in front an then coming into contact with a car ...

May sound totally unfair but say biker had gone down and ended up under a car behind and killed no witness stopping going in other direction to prove otherwise (or even just confirm all you have said in here) you saying the above to the police who turn up could land you with a prison sentence for causing death by dangerous driving.

Drastic but possible I would also be VERY careful about posting such stories no matter how innocent they appear in a public forum for your own sake as in the UK the CPS have successfully used evidence against people from their own posts made on public forums many times now on motoring offences. Bike will have been damaged too and possibly the biker injured your post if he or a friend or a friend of a friend who has heard some other side of story found it could get you in the poo. (leaving the scene, failing to report) in addition to any of the possibles above which could be established threw your own wording. He may have already reported a white vrs and made himself out to be totally innocent.

Words can be twisted or taken out of context I didn't even need to above keep yourself right delete the post lol.

my own opinion over all mirroring most on here biker was making a third lane overtaking riding dangerously for that reason! But how you didn't see something coming the other way eludes me too.

He could see past the larger vehicle "I was following a council tree/rubbish van thing with a cage on the back, there were a line of cars coming the other way

He could see past the larger vehicle "I was following a council tree/rubbish van thing with a cage on the back, there were a line of cars coming the other way

Oh please no its not intended to be one of "those" posts to spark a row debate or outright riot I am only trying to impart an insight into how the information volunteered as some might say "could/may be used against you" etc..

I know what was said :p but as I said its how it can be read, others peoples perceptions can be different. Fact that the vehicle in front and its type were mentioned can give bearing to the overall picture being portrayed otherwise why mention it etc. (in this incident it could stack against OP's account)

Just as "there were a line of cars coming the other way" that by no means illustrates a clear vision of oncoming traffic. So in the context written after pointing out the council wagon in front. But first reference made to bike was "BANG" first visual reference made was after it had passed....

Which then would beggar the question seeing an oncoming vehicle on a collision course that's passed the wider wagon in front without hitting it means wagon in front was further to the N/S meaning....... car would have had room to avoid collision so why wouldn't he have taken avoiding action if driver could see evil carnival coming at him... In that sense if you can see how it can look.

My post is meant in the nicest possible way I like "Prolfe" he's a good egg. As I said above I am not trying to have a go or say this or that has happened as "I saw nothing" only pointing out a few different ways the information could be construed and not in the OP's favour which can be a very disadvantageous thing for him at the end of the day.

Fubar I know your not having a pop at Prolfe and likewise I am not having a pop at you or trying to be argumentative , I am just offering an alternative picture to the one the Ops words painted for you.

As the OP could see a line of cars coming he may well have been placed correctly in relationship to the Council vehicle , the bike may have been that far over on his side of the road that he was directly in front of the council vehicle and therefore unsighted to the OP , if the bike was going fast which i suspect it was , he would seemingly appear from nowhere.

From the bikers point of view , the OP may have been that close to the Council vehicle and that far over to the left he thought there was a gap behind the council vehicle that he could filter into , but on arriving there at too great a speed to avoid collision , hit the Ops car.

In a court of Law and based on the facts , the biker would be prosecuted for carrying out an unsafe manouver which lead to an avoidable accident .

The most important thing about this is apart from a probably bruised arm and some dirty washing , no one was badly hurt , except the poor old Octy .

Ok, I'd pretty much agree with deecee.

Fubar, not having a pop but "towards the offside of a wider vehicle" is a good place to follow them from because it extends your vision past them (not enough in this case apparently) and if you can't see their mirrors, odds on they can't see you!

Fubar, thanks for your posts, I know you only mean well.

It was his speed, that was the reason for not clocking him earlier, I assume that he was on 'my' side of the road for sometime and again I assume that he thought 'one more car' and arced his way round it. I could see the wing mirrors in front.

It could of been the closing speed that saved him do to speak, a slower overtake would of have meant my wing mirror would of had more resistance. Does that make sense?

Perhaps I should reword the OP as to not get into trouble.

iPhone using Tapatalk