Rule 88 Highway Code acknowledges the activity of filtering on a motorcycle.

"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."

Filtering is not illegal per se, nor is it necessary legal. In the event of a collision, legal liability will be allocated in accordance with the circumstances of each discrete case. Hence the car driver (for example) and the motorcyclist may each be found to have contributed to the collision, such as 70% to 30%.

The whole issue is in shades of grey and not black and white as some people believe or wish it to be. Motorcyclists cannot escape liability for careless riding simply because they were filtering and consider the act itself to be legal.

Happy days! Ride safe!

Edited 18 June, 20169 yr by kevberlin

I was thinking of an example a little more relevant to the discussion.

Have a read of the 'overtaking' section of the Highway Code plenty in there to read up on.

 

There is indeed. There's advice about not cutting in, giving way to on-coming vehicles, allowing plenty of room, the phrase "only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right" is an interesting one, but I shan't go through them all, as you'll already have done that, won't you  

 

And the example is relevant, it clarifies the difference in definition between a legal right and something you're allowed to do.

Rule 88 Highway Code acknowledges the activity of filtering on a motorcycle.

"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."

Filtering is not illegal per se, nor is it necessary legal. In the event of a collision, legal liability will be allocated in accordance with the circumstances of each discrete case. Hence the car driver (for example) and the motorcyclist may each be found to have contributed to the collision, such as 70% to 30%.

The whole issue is in shades of grey and not black and white as some people believe or wish it to be. Motorcyclists cannot escape liability for careless riding simply because they were filtering and consider the act itself to be legal.

Happy days! Ride safe!

 

Sadly, what is still missing, is a hard definition of filtering. It seems that to some it's making careful progress through static / very slow moving traffic whilst keeping speed low, and to others, it's "full-speed ahead, f?ck the ice-bergs, I'm coming through, get out of my way, cagers" regardless of speed. There also seems to be confusion between "filtering" and "overtaking", seems that because filtering is not defined, there are those who believe they can filter at whatever speed they like, even it that mean between two other vehicles travelling at 70mph.

http://gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction

The UK has many Grey Areas with the 'Highway Code' & UK Traffic Law, also the UK Traffic Law and EU Laws.

Decades of 'Grey Areas' that many UK Governments just allow to continue and sometime Courts have to deal with.

Elected Members, Civil Servants, Peers and the Law Lords seem fine with that.

Edited 18 June, 20169 yr by GoneOffSKi

Sadly, what is still missing, is a hard definition of filtering. It seems that to some it's making careful progress through static / very slow moving traffic whilst keeping speed low, and to others, it's "full-speed ahead, f?ck the ice-bergs, I'm coming through, get out of my way, cagers" regardless of speed. There also seems to be confusion between "filtering" and "overtaking", seems that because filtering is not defined, there are those who believe they can filter at whatever speed they like, even it that mean between two other vehicles travelling at 70mph.

That's the issue. There does not appear to be a definition, although the Highway Code refers to slow moving traffic.

Regardless nothing can be used as a excuse for dangerous or careless riding.

There is indeed. There's advice about not cutting in, giving way to on-coming vehicles, allowing plenty of room, the phrase "only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right" is an interesting one, but I shan't go through them all, as you'll already have done that, won't you  

 

And the example is relevant, it clarifies the difference in definition between a legal right and something you're allowed to do.

 

 

Sadly, what is still missing, is a hard definition of filtering. It seems that to some it's making careful progress through static / very slow moving traffic whilst keeping speed low, and to others, it's "full-speed ahead, f?ck the ice-bergs, I'm coming through, get out of my way, cagers" regardless of speed. There also seems to be confusion between "filtering" and "overtaking", seems that because filtering is not defined, there are those who believe they can filter at whatever speed they like, even it that mean between two other vehicles travelling at 70mph.

 

OK, it's sounding more and more like you have a chip on your shoulder about motorcyclists and are just trolling. Filtering is overtaking, the conditions that it's done in are covered by....

 

That's the issue. There does not appear to be a definition, although the Highway Code refers to slow moving traffic.

Regardless nothing can be used as a excuse for dangerous or careless riding.

 

Ie, if a rider is filtering at 70mph through stationary traffic, its covered by dangerous or careless riding. There isnt a law or rule in the highway code for every single event that can take place. If a bike is filtering then they need to stick to the rules laid out regarding overtaking, anyone doing stupid stuff is done under the careless or dangerous driving bit. 

 

As far as having a 'right' and being 'allowed' to do something, I just dont get the nit picking, if you are driving down a 60mph B road and arrive behind a tractor doing 15mph, I say you're within your rights to overtake if/when it's safe and you wouldnt be expected to have to sit behind it. Call it your right, you're allowed, whatever, to me, it's perfectly safe and not against any laws or rules of the road and means the same thing, I cant understand the distinction between the two terms in that situation.  

 

The majority of us on bikes use our heads and rather get to the destination in one bit than save 30 seconds by riding stupidly, there is obviously a minority that ride like ****s, you (RainbowFire) seem fixated on the minority, none of us are defending or approving that type of riding. 

The fact that you think clarfying definitions is "nit-picking" shows that you have little understanding of language, and comically so. Words have different meanings to enable simple messages to be conveyed with clarity, however there are levels of making the message simple that seem to stretch your comprehension.

 

Also the fact that you suggest reading something, but don't like it quoted back to you shows that you hadn't read what you wanted me to, another comedy moment.

 

I have no chip on my shoulder, unlike yourself who seems to believe that you have a "right" to do as you please, whilst missing the whole point about what a right is. You've missed where questions have been asked, to cherry-pick points (and mis-quote them) in a rather childish attempt to provoke an argument. You also cherry-pick what should and shouldn't apply to you. This comedy gets better really,

 

The final, and best act of comedy, is you resort to childish name-calling in a rather lame attempt at a personal attack. Like George's efforts, you fall so very very wide of the mark, What it does show is your inability to hold a rational, civil conversation, with a contructed point of view. That's a whole comedy act in itself.