Accident scenarios
Filtering
The most common accident circumstance that we see is a motorcyclist filtering traffic. Filtering is legal but should be done with caution and at the appropriate speed and with full consideration of the road layout and traffic. Below is a summary of the leading court decisions and each case must be assessed on its own merit.
Pell V Moseley 2003, 50/50 Decision
Pell was riding his motorcycle along a single carriageway road in Northamptonshire. Moseley was driving a people carrier travelling in the same direction as Pell and was at the front of a line of three cars. To the right of the road that was being travelled on, a motor cross event was being held. The road was governed by a 60 mph speed limit. Moseley approached the entrance to the field on her right. Pell had started to overtake the line of vehicles and as he overtook Moseley’s car, Moseley turned right into the field and struck Pell’s motorcycle. Pell’s case was that his manoeuvre of overtaking the vehicles was a perfectly safe manoeuvre. Pell claimed that Moseley did not indicate and that he had first appreciated any intention by her to do so when he had seen her brake lights engage, but by then it was too late. Moseley’s case was that she drew up to the gateway in a normal way and had slowed and indicated to make her move.
Decision
Initially it was held that Moseley had failed to keep a proper look out by not seeing Pell approaching from the rear and no degree of contributory negligence was found against Pell. However, on appeal, it was ruled that Pell knew a motor cross event was being held and that he should have been aware of the possibility of traffic turning into the field on the right and also that, notwithstanding an argument that Moseley did not indicate, he should have been aware due to Moseley’s slow manoeuvring that there was a possibility she would turn. Liability was split evenly (50/50) between the parties.
Davis v Schrogin 2006, 100% car drivers fault
Davis, driving a car, had been stuck in a traffic jam on a straight section of a single lane road. Schrogin had been riding his motorcycle on the same road in the same direction. As there was nothing oncoming in the opposite lane Schrogin was able to overtake the stationary queue. Davis, decided to execute a U-turn to get out of the queuing traffic and moved slightly to the left before executing his manoeuvre. Although Schrogin was there to be seen and was approximately five car lengths away, Davis only looked to his left as he pulled into the opposite lane thus colliding with Schrogin’s motorcycle.
Decision
In the Court of Appeal it was held that as Schrogin’s motorcycle was so close to Davis car when Davis began the U-turn that he could have not avoided the collision, there was simply no basis for any finding of contributory negligence against the Motorcyclist Schrogin.
Beasley v Alexander 2012, 100% car driver’s fault
Beasley travelling on his motorcycle was filtering past stationary traffic. Alexander in his car was stuck in the queue of traffic decided to perform a U-turn in the mouth of the road to the right. At the time that Alexander began his U-Turn, Beasley was very close to Alexander’s car and Alexander did not afford Beasley enough time to take any evasive action.
Decision
The court found the accident was 100% the fault of the car driver – Alexander.
Woodham v Turner 2012, 50/50 decision
Turner, a coach driver, had stopped at a T-Junction intending to turn right into a major road. A large tractor with a trailer stopped to the right of the junction and left a gap for Turner to emerge. Two motorcyclists filtered up the offside past the queue of traffic behind the tractor and trailer. Woodham was the lead motorcyclist and continued past the tractor and trailer whereas the second motorcyclist decided not to. Turner pulled slowly out of the minor road. Woodham, travelling at 20mph, collided into Turner’s coach.
Decision
Turner was found partly at fault as she should have waited until there was a smaller vehicle on her right which didn’t obscure her view. Woodham who was familiar with the road chose to overtake the stationary tractor at 20mph when the other motorcyclist remained stationary. It was found that had Woodham been travelling at a speed of 15 mph he would have had more chance of avoiding a collision. Both parties found equally (i.e. 50/50) to blame.
Jones v Lawton 2013, 2/3rd/1/3rd in favour of the motorcyclist
Jones was riding a low-slung motorcycle along the A386, one of the main routes in and out of Plymouth. The road was governed by a 30mph speed limit. Jones was overtaking two queues of traffic in the northbound lanes and was over the central white lines using the southbound lane to travel northbound. Lawton was in his car and wanting to execute a right hand turn from a side road to the left of Jones. He had observed that cars had stopped from his right and having a clear view to his left pulled out across the path of Jones. He did not stop or edge out gradually beyond the line of traffic and he admitted that he did not listen for approaching traffic.
Decision
The Court ruled that a driver crossing lanes of slow moving traffic had to be aware of the possibility that a motorcyclist might be proceeding along the outside of the traffic. There was an obligation for the driver to edge forward to alert the motorcyclist and give himself the best opportunity to see the motorcyclist. There was also an obligation to look to the right, after checking the left was clear so that he would have warning of the motorcyclist approaching. Lawton was found to have done none of those things, These failures caused the collision, and therefore, Lawton was found 2/3’s to blame. The reason that Jones was found 1/3 to blame, was because of his failure to keep a proper look out, and his excessive speed (30 mph) for the circumstances had been causative of the accident.
Ringe v Eden Springs 2012, 80/20 decision in favour of the van driver
Ringe was a motorcyclist, and was riding along a single carriageway which had a 40mph speed limit. Ringe overtook an articulated lorry. The carriageway was separated by a hatched area bordered by broken white lines. Ringe overtook the lorry by crossing into the hatched area. The Defendant was a van driver, pulled out from a junction intending to turn right. Ringe came upon the Defendant’s van and braked but could not avoid a collision. Ringe maintained he had been travelling at 50mph and the Defendant maintained the lorry that Ringe had overtaken had been 60m away when he pulled out into the junction thinking he had enough room/time to complete his manoeuvre.
Decision
It was held that the Defendant should have waited until he had enough room as the size of the lorry blocked his view of any vehicles that may have been overtaking the lorry. Ringe was aware of the junction and knew it was not safe to overtake. It was found that Ringe had been travelling at 60-70mph. Ringe was found 80% liable and the Defendant was found 20% liable.
