....I just didnt see you! because you didnt look!

[Blinx]

Well I passed my license in October last year, got my FMX on the road and have enjoyed nearly 2000 miles since then, even though 90% have been cold wet and even icey miles.

At last the sun is out and it feels like summers here to stay. Perfect for months of blissful dry blacktop and riding without layers of thermals on.

Except for me, who gets to sit in a stuffy car because some silly moo didnt check her mirrors and pulled a U turn right under my nose knocking me off and trashing my baby.

The whole incident happened as I was filtering through stationary traffic doing about 30mph. I'm told insurance companies take a dim view on this and I may struggle to get my claim even though she admitted to me and a witness liability. Has anyone else had similar experiences? Also pushing an injury claim through for a bruise the size of ireland on my shin and a dodgy knee.

[AlanH]

Originally Posted by Blinx

I was filtering through stationary traffic doing about 30mph. I'm told insurance companies take a dim view on this and I may struggle to get my claim even though

It's all about difference in speed. I seem to remember a speed differential of 15mph being acceptable but I could be wrong. At 30mph, the edge of a door is really going to chop stuff off you if some muppet opens one to empty their ash tray regardless of whether the insurance companies approve or not.

Bad luck on the smack. You may find they press for knock for knock or try to pin it totally on you at worst. Time to get a decent solicitor.

[Twickers]

You need to check out ( I think ) MCN or similar. It used to be the case that if you were filtering then you were unlikely to get much in compensation. However there was a change to case law a couple of years ago ( a new precedent set ) such that if it can be proven that you were (a) filtering responsibly and (b) the driver didn't look, then you should get full compensation.

Really I'd hunt down the MCN article ( it should be on their web site somewhere, failing that ask their legal department ), or get a proper motorcycling lawyer on the case.

If I can dig out the details I'll post them up.

All the best.

[Blinx]

Yeah I guessed it may end like that. Tbh its hard to say my speed my I know it definitly wasn't higher than 30. Enough for my knee to leave a hefty dent in her door though, but not hard enough to break it. Solicitors working on my injury and insurers on the rest. Still waiting to get a full damage report. Think its going to add up. Doesn't look to bad considering but theres lots of scrapes etc and I don't know if theres any lasting damage to forks etc

[Blinx]

cheers twickers. Well she didnt indicate so I can presume that may have been because she wasn't concentrating. All help greatly appreciated.

[Sharribee]

Blinx the highway code has been changed apparently to cover filtering (although I haven't read it) so it may be worth seeing what it says.

[Blinx]

Ah right, well worth a look then. Think I really need to do all my research cheers

[Twickers]

Take 2...

I think it was DAVIS v SCHROGIN but also check out a case won by Jamie McColm in Feb 2006, which may also be applicable.

[Sharribee]

Here you go, according to this filtering is legal so you were performing a legal manoeuvre

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.

Remember: Observation – Signal – Manoeuvre

83-88: Rules for motorcyclists : Directgov - Travel and transport

[Twickers]

Take 3 ...

Davis v Schrogin


(Court of Appeal - 27 June 2006)

Mr Schrogin was stuck in a traffic jam in his car on a straight road. Mr Davis was riding a motorcycle along the same road in the same direction and was able to overtake the stationary queue as nothing was coming in the opposite direction. Mr Schrogin decided to leave the queue by executing a U-turn. Although Mr Davis' motorcycle was visible, Mr Schrogin did not see him until his car collided with the motorbike. Mr Schrogin accepted in evidence that he was looking the wrong way. Mr Davis first saw Mr Schrogin's car moving towards the kerb in preparation for the u-turn and was no more than five cars' length back from the point of impact.

The trial judge found Mr Schrogin negligent in making the u-turn without looking properly, and that Mr Davis was not to blame. Mr Schrogin argued that Mr Davis had accepted that he had paused to react and was contributory negligent. The Court of Appeal held that Mr Davis was so close to the point of impact that he could not have avoided the collision, so there was no basis for a finding of contributory negligence.
Comment: In previous decisions, motorcyclists have borne in excess of 50% of liability. The Appeal Court's unwillingness to challenge the decision of the judge's finding confirms each case will be decided upon its own facts.