What's your take on filtering along the outside of stationary or slow moving traffic?

[that man over there]

First one is filtering, the second is overtaking . Er, not sure if that would stand up in court though.

Agree. Most car drivers are accepting of filtering, when they see you come up between them - ie two (or more) lanes of traffic, but what you did there was to overtake a long line of traffic, and although I don't see the point myself, car drivers are less happy with this - grumpy that they can't do the same, I should imagine.

I do it myself, however I know I'm not filtering but overtaking when I do so.

[clarke]

If you're overtaking at low speed and pulling back in when cars are coming at you then I can't see the police thinking it's dangerous driving. Overtaking at speed and going between oncoming cars causing them to move over on the other hand....

I occasionally get cars etc try and block me on filtering, doesn't bother me if they succeed because as soon as the traffic starts moving you can usually skip around. Sometimes I get cars try to drive on the pillion seat as they want to overtake me again, normally I let them pass then filter passed them again at the next queue - bet that annoys them!

One lad at work told me he actively blocks bikes on the grounds if he has to queue so should we. I explained if all bikes queue then it'd take him even longer and pointed out the advantages his car has in the middle of winter when it's pi$$ing it down and how filtering was the trade off. He said he hadn't thought of that...?!

Worst I had was a fella wanting to fight me when I went to the front of the queue at a red light. I declined his offer but made it clear I thought he was a c0ck!

[mike1949]

If you're overtaking at low speed and pulling back in when cars are coming at you then I can't see the police thinking it's dangerous driving.

As long as you don't cross a continous white line.

[Cynic]

If your overtaking the other carriageway should be clear for the manouver.

Personally filtering is between slow traffic no matter the direction. At low speed. I am as guilty as Dirty for pushing that particular envelope.

M62 fetching kev, DDT?

[j0hn]

If you're overtaking at low speed and pulling back in when cars are coming at you then I can't see the police thinking it's dangerous driving.

I checked out verdicts for some court cases where there had been collisions involving drivers making U-turns. In these situation, the driver was blamed 100%. Some cases had 50/50 where there might have been a possibility for the motorcyclist to avoid the collision, had he/she been travelling slower. Riders get a 80% and up blame if a collision occurs near a junctions. Even though it's not safe for drivers to pull out, motorcyclists had a higher percentage of blame because he/she should have been more aware of the dangers. If a driver in stuck traffic decides to turn right into a minor road and collides with a motorcyclist then it varies depending on whether the driver had indicated in time, if the maneuver was aggressive and the speed the motorcyclist was doing at the time, on average it's also a 50/50 blame.

//Edit: To summarise, the main reason for riders getting part or full blame was due to excessive speed.

[clarke]

As I understand it if you're filtering/overtaking down the outside of stationary/slow moving traffic and a car emerges from a side road on the left and hits you then blame normally rests on biker as you should anticipate cars emerging from the side road and slow down/ensure clear before passing.

I think it's all about reasonableness, however your reasonable manoeuvre may be unreasonable to someone else/ the judge.

I read an article once where a lorry crossed the centre line on a bend and hit a biker who lost his leg. The biker had his compensation reduced as the judge ruled that had the biker been in the middle of his lane rather than close to the centre line then the lorry would've potentially missed him... I bet most people would reasonably think if the lorry leaves its lane then they're 100% at fault