TC1474

By all accounts the charity event will interfere with the health and safety of their call centre staff http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/local-news/formal-objection-tv-giant-sky-12606752

I meant to say the Highway Code is quite clear Rule 160 be aware of other road users, especially cycles and motorcycles who may be filtering through the traffic. These are more difficult to see than larger vehicles and their riders are particularly vulnerable. Give them plenty of room, especially if you are driving a long vehicle or towing a trailer And then as far as compying with the rules are concerned, a judge will look at these key points and look to see if Rule 165 was complied with Rule 165 states You MUST NOT overtake if you would have to cross or straddle double white lines with a solid line nearest to you (but see Rule 129) if you would have to enter an area designed to divide traffic, if it is surrounded by a solid white line the nearest vehicle to a pedestrian crossing, especially when it has stopped to let pedestrians cross if you would have to enter a lane reserved for buses, trams or cycles during its hours of operation after a ‘No Overtaking’ sign and until you pass a sign cancelling the restriction. Laws RTA 1988 sect 36, TSRGD regs 10, 22, 23 & 24, & ZPPPCRGD reg 24 And these are the points I covered in my piece. So if those elements were complied with, then there is no doubt. From a civil law point of view, the only other issue that does pop up from time to time is where the rider has filtered past a vehicle close to a junction on the right and the car turns and a collision occurs. This is where there will be a valid argument for contributory negligence on the part of the rider, but the courts have usually found the car driver to be primarily liable as that driver still has a fiduciary duty of care to ensure it is safe to commence the turn. Simply saying that they turned on their indicator is insufficient. In thesse cases it can go 70/30 or 60/40 in favour of the rider, in some cases I have seen 75/25 in favour of the rider, but again it comes down to circumstances and evidence.

Powell v Moody used to be the statutory defence. It does not even get a mention these days in live cases. I wrote this a couple of months ago and a slightly edited version will soon be on our website I deal with and advise with regards to liability in filtering cases on a daily basis. I also cover undertaking in this piece as well One of the advantages of riding a motorcycle is that we as riders can continue to make progress where other vehicles are unable to. When traffic is stationary or moving slowly in queues, motorcyclists can use their manoeuvrability and limited space requirements to continue on their journey relatively unimpeded. However, with this benefit comes a high degree of responsibility. Is it illegal? No, its not, although may would have you believe that it is. The Highway Code; the Driving Standard Agency publication on Motorcycle Riding; and the Police Riders Handbook – Motorcycle Road Craft, all mention filtering and states that it requires great care and attention from the motorcyclist. The Police and riding experts will advise that no offence is committed if the motorcyclist complies with all road traffic signs, road markings, road traffic regulations and filters with appropriate due care and attention with courtesy to other road users. Some people have been as bold to suggest that if a rider filters at 15mph or faster than the slowest moving vehicle, then that would constitute an offence, either dangerous or careless driving. There is no minimum or maximum limit, it is about what is appropriate for the conditions as I will explain. Unfortunately, too many riders are injured because of filtering, so this begs the question of what happens if you want to bring a civil claim for personal injury, loss and damage suffered in a collision whilst filtering? It may be worth noting that when a Judge is asked to make a decision who is to blame, they often refer to past cases particularly those which have been decided in a higher Court. These are what legal professionals call legal precedents. The first major case decided by the Court of Appeal was Powell v Moody in 1966. Briefly the circumstances of this accident were that there were two lanes of stationary traffic. The motorcyclist filtered along the offside of the second line of traffic when he came into collision with a car emerging from a side road on the nearside intending to turn right through a gap in the traffic. The Court described filtering as queue jumping which was a hazardous manoeuvre which had to be carried out with a high degree of care required by the motorcyclist. The Court said that it was effectively the burden of the motorcyclist to ensure that it was safe to overtake. As you will appreciate, the concept of queuing goes deep into our national psyche and there is a subconscious objection to those that “jump the queue”. If an accident happens where someone is doing this, then the natural reaction has been to blame the person who is in breach of the natural order of queuing. In this case, the Court held that the motorcyclist was 80% to blame. The effect of this is that the motorcyclist’s claim was reduced by 80%. You can appreciate how such a finding would drastically reduce the amount of compensation a motorcyclist would receive if he suffered serious injuries. In the case of Leeson v Bevis and Tolchard (1972) a bike was filtering and passed a single line of queuing traffic at about 15 mph. A van pulled out of a garage on the left in front of a lorry. A collision occurred between the bike and the van. This again went to the Court of Appeal and the biker was found 50% at fault. The next incident of any significance was the case of Worsfold v Howe (1980). This was a two lane road. The nearside was for traffic going straight ahead and the second lane was for traffic turning right. The biker was riding in the second lane at a speed of 10-30 mph. A tanker had left a large gap in front of it to allow traffic to emerge from a railway yard on the left. A car emerges very slowly in front of the tanker across both lanes to turn right. A collision occurred. This also went to the Court of Appeal where the biker was found 50% at fault. The Court said that the biker was travelling too fast and that he had gone beyond his line of sight. Things then remained fairly stagnant for a while until we got the case of Pell v Moseley heard by the Court of Appeal in 2003. Here we have a single lane carriage way in each direction subject to a 60 mph speed limit. The motorcyclist began to overtake a line of traffic when he came into collision with a car which intended to turn right into a field where a motor cross event was taking place. The Court of Appeal found the motorcyclist 50% to blame stating that the motorcyclist was negligent in that he failed to notice that the Defendants vehicle would have needed to slow down before turning right, a fact which should have been apparent despite her failure to indicate. Further the motorcyclist was aware of the motor cross event and should have considered the possibility that the Defendant may wish to turn into the field and as such should not have attempted to overtake as he did. 3 years later, we then saw a Chinese of light in the case of Davis v Schrogin in 2006, heard by the Court of Appeal. An accident occurred on a long straight section of road with one lane in each direction. There was a long queue of stationary/slow moving vehicles. A motorcyclist travelling in the same direction was overtaking at approximately 40 mph. He was half to two thirds of the way across from the central white line, was displaying a dipped headlight and a right hand indicator. He had been in that position for approximately half a mile and was not weaving in and out of traffic. A car lost patience and decided to carry out a U turn when the motorcycle was no more than five car lengths back. A collision occurred. The Court found the car driver wholly at fault on the basis that the motorcyclist was there to be seen and that even if he had been travelling appreciably more slowly than he was, it would have made no difference because he had been right on top of the point of the accident when the Defendant first did anything to alert the motorcyclist of his intended manoeuvre This was a decision of sense having regard to the facts of the accident. However, things became somewhat muddy when an article in one major motorcycle paper suggested that bikers could now filter in any circumstances and at any speed and recover 100% of their compensation. That euphoria was short lived following the case of Farley v Buckley in 2007. A motorcyclist was passing a refuse wagon which was travelling in the same direction and was indicating an intention to turn left into a side road. The lorry was unable to complete its turn as the side road was narrow and there was a car waiting to emerge and turn right. The motorcyclist travelling at a speed of about 30 mph overtook the refuse wagon with its wheels virtually on the centre white line when the car drove out in one continuous movement at approximately 5-8 miles per hour. A collision occurred. The Court held the motorcyclist wholly at fault as it considered that the motorcyclist was travelling at a too high a speed which in the circumstances was reckless especially having regard to the nature of the manoeuvre that he had been carrying out, the lack of visibility to his left and the fact that the refuse wagon had been displaying its left indicator. The final case that we can refer to is Higgins v Johnson 2008 which is a County Court decision. In this case, a car was approaching a rugby ground on the right and indicated to turn into it. The car had commenced its manoeuvre when it was struck by a motorcycle which was overtaking. The Court heard evidence that the car driver first indicated left, then right, then left and then finally right again. The motorcyclist held back but once he believed that the car driver appeared to have settled on a course of continuing straight ahead, he pulled out to overtake. The Court accepted independent witness evidence that the car did indicate left, right, left and right. The final indication happened when the motorcyclist had already begun to overtake. The Court held that the car driver failed to check her mirrors or look over her shoulder and had she done so, she would have seen the motorcyclist. However, the Court also found that the motorcyclist was aware that there was an indecisive, erratically indicating driver ahead of him yet he proceeded to overtake her on a yellow boxed junction. The Court found the motorcyclist 25% to blame on this basis. The moral of this story is cases such as these are fact specific. That is, each case is determined on its own merits. The court will look at the manner in which each party was driving/riding, traffic and road conditions and all relevant issues. So, what can you do to avoid an accident in the first place or give you a good change of getting 100% of your compensation? Ride slowly and at a speed that you are able to stop if:- Vehicles emerge or turn at junctions (be extra vigilant if your visibility is compromised by high sided vehicles) Vehicles suddenly changing lanes or U-turning without warning Vehicles suddenly opening their doors (especially if filtering along traffic that has been stationary for some time) Watch for pedestrians and cyclists. Also other filtering motorcycles! Be ready to brake or use your horn if you think you have not been seen Use dipped headlights and wear florescent/reflective clothing Watch for road studs, road paint, road defects and manhole covers which can throw the bike off line Avoid conflict with other road users and be courteous Comply with all road traffic signs, road markings and road traffic regulations It is the old story, that if it feels wrong, it probably is wrong, but filter with care, and you should not have any problems, as each case has to be decided on its merits and the evidence available. I often get asked about undertaking or what is referred to as the nearside overtake. The most common example is usually found on a Motorway when it is clear and we get the centre lane hogger. Many TV programmes over the years have gone on about it being illegal, but the reality is that nowhere in current traffic law does it say that an undertake is illegal. The reason for this is that apart from the centre lane hogger, congestion is often found close to Motorway slip roads during the rush hour and traffic build up becomes substantial. It is not unusual for lanes 2 and 3 (the centre and outside lanes) to be stationary whilst lane 1 (the left hand lane) remains empty. If traffic was prohibited from passing along the nearside, then the congestion would be worse than we currently experience. At the same time, (going back to the centre lane hogger) it is not always practical or safe when you are travelling at 70 and someone is doing 50 in lane 2 to go from lane 1 to lane 3, bearing in mind that lane 1 is the normal driving lane. So is it legal to undertake? Well it is not illegal. The only offence open to the prosecution is either dangerous or careless driving, but to prove these offences it has to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the standard of driving fell well below that of a reasonably safe and competent driver, therefore the sole act of a nearside overtake is insufficient. However, weave from lane to lane at high speed, then it may be a different story. So this raises the question of "What if I decide to undertake and the car in the centre lane decides to move back into the inside lane?" The driver in the centre lane however does commit the offence of driving without reasonable consideration for other road users (which is a subsection of careless driving), and they also have a statutory duty of care to ensure that it is safe to return to that lane before they actually start to change position. Now, I am not suggesting for one minute that we all go around undertaking every time we are on a Motorway, but there are occasions when it is reasonable for a number of reasons, and the courts are now recognising this and have found in favour of riders who have undertaken, where before the rider may have decided against making a claim on the basis that they believed that they committed an offence. Again, it all comes down to the circumstances and the evidence available.

In 2016, young rider Croft Prevost, a member of the London Motorcycle Riders Club (LMRC) was involved in a fatal collision whilst on the club season opening ride of the season, leaving behind him a 5mth old son, Isaiah and his partner Sharlene Myrie-Barnett With the anniversary of Crofts death coming the club wanted to put together a club event to remember Croft and in doing so raise some money for his family once again. The club is in the process of creating a new Just Giving fund raising page and would be happy to share the details once they have it published it online. So an event has been planned for the Grasshopper Inn, Westerham, Kent on Sunday 19th March. There is an entry fee for access on the day to the hall (which I don't know the cost of at the moment). This would give visitors a days worth of speakers from the Institute of Advanced Motorists, to Kent Police Camera Safety Team, a local motorcycle suspension and tuning specialist, the collective wisdom from the Leadership Team, and Me apparently. So if you have nothing planned, fancy a day out or maybe you are just in the area or nearby, why not pop down and say Hi? If there is interest, I will post up more information as I get it.

Its very true

I have had my car nearly 8 years. I brought it new and it has been brilliant and I still enjoy driving it despite the 100,000 mile mark fast approaching and it has been super reliable so far (says I looking for some wood to touch) When I ordered my car, I had the option of specifying HiD lights, but it was quite an expensive option and to be honest modern headlights tend to be pretty good these days don't they? Well not in my case. Full beam is fine but from day one the dip bean has been awfull, I have been meaning to upgrade the bulbs for some time, and tonight at long last I managed to get around to doing just that. WoW, what a difference. The packaging states that the bulbs, although the same wattage, are 100% brighter than standard, I would say that they are more than that, in comparison it is like driving in daylight. I feel such a prat for having left it so long, and it is not as if it is even an expensive modification, just a fiddly pain in the arse as everything is so cramped to gain access to the back of the headlight unit, especially on the passenger side. Anyway, all done now, big smile on my face and I can start to enjoy night time driving again which I tend to have to do quite a bit of with work. Happy days

I find it incredible that the Republic of Ireland is only now considering making drink driving a mandatory disqualification http://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0208/851002-drink-driving/

It is called Principal..... Doesn't matter if its a disabled space. Would you have made the same comment had it been a disabled parking space which are usually far greater in number?

You would think that being in the public eye he of all people would be a little more considerate. Goes to show what he thinks of motorcylists https://www.facebook.com/daddysafro/posts/1430437983641206

And also ask who is conducting the training? They have kept very quiet about that

Now farting is to blame http://metro.co.uk/2017/02/06/taxi-driver-blames-passengers-farting-for-speeding-6429908/

Has bugger all to do with that now. Since the need to consult the Police on speed limits was removed about 15 years ago, local authorities have used it as a means for their engineers to justify their existence, and in fact in many cases where speed limits have been reduced on the grounds of increased safety, the crash rate has actually increased. Unlike the Police they do not di an 85 percentile check and and they do not go back through the pink sheets to check the accident statistics before they bring new limits in, It is all about them justifying their existence

What does this say about a so called professional driver? http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/taxi-driver-caught-same-speed-9754294?service=responsive

A few people have mentioned heat and in the summer it can be a valid point. Many people bang on about armour and 1.4mm thick leather (which is a load of cr@p by the way), but what many people forget is that if the leather is too thick or there is too much armour, it can cause riders to dehydrate which in turn can cause serious concentration issues and loss of control. It is about getting the balance right. I have dealt with quite a few crashes where in the height of summer a rider has come off and suffered life threatening injuries not because he was under protected, but because he was over protected. I had a freind and colleague on a trip many years ago who had that very problem and ploughed into the back of a car because as the temprature had risen (we had set off for Dover at 5am) he had not reduced his layers and by mid morning he was cooking and he literally did not recognise that a car in fromt of him had stopped. He spent several weeks in a Dutch Hospital before being airlifted home by air ambulance When I retired, I threw about £4K's worth of a very well know brand of leather away because it was so heavy and during the summer we were tempted to use just our tunics with leather strides (which are the most vulnerable part of the body after the head) These days, Kangaroo and Goat offer very good summer alternatives as they are thinner than cow but stronger, much lighter and so more comfortable during the summer, and it is easy to put a jacket on over the top when it is cold or wet. The downside is that Kangaroo and Goat stretch even more and more qickly than cow, so tighter is better with these two skins when new.

But in this case I am working on the basis that if you don't ask you don't get and at least it may make someone in Governement sit up and take notice https://www.change.org/p/uk-parliament-vehicle-thieves-need-to-suffer-as-much-as-the-victims-do?recruiter=53441177&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=share_twitter_responsive

Actually, colour can have an indirect bearing. White is the most difficult colour for leather to take. If you look at a brand, look at anything white in the range and look to see if their white is a brilliant white or a grey dull white. The better qualitiy the leather the brighter the white will be whereas the poorer quality skins will be white but quite dull or with a grey tinge. If the brand produce good quality products in white, even though you probably don't want anything white, it is usually a good indication that the rest of the range in other colours will be of an equally good quality. Brazilian and southern German hides are regarded as being the best quality. Much of it to do with the climate and the grass the cows feed on.

Unfortunately this one is true.

I am convinced that very soon we will be regarded as a third world nation in terms of road safety and enforcement. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4170068/Radical-shake-traffic-policing.html

Now I have stopped laughing at the comment about an external repair (still makes me chuckle at the stupidity of some people ) and assuming that the original post is not some sort of wind up, the reality is that as mentioned by others, it is not the outer shell that is the issue, (although I sure as hell would not want to wear a hat with a crack in it) the problem is the styrofoam liner that protects your computer inside the helmet. The liner is designed to take a once only impact. You may only drop it from a few inches, but that is sufficient to flat spot the liner. I have been at the factory when tested and a small bruising about the size of a hazlenut on the outside can result in a flat spot covering upto 40% of the liner area. The heavier the impact the larger this flat spot will be and therefore the less protection that helmet will afford the wearer. Now you say it is a matter of opinion, I will tell you it is a matter of fact that a dropped helmet will severely reduce the protective qualities, and I have attended a few accidents in the past where the helmet had a crack pre accident and lets just say I was scraping up grey matter for quite a time and I did not enjoy having to let the next of kin know. Are you a qualified helmet technician? Of course you aren't because if you were you would not have written such utter rubbish and cr@p and you would also be aware that once you start sripping down and repairing helmets they no longer comply with BS6658-85 or EC22/05 and therefore become illegal. In a crash situation, even though it may not be yur fault, once it was known that the helmet might have been worn knowing it was iffy, also means that the defence would push for the maximum 25% deduction for contributory negligence in the case of a head injury which could be a substantial figure. I would suggest that instead of giving opinion (although it is funny ) you research your subject before making such comments, unless you like being ridiculed of course

Are you serious? Do a search and read the articles I have posted here regarding helmets and dropping them

I would not shout that from the rooftops too loudly The standard of driving in the Police service is by and large so poor these days it makes me cringe

I don't know what happened there. Try this one http://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/driver-blames-wind-for-pushing-him-over-the-speed-limit/ar-AAmfy8p?li=BBoPOOl

Best not go out for a ride or a drive when there is a stiff breeze then..... http://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/d...y8p?li=BBoPOOl

Because most people never bother to look at the Highway Code once they have passed a test. Let me ask you a question if I may? Apart from preparing for your test, how many times or how did you look at the HC between your 2 tests? How many times have you looked at the HC since your last test? Some of the changes can be quite significant......

I agree with you 100% . I always wish I had invested in property when I was younger. I had a Sgt who had a load of property and every Friday he would go out collecting his rent. It was so funny seeing him park up the patrol car which might be an XJ6 Jag, SD1 Rover or 2.8 Granada, change his anorack for a brown rain coat and then go knocking on doors with the rent books I saw him at a funeral a few weeks ago and he lives in a palace and looks too healthy for hos own good obviously caused by living the good life on the proceeds of the properties he brought and then probably sold for a very handsome profit. Am I jealous? Not at all but I do refer to him as Ex Sgt B@stard when we meet up (Just joking I hasten to add) On a more serious note, I totally agree with your comments regarding student and landlords. My daughter is in such accomodation at a University on the south coast and the landlord is just one greedy ignorant b@stard fuelled by the equally b@stard agents. I know that there are certain rules governing rented accomodation, but it seems that these greedy twats can charge a fortune for sub standard accomodation and then withhold the deposit for months after they move out whilst trying to fabricate false evidence of damage and so on. Don't get me started on them, but I am with you all the way