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. I do not see where that shows clarity on what is filtering and how it differentiates from overtaking.