Other Sports1 min ago
motorbike lanes
I am often made to swerve to avoid motorbikes which come zig-zagging down between 2 lanes of moving traffic, thus creating a third lane. Can they legally do this or are they breaking a law?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by frazer_d. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
There are lots of driving situations which require interpretation of the law rather than being able to able to refer to a specific part of legislation. For example, there is no statute which specifically states that you must drive on the left side of the road. If you decide to drive on the right, the police (and Crown Prosecution Service) have to decide which piece of legislation you've infringed. (So, although you couldn't be charged with 'driving on the wrong side of the road', you'd probably be charged with 'dangerous driving').
Similarly, there's no specific law against motorcyclists 'creating a third lane'. If the police were considering a prosecution, they'd have to examine the legislation and decide whether any breaches had occurred. In the circumstances you describe, it's unlikely that a charge of 'dangerous driving' would succeeed. Similarly, they probably wouldn't get anywhere with "driving without due care and attention". However, depending upon the circumstances (and the evidence available, such as video recordings), it's possible that a charge of "driving without reasonable consideration for other road users" might succeed.
Chris
Similarly, there's no specific law against motorcyclists 'creating a third lane'. If the police were considering a prosecution, they'd have to examine the legislation and decide whether any breaches had occurred. In the circumstances you describe, it's unlikely that a charge of 'dangerous driving' would succeeed. Similarly, they probably wouldn't get anywhere with "driving without due care and attention". However, depending upon the circumstances (and the evidence available, such as video recordings), it's possible that a charge of "driving without reasonable consideration for other road users" might succeed.
Chris
Loosehead, as I read it, Frazer is referring (for example) to a dual carriageway (with 2 lanes of traffic in each direction), where some bikers drive roughly along the line separating the two lanes in one particular direction. As they encounter cars in either lane, they move slightly to the left or right to go round them. This can be fine if there are long gaps between the vehicles but can cause problems where vehicles are close together.
For example, Frazer could be driving a car in the nearside lane when a biker (who is basically following the line between the lanes) comes up behind him and moves out slightly to pass Frazer. So far, so good. But immediately ahead of the motorcyclist is a car in the right-hand lane. The motorcyclist now pulls over to the left to get past this car (on the inside). Because he starts this manouevre almost as soon as he's past Frazer, he cuts in front of Frazer, causing him to brake and/or swerve.
As soon as the biker has passed that second car, he's now got another car in the left lane ahead of him, so he's moves slightly to the right and into the path of car number two, causing that driver to brake and/or swerve . . . . and so on.
As I've said, I think that this is the type of situation which Frazer is referring to but he'll probably post again to say I've got it all wrong anyway ;-)
Chris
For example, Frazer could be driving a car in the nearside lane when a biker (who is basically following the line between the lanes) comes up behind him and moves out slightly to pass Frazer. So far, so good. But immediately ahead of the motorcyclist is a car in the right-hand lane. The motorcyclist now pulls over to the left to get past this car (on the inside). Because he starts this manouevre almost as soon as he's past Frazer, he cuts in front of Frazer, causing him to brake and/or swerve.
As soon as the biker has passed that second car, he's now got another car in the left lane ahead of him, so he's moves slightly to the right and into the path of car number two, causing that driver to brake and/or swerve . . . . and so on.
As I've said, I think that this is the type of situation which Frazer is referring to but he'll probably post again to say I've got it all wrong anyway ;-)
Chris
Chris, I ride an R1 and in this situation I have never seen a car have to brake because of a bike the bike is always going faster than the car that's why the car is in traffic. I understand the situation you have taken trouble to describe but once I have overtaken frazer I may well be in front but I will be going faster so that I can overtake the car on the right. In normal filtering there is no way a car can catch up to the bike to make it necessary to brake. Granted there are a lot of idiots out there doing strange things and perhaps frazer encounters them occasionally. Bikers take traffic very seriously and would never deliberately put ourselves in the postion to bit hit by a 1 ton steel box, it hurts too much! I think a lot of resentment exists among car drivers because we don't queue (I'm also a car driver) , too right we don't queue, one of the main advantages of biking is that you don't wait in traffic, one of the disadvantages is that you are exposed to the elements; Cars are vice versa, It's choice of course but if traffic is involved I use the bike!
Buenchico. Thank you for interprating my situation exactly - and thank you for the interesting responses from everyone.
I drive to work along a major 'A' road in the S.East and spend a lot of my time in jams, watching the bikes weaving in and out and, generally, they accomplish their mission without inconveniencing the car drivers. But it saddens me when at least once a month on this road I see an ambulance - next to a crashed bike. Whether the blame lies with the car or bike driver , we don't know but it has to be said that if , like in some parts of America, bikes were made to stay in lane and not overtake by creating their own 'third' lane then the families of these bikers would probably worry a little less when their partners are out on their bikes.
I drive to work along a major 'A' road in the S.East and spend a lot of my time in jams, watching the bikes weaving in and out and, generally, they accomplish their mission without inconveniencing the car drivers. But it saddens me when at least once a month on this road I see an ambulance - next to a crashed bike. Whether the blame lies with the car or bike driver , we don't know but it has to be said that if , like in some parts of America, bikes were made to stay in lane and not overtake by creating their own 'third' lane then the families of these bikers would probably worry a little less when their partners are out on their bikes.
If a bike crashes while filtering then generally it is the result of incompetant filtering. Bikers have to anticipate what the cars are doing so I usually blame the biker because they are indeed making a lane. Sometimes a car can take out a biker by changing lanes very suddenly but again the biker should evaluate the opportunities for the cars and determine whether a lane change is likely and then accomodate it. In my years of motorcycling I have never hit or been hit whilst filtering but I accept your points about bikers getting hit, it happens.
On your other point, there is no point buying a bike and waiting in traffic, if filtering where illegal then there is little point biking, result? more cars = more traffic.
Just a thought, but why does it take at least a ton of steel and plastic to transport someone extremely slowly?
On your other point, there is no point buying a bike and waiting in traffic, if filtering where illegal then there is little point biking, result? more cars = more traffic.
Just a thought, but why does it take at least a ton of steel and plastic to transport someone extremely slowly?
Despite what is often said, there are precedents for charges of dangerous or careless driving. Each lane is occupied by vehicles which are entitled to use the full width of that lane. This may be to avoid a road hazard or to maintain a forward view. There is therefore nowhere for the motorcycle to be. The possibility of the cars etc. moving to the side is obvious. It is also obvious that a motorcyclist approaching from the rear may not be seen. On that basis, courts have decided that the riders have accepted a known risk. http://www.advanced-driving.co.uk/bb/viewtopic .php?p=5147
