There are many reported cases on filtering from both the Court of Appeal and the High Court. The old favourite is Powell v Moody – which in a weak Court of Appeal decision not to overturn a decision of a lower Court has given insurers a case to cite which pitches 80% of the blame on a motorcyclist filtering unsighted past a high sided vehicle but the Court of Appeal has made it absolutely clear that Powell v Moody is not an authority for anything.
All road traffic cases are based on their own facts – and no two situations are identical – it is the mark of a green lawyer, with a fresh “white wig” to come to Court armed with “case law” from decided cases. Judges will literally roll their eyes at fact based decisions being cited as precedent – they are at best a “useful starting point” and are no more than persuasive. There is one particularly helpful case to motorcyclists where a biker was overtaking backed up traffic on a single carriageway when a driver in the queue executed what was described by all the witnesses as an impatient and aggressive u-turn.
The general run of the evidence was that the motorcyclist was travelling too fast to pull up. but the Court found the motorcyclist to be entirely without blame, because the driver executing a u-turn was doing something which was unusual, and even if the motorcyclist had been travelling at 20mph, when a car suddenly moves into view, without having positioned itself towards the crown of the road, and not troubling with an indication, there is not a great deal the motorcyclist can do. However this is not authority – the Judge made findings of fact based on the evidence, apportioned blame and causation and the Court of Appeal said they though the Judge made a decision well within his wide range of discretion. So beware the forum Queen’s Counsel, citing authority. It does not carry much weight in the real world with real judges.