Adventure Bike Rider Forum

mark1150 wrote: I am unaware of anything forbidding filtering in these circumstances, however Police might be slightly unsighted see you filtering and assume that a part of your vehicle has crossed over and nick you which IMHO is fair enough, then it would be encumbent on you to prove that you didn't cross over the line at a Magestrates court.

No evidence as it was assumed you'd commited an offence, so why would the "guilty" party have to prove their innocence, I thought it was the other way around?

In my case the road works were on the opposite side of the road and no oncoming traffic. When we started to overtake, at a slow pace, the traffic was stationary and my mates just made it to the front of the queue as the lights changed but rather than squeeze in at the front I decided to take the next available and safe gap (he had no doubt spotted me and made that gap). After pulling in I spotted it was an unmarked car so kept to the speed limit instead of catching up with the others, he followed behind for maybe a mile or so before pulling me in.
In my opinion I was not riding dangerously but a lack of anticipation on my part was obviously present, however if the same situation occurred today I can't honestly say I would do anything differently. What the technicalities of the Law were I had not a clue so was happy to take the bollocking and ride on. Part of me thinks they were being fair with me but another part thinks they were on sticky ground so just had a word.

If it looks safe, go for it. I'll take the slim chance of a few points every time over being the last person sat in a queue waiting to get sandwiched.

well, I am in the bad habit of crossing solid white lines myself, so I am

the problem with crossing the solid white line when filtering is that if you get into an accident, its you be in the wrong, so it is.

Oop North John wrote:

mark1150 wrote: I am unaware of anything forbidding filtering in these circumstances, however Police might be slightly unsighted see you filtering and assume that a part of your vehicle has crossed over and nick you which IMHO is fair enough, then it would be encumbent on you to prove that you didn't cross over the line at a Magestrates court.

No evidence as it was assumed you'd commited an offence, so why would the "guilty" party have to prove their innocence, I thought it was the other way around?

Perhaps I should rephrase, there was no way on this earth that the [strike]bast[/strike] Policeman on his bike could have seen me do a thing wrong, let alone put a handlebar over the lines outside Brighton, which ended up with a fine and an endorsement.
My understanding of the law as written above was from him; my point is who do you think a magestrate would side with, a rider who admits that they were filtering but were sooo careful NOT to cross the line in any way, or a Traffic cop?
Is it worth it? I think not.

mark1150 wrote:

Oop North John wrote:

mark1150 wrote: I am unaware of anything forbidding filtering in these circumstances, however Police might be slightly unsighted see you filtering and assume that a part of your vehicle has crossed over and nick you which IMHO is fair enough, then it would be encumbent on you to prove that you didn't cross over the line at a Magestrates court.

No evidence as it was assumed you'd commited an offence, so why would the "guilty" party have to prove their innocence, I thought it was the other way around?

Perhaps I should rephrase, there was no way on this earth that the [strike]bast[/strike] Policeman on his bike could have seen me do a thing wrong, let alone put a handlebar over the lines outside Brighton, which ended up with a fine and an endorsement.
My understanding of the law as written above was from him; my point is who do you think a magestrate would side with, a rider who admits that they were filtering but were sooo careful NOT to cross the line in any way, or a Traffic cop?
Is it worth it? I think not.

Double eek, best safe than sorry as you say

mark1150 wrote:

Oop North John wrote:

mark1150 wrote: I am unaware of anything forbidding filtering in these circumstances, however Police might be slightly unsighted see you filtering and assume that a part of your vehicle has crossed over and nick you which IMHO is fair enough, then it would be encumbent on you to prove that you didn't cross over the line at a Magestrates court.

No evidence as it was assumed you'd commited an offence, so why would the "guilty" party have to prove their innocence, I thought it was the other way around?

Perhaps I should rephrase, there was no way on this earth that the [strike]bast[/strike] Policeman on his bike could have seen me do a thing wrong, let alone put a handlebar over the lines outside Brighton, which ended up with a fine and an endorsement.
My understanding of the law as written above was from him; my point is who do you think a magestrate would side with, a rider who admits that they were filtering but were sooo careful NOT to cross the line in any way, or a Traffic cop?
Is it worth it? I think not.

Innocent until PROVEN guilty still holds true in the court room, even if some magistrates courts are quite police friendly, they don't want to prosecute stuff with zero evidence because a good motoring lawyer who knows that he can't loose will just appeal to the crown court who will rip it apart.

The word of a single cop is not 'evidence', they'd need to dig up CCTV footage or have a second cop witness it, or have several statements from members of the public.

I'd have ticked the go to court option on the penalty ticket, as from what you have described the CPS would drop it through lack of evidence. They have to state that they believe there is at least a 50/50 chance of a successful prosecution before the magistrate will even hear the case.

-Ralph- wrote:
The word of a single cop is not 'evidence', they'd need to dig up CCTV footage or have a second cop witness it, or have several statements from members of the public.

I've agreed with most of what you have said but this is just incorrect. It may or may not be SUFFICIENT evidence but it is still evidence and therefore admissible in court.

Slightly off topic, way back in the 70's my mate on his FS1e got charged with not stopping at a stop junction. He pleaded not guilty, it went to court. My mate's dad handled his sons defence.
The police officer in his statement said he was about 200 yards behind my mate in his patrol car, the Officer said he knew the bike hadn't stopped because although he had clearly seen the brake light come on, but at no time did he see my mate put his foot on the floor. Which indicated that at no time did the bike stop.
At which point my mate's dad produced a hold-all and began lining up his sons trials trophies on the bench.
He explained that his son was a junior trails champion and could hold his bike stationary with out putting a foot down for an hour if he wanted.
....Not Guilty!

I'd have ticked the go to court option on the penalty ticket, as from what you have described the CPS would drop it through lack of evidence. They have to state that they believe there is at least a 50/50 chance of a successful prosecution before the magistrate will even hear the case.



I would elect trial by jury at the Crown Court based on the evidence presented here. It is doubtful on the facts whether the CPS would risk taking this to a jury trial. In my humble opinion you would find that the 12 jurors would believe your side of the story