Filtering between traffic — UK motorcycle liability rules in 2026

**Bottom line:** filtering between lanes of stationary or slow-moving traffic is **legal in the UK** under the Highway Code (rule 88) and is treated by the courts as a normal riding manoeuvre — not automatically negligent. But every UK motorcycle filtering case turns on speed differential and visibility, and insurers will fight to apportion 25–50% contributory negligence against the rider. Strong evidence flips that fight.

This is the case-law-and-practice guide we use internally when handling filtering claims for our PCO bike and delivery-rider clients.

What "filtering" actually means in UK law

Filtering = riding between two lines of traffic moving in the same direction, where one or both lines are stationary or substantially slower than your speed. It's the manoeuvre that lets a motorcycle save 20–40 minutes in London rush hour and is the single biggest practical advantage of riding a bike for delivery / PCO work.

**Filtering is legal**, in stark contrast to many EU countries where it's banned or restricted. The Highway Code rule 88 expressly contemplates it:

> "When filtering in slow-moving traffic, take care and keep your speed low."

Rule 160 also reminds drivers to look for motorcyclists when changing lane. So the legal framework is on the rider's side. The fights are about speed and reasonableness.

The cases that set the rules

Three key UK cases riders should know:

**Powell v Moody (1966)** — established the baseline. A rider filtering past a queue of traffic was held 80% to blame when struck by a car emerging from a side road. Reason: rider should have anticipated emerging traffic at a junction. **Takeaway**: filtering speed at a junction must be very low.

**Davis v Schrogin (2006) Court of Appeal** — refined Powell. Held that filtering on a wide carriageway between two lanes of stationary traffic, where a driver suddenly turned right across the rider, was **wholly the driver's fault** — no contributory negligence on the rider. **Takeaway**: a driver turning across stationary traffic owes the rider a high duty of care.

**Woodham v Turner (2012)** — further refined. Where a driver pulled out of a stationary line of traffic without looking and hit a filtering motorcycle, the rider was held **only 25% contributorily negligent** (rather than 50%) because the rider was riding at a moderate speed and the driver had ample time to see them. **Takeaway**: speed differential is the dial.

The modern UK courts will rarely find the rider wholly responsible if they were filtering at a low speed differential past stationary traffic. The fight is over the percentage.

The speed-differential rule of thumb

| Filtering speed | Surrounding traffic | Typical liability split | |---|---|---| | Walking pace (5mph) | Stationary | Driver 100% if they pulled out | | 10–15mph | Stationary or crawling | Driver 75–100%, rider 0–25% | | 20–25mph | 5–10mph | Driver 50–75%, rider 25–50% | | 30mph+ | Stationary | Driver 50%, rider 50% — or worse | | 40mph+ | Anything | Rider often majority at fault |

These are typical ranges, not rules. Every case turns on specifics: weather, visibility, junction type, signage, time of day, the driver's actions.

How insurers fight a filtering claim

Expect these arguments from the third-party insurer:

1. **"The rider was going too fast for the conditions."** Counter: speed evidence from speedo data, dashcam, CCTV, witness account. 2. **"The rider should have anticipated the lane change."** Counter: was the driver signalling? Did they look? Mirror check evidence. 3. **"The rider was in the driver's blind spot."** Counter: this cuts both ways — drivers have a duty to mirror and signal before lane change. 4. **"There was a junction / side road and the rider should have slowed."** Counter: distance from junction at impact, road markings. 5. **"The rider was riding without due care."** Counter: rider's CBT / licence status, training history, no prior violations.

A skilled solicitor + good evidence usually reduces contributory negligence by 15–25 percentage points compared to no evidence.

The evidence checklist

For any filtering case, the rider needs:

• **Dashcam / GoPro / helmet camera footage** if available — single biggest factor - **CCTV from nearby buildings, buses, or TfL cameras** — we can request these for you within retention windows - **Speedo readings** if the bike has data logging (newer Honda / BMW / Ducati models do) - **Witness statements** — especially from drivers in the queue who saw the manoeuvre - **Road / weather conditions** at the time (Met Office archives are free) - **The driver's account** — get them on phone or text admitting fault if you can - **Photo of the carriageway** showing how wide the filtering lane was

Specific scenarios

**Filtering past a right-turning vehicle**: high-risk. The driver may turn across you without indicating. Evidence the indicator usage (or absence). Courts often find the driver substantially or wholly liable.

**Filtering up the centre at lights**: very common in London. Usually low-speed, traffic stationary. If hit by a lane-changer, you're typically in a strong position.

**Filtering at the front of the queue, into ASLs (Advanced Stop Lines for cyclists)**: legal for motorcycles where signage allows. Document the signage if hit.

**Filtering on a dual carriageway between fast-moving lanes**: NOT typical filtering — this is overtaking. Speed differential matters far more here. Much higher contrib-negligence risk.

**Filtering and being hit by a pedestrian stepping out**: pedestrians have right of way at crossings. If between vehicles outside a crossing, mixed liability — usually rider 0–25%.

What gets recovered

For a successful filtering claim (even with say 25% contributory negligence), the rider still recovers 75% of:

• Bike repair or pre-accident value - Replacement vehicle costs - Loss of earnings — full amount, reduced by the contrib percentage - Personal injury — pain, suffering, loss of amenity (PSLA) per the Judicial College Guidelines (most recent edition), plus special damages - Medical and rehabilitation costs

A 25% reduction on a £30,000 claim is £7,500 — significant but the claim is still worth pursuing.

Mistakes that lose filtering cases

1. **Admitting you were going "fast"** to police or paramedics. Use "moderate" or "in line with conditions" — accurate, neutral, doesn't volunteer percentage. 2. **No camera footage**. Get a helmet or bar-mounted camera for £80–£120 — every rider doing PCO / delivery work should have one. 3. **Settling for the first offer**. Insurers routinely open at 50/50 on filtering cases hoping you accept. Most settle at 75/25 or better with proper evidence + a panel solicitor. 4. **Going through your own insurer**. They have no incentive to fight contributory negligence aggressively; they just want to close the file.

Special case — PCO / delivery riders

If you're earning on the bike (Deliveroo, Uber Eats, Stuart, etc.), the loss-of-earnings element of a filtering claim is often the largest component. Evidence:

• Platform earnings statements (Deliveroo Rider app, Uber Eats Earnings tab) - Bank statements showing weekly payouts - Tax returns showing annual income - If you were rejected for work during the off-the-road period, screenshots

A 4-week off-the-road window for a full-time delivery rider is typically £1,800–£2,800 recovered.

Get help

If you've come off filtering and the other driver is at fault, [submit a claim](/submit-claim) or call **0208 090 8872**. We package the case (evidence, witness statements, CCTV requests, medical), instruct a panel solicitor on PI matters, and arrange a replacement bike within 24 hours — all £0 to you for non-fault claims.

For the broader picture, see our [UK motorcycle accident claim guide](/blog/uk-motorcycle-accident-claim-guide-2026) and the [Motor Insurers' Bureau (MIB) process](/blog/uber-driver-hit-by-uninsured-driver) if the other driver was uninsured.