wellington_street wrote:
Ta.
Tables 5.7 and 5.12 are of particular interest.
Table 5.7 covers the precipitating event - it says that 26/2.8% of crashes happened when the motorcyclists was stopped in traffic with a speed of zero (it makes no reference as to whether this is at the rear of a queue, the middle or the front).
Table 5.12 covers post-precipitating event but still pre-crash. it says that only 6 / 0.7% of crashes then occured when the motorcyclist was stopped in traffic. This is compared to 5 / 0.5% for filtering.
Can anyone clarify this?
It says to me that the only 0.7% of crashes actually occurred when the motorcyclist was stopped in traffic. Another 2.1% of crashes occurred after the motorcyclists was stopped in traffic but then made another movement - i.e. these crashes are not rear-enders where the motorcyclist is actually stopped.
Have I interpreted that right?
Pretty much. You have to be aware that all "filtering" accidents are not coded as such, as a range of other accidents become more likely if you are filtering or (europe) right passing.
- PTW and OV travelling in opposite directions, OV turns in front of PTW is a category containing filtering accidents
- OV turning left in front of PTW, PTW perpendicular to OV path is a category containing filtering accidents
- PTW overtaking OV while OV turning right (europe!) is a category containing filtering accidents
- Sideswipe, OV and PTW travelling in same directions is a category containing filtering accidents
That said, I don't deeply care if filtering is made legal, as its an obvious method of reprioritising efficient road space users against space inefficient road space users, I just do not believe that its net positive for safety, and should never be justified as such.