ASL Survey

Filled it in; I had an inkling who it was before I filled it in ;) the author is in my MSc class, she may recognise my response too ;)
 

gaz

Cycle Camera TV
Location
South Croydon
8. It is an offence for a cyclist to go through the stop line closest to the traffic lights if the traffic lights are at amber or red.
Possible answers; yes, no, not sure.

None of the choices are correct.
 

summerdays

Cycling in the sun
Location
Bristol
Yes I found it difficult to answer a couple of questions myself... especially on the legality of crossing the line....

It also ignored the questions as to what you would do if there was already a car in the box .... today I went in front - mainly because they didn't creep into it until they saw me coming
angry.gif
 

Arch

Married to Night Train
Location
Salford, UK
I never noticed she had put amber or red. AFAIK its not an offence on Amber but it is on Red.
Amber means stop if you can do so safely. So surely it's an offence to go through amber if you do so when you could have stopped.

(IE, it's ok to go through amber if you are virtually on the line when it changes, or have someone very close behind you who might hit you if you stop suddenly. Going through when you could have stopped is the same as going through a red.)
 
The questions 6.3 "Do you tend to stay out of the Advanced Stop Line more if it has coloured surfacing?" Yes/No/Sometimes. This needs a "neither" option as No means both you stay out regardless, or you don't stay out. Yes seems to implies it matters if its coloured or not, and for me it doesn't.
Same for 6.4. 9.4,

11.2 - cyclists always comply? Can someone explain to me what you need to do to comply? I always if at the front, stop dead on the main car line (gives me time to start rolling).



Amber means stop if you can do so safely. So surely it's an offence to go through amber if you do so when you could have stopped.

(IE, it's ok to go through amber if you are virtually on the line when it changes, or have someone very close behind you who might hit you if you stop suddenly. Going through when you could have stopped is the same as going through a red.)
I think from discussions before, it can be considered an offence to go through on amber (ex-police cyclist mentioned it) but it's rarely (read: never) prosecuted for (including motorists).

It's also okay to go through on the red if you think the person behind is not going to stop or something (this also allows you to go through if an ambulance is waiting etc).
 
Amber means stop if you can do so safely. So surely it's an offence to go through amber if you do so when you could have stopped.

(IE, it's ok to go through amber if you are virtually on the line when it changes, or have someone very close behind you who might hit you if you stop suddenly. Going through when you could have stopped is the same as going through a red.)
That my understanding too, amber is stop if its safe to and may not always be practical, so isn't an offence if you can't stop but I guess its a grey area otherwise 90% of people would get a ticket.
 

Twiggy

New Member
Location
Coventry
Green is supposidly proceed with caution, with red, amber being stop, and red and amber being "stop, but prepare to proceed if safe to do so"

But I'm sure all traffic signals are under thye heading "if it is safe to do so" thus slamming your brakes on hard and having three cars pile into the back of you because the light turned red isn't exactly safe, so shouldn't be done.
 

arallsopp

Post of The Year 2009 winner
Location
Bromley, Kent
Done. But yes, there does seem to be a bit of a flaw with the questions. It is true that I ALWAYS stop outside the ASL when driving a car. Therefore I am no more likely to stop at a red one than a plain one. That doesn't mean I think red/plain are equally effective.
 
Top Bottom