RLJ'ers

[Dan B]

I've heard that story too, but I suspect it relates to the law when the ASLs were originally introduced (1986), not the law as it stands now. It certainly doesn't seem to be borne out by the actual law (Transport Signs Regulations & General Directions 2002, the text is available though Google) which explicitly says that you must stop at the first line except in the case of "a pedal cycle proceeding in the cycle lane" - i.e. it was drafted with ASLs in mind as it explicitly tells the cyclist they can ignore the first line if they're in the cycle lane. So if they'd wanted to permit ASL access from any part of the road they could just as easily have said so. Your guess as to their intentions here in not doing so is as good as mine, but it remains a guess.

 

[BentMikey]

...and we might need to remember that not everyone in this discussion wants to look through a microscope watching us splitting hairs. The big picture remains that full RLJing is a much more serious issue than silly ASL stuff. I personally don't even bother with cars in the ASL, which could be considered as much more serious than how a bicycle got in there.

 

[Origamist]

My guess is that there was an expectation in 2002 that all ASLs would/should have a "feeder" cycle lane (as this was recommended practice), but with the proliferation and possible relaxation (or ignorance) of the regs regarding the deployment of ASLs in the last 9 years or so, the situation on the ground has made entering ASLs without cycle lanes or stubbie gates an offence. My experience is that these ASL (without stubbies or lanes) are in the minority.

 

[I like Skol]

...and we might need to remember that not everyone in this discussion wants to look through a microscope watching us splitting hairs. The big picture remains that full RLJing is a much more serious issue than silly ASL stuff. I personally don't even bother with cars in the ASL, which could be considered as much more serious than how a bicycle got in there.

Wait, have I got this right. You are picking and choosing which laws you want to obey? How do you decide which laws are important to you and which are 'silly'? How can you be sure that by not obeying the law you are not helping to undermine civil lawfulness and while that may not have any consequences for you it could seriously impact on someone else in a way you haven't considered!

 

[martint235]

So where do you draw the line? Many people stop ahead of the white line when there's no ASL - is that OK? Some people cross the junction completely when they've waited a while and the lights won't change for them - how about that? Some people cross without stopping when it's 3am and there is good visibility and nobody to see them - what about that? You conceded that it's a matter of degree and circumstance when you used the weasel words "technically illegal", so how about a grown-up discussion of what is and isn't appropriate and when?

I'm not sure they are weasel words, redundant words possibly similar to "always unique". It's illegal. I don't think morality comes into it and I've tried to be careful not to imply "wrong" as it isn't. At the end of the day, it's personal choice but everyone should be aware of the effect that exercising their personal choice has on the ability of others to exercise theirs.

Also if it is 3 am and there's good visibility and no one around (except a bored policeman), anyone going through a red light shouldn't complain about being fined.

 

[I like Skol]

I acknowledge I am breaking the law and should I be caught I will accept my punishment without bleating about the unfairness of it all or trying to weasle out with lame excuses

Also if it is 3 am and there's good visibility and no one around (except a bored policeman), anyone going through a red light shouldn't complain about being fined.

Exactly what I said a couple of pages ago. It might not be dangerous but it is illegal so if you do end up in the sights of the law you only have yourself to blame for choosing to disregard the law.

 

[Dan B]

The big picture remains that full RLJing is a much more serious issue than silly ASL stuff. I personally don't even bother with cars in the ASL, which could be considered as much more serious than how a bicycle got in there.

Er, nice begging the question there. Your assertion is that "full RLJing" is much more serious (which on balance and in many cases I agree with, fwiw). But that's not a viewpoint you came to based on its legal status, so on what grounds did you decide that? You choose to get aerated about some subset of road users who are behaving illegally at traffic light junctions, while ignoring the illegal behaviour of others (cars and bikes in the ASL) so clearly you must be assessing the situation on something other than/additional to the law. So do I. The difference is that you apparently get annoyed more often than I do: illegal RLJ doesn't bother me when there is clearly nothing coming and nobody around who is going to be affected by it - but apparently it does bother you. So why is your view right and my view wrong? Is this really not a subject on which different people can have different opinions?

 

[Dan B]

the situation on the ground has made entering ASLs without cycle lanes or stubbie gates an offence. My experience is that these ASL (without stubbies or lanes) are in the minority.

Yes, but I think you've missed half the point (not surprisingly, it's long and technical and tedious and only really serves as a reductio ad absurdum) - entering an ASL other than by means of the lane/gate is an offence. My experience is that most cyclists don't - unless they happen to be in the right part of the road to use the lane/gate already, they will not change their path to use it. Because that would be stupid, legal or otherwise.

 

[BentMikey]

Wait, have I got this right. You are picking and choosing which laws you want to obey? How do you decide which laws are important to you and which are 'silly'? How can you be sure that by not obeying the law you are not helping to undermine civil lawfulness and while that may not have any consequences for you it could seriously impact on someone else in a way you haven't considered!

So I'm a hypocrite? Considerably less of one than you are, and rather less selfish too.

 

[BentMikey]

@Dan B, no it's mostly because it's illegal that I choose to dislike RLJing. Safety is a small additional reason, but then cyclists rarely risk themselves or others when jumping red lights, the remainder is the way it affects the rest of us who don't jump lights.

Don't you think it's time to stop being quite such a pedant? I don't think I'll bother to debate further with you unless you can come up with an instance of a cyclist getting a ticket for going into the ASL illegally. I'll be slightly interested if you can find one where a driver was ticketed, but I bet that's almost as unlikely.

 

[Dan B]

@Dan B, no it's mostly because it's illegal that I choose to dislike RLJing.

Well, then you're mostly inconsistent (as you agree you don't dislike other illegal things) and your argument is not convincing.

 

[BentMikey]

So on that count not very different from you then...

 

[Origamist]

Yes, but I think you've missed half the point (not surprisingly, it's long and technical and tedious and only really serves as a reductio ad absurdum) - entering an ASL other than by means of the lane/gate is an offence. My experience is that most cyclists don't - unless they happen to be in the right part of the road to use the lane/gate already, they will not change their path to use it. Because that would be stupid, legal or otherwise.

You'd articulated that point in post 76 and I've mentioned it in threads passim!

In the 2010 TSRGD amendment consultation there were no proposals to change the wording re: the requirement to use the cycle lane, but a bit about including the stubbie was added.

 

[GrasB]

Dan B, you might be a pedant for whom this is an following this bit of law to the letter is important but I'm fairly certain you'll find your self in a very small minority. I'm also sure that the majority of the road going public would give 2 hoots about the exact wording, however they understand the spirit of the ASL which is that the red/green/blue box at the traffic lights to let cyclists gain some kind of advantage, they may or may not understand what this advantage is however, in when at the traffic lights,

 

[Origamist]

Dan B, you might be a pedant for whom this is an following this bit of law to the letter is important but I'm fairly certain you'll find your self in a very small minority. I'm also sure that the majority of the road going public would give 2 hoots about the exact wording, however they understand the spirit of the ASL which is that the red/green/blue box at the traffic lights to let cyclists gain some kind of advantage, they may or may not understand what this advantage is however, in when at the traffic lights,

That is not Dan's point, but he'll set you straight...