RLJ'ing, police and ASLs

[marinyork]

Anyway I suppose if somewhere in the country has to enforce ASLs, even occasionally it'd have to be London. There just aren't enough of them round here to get worked up enough about them really.

 

[jonny jeez]

I've had a bike-riding cop tell me cyclists are stupid for not wearing helmets and hi-viz yellow.

My father (an ex police officer) has strong views on riding gear and also feels others are daft for not wearing all manner of safety gear for even the shortest rides (dont get him started on ipods!).

But then, for a decent percentage of his career, he was one of those responsible for dealing with the aftermath of crashes (a deeply unpleasant role and one that drove many of his colleagues over the edge), so he was bound to have a view of the "worst case scenario"

I guess if he was a civil servant or something and worked in an a large office with dozens of colleagues riding each day and only one "occasionally" having an issue...his perspective will have been different

 

[marinyork]

The problem with trying to enforce ASLs is that it's common for cars to find themselves in one quite legally when the lights change.

Surveys round here indicated that quite a lot of people did it illegally. There just aren't enough round here to get worked up about it unless one thinks there is a very particular issue at one of the locations. I've never been convinced it is wise politically for cyclists to make a fuss about ASLs at locations where there isn't much of a benefit/safety issue as it gets RLJing into the back of peoples' minds.

They are used more in London and a few locations, seems fair enough enforcing them, it is very time consuming though - but then again so are ticketing of cyclists cycling in pedestrian zone hours that I've heard about.

 

[Origamist]

The problem with trying to enforce ASLs is that it's common for cars to find themselves in one quite legally when the lights change.

Camera enforcement can distinguish between lawful and unlawful encroachment. However, there is very little interest in enforcing the (suspect) law in this regard.

With the new cycle superhighways in London the issue of FPNs/ASLs has reared its head again.

 

[Dan B]

The problem with trying to enforce ASLs is that it's common for cars to find themselves in one quite legally when the lights change.

I've seen this claimed. It may be legal but it's (usually) still poor driving and reflects either a lack of anticipation or a lack of consideration - just as with blocking turning traffic at a side road when you're in a queue.

 

[Dan B]

No. The cycle reservoir at an ASL has no particular legal status: the only offence is of crossing a stop line - i.e. the first stop line - when lights are red (or when they're amber unless it's too late to stop safely).

 

[jonny jeez]

No. The cycle reservoir at an ASL has no particular legal status: the only offence is of crossing a stop line - i.e. the first stop line - when lights are red (or when they're amber unless it's too late to stop safely).

Technically...it is "officially" illegal for any vehicle (inc a bike) to enter an ASL unless via the dotted section on the left (or in the centre). So it is technically possible to get nicked for riding into one at any other point. I'd like to see a policeofficer try to make that stick tho.

 

[slowmotion]

Technically...it is "officially" illegal for any vehicle (inc a bike) to enter an ASL unless via the dotted section on the left (or in the centre). So it is technically possible to get nicked for riding into one at any other point. I'd like to see a policeofficer try to make that stick tho.

Yes, that struck me as interesting too. The article implies that you must not enter the ASZ having filtered up the outside of waiting traffic, unless you cut back into the left before the first waiting vehicle.

 

[Dan B]

Technically...it is "officially" illegal for any vehicle (inc a bike) to enter an ASL unless via the dotted section on the left (or in the centre). So it is technically possible to get nicked for riding into one at any other point. I'd like to see a policeofficer try to make that stick tho.

You are absolutely correct: the offence is of crossing the stop line when the light says you can't cross the stop line. I have yet to see (or hear of) a policeman enforcing this for *any* class of vehicle, though ...

 

[HJ]

6 points for being in an Advance Stop Box... that does seem a bit harsh.

I do agree with the lemming affect ... I have on more than one occasion started to roll forward because someone else went when it was red - I've stopped when I realised my mistake - I've even went to do it when the car beside me went through on red. Your first assumption is that you've missed the change of lights and are now holding up the rest of the traffic behind.

I was surprised at it being six points, I always thought was three.

 

[Dan B]

I was surprised at it being six points, I always thought was three.

Likewise. Although I assume the "stern talking to" is still an option with this offence and all others

 

[HJ]

Technically...it is "officially" illegal for any vehicle (inc a bike) to enter an ASL unless via the dotted section on the left (or in the centre). So it is technically possible to get nicked for riding into one at any other point. I'd like to see a policeofficer try to make that stick tho.

No, if you bother to do your homework you will find that the rules are clear:

HC Rule 178

Advanced stop lines. Some signal-controlled junctions have advanced stop lines to allow cycles to be positioned ahead of other traffic. Motorists, including motorcyclists, MUST stop at the first white line reached if the lights are amber or red and should avoid blocking the way or encroaching on the marked area at other times, e.g. if the junction ahead is blocked. If your vehicle has proceeded over the first white line at the time that the signal goes red, you MUST stop at the second white line, even if your vehicle is in the marked area. Allow cyclists time and space to move off when the green signal shows.

[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10, 36(1) & 43(2)]

Remember where the HC use the MUST it is a legally enforcible able requirement, only those using motorised transport have to stop a the first line when the lights are red, cyclist can legally cross it to enter Advance Stop Zone. However, cyclist are required to stop at the second line when the lights are red.

 

[Dan B]

The HC is not legislation. I have read RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10, 36(1) & 43(2), and (according to my layman's interpretation of them, at least) Johnny Jeez is correct.

cyclist can legally cross it

In fact the HC does not say this and nor does the legislation

 

[HJ]

The intention of the legislation is clear, and as no one has ever been take to court for riding a bicycle over the first stop line and stopping before the second stop line, they has been no legal test of the legislation. The mere fact that some motoring groups don't like ASLs and like to suggest that that cyclist using them is illegal, doesn't make it so. As for Boris, he is not a lawyer so he doesn't actually know, but he is a self publicist and making such statements make it look like he is trying to do something even though he isn't.

 

[Dan B]

The intention of the legislation can be seen clearly from the wording of the legislation

(a) subject to sub-paragraph ( and, where the red signal is shown at the same time as the green arrow signal, to sub-paragraphs (f) and (g), the red signal shall convey the prohibition that vehicular traffic shall not proceed beyond the stop line;

and

43. Meaning of stop line and references to light signals

(2) Where the road marking shown in diagram 1001.2 has been placed in conjunction with light signals, ‘stop line’ in relation to those light signals means :-
​

(a) the first stop line, in the case of a vehicle (other than a pedal cycle proceeding in the cycle lane) which has not proceeded beyond that line; or
( the second stop line, in the case of a vehicle which has proceeded beyond the first stop line or of a pedal cycle proceeding in the cycle lane.

Would they have bothered to write "proceeding in the cycle lane" if that's not what they meant?