Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • 3 weeks later...
Not sure if its been covered elsewhere in this thread but I just wanted to vent a little spleen at the amount of times on my morning commute to London Bridge from Dulwich I find vehicles obstructing the green cycle boxes at traffic lights. whats the law with regards to this infringement? Its seems to be widely flouted and really sets my teeth on edge. Whinge over...and yes I am a damn near flawless cyclist who never runs red lights and will frequently stop to help old ladies/inebriated hobos across the road.

bon3yard Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Not sure if its been covered elsewhere in this

> thread


Not this thread, but: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,561178,561638#msg-561638


Winds me up as well!

Are you talking about the Advance Stop Lanes? It's really irritating when vehicles block this area. As far as I know, where traffic lights are red or amber, all drivers have to stop at the white line where the lane/area begins. This is enshrined in law (the Road Traffic Act). It is also in the Highway Code.


You are right about this law being widely flouted though. I do remember the LCC having a campaign on this a while back - I'm not sure how far they got though.

This will wind you up even more (my bold for emphasis have removed some copy from the original letter)...



Dear XXXX,


I am am happy to give the Metropolitan Police Service interpretation of the legislation which covers advance stop lines (The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002).


[CoL Police have never fined a driver who blocks a cycle box (ASL)].

This reflects the common misconception that cycle boxes can be enforced in the same way as yellow box junctions. In fact, there is no specific offence of stopping in the cycle box. The legal position is as I described in my fairly sparse response below; the ASL merely repositions the stop the line for vehicles other than cycles. Indeed, the legislation states that a vehicle that crosses the ASL as the light changes to red must stop at the second stop line - effectively, this provides a defence for the driver who enters the box in slow moving traffic when the light is green (or changing) but then becomes marooned when the light changes to red.


Taking the above into account, a police officer who arrives at a traffic light to find a vehicle stationary in the cycle box would have no way of knowing whether the vehicle entered the box before or after the light changed to red. Because the offence description is "proceeding beyond the stop line when the red light is illuminated" an officer must witness the vehicle crossing the ASL against the red light. The driver can then be ticketed for a traffic light contravention. Most forces (including the Met) are unable to provide statistics for the number of drivers ticketed for contravening an ASL because the offences are statistically indistinguishable from convential red light contraventions.


To answer your two questions:


For the reasons given above, The Metropolitan Police Service is unable to ticket or prosecute drivers for stopping in ASL cycle boxes...The driver of a vehicle who contravenes a red light at an ASL is liable for the same penalty as if he/she contravened a conventional stop line (it is the same offence).



Regards,


Jon Plant.


Well that's not the position of the City of London Police - they fined 57 people for "Code 024A - Stopping Beyond Advance Stop Line" from Oct 2006-June 2008.

  • 4 months later...

I was quite surprised at the length of the sentence but then it happens frequently, motorists either get done for dangerous driving or GBH rather than murder/manslaughter. Makes you wonder why there is no such thing as "death by dangerous knife weilding". From a while ago now but this guy only got an extra 7 months for deliberately reversing into a family of cyclists. Of the little girl the father was towing in the trailer:


"Emily was left unconscious for six days with serious head injuries.

She also suffered a broken jaw, nose, blurred vision and four lost teeth."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2869009.stm


GBH? Right.


Edited for typos.

Two years for attempting to murder a four year old and her father- that is appalling. Poor family. I wonder how long he actually served. That man is clearly an on going danger to society and the sentence should reflect that.


The QC's quote is appalling :

"Incidents such as these, appalling as they are, will not be tolerated by the courts."


Two years is way too tolerant!

From The Telegraph.

[quote name=Carl Baxter' date=' 36, became pale during sentencing, took off his watch and produced a razor blade which he ran across his arm, spraying blood on to the walls.

He was led away in handcuffs, staggering to the cells at Hull Crown Court before being taken for treatment at a hospital in the city.

Baxter, who weighs 20 stone, was involved in a hit and run incident in which Emily Kirwin suffered a fractured skull, lost five teeth and has been left with a squint.

She was being towed in a buggy by her father Stephen, 52, on a Sunday morning cycle ride in the Yorkshire Wolds on June 23 last year when Baxter's black Range Rover passed within two feet.


Baxter, who later gave himself up, had previous convictions for reckless driving and assaulting a motorist who he considered had braked too hard in front of him.]



The guy's mentally ill, no?


He needs psychiatric treatment as well as locking up.

Annette Curtain Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The guy's mentally ill, no?


Hard to tell from a BBC news article, but if he is, his barrister didn't use it as a defence, or didn't manage to convince the jury he was:


"Baxter, of Shipman Road, Market Weighton, admitted dangerous driving and two counts of causing grievous bodily harm against Mr Kirwin and his daughter.


In mitigation, Simon Jack [his barrister] said Baxter had been under considerable strain after his father became seriously ill.


He added that six drivers working for Baxter would lose their jobs if a custodial sentence was imposed.


The court heard Baxter had previous convictions for driving offences and one for assault in another road rage attack in 1994."


http://www.trucknetuk.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=28723&start=0


Neither presumably did his legal team from his previous convictions. Most articles I've read say he produced a previously concealed razor blade, which seems more convincing than having slit his wrist with a watch, but whether or not that makes him mentally ill who knows.

  • 3 weeks later...

As most of you may know, the Times are running a 'Save our Cyclists' campaign after one of their reporters was badly injured while commuting to work. While I don't entirely agree with how dangerous they are presenting cycling as being, nor support some of their suggested options for making it safer, there's no doubt that they are helping to raise the profile of cycling safety. Their campaign made the recent cross-party Parliamentary debate on cyclist safety happen (the editor apparently called many MPs to ask them to attend) which I know that Tessa Jowell attended, at least in part.


I wanted to draw attention to their latest effort though. They're trying to use crowd-sourcing to identify cycling hazards in London so that they can draw more attention to them and try to get them fixed. This has to be a good thing. They're looking for everything from pot-holes, lack of ASLs, disappearing cycle routes, metal manhole covers on corners to where gyratories have no provision. Definitely worth taking a mental ride through your cycle commute and noting down the places where you either have to have eyes in the back of your head, or where you know you have to do something different (illegal?) to make it work for you.


Link to the Times Cyclesafety map

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 months later...

Saturn 5 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If you want London to be more like Holland then please sign the petition to the mayoral candidates.


I had very nearly signed before I realise you weren't at all interested in the cannabis laws. Disappointed.

  • 4 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Because they have been awful - scoring own-goal after own-goal. You cannot be an apologist for their diabolical first 100 days on the basis that the previous lot were worse - in the same way the whole of the 14 years of Tory rule was tarred with the brush of despair about their very worst behaviour in the latter years Labour run the risk of their government being tarred with the same brush on the basis of their first 100 days. It has probably been some of the worst 100 days of any new government and Starmer's approval ratings aren't as low as they are without reason. You know they are in trouble when MPs start posting the good bits from their first 100 days - it's a sure sign they know they have a problem. And when this government have a problem the frontbenchers disappear from media interviews and they roll-out the likes of Pat McFadden to provide some air cover. Yesterday it was farmers. Today it is the pensioners being pushed into poverty by Winter Fuel payments. It's a perceptual disaster and has been since day 1 - they have to get a grip on it else this leadership team is doomed. You highlight the very problem here. Farmers are not being gifted money. They are being gifted assets. Assets that they don't realise as they continue to work those assets to provide food for the country. Most inheritance is cash or an asset (a house) that people sell to generate cash. Passing a farm to younger family members is very different. On the news they interviewed a farmer whose family had owned the farm since 1822 and he broke down in tears when he spoke about his 13 year old son who was working in the farm to continue it - no doubt in the realisation that his son would be hit by a tax bill when he took it over. Given farmers are not cash rich then the decision would likely be that they would need to sell some of the land that generations had worked hard to build to fund the tax bill - and so many farms are on a knife's edge that it might be enough to send them over the edge.   There are many valid reasons why the government are doing what they are doing but those reasons are not cutting through and they are losing control of the narrative. That is a massive issue for them.  
    • Another great job by Simmonds Plastering. This time he decorated the newly plastered living room and added a pantry cupboard in kitchen.  He is reliable and works really hard.  Highly recommend 07949 180 533
    • Because land has been exempt from inheritance tax wealthy individuals (like Clarkson and Dyson) have used it as a tax avoidance measure. Clarkson is on the record stating that he bought land for precisely this purpose. It is people like him who farmers should be angry with, if anyone, because they have exploited a loophole, which is now being (partially) closed. Yes, I do grasp the concept of inheritance - it's were one is given money, or valuable assets by chance of birth (having done nothing to earn it). As money you have earned, is taxed, it seems odd that money you have not, shouldn't be. I assume you don't disapprove of income tax? Why do you think people coming into a massive, unearned windfall shouldn't pay tax, but a nurse who works hard for everything they earn, should? Everyone has to pay inheritance tax over a certain threshold. In my opinion, if you are fortunate enough to be gifted any amount of money (whether cash, or a valuable asset), to quibble about paying some tax on some of it, seems rather entitled. Most farms worth under £3m will still end up being passed on tax free. Those that do have to a pay inheritance tax will do so at just 20% on that part of it that is over the threshold (rather than the standard 40%), and they'll have 10 years to do so (usually it is payable immediately). So it is still preferential terms for those being gifted a multimillion pound estate. 
    • Ah yes, good spot! Thanks for the link. It sounds like they are planning a licensed restaurant with a small bar from reading through the application. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...