Motorists taking the piss... again

[louisiana]

So much stuff on here, as ever, about cyclists taking the piss. And motorists? And pedestrians?

I had an interesting afternoon out on the roads of south London with a cycling instructor this week. I'm a fairly experienced cyclist, who just wanted to update and hone her skills. During the two-hour session, I had more than half a dozen pedestrians try to get run over on the road (not look at the road at all before stepping out onto it, with their backs to the oncoming traffic), and a motorist try to drive over my bike while dragging on a fag, chatting on a phone and looking 180 degrees opposite the direction in which they were travelling.

Then I got off my bike and took these two pictures: motorists taking the piss at an ASL, not a stone's throw from my home, on successive changes of the lights. If motorists behave as in image '4', there is no safe place for the cyclist to position themselves, without breaking the law. This happens at just about every change in the lights at this crossing.

[louisiana]

And yes, in picture '5' you can't see the cycle symbol on the road as the car driver is 100% covering it. Perhaps the driver thinks he's a bike!

There was also - during the session - a motorcyclist (big machine, too) who drove from one pavement to the other via a busy crossing and a traffic island, dodging the pedestrians. Another motorist who thought he was something else perhaps.

[binary_star]

This used to infuriate me! Although I see the City Police do it quite a lot, so don't hold your breath for enforcement. A leaflet maybe, but the the fine or points that could be applied? Unlikely.

[PeckhamRose]

Just a tiny point of information - in the London Borough of Newham, motorcyclists are indeed allowed to join the cyclists at the front at the traffic lights. It makes perfect sense to do so. We're gone before you know it, unless of course we stall like I did the other day. Yikes! VERY blushing embarrassed PeckhamRose with a hundred angry motorists behind me!

[binary_star]

That's interesting Peckham Rose, I'd always thought motorbikes should be allowed to share the space at the front with cyclists, or, more specifically have a designated half of it reserved for them because from a safety point of view it makes sense - since they're are allowed to filter they should have complete access to the front or else they are left in vulnerable positions amongst the traffic with larger vehicles on one (or both) sides of them. I wonder whether this will be rolled out in other boroughs?

Edited for clarity

[louisiana]

PeckhamRose Wrote:

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

> Just a tiny point of information - in the London

> Borough of Newham, motorcyclists are indeed

> allowed to join the cyclists at the front at the

> traffic lights. It makes perfect sense to do so.

> We're gone before you know it, unless of course we

> stall like I did the other day. Yikes! VERY

> blushing embarrassed PeckhamRose with a hundred

> angry motorists behind me!

But none of the vehicles in the photos are motorcycles, PR. They're all cars. And cars are certainly not allowed.

[Keef]

2 wrongs don't make a right. Just because some motorists take the p!ss (which they do), doesn't make all cyclists angels either.

[binary_star]

louisiana Wrote:

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

> But none of the vehicles in the photos are

> motorcycles, PR. They're all cars. And cars are

> certainly not allowed.

That's not strictly true - they're allowed to be there if the light was amber and they were so close to (or already over) the stop line that it would have been unsafe to stop (but I've no doubt this wasn't the case).

It might interest you to know that an offence committed by failing to stop at the white line before a red light and an offence committed by failing to stop at the first white ASL line rely on the same legislation* and as such, both offences may be dealt with by way of a ?60 Endorseable Fixed Penalty Notice that attracts three penalty points on a driver's license.

Technically, every driver who does this is running the red light because the ASL repositions the stop the line for vehicles other than cycles. In fact, depending on who you talk to, in terms of recording the contravention itself, it's regarded as a very similar offence (City Police) or the same offence (Met Police). Those red-light-jumping motorists are a menace I tell you! Oh the irony.

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

[binary_star]

Keef Wrote:

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

> 2 wrongs don't make a right. Just because some

> motorists take the p!ss (which they do), doesn't

> make all cyclists angels either.

No sh!t.

[Twirly]

This seems to happen a lot, it annoys me too, and I'm just a car driver (who doesn't stop in them, unless I get caught out at the lights due to an incident ahead). I read this article about it a few months back, and there seems to be some confusion about the legality of doing so, but the article concludes that it is illegal to stop in these boxes.

When did these boxes first appear on our roads? I only passed my text 3.5 years ago, and I learnt then what they are for. One thing that I've noticed from talking to friends who passed their tests 20+ years ago is that they seemed unaware of some of the changes in the law/rules of the road since they started driving. With some of the appalling driving that we see on the roads these days, I do wonder if we should all be forced to resit the driving test every 10 years or so - even an abbreviated version - just to iron out any bad habits we may have picked up, and force us to get our knowledge up to date.

[louisiana]

binary_star Wrote:

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

> louisiana Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > But none of the vehicles in the photos are

> > motorcycles, PR. They're all cars. And cars are

> > certainly not allowed.

>

> That's not strictly true - they're allowed to be

> there if the light was amber and they were so

> close to (or already over) the stop line that it

> would have been unsafe to stop (but I've no doubt

> this wasn't the case).

As you say, it wasn't the case. They just drove up to and past a red light.

>

> It might interest you to know that an offence

> committed by failing to stop at the white line

> before a red light and an offence committed by

> failing to stop at the first white ASL line rely

> on the same legislation* and as such, both

> offences may be dealt with by way of a ?60

> Endorseable Fixed Penalty Notice that attracts

> three penalty points on a driver's license.

That - apparently - is the Department's view.

[binary_star]

louisiana Wrote:

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

> > on the same legislation* and as such, both

> > offences may be dealt with by way of a ?60

> > Endorseable Fixed Penalty Notice that attracts

> > three penalty points on a driver's license.

>

> That - apparently - is the Department's view.

Sorry, you've lost me, what department? The DfT?

Twirly Wrote:

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

> I read this article about it a

> few months back, and there seems to be some

> confusion about the legality of doing so, but the

> article concludes that it is illegal to stop in

> these boxes.

Yes, I read the same article, I've no idea why there is any confusion. Although The Highway Code is not law, it does include many points of law (indicated by 'must' in bold type), and cites the relevant legislation where appropriate. In this case, the highway code is quite clear about this:

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)]

The City Police seem quite satisfied that they can book people for ASL encroachment and do book drivers for this offence, the Met on the other hand do not. I can only assume it is ignorance on the Met's part.

Edited for clarity.

[Loz]

Twirly Wrote:

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

> I read this article about it a

> few months back, and there seems to be some

> confusion about the legality of doing so, but the

> article concludes that it is illegal to stop in

> these boxes.

Interesting article. Make me wonder how London Borough of Newham (See PR's post) can override the law to say motorcycles can use them as well.

The other interesting point was in the comments of that article. Seems cyclists can only use the ASL boxes if they enter from the connected cycle lane. How many cyclists are using the boxes illegally as well? :))

[louisiana]

However, entering the ASL from any connected cycle lane is more often than not obliging the cyclist to enter the 'corridor of death' that everyone, including the Met and cycling organisations, say that cyclists should not go into i.e. cycling to the immediate left of and very close to a vehicle stopped at the lights. We have seen deaths of cyclists every other week or so in London from this cause. It's a very stupid place to be unless you want to commit suicide.

But given that the majority of the time the entire ASL box is occupied by motor vehicles (who are thereby committing an offence), it's kind of a moot point.

[binary_star]

louisiana Wrote:

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

> However, entering the ASL from any connected cycle

> lane is more often than not obliging the cyclist

> to enter the 'corridor of death' that everyone,

> including the Met and cycling organisations, say

> that cyclists should not go into i.e. cycling to

> the immediate left of and very close to a vehicle

> stopped at the lights. We have seen deaths of

> cyclists every other week or so in London from

> this cause. It's a very stupid place to be unless

> you want to commit suicide.

Quite.

[Senor Chevalier]

The other day when I was reduced to positioning my bike diagonally in what was was left of the cycle box I saw another cyclist pull out a digital camera and take a photo of the car registration plate (and motorist) of a vehicle that was sat in the box across the ASL.

I have no idea whether the evidence was being sent to anyone or whether it could be proved that the vehicle was stationary and the lights were red at the time, but it did surprise the motorist and was quite amusing.

Presumably if all cyclists carried a camera phone and did this then the message would spread quite quickly. Maybe a good one to do in the safety of a crowd of cyclists rather than to a van full of burly blokes when alone.

[Loz]

louisiana Wrote:

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

> However, entering the ASL from any connected cycle

> lane is more often than not obliging the cyclist

> to enter the 'corridor of death' that everyone,

> including the Met and cycling organisations, say

> that cyclists should not go into i.e. cycling to

> the immediate left of and very close to a vehicle

> stopped at the lights. We have seen deaths of

> cyclists every other week or so in London from

> this cause. It's a very stupid place to be unless

> you want to commit suicide.

>

> But given that the majority of the time the entire

> ASL box is occupied by motor vehicles (who are

> thereby committing an offence), it's kind of a

> moot point.

Well, not really. Is this another law cyclists mark down as 'optional'?

[louisiana]

Senor Chevalier Wrote:

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

> The other day when I was reduced to positioning my

> bike diagonally in what was was left of the cycle

> box I saw another cyclist pull out a digital

> camera and take a photo of the car registration

> plate (and motorist) of a vehicle that was sat in

> the box across the ASL.

>

> I have no idea whether the evidence was being sent

> to anyone or whether it could be proved that the

> vehicle was stationary and the lights were red at

> the time, but it did surprise the motorist and was

> quite amusing.

>

> Presumably if all cyclists carried a camera phone

> and did this then the message would spread quite

> quickly. Maybe a good one to do in the safety of

> a crowd of cyclists rather than to a van full of

> burly blokes when alone.

I took mine with my camera phone and hope others do to. Given the Met don't seem interested in enforcement, this may be the only avenue for getting something done.

[Senor Chevalier]

Toptip - if your camera doesn't have a phone just mime...

[Loz]

louisiana Wrote:

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

>

> I took mine with my camera phone and hope others

> do to. Given the Met don't seem interested in

> enforcement, this may be the only avenue for

> getting something done.

As people have noted, a photo cannot be evidence of an infraction. So the best you are going to achieve is worry the motorist that you will report them (as they don't know that), the worst is to seriously piss off some complete loony in charge of a tonne of moving metal.

Seems unnecessarily - and rather pointlessly - dangerous.

[waynetta]

http://cache2.asset-cache.net/xc/88847465.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF878921CC759DF4EBAC47D040DB36FCA54AC9E706B1E6C25D29C23559481516EDD843AC

[Loz]

[binary_star]

Loz Wrote:

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

> The other interesting point was in the comments of

> that article. Seems cyclists can only use the ASL

> boxes if they enter from the connected cycle lane.

> How many cyclists are using the boxes illegally

> as well? :))

This is a good point Loz, and I think you are right on a technicality, which I applaud you for and is just the sort of annoying thing I normally do >:D<

However, I counted at least 5 ASLs on my commute home this evening with NO feeder lane or entrance to the bike reservoir whatsoever and it looks like more are planned. Are we to infer from this that every cyclist in such a reservoir who has passed the first stop line on a red light is breaking the law? Yes. Are we therefore to infer that no cyclist should be using the reservoir? Common sense dictates that this is a ridiculous situation, as it negates any purpose assigned to the advanced stop line.

The DfT's TRAFFIC SIGNS REGULATIONS AND GENERAL DIRECTIONS [.pdf] state "Traffic authorities need to provide layouts that allow pedal cyclists to access the reservoir via the cycle lane without being obstructed by other vehicles. The cycle lane should be long enough for cyclists to bypass the queue of motor vehicles without weaving." Since layouts are being incorrectly provided (they make up the MAJORITY on my commute), I think in all likelihood the Police are forgiving cyclists for 'illegally' entering their reservoirs.

Now I don't think ignorance is an excuse to break the law, but if there is NO (or an incorrectly applied) feeder lane into the reservoir then I would forgive a cyclist who enters it illegally without knowing. What I wouldn't forgive is a motorist doing the same. Why? Because it is clear what the intention of these reservoirs is - to allow cyclists not motorists to filter through to a safe space in front of the rest of the traffic. Even with no knowledge of current legislation or the Highway Code, this is indicated physically at the very least by the ASL as well as the four foot long bike symbol painted in the reservoir and in all likelihood by a different colour.

However, after Keef's astute insight you may feel differently, so the next time you see a cyclist flouting the law so flagrantly I strongly urge you whip out your camera phone and take a picture for the Police.

Edited to add link to attachment

[JohnL]

If a large vehicle is sitting near the front of a junction I wouldn't go near the left of it on a cycle, even if there is a cycle lane/ASL.

There must be an argument to keep right.

[binary_star]

JohnL Wrote:

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

> There must be an argument to keep right.

Yes, there is a very compelling argument, which is that cyclists who wait at junctions on the left are more likely to get killed doing so and that feeder lanes exacerbate the problem. TfL have known this for years, but have refused to publish the report (I have a copy), probably because it also suggests that some cyclists who break the law by jumping red lights may be safer. The same report suggests this is potentially the reason why more women get killed by left turning lorries (because they're more likely to obey the light and wait at the junction).

However, unless there is also a feeder lane into it you are still 'technically' breaking the law if you enter it any other way. Which is why common sense needs to be applied in such a situation.