Updated: Court hears crowd-funded fixed-penalty appeal

Ahem...

Entering an ASL when the lights are at red via any other route than the filter (in the gutter) is an offence.

(Sorry and all that - but I have no discretion sir)

mikeprytherch wrote:

Bottom line is he broke the law so should get done, its harsh but nobody should be above the law.

There can be though mitigating circumstances, what the article doesn't say is what blocked the advance stop box, now I don't know the law, is it illegal for a car to use this ? if so, if it was blocked by a car, was the car driver prosecuted, if it was full of cyclists then I'm afraid it's tough and he should be prosecuted because we simple cannot say... oh well if there is a queue and its full simple ignore the law.

We have to be sensible, we simply cannot make our own laws because "we believe" its our right to not adhere to them for whatever reason.

But saying all of this... the police officer really should have something better to do !

Actually, he may not have broken the law as there are situations where it is entirely permissable to go through a red light. For example, to clear the way for an ambulance. It's not black and white my friend...that's why there is a case to discuss at court. That's why we have courts. Has he broken the law? (altogether now in a Big Brother voice)...you decide!

A few years ago, I cycled up the middle of the road to overtake rather than undertake cars to get to an ASL box. A kind Foxtons estate agent decided she didnt want to wait in the traffic and performed a u-turn without looking/indicating. She managed to drive over my front wheel, bent my frame and sent me flying into the path of oncoming traffic. Fortunately I didn't break anything.

My point is that riding up to traffic junctions during rush hour is inherently dangerous. Car drivers and cyclists are both often in a rush and want to get to the front/get away promptly.

Having been knocked off I would rather be infront of traffic where they can see me, and not tucked inbetween vehicles in blind spots or in places where drivers are not expecting to see you.

As for this case - it's nonsense. Stopping infront of a white line on the road, but still not going over a junction should not be an offence. At almost every set of lights I stop at when cycling or driving, there is someone who has over shot the line for one reason or another. This smells of semantics and over zealous police officers who were out to make an example of a cyclist that day.

NDD wrote:

A few years ago, I cycled up the middle of the road to overtake rather than undertake cars to get to an ASL box. A kind Foxtons estate agent decided she didnt want to wait in the traffic and performed a u-turn without looking/indicating. She managed to drive over my front wheel, bent my frame and sent me flying into the path of oncoming traffic. Fortunately I didn't break anything.

My point is that riding up to traffic junctions during rush hour is inherently dangerous. Car drivers and cyclists are both often in a rush and want to get to the front/get away promptly.

Having been knocked off I would rather be infront of traffic where they can see me, and not tucked inbetween vehicles in blind spots or in places where drivers are not expecting to see you.

As for this case - it's nonsense. Stopping infront of a white line on the road, but still not going over a junction should not be an offence. At almost every set of lights I stop at when cycling or driving, there is someone who has over shot the line for one reason or another. This smells of semantics and over zealous police officers who were out to make an example of a cyclist that day.

But how do you get to the front of the traffic to be in that space in the first place? If you sit in the line of traffic then you are visible to the most important person to you on the road, which is the driver immediately behind you. Putting yourself at the front of the traffic may work in the same way but you've still got to get yourself there.

brackley88 wrote:

Actually, he may not have broken the law as there are situations where it is entirely permissable to go through a red light. For example, to clear the way for an ambulance. It's not black and white my friend...that's why there is a case to discuss at court. That's why we have courts. Has he broken the law? (altogether now in a Big Brother voice)...you decide!

Thing is, this is actually an offence, you aren't allowed to cross a red light regardless of reason. Yes it is stupid but rules are rules!!!

Maybe the rules are stupid and need looking at...

Gkam84 wrote:

He broke the law, no matter if it was for safety or not. As I said in the other article that brought this to everyone's attention.

Filtering can be done when safe, but some cyclists see it as a "I must get to the front" http://road.cc/content/news/94166-londoner-challenge-red-light-fixed-pen...

I don't know what I want the outcome to be, I want to see sense prevail, but I also want him to be made an example of. You cannot just do things because you think its right.

In my eye's, the worst place you can put yourself, is right in front of a queue of traffic. They will all be eager to get past you in most places. So to be, that's dangerous. At traffic lights, I act like a car, take my place in line and play it safe.

And your eyes are wrong. Certainly in London, the safest place to be is in front of a queue because it's the most visible. In traffic, you won't be seen, you get swamped, and you're more at the mercy of larger vehicles where visibility is severley limited.

If it does go to court, I'm pleased you won't be the judge.

brackley88 wrote:

Actually, he may not have broken the law as there are situations where it is entirely permissable to go through a red light. For example, to clear the way for an ambulance.

Wrong - you *are* still commiting on offence by crossing the stop line - but this may be treated according to circumstances:
http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/faq-answer?id=Q699

The ambulance driver may treat the red as a give-way, but they're still liable if involved in an incident by doing so.

edit - ah, missed mrmo's post.

CotterPin-
"I would suggest riding on the outside of the lane of the traffic rather than the "gutter" where you are more visible and may be able to see further ahead to note whether an ASL is already blocked. "

As Lakeland Bimbler already said (though I wanted to point it out as well!) the flaw in this suggestion is its illegal to enter the ASL other than in the "gutter"! You are suggesting breaking the law, so if you are going to do that you might as well cross the stop lane anyway!

I reckon ASL's and the laws concerning them, are an ill-thought-through mess and need to be either scrapped or reworked.

For starters the fact that cars can drive into them if the light is just about to go red makes it impossible to enforce them. Perhaps the rules should be rejigged so that motorists can't enter them on amber? That would surely mean that any car in them when the light is at red can be assumed to have broken the rules?

The fact you can only legally enter them on the left makes them problematic if you want to turn right, and also creates potential hazards from motorists turning left.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

CotterPin-
"I would suggest riding on the outside of the lane of the traffic rather than the "gutter" where you are more visible and may be able to see further ahead to note whether an ASL is already blocked. "

As Lakeland Bimbler already said (though I wanted to point it out as well!) the flaw in this suggestion is its illegal to enter the ASL other than in the "gutter"! You are suggesting breaking the law, so if you are going to do that you might as well cross the stop lane anyway!

I reckon ASL's and the laws concerning them, are an ill-thought-through mess and need to be either scrapped or reworked.

For starters the fact that cars can drive into them if the light is just about to go red makes it impossible to enforce them. Perhaps the rules should be rejigged so that motorists can't enter them on amber? That would surely mean that any car in them when the light is at red can be assumed to have broken the rules?

The fact you can only legally enter them on the left makes them problematic if you want to turn right, and also creates potential hazards from motorists turning left.

You're absolutely right and I would love to see a case being brought against a cyclist entering the ASL other than through the approach cycle lane and "gate" on the left hand side, especially in the light of the fact that there are some ASLs which don't have any "gate" and effectively NOBODY should enter them when the lights are red! ASLs are a pointless device, bordering on dangerous, in my opinion.

Having said that, my main concern was with cyclists who feel they need to get to the front of the traffic whether this is in an ASL or beyond the stop line. The cyclist may feel that they have made themselves more visible by doing so but what about the actual act of moving through the traffic to get to the front? Too often I see cyclists who feel they have to move to the front of the queue, unwittingly putting themselves at risk, and when they get there they often continue to put themselves at risk by stopping at the left, out of the eye line of the driver behind them.

So I would personally agree with GKam and just sit in the lane of traffic, making sure that I am in the eye line of the driver behind me. That way I am visible to the most important person to me at the moment. Of course, if there is a long queue of motor traffic then I might choose to filter, usually down the outside, rather than the inside. I would then either stop in the line of traffic, using the technique I mentioned above, or continue into the ASL, even if I am breaking the law!

brackley88 wrote:

[

Actually, he may not have broken the law as there are situations where it is entirely permissable to go through a red light. For example, to clear the way for an ambulance. It's not black and white my friend...that's why there is a case to discuss at court. That's why we have courts. Has he broken the law? (altogether now in a Big Brother voice)...you decide!

You are 100% wrong on this one my friend, there are plenty of cases when drivers have been caught on red light cameras moving up through a red lights to get out of the way of an emergency vehicle, the highway code states that you only move out of the way if its safe to do so, moving through a red light is not safe and drivers have challenged this ruling and failed.

CotterPin wrote:

So I would personally agree with GKam and just sit in the lane of traffic, making sure that I am in the eye line of the driver behind me. That way I am visible to the most important person to me at the moment. Of course, if there is a long queue of motor traffic then I might choose to filter, usually down the outside, rather than the inside. I would then either stop in the line of traffic, using the technique I mentioned above, or continue into the ASL, even if I am breaking the law!

Two reasons why I filter:

I get quite irritated at being hugely delayed because of all the drivers who chose to drive a ridiculously oversized vehicle (and cars do seem to be getting bigger and bigger!) thus clogging up the road ahead of me. Not helped by the frequency with which one reads hypocritical and illogical complaints by motorists at cyclists 'causing congestion'.

And, also, if I wait in the queue what happens repeatedly is the drivers in front of me seem to fall asleep (or start texting) and so take an age to start moving once the lights change. But of course I have less acceleration than they do once the queue actually does start to move. So almost invariably the driver just in front of me will get to the junction just in time to whizz across on amber (or even after the light has gone red) while I'll end up having to stop and wait for the _next_ phase, as unlike drivers I don't jump reds (partly because its riskier for a cyclist to do so). (And while I'm waiting too often a whacking great lorry will draw up beside me!)

But as I say, much of the time I just give up, dismount, and walk along the pavement, as that is often quicker than waiting for the traffic to move (and safer than filtering).

mrmo wrote:

Noelieboy wrote:

It would be interesting to see the junction that he was caught at, surely he could've just waited behind the 1st car in the queue & moved off when everyone else did...???

Knowing no facts makes this hard, but, in my experience, the second car will be close behind the first, the third likewise. You either sit at the back of the queue, so what is the point of the ASL? or you go to the front and try and find somewhere safe? If you used the filter to go to the ASL where do you go????

As finding a gap between two cars is unlikely, you could sit beside the car, but that imo is the least safe option, and if your beside a truck you may as well be holding a gun to your head!

That leaves what he did, move to the front, cross the ASL and place yourself in a visable position. Yes your breaking the law, but you won't get hit by a car turning across you.

What is the law regarding cars crossing the Solid white line of the cycle lane? surely this would've come into play for this instance.

I would be tempted to knock on the police car & ask for their advice in this situation. Could be quite interesting especially if they are in queue waiting as well.

mrmo wrote:

Noelieboy wrote:

It would be interesting to see the junction that he was caught at, surely he could've just waited behind the 1st car in the queue & moved off when everyone else did...???

Knowing no facts makes this hard, but, in my experience, the second car will be close behind the first, the third likewise. You either sit at the back of the queue, so what is the point of the ASL? or you go to the front and try and find somewhere safe? If you used the filter to go to the ASL where do you go????

As finding a gap between two cars is unlikely, you could sit beside the car, but that imo is the least safe option, and if your beside a truck you may as well be holding a gun to your head!

That leaves what he did, move to the front, cross the ASL and place yourself in a visable position. Yes your breaking the law, but you won't get hit by a car turning across you.

What is the law regarding cars crossing the Solid white line of the cycle lane? surely this would've come into play for this instance.

I would be tempted to knock on the police car & ask for their advice in this situation. Could be quite interesting especially if they are in queue waiting as well.

farrell wrote:

tiger13 wrote:

farrell wrote:

mikeprytherch wrote:

Bottom line is he broke the law so should get done, its harsh but nobody should be above the law.

mikeprytherch wrote:

now I don't know the law, is it illegal for a car to use this ?

It's good to have your expert analysis on the situation...

Oh and your certainly the font of all knowledge judging by some of the idiotic replies you leave.

You've been a member for a week and you've already noticed a trend of idiocy with my replies? That's slightly stalkerish but I'm going to take it as a compliment anyway. It's nice to be noticed.

And as for being a font of knowledge, I know enough to know you meant you're rather than your. You can have that one for free.

I may have been a member for only a week but i have read comments on various articles on the forum for quite some time and decided to join. I find most of your comments insulting, sarcastic and sometimes downright rude. As for stalking you have obviously been hunting through my personal information to find out i have only been a member for a week so who may i ask is stalking who.

Please feel free to reply with another crude attempt at humour rather than comment on the actual article.

tiger13 wrote:

I may have been a member for only a week but i have read comments on various articles on the forum for quite some time and decided to join. I find most of your comments insulting, sarcastic and sometimes downright rude. As for stalking you have obviously been hunting through my personal information to find out i have only been a member for a week so who may i ask is stalking who.

Please feel free to reply with another crude attempt at humour rather than comment on the actual article.

Hunting through your personal information? Hardly, I clicked on your name and got your profile page. It wasn't even deliberate, I just clicked that instead of quote or reply.

A lot of what I say isn't really intended to be all that serious, but to paraphrase Mr Hicks I don't mean to sound insulting, sarcastic or downright rude, but I am, so it does.

You are also correct, I haven't commented on the actual article on this thread, but in case you haven't noticed, neither have you, you've only commented on me. As I mentioned earlier, it's nice to be noticed...

lakeland bimbler wrote:

If I remember my law studies correctly magistrates can't establish precedent so unless this ends up in the crown court it is unlikely to have any bearing on the future

Correct. Even in the Crown Court, it isn't necessarily binding either.