- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Alex Paxton Lavender Hill Mags Crt Oct 16thUpdated: Court hears crowd-funded fixed-penalty appeal
Alex Paxton, a London cyclist who is fighting a fixed penalty notice imposed after he was unable to safely use an advanced stop box, yesterday pleaded not guilty at Lavender Hill Magistrates Court. A trial date was set for December 5.
Earlier this week, his barrister Puneet Rai filed a letter with the CPS asking them to review whether a prosecution would be in the public interest. The judge has given the CPS until 6 November to respond.
Alex is being supported by the Cyclists’ Defence Fund (CDF), a charity set up by the CTC to fund precedent-setting cases involving cycling and the law. The £2000 needed for his case was raised through crowd-funding.
If the case goes ahead, CDF will help Alex and his barrister prepare his case.
Police imposed the fixed penalty notice on Alex in August, when he rode past the line of an advanced stop box because it was occupied.
Not wanting to cross three lanes of moving traffic in order to turn right, Alex positioned himself ahead of the vehicle in the ‘cycle box’, which technically meant he ran a red light even though he remained at the junction.
A police officer who saw Alex radioed a colleague stationed along the road he turned down. That officer issued Alex with the fixed penalty notice. Alex argues that as the officer who issued the fine had not witnessed the offence, he was not able to assess the greater danger Alex would have been in had he complied with the law.
Alex received advice from CDF on how to contest the fine and was given assurance that CDF would assist with funding the legal challenge. He will contest the fixed penalty notice at Lavender Hill Magistrate’s Court, Battersea, on at 2pm this afternoon. The case is likely to conclude the same day.
Alex said recently: “My resolve probably would have faltered taking this to court had there not been such overwhelming support from fellow cyclists to back my case.”
When fixed penalty notices for footway or pavement cycling were first introduced, the Government assured cycling organisations that the penalty would be applied fairly and only when a cyclist’s actions endangered pedestrians, not, for example, when a cyclist uses the pavement to avoid a dangerous road.
CDF’s coordinator, Rhia Weston, said: “The same discretion that the police are expected to use when issuing fixed penalty notices for pavement cycling should also be applied when issuing fixed penalty notices to cyclists who fail to stop at advanced stop lines.
“Advanced stop lines are there for a good reason: around 70% of cyclists’ collisions occur at or near junctions. They are by no means perfect, but when used properly they have the potential to save lives. We understand that the Department for Transport is planning to update regulation around ASLs to overcome the considerable problems with their access, which does give us some hope that they will also clarify what a cyclist should do if an ASL is illegally occupied by a vehicle.”
John has been writing about bikes and cycling for over 30 years since discovering that people were mug enough to pay him for it rather than expecting him to do an honest day's work.
He was heavily involved in the mountain bike boom of the late 1980s as a racer, team manager and race promoter, and that led to writing for Mountain Biking UK magazine shortly after its inception. He got the gig by phoning up the editor and telling him the magazine was rubbish and he could do better. Rather than telling him to get lost, MBUK editor Tym Manley called John’s bluff and the rest is history.
Since then he has worked on MTB Pro magazine and was editor of Maximum Mountain Bike and Australian Mountain Bike magazines, before switching to the web in 2000 to work for CyclingNews.com. Along with road.cc founder Tony Farrelly, John was on the launch team for BikeRadar.com and subsequently became editor in chief of Future Publishing’s group of cycling magazines and websites, including Cycling Plus, MBUK, What Mountain Bike and Procycling.
John has also written for Cyclist magazine, edited the BikeMagic website and was founding editor of TotalWomensCycling.com before handing over to someone far more representative of the site's main audience.
He joined road.cc in 2013. He lives in Cambridge where the lack of hills is more than made up for by the headwinds.
Latest Comments
- Uaf 4 sec ago
We're they claiming that the parked car(s) represented a blind spot? Were the choices of the people who permitted parking and who chose to park...
- jamesha100 5 hours 35 min ago
I have been in Belfast for work this week and have been shocked by the congestion around the city centre. There are lots of frustrated drivers...
- David9694 5 hours 57 min ago
Cyclists should be made to have insurance etc https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/24757516.four-vehicles-seize...
- matthewn5 6 hours 54 min ago
A friend in my cycling club has a new Ribble Allroad, I think the model with 105, and when I asked how he was finding it (before reading this...
- Rendel Harris 7 hours 3 min ago
Well yes but that's if you're looking at an equation x = n x 3 where n is any number less than 5. If you're looking for a number that is three...
- check12 8 hours 21 min ago
Get them back? They've never gone away for me, cheap tdf winning bikes on eBay with rim brakes and cheap rim brake aero wheels, just don't tell...
- Simon E 9 hours 4 min ago
It used to be called Buy Nothing Day as a protest against the the Black Friday discounting madness. The constant BF adverts, promos and stuff...
- chrisonabike 11 hours 19 min ago
Apologies - you're quite right! Something about presentation and comprehension...
- wtjs 11 hours 40 min ago
You can find out whether they're lying about 'taking action' by asking them what they actually did. When they refuse to tell you, citing various...
Add new comment
56 comments
A lot of traffic offences are 'absolute' in that they don't require any intent. If you've no insurance, you've no insurance. Even if you thought you did have! Just because some officers do the same doesn't affect the law - it just means they're breaking it! Guess that's why traffic officers have such a fine reputation when they fine you for speeding one minute and fly past you unlawfully the next.
Its always hard to judge without knowing all the details. Perhaps there was a reason for the car being in the ASL? Its my understanding that if the lights change as a car is in the ASL they are allowed/advised to use the ASL rather than, but thats just one of many possibilities.
What would be nice is a bit of advice from all the official sides (police and CDF) on how to approach ASL's. For instance, what to do if you know there is one but cannot see to the front of the queue? Or when to and when not to filter through traffic to get to an ASL.
There are so many similar stories at the moment but "we" (all road users) dont seem to actually get anything from them, ide rather have some good safety advice first and worry about the fine print later, when im safe!
Sounds unlucky that these two fine officers were not otherwise occupied making handguns appear or colluding to stitch up members of the public. Oh wait no that is actually what they were doing.
In all seriousness I believe that kind hearted officers have even sought prosecutions against vehicle drivers who move through a red light to enable an emergency service vehicle to proceed.
Anyway for these two officers hope the both wrote up the incidence, that would be two cycle lawlessness offence in the books, and maybe they can get together done the old Masonic hall and make sure that Alex called them some pretty unpleasant names too.
He went over the line and stopped. The police need to focus on the RLJers who blithely cycle up to a red light, think 'the law doesn't apply to me' and carry on across. They're the arrogant pricks who piss everyone off - motorists, law-abiding cyclists and pedestrians alike.
I suspect this may be an 'absolute offence' - if the law is broken it doesn't matter if there was no intention or good reason for doing so - it is broken. It may be that the magistrates have no option but to find this poor chap guilty. Without knowing the facts it's difficult to comment accurately although he may be spared if once committed he had no option perhaps. Given the budget cuts you would have thought the officers concerned may have had better things to do - particularly as force numbers are being cut and front line policing is being grossly affected (don't let the govt pull the wool over your eyes!). Old Man
I find it hard to believe these kinds of offences can be 'absolute' - because if that were the case cops would constantly be fining themselves for entering ASLs when the lights were red. I've witnessed cop vehicles do that right in front of me, and it seems the cops exercise 'discretion' when it comes to their own behaviour, so clearly they _can_ chose to ignore it and it therefore can't be an 'absolute offence'/
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 !
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.
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...
It seems to suggest "yes" in the article ("...if an ASL is illegally occupied by a vehicle.")
From what I have read about the incident:
The car driver was illegally blocking the ASL but didn't get a ticket.
The cyclist moved in front of the ASL (in the right tuen lane) to be in a safer position rather then being in the the second lane which was going straight on.
The junction of Putney Bridge and New Kings Road is difficult to turn right on anyway. TfL have tried to squeeze three lanes on and the traffic is always in a rush to get through the lights.
Here is the junction: https://www.google.co.uk/maps?q=Putney+bridge&hl=en&ll=51.469127,-0.2022...
I find it hard to believe I'm reading this from a fellow cyclist. Thanks a bunch, I know I'll be able to count on you when it matters.
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...
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.
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.
I have to admit to doing this regularly, just to give myself a bit of space between me and the first car in the queue.
Good luck
Did they book the motorist who was in the ASL as well?
What an absolute joke, the police were obviously having a slow day or p!ssed off at something previous to them stopping Alex, I feel very sorry for him.
Nearly every ride I go on I see cars parked in the stop box, sometimes even the police themselves, it's an impossible law to uphold.
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.
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.
Pages