Laws on ASLs clarified

[TonyR]

The Met police have clarified the law on ASLs and its about as useful as their advice on cycling through the gates of Downing St. Reporting of offences require video footage of the motor vehicle crossing the first white line on red and cyclists must use the killer lane up the inside of waiting traffic to get into the ASL.
http://cycleinjury.co.uk/news/2013/02/2 ... y-law-asls

[gaz]

Well the Met seem to have interpreted the law to the letter. I've got no problem with that.

[Ellieb]

..except i suspect it is a way of trying to deter people fom reportimg cars which drive into ASLs

[Mick F]

It's good to know that the rules are recognised, but what happens if the the markings are wrong?
Cyclists can only enter the advanced stop line area if there;s a feed-in lane to it.

There are many junctions nationally without this feed-in, but not having ridden in London, I cannot comment if that is true there.

[thirdcrank]

I wonder if there is anybody one here who has received that actual email.

I ask for two reasons:

I'd be interested to read the full text.

Receiving the email seems to imply having previously reported something via Roadsafe, so I'd be interested to know how that went.

[snibgo]

I confess I usually ignore the rule about only entering via the cycle lane. If I'm turning left, I may be in the cycle lane. If I'm going straight on or right, I won't be. So when I'm first at the red lights, I just roll over the line into the ASZ.

I have tried doing it the legal way, by first cycling left into the lane, then into the ASZ and trying to work my way over to the right. But while I'm doing this, a car will sneak up and into the ASZ, leaving me stuck on the left when I want to turn right.

This only happens in Cambridge. Some day, I'll get caught in a Crackdown on Dangerous Cycling.

[gaz]

Some day, I'll get caught in a Crackdown on Dangerous Cycling.

The LIT (Lights Instead of Tickets) scheme will be in action, which gives those caught riding without lights seven days to buy new lights to avoid paying the fine.

At first I thought this was giving the Ninjas a loophole. Then I realised it would take more than 7 days to track down some road legal lights to BS6102/3.

[TonyR]

The LIT (Lights Instead of Tickets) scheme will be in action, which gives those caught riding without lights seven days to buy new lights to avoid paying the fine.

At first I thought this was giving the Ninjas a loophole. Then I realised it would take more than 7 days to track down some road legal lights to BS6102/3.

Yebbut its too easy to order some lights on-line, show them to the police and then return them under the Distance Selling Regulations for a full refund within the 7 days.

[TonyR]

..except i suspect it is a way of trying to deter people fom reportimg cars which drive into ASLs

....especially as they have previously said they don't know of any prosecutions for breaching the ASLs.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/cy/reques ... p_line_asl

[661-Pete]

Well! It occurs to me that, my self-righteous stance notwithstanding, I'm actually a RLJ nearly every day!

The one and only ASL on my commute has a left-hand feeder lane, but it's often dangerous to use it, especially since the junction is a T-junction for motor vehicles with a straight-ahead path for cyclists and pedestrians only (which I use). Hence, every motor vehicle approaching the junction is perforce turning either left or right (and most don't indicate ). It's not a bus route but lorries frequently use that road.

I'm thinking, if I am to observe the law to the letter, perhaps from now on I should stop at the first line when the lights are red, in primary position (of course!) ignoring the narrow feeder to the left. After all, they can't force me into the feeder can they? Problem solved. And if a motorist behind me has a moan, show them the Law. Literally!

[661-Pete]

There are many junctions nationally without this feed-in, but not having ridden in London, I cannot comment if that is true there.

Last time I was cycling in London, there were many ASL boxes of just this type, with no feeder. I don't know if they've been altered since: this was a few years ago.

Lunatics put in charge of the asylum....

[Richard Mann]

Yebbut its too easy to order some lights on-line, show them to the police and then return them under the Distance Selling Regulations for a full refund within the 7 days.

We put a stop to that in Oxford - got to buy the lights from a bike shop, and the receipt gets endorsed so they can't get a refund.

[JohnCKirk]

I wonder if there is anybody one here who has received that actual email. :?

I ask for two reasons:

I'd be interested to read the full text.

Receiving the email seems to imply having previously reported something via Roadsafe, so I'd be interested to know how that went.

I received that email yesterday, and I've copied the full text to my blog. It came as a short message with a Word document attached, so I can forward that to you if you like (PM me with your address).

I've reported a few drivers to Roadsafe London, so I assume that's why the police have my email address on file. In most cases I just got an auto-reply, but a couple went further. In particular, the Met emailed me regarding one incident, saying: "Would you please preserve the original copy of the video footage since it maybe required for Court at a later date. If this matter were to be heard before a Court, would you be willing to attend and give evidence if required?" I said that I'd be happy to go to court. Regarding the video, I'd copied the entire file from my camera to my hard drive before I trimmed it down for the YouTube version. At that point I also had it on the camera's memory card, but the police said that I didn't need to keep it there. After that, they said that they were submitting my YouTube video to the Criminal Justice Unit, but I don't know whether the CJU chose to prosecute; I never got called to court, or asked for the original video.

I've also filled in a few collision report forms, and I've always had a letter from the police telling me the outcome. In most cases it was just "We sent them a warning letter"; the exceptions were where they said that they couldn't identify the driver, which is what motivated me to get a helmet camera.

[thirdcrank]

JohnCKirk

Thanks for the quick reply. It deserves more time than I have at the mo (family care commitments this AM) I'll read it all through properly this evening.

[661-Pete]

Meanwhile.... an update on my local instance.

I checked carefully this morning, and apparently I was mistaken in saying

The one and only ASL on my commute has a left-hand feeder lane ...

In fact, the solid white line (admittedly rather faded but still decipherable) extends right across my side of the road, so there is no feeder lane. What I have been misled by, all along, is the panhandle shape of the area of red tarmac, suggesting the presence of a feeder lane. In reality there is none.

So this morning, mindful of my pledge, I dutifully stopped at the first stop line on the red light. In primary position, naturally. A car drew up behind me (the road is only wide enough for a single queue) but didn't hassle me, and it all went OK. However, if I keep this up, how long before the first car coming up behind me tries to 'nudge' me into the ASL, which, it would seem 'obvious' to the driver, is where I 'ought' to be?

No-win situation, for the cyclist, so it seems. I think this needs urgent action. Either a change in the law, or all ASLs of this type must be painted out, pronto. Seeing as none of this helps to foster good relations between cyclists and other road users, we need urgent action here. CTC RtR officers?