Advance stop line being ignored

[Slow Loris]

Virtually all ASLs I see are blocked by drivers. I don't mind sharing with motorbikes since we have similar safety issues, but so many people have the 'must get in front' mentality that I tell them if I'm planning to turn - most very kindly hang back. If there's a long, stationery queue I'll make a point of getting to the front regardless, but will stay behind if it's just one or two cars.

I don't feel ASLs improve my safety – impatient drivers rev behind, creep in and then close pass, while the area fits nicely in the blind spot of an HGV. I once had to signal a lorry driver to stop as he was clearly going to roll up to my back wheel . I don't jump lights (excluding waiting ahead of a blocked ASL) but on some occasions feel I'd be better off doing so .

Before ASL stop line markings were introduced I always used to go way beyond the stop line to wait for the lights to change and I still do, so I don't really mind motorists on the green painted area a few yards behind me.

In my area there are a few junctions where positioning yourself well ahead of the stop line will risk you being taken out by a turning bus. Personally, I wouldn't do it. I almost had a close encounter while waiting in an ASL , so I suspect it had been painted ahead of the existing stop line – I was considering reporting it.

[RickH]

There is no offence for a car stopping in the ASL, they are advisory only.

Are they? I thought you could get a fixed penalty & this recent article on the road.cc website about Greater Manchester Police's "Operation Considerate" seems to agree - £100 penalty & 3 points.

Rick.

[beardy]

I am pretty sure that cars waiting to enter a junction with a green light showing, can sit in the ASL zone and then when the lights change they can (and should) stay there.

Unlike the pedestrian or Toucan crossings, where they should not stop but nearly always do and then look sooo surprised when the lights change and they are blocking the crossing.

[Bicycler]

There is no offence for a car stopping in the ASL, they are advisory only.

Are they? I thought you could get a fixed penalty & this recent article on the road.cc website about Greater Manchester Police's "Operation Considerate" seems to agree - £100 penalty & 3 points.

There is nothing illegal about a car being in the box but it may have broken a law to get there. The offence is committed by passing the stop line whilst the light is red or amber (unless to stop would have been likely to cause an accident). Like all non-box junctions it is not an offence to proceed past the stop line when the signal is green even though the junction itself is congested and you will be left stranded in the middle of the junction or the ASZ. It depends on local circumstances but I tend to only proceed beyond the stop line when I can be sure of not blocking the junction (including the ASZ) as I would if it were a box junction.

[Flinders]

Mr Ortho has an AS box on his route to work. The traffic queues so close to the kerb (right over a ridiculously short 'cycle lane') he can't get into it. As he needs to turn R, he has to manouvre across the traffic to take the right lane. Cars here ignore ASLs anyway. We are currently in total traffic crisis as the eastern ring road, which should have been built 30 years ago, still hasn't been, they have now given up on doing it, but are allowing huge housing estates to be built, there are road works, sewer works, you name it, all over the place gridlocking the town daily, and drivers are now ignoring diamond junctions, even traffic lights. People have got so bloody minded they won't let people out at junctions - one person waited for 50 cars before one would let them out from a side road into a traffic queue. It's now got to total anarchy and nobody is doing anything about it, except a local business organisation that's trying to encourage people to uses the buses (which cost a fortune, are irregular, don't publish complete timetables, and are, in any case, still stuck in the traffic).

There is a nice cross town cycle route Mr Ortho could take, most of which is off road, which would be safer. But the goons (to say no worse) that run this crummy town have allowed a developer to cut out the central section of it out for 2 years while they build a new shopping centre so that they can dump their materials and junk on it. They have also been allowed to block one of the two lanes on the major central road in town. Thanks a bunch, chaps. As we also are an alternative route for the M6, if there is an accident on that, then we're done for. Even in normal conditions with no road problems in the town that can gridlock the town for anything up to four hours. Stay away from Stafford, folks.

[drossall]

There is no offence for a car stopping in the ASL, they are advisory only. The CTC, I believe were campaiging to change this, but there currently is no offence of stoppping in the ASL box. it may be discourtious but its not against the law
from the CTC campaign
"■The Government should pursue moves to clarify and amend the legislation covering cyclists’ access to and use of ASLs; and make civil enforcement of ASLs possible."
found here
http://www.ctc.org.uk/campaigning/views ... lines-asls

No, civil enforcement refers to enforcement by civilian officers. At the moment (presumably) only the police can enforce them. The CTC appear to be promoting the value of allowing council enforcement officers to do this too.

Crossing into an ASL in a motor vehicle when the lights are red is an offence.

[Pete Owens]

I am pretty sure that cars waiting to enter a junction with a green light showing, can sit in the ASL zone and then when the lights change they can (and should) stay there.

Unlike the pedestrian or Toucan crossings, where they should not stop but nearly always do and then look sooo surprised when the lights change and they are blocking the crossing.

The rules are the same for both - and indeed for normal traffic lights without ASLs. The offence is crossing the stop line on red. In all 3 cases the HC says you should not (ie it is advice rather than a law) cross the line unless you can clear the junction/crossing. This does mean that just encountering a stationnary car blocking a crossroads, or a pedestrian crossing, or an ASL is not evidence that an offence has been committed. But it most certainly does not mean the law is unenforcable - just that in each case you need to witness the act of crossing the line.

In terms of police enforcement it is actually much easier to enforce ASL encroachment than bog standard red light jumping. To catch a red light jumper you need one officer to observe the offence and a car further down the street to stop the offender. To catch an ASL encroacher the first officer can do both.

[Pete Owens]

Mr Ortho has an AS box on his route to work. The traffic queues so close to the kerb (right over a ridiculously short 'cycle lane') he can't get into it. As he needs to turn R,

Hang on, if he is turning right then he shouldn't under any circumstance whatsoever be attempting to filter on the left - whether or not there is a cycle lane.

he has to manouvre across the traffic to take the right lane.

If the right lane is a dedicated right turn then it will usually be safe to filter between the traffic lanes. That way, even it the lights change just as you are approaching the junction you are between diverging traffic streams rather risking getting hooked.

[Flinders]

In terms of police enforcement it is actually much easier to enforce ASL encroachment than bog standard red light jumping. To catch a red light jumper you need one officer to observe the offence and a car further down the street to stop the offender. To catch an ASL encroacher the first officer can do both.

They can use cameras to catch RLJers, much simpler, and not open to denial, surely?

[reohn2]

They can use cameras to catch RLJers, much simpler, and not open to denial, surely?

That's if they want to catch offenders,if there were a camera on ever junction,there'd be no RLJing.
But there'd need to be a willingness to want to catch offenders.
In other words it would need the police to actually do their job in the first place.
And the same goes for ASL creeps.
Without the threat of capture,criminals will continue to be criminals.

[AlaninWales]

If the right lane is a dedicated right turn then it will usually be safe to filter between the traffic lanes. That way, even it the lights change just as you are approaching the junction you are between diverging traffic streams rather risking getting hooked.

Except by the drivers who suddenly realise that the lane they are in can only turn right, and swerve left into the 'ahead' lane because the car to your left has (correctly) left a gap ...

[NUKe]

There is no offence for a car stopping in the ASL, they are advisory only. The CTC, I believe were campaiging to change this, but there currently is no offence of stoppping in the ASL box. it may be discourtious but its not against the law
from the CTC campaign
"■The Government should pursue moves to clarify and amend the legislation covering cyclists’ access to and use of ASLs; and make civil enforcement of ASLs possible."
found here
http://www.ctc.org.uk/campaigning/views ... lines-asls

No, civil enforcement refers to enforcement by civilian officers. At the moment (presumably) only the police can enforce them. The CTC appear to be promoting the value of allowing council enforcement officers to do this too.

Crossing into an ASL in a motor vehicle when the lights are red is an offence.

I stand corrected thank you

however the myth busting bit of the met page is interesting. Motor vehicles can stop ther just not cross either line on Red.
And the question is does this only apply in London ?

[drossall]

Can't see why it would. The logic is that drivers are sometimes going to cross the line legitimately and then get blocked by other traffic. I've seen it happen often in the last few weeks, and it must have happened to most of us as drivers too.

However, if the lights have changed, forcing such drivers to move forwards into conflicting traffic, just because they are across a line, cannot be a good idea.

[kwackers]

However, if the lights have changed, forcing such drivers to move forwards into conflicting traffic, just because they are across a line, cannot be a good idea.

Strictly speaking the traffic shouldn't conflict. Drivers aren't supposed to advance through a green light until their path is clear. However it's widely seen by your average driver that green means go regardless of what's in your way (although I have noticed respect is generally given to vehicles bigger than themselves.)

A typical scenario is cars turning right, they come out into the junction and stop waiting for a gap in oncoming traffic. The oncoming traffic RLJ's and the conflicting traffic lights turn green before the right turning cars can complete their move then instead of allowing the right turning cars to complete their manoeuvre you simply get much horn blowing and the occasional stranded car.

[661-Pete]

ASLs - and the laws attending them - were dreamt up by the same committee that designed the camel, I reckon. I've long since stopped bothering, and I pay no attention to motorists who appear to be violating them. Perhaps it's not the way to promote cycling, and make traffic light junctions easier for cyclists, in any case. If we had a system of advance green signals for cyclists - with segregated lanes for them to operate on, we might end up with something workable.

ASLs. Ignore 'em. It took me a while to learn this lesson, but I think I've learnt it.