Watch Out RLJ-ers...

alfablue

Aidy wrote:

antfly wrote:

Is an ASL an advanced stopping lane, i`m guessing it is? Agreed it`s very annoying when cars are in them but I am not sure they can be punished for it, unfortunately.Perhaps someone can confirm or deny that.

Advance Stop Line, I think.

It's definitely illegal for motor vehicles (including motorbikes, scooters, etc.) to stop at them whilst the light is red.

It is the same as going through a red light. Their stop line is before the ASL.

Interestingly ( :? ) cyclists must only enter ASL's from the cycle lane. You will see they usually have at least about 1 metre of cycle line preceding them.

Aidy

alfablue wrote:

Interestingly ( :? ) cyclists must only enter ASL's from the cycle lane. You will see they usually have at least about 1 metre of cycle line preceding them.

Hmm, whilst I can see the logic from the road markings, the highway code says:

You MUST NOT cross the stop line when the traffic lights are red. Some junctions have an advanced stop line to enable you to wait and position yourself ahead of other traffic (see Rule 178).

which doesn't talk about how you must enter them.

I always thought the point in the cycle lane preceding them was to stop cars from blocking cyclists from filtering to the front, not to enforce an entry route.

antfly

I see, that`s all news to me. I must say I would be pretty miffed if I got a £60 fine and points for stopping in an ASL around here, not that I would ever do it of course.
Also, I think that`s a good reply HH got from the police, I think he makes some sensible points and puts them well.

biondino

It's ludicrous to give points to cars for being in ASLs. I'm not surprised the cops aren't willing to.

Headhuunter

antfly wrote:

I see, that`s all news to me. I must say I would be pretty miffed if I got a £60 fine and points for stopping in an ASL around here, not that I would ever do it of course.
Also, I think that`s a good reply HH got from the police, I think he makes some sensible points and puts them well.

He may have a view and he may state it well but as a police officer his view means nothing he is supposed to uphold the law not interpret it and selctively police....

Headhuunter

biondino wrote:

It's ludicrous to give points to cars for being in ASLs. I'm not surprised the cops aren't willing to.

Again, its's not up to the cops to decide what they police. They are there to uphold the law as passed to them by Parliament.

Coriander

Headhuunter wrote:

biondino wrote:

It's ludicrous to give points to cars for being in ASLs. I'm not surprised the cops aren't willing to.

Again, its's not up to the cops to decide what they police. They are there to uphold the law as passed to them by Parliament.

Quite obviously it is, they simply don't have the manpower to police every single clause of every single law.

Given that to impose penalty points means a court case the time and cost involved in pursuing a case is much higher than issuing a penalty notice. Not only because they would have to prove the car deliberately stopped in an ASL rather than ended up in the ASL becasue they judged they would break a red light if they continued through the lights.

biondino

It is up to the cops how they use their resources, though. And the fact that they can use their discretion is a damn good thing, all things considered!

Aidy

biondino wrote:

It's ludicrous to give points to cars for being in ASLs. I'm not surprised the cops aren't willing to.

I don't see why it's ludicrous, and I drive, too. You'd fail a driving test for doing so (I've had a friend who failed a motorbike test for this - it was his only fault).

Besides which, it's the law - police surely shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose which laws they choose to uphold?
If it's later deemed that the points are excessive, then points could surely be retrospectively removed.

FrankM

The police are able to prioritise their enforcement duties because they obviously don't have the resources to enforce everything with the same vigour.

But I don't think they can simply decide against enforcing a particular offence on the basis that they think the punishment is unfair. I don't think that would be a "relevant consideration" in the context of a decision not to enforce a particular offence.

Porgy

antfly wrote:

I don`t live in London Town {thankfully} but if I did I would be glad something was being done to catch the RLJ`ers and I don`t think the police have to ask parliament every time they try to enforce the law.

They don't need to ask parliament - they need to stop second guessing it and apply the law as it stand, evenly and without prejudice.

I'm making no comment on RLJers here - I don;t RLJ. I would like cars, buses, HGVs, etc. to be held to account for their RLJing as this is more of a threat to most people.

I would like ASLs and cycle lanes to be enforced.

Until then - tbh I think RLJers have a case - the system seems to be lawless, so why not behave in a lawless manner.

I repeat before you flame me, I DO NOT RLJ.

Headhuunter

biondino wrote:

It is up to the cops how they use their resources, though. And the fact that they can use their discretion is a damn good thing, all things considered!

Yes of course it's fine for the cops to decide how to allocate resources, but that's not the argument put forward here, the mail quite clearly states that the police believe that the sanctions applied to motorists are "disproportionate".

He later states that if his views lead to the law being changed then "this will result in greater enforcement activity". In other words if the law doesn't change then enforcement will not happen. Nothing to do with resource allocation, purely and simply interpretation of the law and selective policing.

Headhuunter

Porgy wrote:

antfly wrote:

I don`t live in London Town {thankfully} but if I did I would be glad something was being done to catch the RLJ`ers and I don`t think the police have to ask parliament every time they try to enforce the law.

They don't need to ask parliament - they need to stop second guessing it and apply the law as it stand, evenly and without prejudice.

I'm making no comment on RLJers here - I don;t RLJ. I would like cars, buses, HGVs, etc. to be held to account for their RLJing as this is more of a threat to most people.

I would like ASLs and cycle lanes to be enforced.

Until then - tbh I think RLJers have a case - the system seems to be lawless, so why not behave in a lawless manner.

I repeat before you flame me, I DO NOT RLJ.

Hear, hear. I DO RLJ and will continue to do so til I see some enforcement of existing safety rules like ASL and bike lanes. If the police, public servants, can interpret the law and selectively police then I choose to interpret the law and selectively abide by it.

Flame me if you like. I stand by my interpretation as the police stand by theirs.

biondino

How contrary and ridiculous to say "I will break the law because the police don't act impartially on their enforcement of unrelated laws". It's no justification! Go on, go steal something. Rape someone. It's exactly the same, by your logic.

MrChuck

Bit torn on points for drivers in ASLs. It does seem a bit harsh, but then surely it's not that hard to stay out of them? So I suppose since it's easy to avoid I've not got too much sympathy for drivers who get done- if there are any!

It's interesting how many of the things that come up in these posts seem to be big deals in some cities and not in others. Here in Brum there don't seem to be many ASLs for drivers to stop in, or cyclists to RLJ! Although granted I don't spend too much time in the city centre.

Aidy

biondino wrote:

It is up to the cops how they use their resources, though. And the fact that they can use their discretion is a damn good thing, all things considered!

Well yes.

But then, I feel that motorists in the cycle box and RLJ are related - and that it's thus unfair to enforce one and not the other.

Headhuunter

biondino wrote:

How contrary and ridiculous to say "I will break the law because the police don't act impartially on their enforcement of unrelated laws". It's no justification! Go on, go steal something. Rape someone. It's exactly the same, by your logic.

Well, yes, that's taking it to an extreme, but I don't think there is any justification for rape, murder and pillage, whereas I believe there is justification for getting ahead of the traffic in dangerous situations at junctions.

Many dangerous situations I have found myself in at junctions have been because I have not been able to filter along the cycle lane into an ASL box and have been left hooked or otherwise endangered by motorists not looking where they're going. I don't percveive any danger to myself if I DON'T rape someone!

biondino

But they hardly ever enforce RLJ penalties...

For whatever reason, the punishment for stopping in an ASL was set too high - if the police are willing to go on record saying they are not minded to punish offenders because of the extent of the penalties then they should change the sanction. We all have our opinions on what punishments don't fit the crime, whether they're too lax or too severe, so it's fair that the police do too - indeed it's more important when they do as they are likely much more knowledgeable anout that sort of thing.

Where are Mithras and NapoleonD? We need their input! Off the record of course

tarquin_foxglove

Aidy wrote:

It's definitely illegal for motor vehicles (including motorbikes, scooters, etc.) to stop at them whilst the light is red.

No its not, they are required to stop there...

"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."

Aidy wrote:

... and the link:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTr ... /DG_070332

Rule 178.

Greg T

Imagine my surprise when a thread with RLJ in the title had those too lazy to stop defending their rights against those who do!

Will wonders never cease?

So the guy behind the counter in the newsagent was having a sneaky fag at the weekend - in DIRECT CONTRADICTION of the smoking in the workplace ban.

I nicked a bag of crisps and a paper - apparently that's how it works.

As it - er - wasn't safe to wait in line.

antfly

So if they scrap the points and enforce the law with cameras so that every motorist who stops in an ASL is fined then that`s got to be a good thing for everyone and there would less reason to RLJ.

Clever Pun

OK this thread isn't about the rights and wrongs of RLJ'ing it's been done to death and is beyond tedious

this thread is about cops looking to do rlj'ers...

biondino

Headhuunter wrote:

biondino wrote:

How contrary and ridiculous to say "I will break the law because the police don't act impartially on their enforcement of unrelated laws". It's no justification! Go on, go steal something. Rape someone. It's exactly the same, by your logic.

Well, yes, that's taking it to an extreme, but I don't think there is any justification for rape, murder and pillage, whereas I believe there is justification for getting ahead of the traffic in dangerous situations at junctions.

Many dangerous situations I have found myself in at junctions have been because I have not been able to filter along the cycle lane into an ASL box and have been left hooked or otherwise endangered by motorists not looking where they're going. I don't percveive any danger to myself if I DON'T rape someone!

Although I disagree with you I don't have a problem with your opinion - it's just you chose an illogical way to justify it!

Maybe I'm just being harsh because I really haven't experienced much of this danger myself, despite commuting 14 miles a day through central London. If I'm not in front of traffic at the lights, I take it slow and safe and make sure I don't put myself in a position to get left hooked. Obviously there is a tiny minority of idiots or psychos who'll put me in danger but it happens SO infrequently in this situation I have to question the way you must be riding.

biondino

Greg T wrote:

Imagine my surprise when a thread with RLJ in the title had those too lazy to stop defending their rights against those who do!

Will wonders never cease?

So the guy behind the counter in the newsagent was having a sneaky fag at the weekend - in DIRECT CONTRADICTION of the smoking in the workplace ban.

I nicked a bag of crisps and a paper - apparently that's how it works.

As it - er - wasn't safe to wait in line.

Passive smoking. And presumably you would have been an accomplice! Good move, soldier.

biondino

antfly wrote:

So if they scrap the points and enforce the law with cameras so that every motorist who stops in an ASL is fined then that`s got to be a good thing for everyone and there would less reason to RLJ.

Problem is what Tarquin says above. It's not illegal to be in the ASL in those circumstances.

jimjamyaharr

wye does everyone get really annoyed at RLJers?

antfly

biondino wrote:

antfly wrote:

So if they scrap the points and enforce the law with cameras so that every motorist who stops in an ASL is fined then that`s got to be a good thing for everyone and there would less reason to RLJ.

Problem is what Tarquin says above. It's not illegal to be in the ASL in those circumstances.

Oh, that complicates things somewhat.

Porgy

biondino wrote:

How contrary and ridiculous to say "I will break the law because the police don't act impartially on their enforcement of unrelated laws". It's no justification! Go on, go steal something. Rape someone. It's exactly the same, by your logic.

I don't think stealing and rape are anything to do with the road/ traffic system.

Roastie

Just last night while driving through an unfamiliar part of East London, I found I had stopped in an ASL, purely by accident. I thought to myself that I shoudl post on here how easily it can happen, and that perhaps we need to be a little bit more tolerant of some of the unintended but relatively harmless mistakes that drivers can make.

I had not realised that stopping in an ASL could attract 3 points. As much as I'd like to see enforcement of ASLs, I also must agree that the penalty is disproportionate and that something should be done about it in order to assist with enforcement.

On the subject of "being forced to RLJ to avoid an accident" - certainly there are occasions when this may happen, but just as the Advanced Driving handbook recommends defensive driving strategies to avoid getting into a situation where you might be forced to do something dangerous to avoid a collision, the same applies to cycling. While I hardly think I'm a perfect cyclist (or driver for that matter), my point is that there is a lot to learn and a lot that can be done to avoid sticky situations in the first place.

Porgy

jimjamyaharr wrote:

wye does everyone get really annoyed at RLJers?

In my case maybe it was the one in Tooting who rear ended me when I stopped at a red light - told me I was f.ucking c*nt, and then proceeded to cycle through the red light - forcing buses and HGVs to brake sharply and upsetting a number of crossing pedestrians.

Maybe it's the look of sheer hatred, or fear I get sometimes at ped crossings where the elderly person, or parent with small child is wondering whether I'm going to stop to let them cross even though the lights have clearly changed int heir favour.