Maximum penalty for RLJ

jibberish

Hi

My mate spotted cyclists being stopped this morning and the police were asking the people who were stopped if they drove cars.

Am I right that the maximum fine is £30 and they can't touch your license.

<not a thread about the rights and wrongs of RLJ>

Cheers

Jib

Headhuunter

As far as I know. If they asked me if I drove I would say no, I have got a licence (somewhere) but I haven't driven a car since 1996...

rich_e

I'm not aware that they can put points on your driving license, as it's not a motorized vehicle.

Perhaps it's purely so they can determine that if you have a driving license, you've passed a driving test, in which case you know full well that the highway code doesn't allow anyone to jump red lights but emergency vehicles.

Somebody who doesn't drive and has never taken a cycling proficiency could probably try and claim ignorance that they've never heard otherwise that cyclists aren't allowed to RLJ.

danowat

Don't know about the maximum, but I believe the MINIMUM is £60 fine AND 3 pts on your license for a car, don't know how this translates to a bike though.....

dhope

Rich_E wrote:

Somebody who doesn't drive and has never taken a cycling proficiency could probably try and claim ignorance that they've never heard otherwise that cyclists aren't allowed to RLJ.

Fairly certain ignorance isn't an excuse.

That said, it might be legal to lie to police anyway. Stop and search for example it's not a crime to give incorrect details to officers unless you're under arrest.

Headhuunter

It's £30 for a bike. This is one of the reasons cited to me by London City Police as a reason they don't stop cars for entering the ASL (and effectively red light jumping) - they don't believe that it's fair that motorists pay £60 and cyclists only £30

danowat

Headhuunter wrote:

It's £30 for a bike. This is one of the reasons cited to me by London City Police as a reason they don't stop cars for entering the ASL (and effectively red light jumping) - they don't believe that it's fair that motorists pay £60 and cyclists only £30

Thats interesting to know

Limburger

Death - by cycling in front of a truck. Muppet.

Gussio

Limburger wrote:

Death - by cycling in front of a truck. Muppet.

+1

W1

dhope wrote:

Rich_E wrote:

Somebody who doesn't drive and has never taken a cycling proficiency could probably try and claim ignorance that they've never heard otherwise that cyclists aren't allowed to RLJ.

Fairly certain ignorance isn't an excuse.

That said, it might be legal to lie to police anyway. Stop and search for example it's not a crime to give incorrect details to officers unless you're under arrest.

Really? Do you have a source?

W1

Headhuunter wrote:

It's £30 for a bike. This is one of the reasons cited to me by London City Police as a reason they don't stop cars for entering the ASL (and effectively red light jumping) - they don't believe that it's fair that motorists pay £60 and cyclists only £30

Which as I've said before is utterly outrageous. I'd be sending a copy of that letter to my MP.

W1

Rich_E wrote:

I'm not aware that they can put points on your driving license, as it's not a motorized vehicle.

Magistrates have a general power to ban someone from driving.

bails87

Headhuunter wrote:

It's £30 for a bike. This is one of the reasons cited to me by London City Police as a reason they don't stop cars for entering the ASL (and effectively red light jumping) - they don't believe that it's fair that motorists pay £60 and cyclists only £30

So in essence they're not punishing car drivers but they are punishing cyclists? Surely that's just as 'unfair'!

marcusjb

Headhuunter wrote:

It's £30 for a bike. This is one of the reasons cited to me by London City Police as a reason they don't stop cars for entering the ASL (and effectively red light jumping) - they don't believe that it's fair that motorists pay £60 and cyclists only £30

I have to say, I do sort of agree with the police on this one - not the difference in the cost, but the fact that the two offenses are seen as the same thing.

In my opinion, going through a red light (i.e. passing the entire light on red and proceeding across the junction) is FAR more dangerous, for all parties, than a car/motorbike entering an ASL.

I am not saying that entering an ASL isn't dangerous, isn't extremely annoying - but it's a very different thing than actually going through the entire red light and crossing a junction.

Keep the fine for entering an ASL the same - but the fine for an actual RLJ should be increased to differentiate it from entering an ASL.

Something like 3 weeks in a hard-labour camp being forced to listen to Justin Beiber would do it I think.

W1

marcusjb wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

It's £30 for a bike. This is one of the reasons cited to me by London City Police as a reason they don't stop cars for entering the ASL (and effectively red light jumping) - they don't believe that it's fair that motorists pay £60 and cyclists only £30

I have to say, I do sort of agree with the police on this one - not the difference in the cost, but the fact that the two offenses are seen as the same thing.

In my opinion, going through a red light (i.e. passing the entire light on red and proceeding across the junction) is FAR more dangerous, for all parties, than a car/motorbike entering an ASL.

I am not saying that entering an ASL isn't dangerous, isn't extremely annoying - but it's a very different thing than actually going through the entire red light and crossing a junction.

Keep the fine for entering an ASL the same - but the fine for an actual RLJ should be increased to differentiate it from entering an ASL.

Something like 3 weeks in a hard-labour camp being forced to listen to Justin Beiber would do it I think.

I agree with you - but technically as the law stands they are the same offence. And it's not for the police to decide what offences they simply won't prosecute as they see the penalty as unfair - that's a job for Parliament.

I think I'm right in saying that no-one has ever been ticketed for entering an ASL?

dhope

W1 wrote:

dhope wrote:

Rich_E wrote:

Somebody who doesn't drive and has never taken a cycling proficiency could probably try and claim ignorance that they've never heard otherwise that cyclists aren't allowed to RLJ.

Fairly certain ignorance isn't an excuse.

That said, it might be legal to lie to police anyway. Stop and search for example it's not a crime to give incorrect details to officers unless you're under arrest.

Really? Do you have a source?

Recent news story that made me think of it...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainmen ... 326643.stm

A Scotland Yard spokesman said it is not an offence to give false information to police during a stop and search unless one is under arrest.

"The point of stop and search is not to ascertain your details but to undertake a search," he said.

According to the Home Office website, "you don't have to give your name, address or date of birth to the police if you're stopped and searched unless you're being reported for an offence."

beverick

Headhuunter wrote:

It's £30 for a bike. This is one of the reasons cited to me by London City Police as a reason they don't stop cars for entering the ASL (and effectively red light jumping) - they don't believe that it's fair that motorists pay £60 and cyclists only £30

Where's Spen when you need him:

- There is no specific offence regarding the driver stopping a motor vehicle in the ASL reservoir area; and
- The driver of a motor vehicle, or rider of a bicycle for that matter, has not committed an offence providing they stop behind the second stop line where an ASL is provided.

Bob

beverick

dhope wrote:

W1 wrote:

dhope wrote:

Rich_E wrote:

Somebody who doesn't drive and has never taken a cycling proficiency could probably try and claim ignorance that they've never heard otherwise that cyclists aren't allowed to RLJ.

Fairly certain ignorance isn't an excuse.

That said, it might be legal to lie to police anyway. Stop and search for example it's not a crime to give incorrect details to officers unless you're under arrest.

Really? Do you have a source?

Recent news story that made me think of it...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainmen ... 326643.stm

A Scotland Yard spokesman said it is not an offence to give false information to police during a stop and search unless one is under arrest.

"The point of stop and search is not to ascertain your details but to undertake a search," he said.

According to the Home Office website, "you don't have to give your name, address or date of birth to the police if you're stopped and searched unless you're being reported for an offence."

Not a specific offence but you could be charged with obstructing a police officer / wasting police time.

Bob

W1

dhope wrote:

W1 wrote:

dhope wrote:

Rich_E wrote:

Somebody who doesn't drive and has never taken a cycling proficiency could probably try and claim ignorance that they've never heard otherwise that cyclists aren't allowed to RLJ.

Fairly certain ignorance isn't an excuse.

That said, it might be legal to lie to police anyway. Stop and search for example it's not a crime to give incorrect details to officers unless you're under arrest.

Really? Do you have a source?

Recent news story that made me think of it...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainmen ... 326643.stm

A Scotland Yard spokesman said it is not an offence to give false information to police during a stop and search unless one is under arrest.

"The point of stop and search is not to ascertain your details but to undertake a search," he said.

According to the Home Office website, "you don't have to give your name, address or date of birth to the police if you're stopped and searched unless you're being reported for an offence."

Very interesting, many thanks.

Jay dubbleU

Limburger wrote:

Death - by cycling in front of a truck. Muppet.

++1

spen666

Headhuunter wrote:

It's £30 for a bike. This is one of the reasons cited to me by London City Police as a reason they don't stop cars for entering the ASL (and effectively red light jumping) - they don't believe that it's fair that motorists pay £60 and cyclists only £30

IF that is correct re the police, then the LCC should be considering a Judicial Review of that decision as the policy is clearly ultra vires.

It is not for the police to decide whether penalties are appropriate or not.

Clever Pun

spen666 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

It's £30 for a bike. This is one of the reasons cited to me by London City Police as a reason they don't stop cars for entering the ASL (and effectively red light jumping) - they don't believe that it's fair that motorists pay £60 and cyclists only £30

IF that is correct re the police, then the LCC should be considering a Judicial Review of that decision as the policy is clearly ultra vires.

It is not for the police to decide whether penalties are appropriate or not.

while you're right the police can quite easily be looking the other way....

I for one have certainly crossed the white line for the convienience of resting against some barrier or somesuch as long as I don't impinge on the jct or the ped crossing iteself... The police have been near when I've done this and there's no reaction, it works both ways (I guess they were looking somewhere else)

spen666

dhope wrote:

Rich_E wrote:

Somebody who doesn't drive and has never taken a cycling proficiency could probably try and claim ignorance that they've never heard otherwise that cyclists aren't allowed to RLJ.

Fairly certain ignorance isn't an excuse.

That said, it might be legal to lie to police anyway. Stop and search for example it's not a crime to give incorrect details to officers unless you're under arrest.

complete and total nonsense

It is an offence to obstruct a police officer acting in the course of his duty.

If the officer has lawfully stopped you, then lying to him would amout to obstruction, if not even to peverting the course of justice (depends on facts)

asprilla

spen666 wrote:

dhope wrote:

Rich_E wrote:

Somebody who doesn't drive and has never taken a cycling proficiency could probably try and claim ignorance that they've never heard otherwise that cyclists aren't allowed to RLJ.

Fairly certain ignorance isn't an excuse.

That said, it might be legal to lie to police anyway. Stop and search for example it's not a crime to give incorrect details to officers unless you're under arrest.

complete and total nonsense

It is an offence to obstruct a police officer acting in the course of his duty.

If the officer has lawfully stopped you, then lying to him would amout to obstruction, if not even to peverting the course of justice (depends on facts)

AFAIK, you don't have to provide them with your details, by lying to them is a different kettle of fish.

beverick

spen666 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

It's £30 for a bike. This is one of the reasons cited to me by London City Police as a reason they don't stop cars for entering the ASL (and effectively red light jumping) - they don't believe that it's fair that motorists pay £60 and cyclists only £30

IF that is correct re the police, then the LCC should be considering a Judicial Review of that decision as the policy is clearly ultra vires.

It is not for the police to decide whether penalties are appropriate or not.

Spen, you above others should know that this is nonsense. There is no specific offence covering motor vehicles entering the reservoir area associated with an ASL.

Bob

jibberish

Wow - thanks to everyone for replying - I certainly wasn't expecting this many replies.

I get annoyed with the cars in the ASL (bike) zone. I think it's the way the get really belligerent when you point out that they shouldn't be there.

spen666

beverick wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

It's £30 for a bike. This is one of the reasons cited to me by London City Police as a reason they don't stop cars for entering the ASL (and effectively red light jumping) - they don't believe that it's fair that motorists pay £60 and cyclists only £30

IF that is correct re the police, then the LCC should be considering a Judicial Review of that decision as the policy is clearly ultra vires.

It is not for the police to decide whether penalties are appropriate or not.

Spen, you above others should know that this is nonsense. There is no specific offence covering motor vehicles entering the reservoir area associated with an ASL.

Bob

Oh dear Bob, you should know there is the offence of failing to stop at a traffic signal.

motor vehicles are required to stop on a red traffic light behind the first stop line

I think you will find the offence is contrary to Regulation 36 of The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002

36(1) The significance of the light signals prescribed by regulations 33, 34 and 35 shall be as follows -

Red signal
(a) the red signal shall convey the prohibition that vehicular traffic shall not proceed beyond the stop line. However, this is subject to:

sub-paragraph (b); and,
where the red signal is shown at the same time as the green arrow signal, to sub-paragraphs (f) and (g),
Exceptions to stopping at red or red/amber signal

(b) when a vehicle is being used for

fire brigade,
ambulance,
bomb or explosive disposal,
national blood service or
police purposes
and the observance of the prohibition conveyed by the red signal in accordance with sub-paragraph (a) would be likely to hinder the use of that vehicle for the purpose for which it is being used, then sub-paragraph (a) shall not apply to the vehicle, and the red signal shall convey the prohibition that that vehicle shall not proceed beyond the stop line in a manner or at a time likely to endanger any person or to cause the driver of any vehicle proceeding in accordance with the indications of light signals operating in association with the signals displaying the red signal to change its speed or course in order to avoid an accident;

That seems to be specific enough for me and for the courts. Try DPP v Harris for more on the stop line and red traffic lights

spen666

Clever Pun wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

It's £30 for a bike. This is one of the reasons cited to me by London City Police as a reason they don't stop cars for entering the ASL (and effectively red light jumping) - they don't believe that it's fair that motorists pay £60 and cyclists only £30

IF that is correct re the police, then the LCC should be considering a Judicial Review of that decision as the policy is clearly ultra vires.

It is not for the police to decide whether penalties are appropriate or not.

while you're right the police can quite easily be looking the other way....

I for one have certainly crossed the white line for the convienience of resting against some barrier or somesuch as long as I don't impinge on the jct or the ped crossing iteself... The police have been near when I've done this and there's no reaction, it works both ways (I guess they were looking somewhere else)

Turning a blind eye is different from having a policy decision to ignore offences

Headhuunter

W1 wrote:

marcusjb wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

It's £30 for a bike. This is one of the reasons cited to me by London City Police as a reason they don't stop cars for entering the ASL (and effectively red light jumping) - they don't believe that it's fair that motorists pay £60 and cyclists only £30

I have to say, I do sort of agree with the police on this one - not the difference in the cost, but the fact that the two offenses are seen as the same thing.

In my opinion, going through a red light (i.e. passing the entire light on red and proceeding across the junction) is FAR more dangerous, for all parties, than a car/motorbike entering an ASL.

I am not saying that entering an ASL isn't dangerous, isn't extremely annoying - but it's a very different thing than actually going through the entire red light and crossing a junction.

Keep the fine for entering an ASL the same - but the fine for an actual RLJ should be increased to differentiate it from entering an ASL.

Something like 3 weeks in a hard-labour camp being forced to listen to Justin Beiber would do it I think.

I agree with you - but technically as the law stands they are the same offence. And it's not for the police to decide what offences they simply won't prosecute as they see the penalty as unfair - that's a job for Parliament.

I think I'm right in saying that no-one has ever been ticketed for entering an ASL?

Exactly. It's not up to the police to decide which laws they enforce and which they don't. It's irrelevant what they find fair and unfair just as it's irrelevant that I might think it's unfair that I might be fined anything at all for RLJ-ing.

I sent the email from the police with this statement in it to my local councillor who forwarded it to someone on the London Assembly who raised it with the police, she received some wishy washy back pedalling statement from the Police which she forwarded to me...

Norky

spen666 wrote:

beverick wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

It's £30 for a bike. This is one of the reasons cited to me by London City Police as a reason they don't stop cars for entering the ASL (and effectively red light jumping) - they don't believe that it's fair that motorists pay £60 and cyclists only £30

IF that is correct re the police, then the LCC should be considering a Judicial Review of that decision as the policy is clearly ultra vires.

It is not for the police to decide whether penalties are appropriate or not.

Spen, you above others should know that this is nonsense. There is no specific offence covering motor vehicles entering the reservoir area associated with an ASL.

Bob

Oh dear Bob, you should know there is the offence of failing to stop at a traffic signal.

motor vehicles are required to stop on a red traffic light behind the first stop line

Oh Dog, I can't believe I'm getting drawn into this...

I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that Beverick was making the point that there is no specific offence for entering an ASL reservoir that is separate and distinct from failure-to-stop-at-a-red-light. That is to say, he understands that entering the ASL area is an technically and offense under the law you have quoted, but it is not an offense in and of itself, and appears in practice to be treated differently to going entirely through a red stop light at the discretion of Police forces.

W1

Headhuunter wrote:

W1 wrote:

marcusjb wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

It's £30 for a bike. This is one of the reasons cited to me by London City Police as a reason they don't stop cars for entering the ASL (and effectively red light jumping) - they don't believe that it's fair that motorists pay £60 and cyclists only £30

I have to say, I do sort of agree with the police on this one - not the difference in the cost, but the fact that the two offenses are seen as the same thing.

In my opinion, going through a red light (i.e. passing the entire light on red and proceeding across the junction) is FAR more dangerous, for all parties, than a car/motorbike entering an ASL.

I am not saying that entering an ASL isn't dangerous, isn't extremely annoying - but it's a very different thing than actually going through the entire red light and crossing a junction.

Keep the fine for entering an ASL the same - but the fine for an actual RLJ should be increased to differentiate it from entering an ASL.

Something like 3 weeks in a hard-labour camp being forced to listen to Justin Beiber would do it I think.

I agree with you - but technically as the law stands they are the same offence. And it's not for the police to decide what offences they simply won't prosecute as they see the penalty as unfair - that's a job for Parliament.

I think I'm right in saying that no-one has ever been ticketed for entering an ASL?

Exactly. It's not up to the police to decide which laws they enforce and which they don't. It's irrelevant what they find fair and unfair just as it's irrelevant that I might think it's unfair that I might be fined anything at all for RLJ-ing.

I sent the email from the police with this statement in it to my local councillor who forwarded it to someone on the London Assembly who raised it with the police, she received some wishy washy back pedalling statement from the Police which she forwarded to me...

It would be fascinating to see what they said. Whilst I doubt you'd want to scan even redacted copies and put them on the web, if you could quote some of the "highlights" from the e-mail and their reply it would be most interesting...