Are bicycle advance boxes exclusively for cyclists' use?

emes

Are bicycle advance boxes exclusively for the use of cyclists?

I inquired at a police station where staff were unable to advise me conclusively whether vehicles and motorbikes are liable to fines or prosecution if they stop in the green bicycle advance box, beyond the solid white line, found at intersections. A police officer advised me that he believed the highway code stipulates this is for bicycles but thought that any transgression by a motorbike or vehicle would be thrown out in court. I'm appealing to anyone who has a law degree specialising in this area or works in the field of traffic enforcement to provide some facts, please.

I tend to use these advance boxes more when I need to turn right, especially at split signal intersections but I have found in London generally, it is usually obstructed by taxis, motorbikes or even buses.

My point and concerns are twofold:
If this area is exclusively for cyclists then why isn't this being enforced especially as an increase of cyclists is anticipated with Boris's bike hire scheme?
Secondly, if these green advance boxes are merely intended as a guide for road users then I for one find it very confusing when a symbol of bicycle stretches over its surface. This leads many road users to assume this demarcated area is to ensure the safety of cyclists and smoother traffic flow.

If I have misinterpreted this road marking then perhaps other cyclists have too. If this is the case I'd find it less confusing if these advance boxes didn't exist.

Thanks in advance for your comments.

The Rookie

It is an offence for any vehicle other than a cyclsit to pass a stop line once the light is red, its also an offence to pass it when the lights are amber unless it is unsafe to stop.

Its the same offence moving into the 'cycle box' created by the advance stop line as jumping the lights, and carries the same penalty, and there is no reason why it should not be upheld in court.

HOWEVER its not an offence to be stopped in the box, for example a car waiting to turn right in a queue could be stopped in the box when the lights change, as long as it doesn't move, then no offence is commited, l;ikewise if the lights change when a car is approaching and it can't stop at the first line safely, but stops at the second line while the lights are still amber, then no offence is commited, an offenec is only commited if avehcile crosses a line after the lights have changed.

Motorbikes are not cycles and have to stop at the same line as cars, the only cop-out is for assisted bikes (like electric ones) which are still legally cycles.

The highways code is not the law, but will mention the relevant statute (The Road traffic act 1988 (as amended) for ASL) and is quite clear, why not check it yourself at directgov?

Simon

SmellTheGlove

If the ASL box were treated the same as a hatched yellow box, all would be well. Instead we have a fudge that leaves no one with a clear steer on how to approach them.
2/10 to my way of thinking.

btw I believe TheBeginner's response to be right in all respects.

spen666

The Beginner wrote:

It is an offence for any vehicle other than a cyclsit to pass a stop line once the light is red, its also an offence to pass it when the lights are amber unless it is unsafe to stop.

No, the amber light means get ready to stop, not stop. It is not an offence per se to pass an amber light

IIRC

Its the same offence moving into the 'cycle box' created by the advance stop line as jumping the lights, and carries the same penalty, and there is no reason why it should not be upheld in court.

HOWEVER its not an offence to be stopped in the box, for example a car waiting to turn right in a queue could be stopped in the box when the lights change, as long as it doesn't move, then no offence is commited, l;ikewise if the lights change when a car is approaching and it can't stop at the first line safely, but stops at the second line while the lights are still amber, then no offence is commited, an offenec is only commited if avehcile crosses a line after the lights have changed.

Motorbikes are not cycles and have to stop at the same line as cars, the only cop-out is for assisted bikes (like electric ones) which are still legally cycles.

The highways code is not the law, but will mention the relevant statute (The Road traffic act 1988 (as amended) for ASL) and is quite clear, why not check it yourself at directgov?

Simon

asquithea

From http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg ... 070561.pdf

AMBER means ‘Stop’ at the stop line. You may go on only if the AMBER appears after you have crossed the stop line or are so close to it that to pull up might cause an accident.

The Rookie

Rubish, the amber light conveys EXACTLY the same meaning as red - STOP, however for an amber light there is a statutory 'defence' of not stopping if it's unsafe to do so, there is no such exemption for a red light, as asquithea's link to the highway code clearly shows.

Why people use the highways without reading the highway code is beyond me!

I recently had to make a complaint to my local Police after admonishing a Police officer driving a Police car who entered the cycle box when the lights were red and being told they could if there were no bikes present, I have since had an apology from said officer and his super'.

Simon

Anonymous

As someone who drives a lot in London, as part of my job. I would say there is a car, either partly, or entirely in a ASL at over 1/3 of lights I stop at. Wouldn't be surprised if this is actually closer to 50%.

I think part of the problem is most people don't understand what a ASL is, or what it means. I'm sure a lot of people think it's some sort of discretionary area that doesn't really mean much.

You get a similar problem with the new Cycle Super Highways. I know, (because I looked in to it), that it's quite simple. If the blue lane is separated with a solid line, you can't drive in it, if it's separated with a dotted line you should "expect to find cyclists" in it. Yet, still you see cars just ignoring a lane separated by a solid line. Or, just as dangerous, not using a 'shared use' lane and suddenly cutting left after it ends, for example.

I know that ignorance is no defence and I agree that it's the responsibility of road users to read the Highway Code regularly.

But I also think the authorities could do more to inform drivers exactly what the rules are. There seems to be a lot of confusion out there and for most, driving is just a boring part of their day. They are very unlikely to come home from work and check-up on some new road marking they don't understand on the internet and even less likely to actually buy a up-to-date highway code.

spen666

asquithea wrote:

From http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg ... 070561.pdf

AMBER means ‘Stop’ at the stop line. You may go on only if the AMBER appears after you have crossed the stop line or are so close to it that to pull up might cause an accident.

and the legal backing for this is?

An extract from the Highway code proves nothing. It is not the law

spen666

The Beginner wrote:

Rubish, the amber light conveys EXACTLY the same meaning as red - STOP, however for an amber light there is a statutory 'defence' of not stopping if it's unsafe to do so, there is no such exemption for a red light, as asquithea's link to the highway code clearly shows.

Why people use the highways without reading the highway code is beyond me!

why people read the highway code and not the law I don't know. The HC has no legal standing

I recently had to make a complaint to my local Police after admonishing a Police officer driving a Police car who entered the cycle box when the lights were red and being told they could if there were no bikes present, I have since had an apology from said officer and his super'.

Simon

The Rookie

The HC does have a legal standing, it can be used in evidence in court (although usually in cases of driving without due care and attention) and is approved by parliament, whilst it does not define offences I agree.

Check the Road traffic act, can't recall the section, will try and find it in a minute for you.

Simon

EDIT
Highway code http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTr ... /DG_070332 rules 175 and 178 which tell you where to look RTA1988 sect 38 and the TSRGD

Reg 36e from TSRGD
"e) the amber signal shall, when shown alone, convey the same prohibition as the red signal, except that, as respects any vehicle which is so close to the stop line that it cannot safely be stopped without proceeding beyond the stop line, it shall convey the same indication as the green signal or green arrow signal which was shown immediately before it"

Good enough now?

Headhuunter

RichardSwt wrote:

As someone who drives a lot in London, as part of my job. I would say there is a car, either partly, or entirely in a ASL at over 1/3 of lights I stop at. Wouldn't be surprised if this is actually closer to 50%.

I think part of the problem is most people don't understand what a ASL is, or what it means. I'm sure a lot of people think it's some sort of discretionary area that doesn't really mean much.

You get a similar problem with the new Cycle Super Highways. I know, (because I looked in to it), that it's quite simple. If the blue lane is separated with a solid line, you can't drive in it, if it's separated with a dotted line you should "expect to find cyclists" in it. Yet, still you see cars just ignoring a lane separated by a solid line. Or, just as dangerous, not using a 'shared use' lane and suddenly cutting left after it ends, for example.

I know that ignorance is no defence and I agree that it's the responsibility of road users to read the Highway Code regularly.

But I also think the authorities could do more to inform drivers exactly what the rules are. There seems to be a lot of confusion out there and for most, driving is just a boring part of their day. They are very unlikely to come home from work and check-up on some new road marking they don't understand on the internet and even less likely to actually buy a up-to-date highway code.

50% of ASLs have cars or mopeds in??! More like 90% in my experience! Certainly there are more often motorists in them than not, so definitely more than 50%. How can you not understand what an ASL is for? It's a dirty great green box with a picture of a bicycle in it! Not a moped, not a black cab... A bicycle.

Basically however, ASLs have been imposed on the road without being thought through. The police essentially refuse to enforce them and in any case, motorists can roll into them without fear as they can simply say they were already in the box when the lights turned red. As someone has pointed out earlier, if some thought had been put into ASL implementation, they would have the same status for motorists as yellow hatched boxes.

The Rookie

Hmm Spen66 seems to have gone very quiet now his assertions have been shown to be dross, nice to see he an take correction in a mature manner!

Simon

The Rookie

Clearly Spen66 is just a Keyboard hero and needs to grow 'some'.

Simon

spen666

The Beginner wrote:

The HC does have a legal standing, it can be used in evidence in court (although usually in cases of driving without due care and attention) and is approved by parliament, whilst it does not define offences I agree.

I think you had better tell every member of the Cron Prosecution Service, every defence lawyer and every magistrate and judge as they all are under the "misapprehension" that the Highway Code is not the law.

The Highway Code is exactly what is say, it is a code, it is not law. Acting contrary to the Highway Code is not an offence

Acting contrary to legislation is an offence.

No one has ever been convicted of breaking the Highway Code.

The Rookie

Argh thanks for the apology over getting it wrong over the meaning of the amber lights Spen66.

I didn't say it was the law did I, read my post, I said it has legal standing, talk about twisting words so you can weasel out your original mess up, the content and meaning of the highway code has been quoted in DWDCA cases as showing the manner in which a careful driver would drive. Not that I'd take legal advice from someone who didn't know what an amber traffic light meant!

Now go away and don't come back until you've grown some balls.

Simon

sketchley

Not only do drivers not know what an ASL is for. I’ve been told three different things from three different police officers as to what the law is on them. One telling me that law only states that if you cross the first line you must stop at the 2nd, so he couldn't do anything about the drivers in the stop box. I told him I believed if the driver crosses the first line on red it was identical offence as jumping a red light. He told me it wasn't an offence and he'd looked into it and was only any offence if they went over 2nd line. This from a traffic cop on motor bike!

I also found out recently the reason for ASL is not so cyclist’s can 'get ahead' but because a cycle stopped at the advance line is visible to HGV driver stopped at he first line. Consequently if I ever question anyone stopped in the boxes I explain the reason it's there for a safety reason and not simply so cyclist can 'get ahead'.

On CS7 I've been getting very annoyed with bus drivers stopping in ASL, they of all people should know better. Challenged at E&C one bus driver was insistent he was as entitled as a cyclist to be in the box. Another near Balham asked me how long the blue boxes had been there (this was 2 weeks ago), admitted he had no idea way they were there, admitted having no training on how to drive safely with cycles on the CS7, then claimed it wasn't his normal route.

As side note, you may notice the first line on an ASL is always broken on the left with at least a small cycle lane filtering in to them, technically a cycle should only enter the ASL through this broken line, if not technically it’s an offence.

wgwarburton

Sketchley wrote:

...I also found out recently the reason for ASL is not so cyclist’s can 'get ahead' but because a cycle stopped at the advance line is visible to HGV driver stopped at he first line. ....

From the DfT's "cycling England" mini-site, extracted from a PDF on ASLs:
+

---

ASLs were originally introduced to reduce conflict between cyclists and motorists
when pulling away from rest at signal controlled junctions. The conflicting
movements generally occur where;-
 cyclists go ahead and motorists turn left, and
 motorists go ahead and cyclists turn right
Cyclists also derive benefit from ASLs in the following ways. They;-
 Give cyclists a visible and practical advantage at signalised junctions
and thereby encourage latent and existing cyclists
Allow cyclists to bypass queuing traffic to get to the front of the queue
(via the lead-in lane).
 Place cyclists in a safer and more visible location, ahead of traffic
rather than at the blind spot to the left of traffic; this is especially
important where there are appreciable numbers of HGVs.
 Allow cyclists to wait in an area relatively free from exhaust fumes.
 Make it easier for right hand turning cyclists to position themselves in
the best location.
 Make pedestrian crossing movements at the junction more visible,
safer and more comfortable by setting back the line of waiting vehicles.

+

---

Cheers,
W.

The Rookie

Sketchley wrote:

I told him I believed if the driver crosses the first line on red it was identical offence as jumping a red light. He told me it wasn't an offence and he'd looked into it and was only any offence if they went over 2nd line. This from a traffic cop on motor bike!

You were right he was wrong - fact, it is not an offence to cross the first line on amber if it was unsafe to stop is all. The correct construction of the box means cyclists should enter the box via the cycle feeder lane and thus never cross a solid white line when entering the box, hence they do not commit an offence, as no other traffic is allowed in the cycle lane they commit an offence, although arguably for motor bikes its entering the cycle lane and not breaching the stop line if they use the cycle feeder lane.

The Super I spoke to after I complained about a police car entering the box after the lights went red, who claimed to be a cyclist, admitted he didn't know the law and thanked me for enlightening him, he also agreed that knowing the 'rumour mill' that is most cop shops that the correct law would soon go round the troops after the officer I complained about had been "re-educated".

Simon

spen666

The Beginner wrote:

Argh thanks for the apology over getting it wrong over the meaning of the amber lights Spen66.

I didn't say it was the law did I, read my post, I said it has legal standing, talk about twisting words so you can weasel out your original mess up, the content and meaning of the highway code has been quoted in DWDCA cases as showing the manner in which a careful driver would drive. Not that I'd take legal advice from someone who didn't know what an amber traffic light meant!

Now go away and don't come back until you've grown some balls.

Simon

I stand by my words and can belive it or not debate issues without resorting to childish name calling and insults.

Oh, and in my first post, (if you'd read it), I made it clear I was working from memory - hence the IIRC (If I recall Correctly) At the time I did not have access to the relevant legislation

spen666

The Beginner wrote:

The HC does have a legal standing, it can be used in evidence in court (although usually in cases of driving without due care and attention) and is approved by parliament, whilst it does not define offences I agree.

Check the Road traffic act, can't recall the section, will try and find it in a minute for you.

Simon

EDIT
Highway code http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTr ... /DG_070332 rules 175 and 178 which tell you where to look RTA1988 sect 38 and the TSRGD

Reg 36e from TSRGD
"e) the amber signal shall, when shown alone, convey the same prohibition as the red signal, except that, as respects any vehicle which is so close to the stop line that it cannot safely be stopped without proceeding beyond the stop line, it shall convey the same indication as the green signal or green arrow signal which was shown immediately before it"

Good enough now?

Interesting bit of editing there though isn't there?

So as I said it does not automatically mean stop. It means stop unles.....


I stand by what I said earlier and your post seems to back this up.

It is not an offence to pass an amber light per se There are other requirements to be satisfied before an offence is committed[/quote]

Mr_Cellophane

There are a couple of ASLs on Barking Road at Canning Town which are painted as "Cycles and Solo M/C"
It is difficult to see the markings on the other side as the ASL is full of cars at vans waiting at a red light :roll:

JiveSinger

Sketchley wrote:

Not only do drivers not know what an ASL is for. I’ve been told three different things from three different police officers as to what the law is on them. One telling me that law only states that if you cross the first line you must stop at the 2nd, so he couldn't do anything about the drivers in the stop box.

As I understand it, this bit is correct - if the traffic light changes and a car can't stop before the 1st line, it must stop before the 2nd line and therefore a car can quite legitimately end up in the box.

Highway Code wrote:

178 Advanced stop lines. ~snip~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.

or if you prefer, the definition of "stop line" here:

The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 wrote:

Meaning of stop line and references to light signals
43 ~snip~
(2) Where the road marking shown in diagram 1001.2 has been placed in conjunction with light signals, “stop line” in relation to those light signals means—

(a)the first stop line, in the case of a vehicle (other than a pedal cycle proceeding in the cycle lane) which has not proceeded beyond that line; or

(b)the second stop line, in the case of a vehicle which has proceeded beyond the first stop line or of a pedal cycle proceeding in the cycle lane.

However I think that it's this bit that's incorrect

Sketchley wrote:

He told me it wasn't an offence and he'd looked into it and was only any offence if they went over 2nd line.

- it can still be an offence if a car doesn't stop before the 1st stop line.

However it must be tricky to prove as the driver could simply state it was too late for them to stop before the 1st line and therefore they had (as they are required to do) stopped before the 2nd line.

The Rookie

spen666 wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

EDIT
Highway code http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTr ... /DG_070332 rules 175 and 178 which tell you where to look RTA1988 sect 38 and the TSRGD

Reg 36e from TSRGD
"e) the amber signal shall, when shown alone, convey the same prohibition as the red signal, except that, as respects any vehicle which is so close to the stop line that it cannot safely be stopped without proceeding beyond the stop line, it shall convey the same indication as the green signal or green arrow signal which was shown immediately before it"

Good enough now?

Interesting bit of editing there though isn't there?

The only edit was to add the quote!

spen666 wrote:

So as I said it does not automatically mean stop. It means stop unles.....


I stand by what I said earlier and your post seems to back this up.

It is not an offence to pass an amber light per se There are other requirements to be satisfied before an offence is committed

Why can't you just be honest you said it meant prepare to stop, it means nothing of the sort, grow up and apologise like an adult (the implication of me telling you to grow some balls, something you've not yet managed to do it appears as your still digging bigger holes for yourself.)

The offence is complete if a car crosses the line on Amber, stictly it is for the defence to prove that the statutory defence applies, so amber still means STOP, not prepare to. Back to your spade!

Simon

spen666

Simon,

I am not apologising for being correct.

I stand 100% by what I say.


I have successfully defended my position in court representing clients. Have you?


BYW it is not for the driver to prove the defence at all. Clearly the niceties of English criminal law are not something you are fully aware of. It is not for the defendant to prove his innocence, it is for the prosecution to prove guilt.

The Rookie

You stand by amber meaning prepare to stop when TSRGD tells you it mean stop, I said it meant stop, and conveyed the same meaning as red, was 100% right and you feel no need to apologise? Then you are an arse.

I have succesfully defended myself in court thanks, and on a motoring issue, which I can't see you being too hot at!

As with any statutory defence, it is strictly for the defence to prove that the statutory defence is applicable, otherwise no-one would ever get prosecuted when a statutory defence exists even if it was totally inaplicable to the instant case! That said in the case of amber traffic lights, prosecutions for people not stopping are vanishingly rare, but then so are prosecutions for many motoring offences, like contraveneing ASL's and stopping in cycle boxes, doesn't make it legal though.

Simon

nyanza

The Highway Code is exactly what is say, it is a code, it is not law.

Well, apart from the bits that are law. Apart from those bits you've got a point.

Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. An explanation of the abbreviations can be found in 'The road user and the law'.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070236

spen666

nyanza wrote:

The Highway Code is exactly what is say, it is a code, it is not law.

Well, apart from the bits that are law. Apart from those bits you've got a point.

Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. An explanation of the abbreviations can be found in 'The road user and the law'.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070236

No, you misunderstand

The Highway Code is not law.

The Highway code, may in places quote what the law is. However it is quoting rather than defining the law.

It is exactly what it says, a code.

As the piece you quote states

In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence

It is the legislation not the code that is the law

The Rookie

I'm happy to agree with spen666 on this, the HC is not the law, it contains extracts from it, but it's the statute you break, not the HC, although as I said where a driver's 'behaviour' is in question, such as driving without due care and attentiion the HC can and has been used (including the 'should' parts') to demonstrate how a careful and attentive driver would drive.

The legal caes law for DWDCA on this is whether a passenger on the Clapham omnibus would consider the accused's driving fell below that of a careful and considerate driver. - delightfully quaint now!

Simon