Police & RLJs this morning Clapham Common on to Cedars

sketchley

Looked like the police were out in force this morning handing out tickets to RLJs and ignoring ASL offences (although same offence) happening right next to them.

Not that i did, but a question I have is that if you have come accross the common and then the gone through the Red "Cycle" Light have you comitted an offence particulary as there is no white line for you to stop at or indeed cross on red. Which I thought was the offence.

Here is the junction

http://tinyurl.com/6xedhdt

rjsterry

A similar question applies to the shared use bits of Queen's Street heading in to the City where it crosses Queen Victoria Street. There is a pedestrian crossing just to the left, which runs on a different sequence and a set of lights just for cyclists heading north into the last stretch of Queen's Street. A lot of people cycle across on the pedestrian green (not over the ped crossing, but taking advantage of the stopped traffic) while the cycle light is still showing red. No white line there either so I'm not sure what legal status those lights have.

Headhuunter

Last night as I cycled home, got to a red light in the City with an ASL. As usual the ASL was filled with half a taxi and a couple of motorbikes, so as usual I moved ahead of the ASL gathering and made my own space. Next thing I knew one of the motorbikes (in fact a police motorbike) pulled up next to me to ask why I had moved ahead of the ASL. I said straight, "because it was full of motorbikes and taxis", he snarled back at me "don't give me that, it's safer for you back there...". I didn't get a chance to argue the point as he whizzed off after that.

I just don't understand why the police perceive a patch of green tarmac is somehow safer even though it is full of traffic and also how a POLICE motorcyclist can essentially jump a red and sit in the ASL and then have the temerity to have a go at me! Utterly ridiculous....

rjsterry

I sincerely doubt if anyone has done any statistically valid and peer-reviewed assessment of whether ASLs are actually any safer or not. I've still yet to be convinced even when they are observed. As they are routinely ignored by the motorists, public transport and the police, they may as well not exist anyway.

jomoj

not convinced that ASLs are much use either. I prefer to be sat in the middle of the lane behind a car near the front and follow it through the junction, There's less incentive for the vehicle behind to try and bully or overtake because there's a car right in front of them as well.

They can also encourage you to weave through the traffic to get to the ASL then get caught out of position when the lights change.

shm_uk

Headhuunter wrote:

I just don't understand why ... a patch of green tarmac is somehow safer even though it is full of traffic and also how a POLICE motorcyclist can essentially jump a red and sit in the ASL and then have the temerity to have a go at me! Utterly ridiculous....

Probably because the majority of drivers don't realise they aren't supposed to stop before the ASL, even when it's empty.

None of my non-cycling family or friends seem to know anyway.

Clever Pun

Saw on van and one car both happily park in the asl this morning, now normally I just can't be bothered to care but they were right in front of a cop car who saw it all. I am dissapoint

on the flipside I've seen cyclists go through reds in front of cop cars too...

Origamist

TFL and TRL have produced a few reports re: ASLs over the years.

IIRC, both found out that either a) there was not statistically significant differences in casualty rates (before and after the implementation of ASLs) or it was diffilcult to draw meaningful conclusions from the data due to various confounding factors or study limitations.

It is clear that ASLs affect the behaviour of cyclists, but it is far less clear if there is a net safety benefit.

This report is interesting if you have too much free time on your hands: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/ ... 011106.pdf

Headhuunter

Origamist wrote:

TFL and TRL have produced a few reports re: ASLs over the years.

IIRC, both found out that either a) there was not statistically significant differences in casualty rates (before and after the implementation of ASLs) or it was diffilcult to draw meaningful conclusions from the data due to various confounding factors or study limitations.

It is clear that ASLs affect the behaviour of cyclists, but it is far less clear if there is safety benefit.

This report is interesting if you have too much free time on your hands: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/ ... 011106.pdf

I find ASLs very useful in allowing me to get ahead of traffic, avoid the dreaded left hook etc, especially at multi lane traffic lit junctions. I don't see how they can prove or disprove the effectiveness of ASLs as they are never enforced. The report itself concludes that:

"It was found that relatively few cyclists used the reservoirs (both standard layout and
experimental design) in the intended manner. Only around a quarter of cyclists who
arrived at a red signal waited in the reservoir. The remainder either waited in advance
of the reservoir or crossed all (or part of) the junction during the red phase."

Perhaps this is because:

"Encroachment into ASL reservoirs by powered two wheelers (PTWs) was very high
at all sites (on average PTWs were encroaching into at least half the reservoir 60% of
the time compared with just 14% of the time for car traffic). In some situations (but
only noted with the full-width reservoirs), PTWs prevented cyclists from accessing the
ASL reservoir."

Although I would very much doubt that their figure of 14% of encorachment by car traffic is reflected across London. IME cars are just as likely to encroach on ASLs as PTWs, unless the PTWs have effectively blocked it off already.

sketchley

rjsterry wrote:

A similar question applies to the shared use bits of Queen's Street heading in to the City where it crosses Queen Victoria Street. There is a pedestrian crossing just to the left, which runs on a different sequence and a set of lights just for cyclists heading north into the last stretch of Queen's Street. A lot of people cycle across on the pedestrian green (not over the ped crossing, but taking advantage of the stopped traffic) while the cycle light is still showing red. No white line there either so I'm not sure what legal status those lights have.

Yep I know that junction and no white line there either.

I suspect if it was an offence to cross the junction on red when there is no white line it would also mean it would be an offence to cross a toucan crossing on red as well.

Origamist

@Sketchley - I missed your OP!

Is the light at Clapahm Common heading towards Cedars Road a red circle (like most traffic signals) or is it a "red man" - I can't recall. The latter is usually deployed when it's a pedestrian and cyclist crossing and the former if it's a cyclist only signal. As I understand it, if it's a "red man" only, you can proceed like a pedestrian if you want to and ignore the "red man" signal on your bike. If it's a red circle you have to obey the signal. The lack of a stop line (there used to be one there - abraded or removed?) complicates matters and Mr Loophole would be interested if it went to court.

sketchley

@Origamist Red/Amber/Green Bike i think. And there is no white line, you are coming from a cycle path accross the common. There's a pillar with a crossing button, then a few feet of pavement then a drop curb then tarmac in to the middle of the junction but no white line.

sketchley

Oh and I think you correct about Mr Loophole, anyone who got a ticket there this morning coming from Clapham Common should give him a call.

rjsterry

Re: that report, interesting that in 2005, motorcycles were the main culprits when it came to encroaching into ASLs and their feeder lanes. My perception is that it wasn't as bad then as it is now (now that bus lanes have been opened up to m/cycles). As you say, while there seem to be plenty of cyclists who find ASLs helpful, it's not obvious if they actually improve safety.

jzed

Sketchley wrote:

(although same offence)

Personally I'm all for the police dishing out tickets to RLJers. Agree that ASLs are a waste of time and seem to be like a mass start moto-gp. I'd say RLJing > ASL infringement, one's proceeding across a junction, one's stopping just in front of the line.

Idea - why doesn't Boris get some Barclays blue paint and indicate that Motorbikes are not allowed in ASLs - with "Cyclists only". Most scooters and motorbikes seem oblivious to the fact they aren't meant to be in them.

Origamist

Sketchley wrote:

@Origamist Red/Amber/Green Bike i think. And there is no white line, you are coming from a cycle path accross the common. There's a pillar with a crossing button, then a few feet of pavement then a drop curb then tarmac in to the middle of the junction but no white line.

I know the crossing - they've changed the phasing there recently coming up from Cedars Road. I'll check if it's a red man or red circle, common side - as that is the deal breaker re: RLJing or proceeding legally there.

Sketchley wrote:

Oh and I think you correct about Mr Loophole, anyone who got a ticket there this morning coming from Clapham Common should give him a call.

The white line must have been removed or has worn down - there certainly used to be one there. I'll check if there is "wait here" sign too as in the absence of a white stop line you are supposed to wait behind this sign - if it's a red circle light. I also understand that if there is not a white line, or a "wait here" sign, you are supposed to wait behind the post with the signal!

See here, at 3 a and b:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002 ... on/43/made

Perhaps even Mr Loophole might struggle...

Headhuunter

rjsterry wrote:

Re: that report, interesting that in 2005, motorcycles were the main culprits when it came to encroaching into ASLs and their feeder lanes. My perception is that it wasn't as bad then as it is now (now that bus lanes have been opened up to m/cycles). As you say, while there seem to be plenty of cyclists who find ASLs helpful, it's not obvious if they actually improve safety.

Yeah that's my perception too. When I started to ride to work in 2006 there wasn't half as much encroachment by mopeds etc into ASLs, now it's routine and they have increasingly started to use cycle lanes as well, that NEVER happened IME back in 06/07 time...

sketchley

Origamist wrote:

See here, at 3 a and b:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002 ... on/43/made

Perhaps even Mr Loophole might struggle...

So the absense of a white line does not mean an absence of a stop line. That's my new thing learnt today and would also cover the Queen street junction too.

sketchley

Headhuunter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Re: that report, interesting that in 2005, motorcycles were the main culprits when it came to encroaching into ASLs and their feeder lanes. My perception is that it wasn't as bad then as it is now (now that bus lanes have been opened up to m/cycles). As you say, while there seem to be plenty of cyclists who find ASLs helpful, it's not obvious if they actually improve safety.

Yeah that's my perception too. When I started to ride to work in 2006 there wasn't half as much encroachment by mopeds etc into ASLs, now it's routine and they have increasingly started to use cycle lanes as well, that NEVER happened IME back in 06/07 time...

They are even starting to use the mandatory (solid white line) cycle lanes on the Embankment. That wasn't happing a few weeks back but almost every night recently.

rjsterry

I'm afraid that's been going on for weeks. I've taken to deliberately pootling well out from the kerb if I hear an engine behind me.

notsoblue

I find ASLs very useful in allowing me to get ahead of traffic, avoid the dreaded left hook etc, especially at multi lane traffic lit junctions. I don't see how they can prove or disprove the effectiveness of ASLs as they are never enforced. [/quote]

+1, I think they're pretty useful in London where much of the time bikes are able to travel faster than cars. It means that you can safely take primary when you need it and aren't filtering through moving cars as much.

cee

i'm in two minds about ASL's.

I agree that they can be great for getting ahead of the traffic as said above, particularly at multi lane traffic lit junctions....

I don't understand why some folk on bikes, simply must get to the ASL though, no matter how tight a gap on the left they have to squeeze by, or what the right hand lane is doing....in some situations, I don't bother and sit primary a car or two back. This need to get to the ASL is in my opinion, sometimes putting them in more danger than if they had just hung back.

snooks

Where should I stop?

Cycling along, traffic lights ahead, still cycling, lights go amber.

I've built up a lot of speed and don't want to loose it.

If the junction didn't have a ASL I'd be over the line in amber (a ripe amber, but amber non the less), but over it and away.

This (imaginary;) ) junction does have an ASL, so I go over the main stop line in amber (which in theory I could have stopped if I fancied a car inserting itself into my rectum) but such is my second perfect timing that I get through it on amber, and the light turns red before I get to the ASL.

I know I should have stopped at the first line.

What about at the ASL?

:?

iPete

jomoj wrote:

not convinced that ASLs are much use either. I prefer to be sat in the middle of the lane behind a car near the front and follow it through the junction, There's less incentive for the vehicle behind to try and bully or overtake because there's a car right in front of them as well.

They can also encourage you to weave through the traffic to get to the ASL then get caught out of position when the lights change.

This!

Although it varies from light to light, there are some where I'll simply prefer to slot in behind a car and some where your better at the front.

SmellTheGlove

I routinely ignore ASLs - the whole concept is a bag of $h!te frankly.

Jomoj has nailed it nicely

jomoj wrote:

not convinced that ASLs are much use either. I prefer to be sat in the middle of the lane behind a car near the front and follow it through the junction, There's less incentive for the vehicle behind to try and bully or overtake because there's a car right in front of them as well.

They can also encourage you to weave through the traffic to get to the ASL then get caught out of position when the lights change.

The Rookie

I made a formal complaint about a police car crossing the first stop line and advancing to the ASL when the ligh was red, he informed me at the time it was OK if there were no cyclists in there, I told him to read the road traffic act 1988 as amended.

Anyway following my complaint I've not seen any of my local boys in blue doing this since (no surprise given the gossip centres I know most 'nicks' to be).

Yes entering the box is indeed the same offence as crossing the entire junction when the lights are red, but clearly the severity is different (and would be treated as such in court) so if they are having a 'sting' its not unreasonable to issue penalties for one and not the other, though you'd hope they would at least have pointed out the errors of their ways.

I would support them putting up plastic notices (like those think bike ones on country roads) so that people stopped in the box can read about the criminal off ence they just commited - generally education rather than just punishment is the best way forward. (and lets face it RLJ cyclists already know they are breaking the law)

Simon

RoadUser

I just don't understand why the police perceive a patch of green tarmac is somehow safer even though it is full of traffic and also how a POLICE motorcyclist can essentially jump a red and sit in the ASL and then have the temerity to have a go at me! Utterly ridiculous....[/quote]

...and I don't understand why cyclists think that they are safer at the front of the traffic. When cyclists accumulate at the ASL All the rest of the traffic want to do is overtake the slow and woobling cyclists. It just simply frustrates motorcyclists and drivers.
Cyclists run the same risk at every traffic light when they stop at the front of the traffic.

Also, why do cyclist think they are going faster than other traffic? They might have a private race with fellow cyclists but they're just a nuisance to other rooadusers.
I say keep to the cycling lane and let faster traffic thru. Simple, don't hold up the traffic!
:shock:

Wrath Rob

Hmm, interesting first post. Troll maybe?

DO NOT FEED

RoadUser

Sketchley wrote:

Looked like the police were out in force this morning handing out tickets to RLJs and ignoring ASL offences (although same offence) happening right next to them.

http://tinyurl.com/6xedhdt

That's a good thing! The police should stop and fine more cyclists that ignore red lights.
Perhaps that way it'll sink in to the rest that jumping red lights is a traffic offence, even if you're cycling!

I'd go further, compulsory re-training for all red light jumpers, before they get back on the road. That should improve matters somewhat.
8)

RoadUser

Wrath Rob wrote:

Hmm, interesting first post. Troll maybe?

DO NOT FEED

The truth usually hurts.....
8)

iPete

Trololololol!

RoadUser, you don't use the roads in London do you?

Its easy to be as quick as the traffic and I can filter much quicker than a motorbike but you don't see me getting upset by how slow all these other road users are that hold me up.

Sorry, must not feed.

Regards, another road user.

p.s. whilst you think your trolling, I completely agree with the RLJ fines