ASL enforcement?

mbthegreat

Don't know if this has been posted on here but http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transpor ... 35559.html

City Hall looking at decriminalising ASLs so that they can enforce them themselves rather than requiring the police to do it (similar to bus lanes I guess).

davmaggs

This isn't being done for our benefit, it is for revenue raising.

There's probably far more ASLs than box junctions, so this would unlease a torrent of revenue. As it is TfL abuses box junctions for cash, so they'll love expanding into this segment.

bigmat

Not sure I care why they are doing it, as long as they do it. Would be nice if they could utilise some common sense though, and not just bash every driver who is a foot over the line etc. That will just turn more people against us lycra louts!

davmaggs

BigMat wrote:

Not sure I care why they are doing it, as long as they do it. Would be nice if they could utilise some common sense though, and not just bash every driver who is a foot over the line etc. That will just turn more people against us lycra louts!

The problem is that cyclists are the excuse for a cash grab. Good drivers who mean well can, and do end up getting fines for box junction offences due to minor slip-ups. It isn't just the anti-social gits, but someone slightly over a line.

There won't be any discretion, the fines will just be issued.

MrSweary

Well, something needs to be done about all these shoalers... that's what this is about right? 8)

anonymousblackfg

Good idea in my view, that said I was told by Chris Bainbridge of Hammershith and Fulham, they were considering redesigning a highlighted dangerous junction due to too many motorists complaining of being fined for stopping in the hatched yellow lines rather than anything to do with safety!

Gallywomack

Would be nice if they could utilise some common sense though, and not just bash every driver who is a foot over the line etc

I tend to think at least some ASL preciousness is misplaced - a light change at the wrong moment can quite easily leave a car stranded in the box, it's more or less unavoidable and surely preferable to the driver pressing on through the light to avoid stopping in the wrong place. A blanket fine for anyone caught in the box would catch no doubt catch a few innocents, pretty harsh as the likelihood is they would already have suffered theatrical head shaking from irritated cyclists.

So yeah, let's hope any enforcement is applied sensibly.

Initialised

About time, and but three strikes in a month for a fine would be a better balance as it would only target the genuine abusers rather than the innocent stranded, fines should double for taxis, busses, HGVs and vehicles with company livery.

sketchley

anonymousblackfg wrote:

Good idea in my view, that said I was told by Chris Bainbridge of Hammershith and Fulham, they were considering redesigning a highlighted dangerous junction due to too many motorists complaining of being fined for stopping in the hatched yellow lines rather than anything to do with safety!

This to me show why it's not a revenue raising thing. I suspect the redesign is because the junction isn't working as it should and that is showing in the large number of fines. Something is therefor wrong with the layout, marking or warnings. The ideal junction is the one where the markings and deterants mean people use the junction correctly and not simply the one that generates large amounts of fines.

Who gets the fines for this anyway? I know speed cameras go centrally now to stop "revenue generation" claims

sketchley

Gallywomack wrote:

Would be nice if they could utilise some common sense though, and not just bash every driver who is a foot over the line etc

I tend to think at least some ASL preciousness is misplaced - a light change at the wrong moment can quite easily leave a car stranded in the box, it's more or less unavoidable and surely preferable to the driver pressing on through the light to avoid stopping in the wrong place. A blanket fine for anyone caught in the box would catch no doubt catch a few innocents, pretty harsh as the likelihood is they would already have suffered theatrical head shaking from irritated cyclists.

So yeah, let's hope any enforcement is applied sensibly.

Perfectly legal and no fine could be sent.

https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/road-junctions-170-to-183 wrote:

178
Advanced stop lines. Some signal-controlled junctions have advanced stop lines to allow cycles to be positioned ahead of other traffic. Motorists, including motorcyclists, MUST stop at the first white line reached if the lights are amber or red and should avoid blocking the way or encroaching on the marked area at other times, e.g. if the junction ahead is blocked. 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. Allow cyclists time and space to move off when the green signal shows.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10, 36(1) & 43(2)

The Rookie

Gallywomack wrote:

I tend to think at least some ASL preciousness is misplaced - a light change at the wrong moment can quite easily leave a car stranded in the box, it's more or less unavoidable and surely preferable to the driver pressing on through the light to avoid stopping in the wrong place.

The law is clear (as opposed to what peoaple think the law says or means - and it's all in the Highway Code), it is an offencfe to cross a white line when the lights are AMBER or red, there is a statutory defence to crossing a line on amber (ONLY) if it was unsafe to stop.

Being stranded in the 'cyclsist box' is not and never has been an offence as long as the car was there when the lights changed and stayed there until they went green.

As we use the Highway, we should all read the HC as well as other uses like pedestrians and car drivers etc......otherwise we set out to prove we shouldn't be on the road!

tgotb

I'd guess around half the cars I see in ASLs on my commute are there accidentally, normally because they were queuing when the lights changed. Unless ASLs are treated like yellow box junctions, I can't see this being easy to enforce without a real person studying CCTV footage (which I should imagine would be very expensive).

The vast majority of motorcyclists are there on purpose; judging by the attitudes of the ones I've spoken to, a good proportion know they shouldn't be, but don't give a damn. I assume an enforcement policy which targets motorcyclists would be regarded as unfair or discriminatory, and in any case it might be hard to capture the number plates of motorcycles in a typical ASL.

Quite happy with this being enforced if it could be done fairly/sensibly, but I can't see how that would work.

Edit: Sketchley's post seems to indicate they already do have the same status as yellow box junctions; I never knew that!

The Rookie

Actually Sketchleys quote says they don't have the same status at all, it is perfectly legal to enter them knowing you can't exit as long as the light is green when you do so!

sketchley

Having just looked it up Traffic Signs Regulation and General Direction 2002 and the Road TrafficAct.


This would appear to be the law on the matter

TSRG Section 43, defines the stop line.

(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.

Section 36.1 the rules for Amber and Green

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

(a)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), the red signal shall convey the prohibition that vehicular traffic shall not proceed beyond the stop line; .
(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; .
(c)the red-with-amber signal shall, subject in a case where it is displayed at the same time as the green arrow signal to sub-paragraph (f), denote an impending change to green or a green arrow in the indication given by the signals but shall convey the same prohibition as the red signal; .
(d)the green signal shall indicate that vehicular traffic may proceed beyond the stop line and proceed straight on or to the left or to the right; .
(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; .
(f)save as provided in sub-paragraphs (g) and (h), the green arrow signal shall indicate that vehicular traffic may, notwithstanding any other indication given by the signals, proceed beyond the stop line only in the direction indicated by the arrow for the purpose of proceeding in that direction through the junction controlled by those signals; .
(g)where more than one green arrow is affixed to light signals in accordance with regulation 34(1)(b), vehicular traffic, notwithstanding any other indication given by the signals, may proceed beyond the stop line only in the direction indicated by any one of the green arrows for the purpose of proceeding in that direction through the junction controlled by those signals; and .
(h)where the green arrow signal is displayed at the same time as the green signal, vehicular traffic may proceed in the direction indicated by the green arrow in accordance with sub-paragraph (g) or in any other direction in accordance with sub-paragraph (d).

Section 10 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002 ... on/10/made) defines which road markings and signs are enforcable under section 36 of the road traffic act (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/36) "Drivers to comply with traffic signs".

davmaggs

Sketchley wrote:

anonymousblackfg wrote:

Good idea in my view, that said I was told by Chris Bainbridge of Hammershith and Fulham, they were considering redesigning a highlighted dangerous junction due to too many motorists complaining of being fined for stopping in the hatched yellow lines rather than anything to do with safety!

This to me show why it's not a revenue raising thing. I suspect the redesign is because the junction isn't working as it should and that is showing in the large number of fines. Something is therefor wrong with the layout, marking or warnings. The ideal junction is the one where the markings and deterants mean people use the junction correctly and not simply the one that generates large amounts of fines.

Who gets the fines for this anyway? I know speed cameras go centrally now to stop "revenue generation" claims

In the case of box junctions TfL got my cash. The junction was also illegal, but they obtained special exemption for that one (and several others).

My concern with all of these measures is that life in London is increasingly being set-up along the lines of Ryanair economics in that revenue is not raised openly, but instead relies on obstacles catching people out. Thousands of people, and a hundreds of millions of pounds is extracted not through economic activity, but through rent seeking.

Of course the perfect will say that they never pay a mistake, but as more and more obstacles are put out there eventually you'll end up getting done for something.

bails87

What about ASLs that don't have a filter lane entry point? Or when cyclists enter the box across a solid white line, rather than creeping down the inside of traffic to use the filter lane?

They're breaking the law aren't they? So will they be fined too?

sketchley

The Beginner wrote:

Actually Sketchleys quote says they don't have the same status at all, it is perfectly legal to enter them knowing you can't exit as long as the light is green when you do so!

Agreed difference between MUST and should in highway code. MUST is law, should is good advice but not necessarly law. So "should avoid blocking the way or encroaching on the marked area at other times" is not the law. However it *might* be deemed to be careless driving....

nich

TGOTB wrote:

The vast majority of motorcyclists are there on purpose; judging by the attitudes of the ones I've spoken to, a good proportion know they shouldn't be, but don't give a damn. I assume an enforcement policy which targets motorcyclists would be regarded as unfair or discriminatory, and in any case it might be hard to capture the number plates of motorcycles in a typical ASL.

This is going to pee off motorcyclists big time.

If they attempt to filter to near the front, then they'll be stuck in the middle of the road (dangerous), if they queue like cars, then it's just going to increase congestion.

I'm *for* motorbikes being in the ASL, as it increases their safety and puts a gap between more vulnerable 2 wheeled vehicles and cars/vans/lorries.

sketchley

davmaggs wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

anonymousblackfg wrote:

Good idea in my view, that said I was told by Chris Bainbridge of Hammershith and Fulham, they were considering redesigning a highlighted dangerous junction due to too many motorists complaining of being fined for stopping in the hatched yellow lines rather than anything to do with safety!

This to me show why it's not a revenue raising thing. I suspect the redesign is because the junction isn't working as it should and that is showing in the large number of fines. Something is therefor wrong with the layout, marking or warnings. The ideal junction is the one where the markings and deterants mean people use the junction correctly and not simply the one that generates large amounts of fines.

Who gets the fines for this anyway? I know speed cameras go centrally now to stop "revenue generation" claims

In the case of box junctions TfL got my cash. The junction was also illegal, but they obtained special exemption for that one (and several others).

My concern with all of these measures is that life in London is increasingly being set-up along the lines of Ryanair economics in that revenue is not raised openly, but instead relies on obstacles catching people out. Thousands of people, and a hundreds of millions of pounds is extracted not through economic activity, but through rent seeking.

Of course the perfect will say that they never pay a mistake, but as more and more obstacles are put out there eventually you'll end up getting done for something.

I'm not convinced by that, I think the reason why you see more of this kind of enforcement in London is becuase there are more car, more junctions and more problems. In the case of blocking box junctions the effect is multipled due to London's traffic problems as it can cause tailback nad delays for other motorists. As I said before I'd be interested to know where the money goes.....

sketchley

bails87 wrote:

What about ASLs that don't have a filter lane entry point? Or when cyclists enter the box across a solid white line, rather than creeping down the inside of traffic to use the filter lane?

They're breaking the law aren't they? So will they be fined too?

I thought that but this says otherwise, basically the stop line for cyclist is the second line and not the first....

TSRG Section 43, defines the stop line.

(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.

tgotb

nich wrote:

This is going to pee off motorcyclists big time.

If they attempt to filter to near the front, then they'll be stuck in the middle of the road (dangerous), if they queue like cars, then it's just going to increase congestion.

I'm not sure I agree with the last part of that statement. I think that filtering gives motorcyclists the opportunity to "queue jump", but I don't think a motorcyclist at the front of the queue causes any less congestion than a motorcyclist in the middle of the queue. The capacity of a junction or a piece of road is measured by the number of vehicles that can pass through it in a given time, and so long as all those vehicles are going the same speed, it doesn't make a lot of difference what order they're in. In fact, there's an argument that if motorcyclists queued like cars, a queue of traffic could move off more quickly when the lights turn green, as the cars don't have to wait for motorcyclists to un-wedge themselves from the gaps.

The argument's a bit different (and more complicated) for cyclists, but I don't see that allowing motorcyclists to filter benefits anyone other than the motorcyclists (at the expense of car drivers).

sketchley

nich wrote:

TGOTB wrote:

The vast majority of motorcyclists are there on purpose; judging by the attitudes of the ones I've spoken to, a good proportion know they shouldn't be, but don't give a damn. I assume an enforcement policy which targets motorcyclists would be regarded as unfair or discriminatory, and in any case it might be hard to capture the number plates of motorcycles in a typical ASL.

This is going to pee off motorcyclists big time.

If they attempt to filter to near the front, then they'll be stuck in the middle of the road (dangerous), if they queue like cars, then it's just going to increase congestion.

I'm *for* motorbikes being in the ASL, as it increases their safety and puts a gap between more vulnerable 2 wheeled vehicles and cars/vans/lorries.

There is a lot of pressure in some motorcylce lobbying group to make ASLs legal for them, however biggest problem I have is when they block the enitre ASL forcing the cyclist to be stuck in amongst the traffic (this might actually make the worse if the block the "filter" space). That and having to sit behind the exhalst of one. I'd much rather they sat back in the traffic behind a car. Not going to happen though.

sketchley

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... -stop-line

A few years ago but worth a read....

bails87

Sketchley wrote:

bails87 wrote:

What about ASLs that don't have a filter lane entry point? Or when cyclists enter the box across a solid white line, rather than creeping down the inside of traffic to use the filter lane?

They're breaking the law aren't they? So will they be fined too?

I thought that but this says otherwise, basically the stop line for cyclist is the second line and not the first....

TSRG Section 43, defines the stop line.

(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.

But that only covers cyclists in the cycle lane (if I'm reading it right). So someone overtaking on the outside of traffic (like wot we're told we're s'posed to, FFS!) or using an ASL with no entry lane: http://goo.gl/maps/3ilcK would be breaking the law (if I'm reading it right)

The Rookie

The reason there is more enforcement in London is that London is the only place were councils can enforce YBJ.....

jds_1981

World would be a nicer place if they just sent letters for the first few traffic 'offences' each year (many of which are innocent/unrealised) and then moved onto fines after a certain number.
I've been caught out before making a left turn I wasn't supposed to (but okay for buses.) http://maps.google.co.uk/?ll=51.565843, ... 69,,0,0.37
Mostly annoying because the road I was on is okay, the road I was turning onto was okay, it's pretty much just the left turn that isn't allowed :roll:

sketchley

bails87 wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

bails87 wrote:

What about ASLs that don't have a filter lane entry point? Or when cyclists enter the box across a solid white line, rather than creeping down the inside of traffic to use the filter lane?

They're breaking the law aren't they? So will they be fined too?

I thought that but this says otherwise, basically the stop line for cyclist is the second line and not the first....

TSRG Section 43, defines the stop line.

(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.

But that only covers cyclists in the cycle lane (if I'm reading it right). So someone overtaking on the outside of traffic (like wot we're told we're s'posed to, FFS!) or using an ASL with no entry lane: http://goo.gl/maps/3ilcK would be breaking the law (if I'm reading it right)

your right, as was I originally until I miss read that. Yep you need to be in cycle lane otherwise you should stop at first line.....

keyser__soze

Just as last time this came up, I'm all for CCTV enforcement of ASLs and mandatory cycle lanes (provided the tech can discriminate between those entering ASL before red/amber light - ie in slow or stop/start traffic - and those after) as it'll keep cars out. The number of vehicles driving in bus lanes drastically fell once CCTV was introduced and everyone became much more careful as they thought the chance of getting caught had gone up massively. Don't think we actually need many active cameras, rather a publicity campaign that people will get done for it.

Amended to red/amber for the pedants

sketchley

It's not just entering on the red light, Amber light is techincally wrong as well, unless it was unsafe to stop. However considering the distance between first line and second, the chances of that are very small. Personally I cannot see anyone getting fined unless the lights are clearly red on approach and the vehical just drives straight in to it. Anyone stopping at or around the time it goes Amber / Red who crosses the line might well get away with it.

davmaggs

Keyser__Soze wrote:

Just as last time this came up, I'm all for CCTV enforcement of ASLs and mandatory cycle lanes (provided the tech can discriminate between those entering ASL before red/amber light - ie in slow or stop/start traffic - and those after) as it'll keep cars out. The number of vehicles driving in bus lanes drastically fell once CCTV was introduced and everyone became much more careful as they thought the chance of getting caught had gone up massively. Don't think we actually need many active cameras, rather a publicity campaign that people will get done for it.

Amended to red/amber for the pedants

And yet this week there was the case of a man of had to fight to get CCTV footage of his bus lane infringement as he was certain he hadn't been naughty. They gave in eventually and apon viewing it turned out he had pulled into the bus lane to let an ambulance past. The fine was dropped at that point, but the burden and cost fell on the driver and he received no compensation.

As soon as TfL get the right to collect fines on the ASL they will maximise revenue. They can pay someone £8 an hour to watch a camera and issue tickets at £70 a time, they will be no discretion, just disputes and costs.

jamesco

davmaggs wrote:

As soon as TfL get the right to collect fines on the ASL they will maximise revenue. They can pay someone £8 an hour to watch a camera and issue tickets at £70 a time, they will be no discretion, just disputes and costs.

Sod it, I'll be happy if that happens. There's absolutely no enforcement at the moment - in 7 years cycling in London I've never seen anyone pulled up for it and it happens all the time.

Sitting at a red light in an ASL in Acton there were a couple of motorbike cops just behind me (in the lane) when a motorbike pulled straight into the ASL in front of them. I looked at one of the cops and gave him the "are you going to do anything about that?" eyebrow; he replied that it wasn't forbidden to enter the ASL. Naturally I told him it was and to check the rules, but you can guess how far they took my advice...

A period of strict enforcement of the rules would do all of us (cyclists & motorists) a lot of good.