CPS drops case against cyclist who ‘jumped’ red light for his own safety

oozaveared wrote:

what action happens to the officer that issued and signed a fixed penalty notice that he had witnessed a traffic violation when that was untrue?

Sure the cops can ask a colleague to stop a cyclist but then surely the office witnessing the offence needs to sign the FP notice that this is what they saw.

This was part of the defence case that the officer issuing had not seen or been able to consider the facts before making a judgement.

Is there any comeback on this which is either a cavalier approach to signing what is in effect a sworn statement that you witnessed something that you didn't.

Rather than 'common sense prevailing' I think you will find this is the only reason the case has been dropped but there is no way they are going to admit it as the police are already in enough trouble with statements made up over that MP.

chokofingrz wrote:

The cyclist trapped in the left of an ASB always has a third option: stay where he is and signal right waiting for a motorist to let him move across, or wait for the light to turn red again and reposition himself in the ASB. Sure it's a pain in the ass and costs him 45 seconds, but he does get through the junction with his safety and his finances both intact.

Gets through intact, as long as there's no left turning tipper truck.

It's crazy- why is incompetent road design allowed to delay cyclists every time? Aren't we meant to be encouraging physical activity?

Gkam84 wrote:

Funny. I was just referring to this in a post this morning

"I went and had a look at the unedited version's. Just a quick scan through, because I was only looking for one issues that is to do with cyclists.

Motor's filling the ASL....Here is a prime example of what people thing is legal, but in my eye's, what this van driver does in illegal because the lights were already changing.

http://youtu.be/5aeYVju0Vzk?t=20m15s

The first three vehilce's turning right were ok, The white van, the blue car and then silver 4x4, but watch the next van. He had time to stop short of the ASL but went right over it.

What happens now if a cyclist wishes to turn right? This harks back to the cyclist who was fined for jumping a red light last month (I think) because the ASL was full and he went ahead of the traffic....there was quite some debate on it.

What are your thoughts?"

Yes - the van is in the wrong, should be ticketed.
Any cyclist following in the same lane should already have moved out to turn right in the same lane and await behind with other traffic.
You do not approach a Right turn in the nearside/left gutter, using an advance box to mover over infront of traffic. That is incorrect use of box also. Thats my point above.

Farky wrote:

Gkam84 wrote:

Funny. I was just referring to this in a post this morning

"I went and had a look at the unedited version's. Just a quick scan through, because I was only looking for one issues that is to do with cyclists.

Motor's filling the ASL....Here is a prime example of what people thing is legal, but in my eye's, what this van driver does in illegal because the lights were already changing.

http://youtu.be/5aeYVju0Vzk?t=20m15s

The first three vehilce's turning right were ok, The white van, the blue car and then silver 4x4, but watch the next van. He had time to stop short of the ASL but went right over it.

What happens now if a cyclist wishes to turn right? This harks back to the cyclist who was fined for jumping a red light last month (I think) because the ASL was full and he went ahead of the traffic....there was quite some debate on it.

What are your thoughts?"

Yes - the van is in the wrong, should be ticketed.
Any cyclist following in the same lane should already have moved out to turn right in the same lane and await behind with other traffic.
You do not approach a Right turn in the nearside/left gutter, using an advance box to mover over infront of traffic. That is incorrect use of box also. Thats my point above.

I've got to disagree there. I think that this is exactly how ASLs are designed to be used by right turning cyclists. It's a bad design and not something that I'd recommend doing but it is how ASLs are supposed to work.

Farky wrote:

Whilst im happy that common sense prevailed for the ticket...

"In order to avoid having to cross three lanes of moving traffic"

My mind is struggling to figure this out. Why could he not have joined any traffic filtering into the 3rd lane to turn right and waited like the rest of them?
You dont 'have' to use the advance box especially if there is a queue leading upto it. Sounds like he went from nearside lane one to this box....shouldve moved out a lot sooner 'taking the road' to do so. Advance boxes arent meant to replace road sense!

I could be totally wrong and missing something here...please tell me I am.

You're not wrong but the way ASLs are designed and the rules around them are.

ASLs typically have a filter lane on the nearside (even if it's a multi-lane set-up) and this is the only legitimate way to enter the ASL. Moving into the correct lane early and then filtering along the white line is also allowed but you must not cross the fist stop line i.e. you have to stay out of the ASL in the same way that a car would. This design effectivly leads cyclists to stick to the nearside, filter into the ASL and move accross to the position appropriote to where they want to go. The designers of these junctions don't want cyclists to move into the correct lane and merge with other traffic for whatever reason. The guy in this case behaved exactly as the road designers envisaged but was caught out because a motorist did not do likewise. The cyclist actually proceeded in exactly the way that the designers of the juction wanted - by moving ahead of the motors waiting at the lights and positioning correctly.

FWIW I'm pleased that the right decision was made in this case.

Matt eaton wrote:

You're not wrong but the way ASLs are designed and the rules around them are.

ASLs typically have a filter lane on the nearside (even if it's a multi-lane set-up) and this is the only legitimate way to enter the ASL. Moving into the correct lane early and then filtering along the white line is also allowed but you must not cross the fist stop line, i.e. you have to stay out of the ASL in the same way that a car would.

Turns out I am a regular law breaker on my bike then! (and will continue to be so, because I think it is safer to enter the ASL this way.)

mckechan wrote:

Matt eaton wrote:

You're not wrong but the way ASLs are designed and the rules around them are.

ASLs typically have a filter lane on the nearside (even if it's a multi-lane set-up) and this is the only legitimate way to enter the ASL. Moving into the correct lane early and then filtering along the white line is also allowed but you must not cross the fist stop line, i.e. you have to stay out of the ASL in the same way that a car would.

Turns out I am a regular law breaker on my bike then! (and will continue to be so, because I think it is safer to enter the ASL this way.)

I think you are doing the right thing. I don't see a lot of ASLs because of where I live/cycle but I'm always in favour of being in the right lane vs the wrong one. ASLs seem a bit mad to me but then again I'm not a regular city cyclist. Although you are technically RLJing I don't think you're likely to get pinched for it (many police officers don't understand the rules fully and those who do realise that they are too complicated and difficult to follow) so I say carry on as you are!

Matt eaton wrote:

Farky wrote:

Whilst im happy that common sense prevailed for the ticket...

"In order to avoid having to cross three lanes of moving traffic"

My mind is struggling to figure this out. Why could he not have joined any traffic filtering into the 3rd lane to turn right and waited like the rest of them?
You dont 'have' to use the advance box especially if there is a queue leading upto it. Sounds like he went from nearside lane one to this box....shouldve moved out a lot sooner 'taking the road' to do so. Advance boxes arent meant to replace road sense!

I could be totally wrong and missing something here...please tell me I am.

You're not wrong but the way ASLs are designed and the rules around them are.

ASLs typically have a filter lane on the nearside (even if it's a multi-lane set-up) and this is the only legitimate way to enter the ASL. Moving into the correct lane early and then filtering along the white line is also allowed but you must not cross the fist stop line i.e. you have to stay out of the ASL in the same way that a car would. This design effectivly leads cyclists to stick to the nearside, filter into the ASL and move accross to the position appropriote to where they want to go. The designers of these junctions don't want cyclists to move into the correct lane and merge with other traffic for whatever reason. The guy in this case behaved exactly as the road designers envisaged but was caught out because a motorist did not do likewise. The cyclist actually proceeded in exactly the way that the designers of the juction wanted - by moving ahead of the motors waiting at the lights and positioning correctly.

FWIW I'm pleased that the right decision was made in this case.

WOW!

Never knew that...is it written somewhere like that or just an unwritten rule.

Completely insane along with cycles lanes up inside at lights/junctions.

At least how I know why this came about though.

Surprised the 2nd cop issue hasnt been brought up - he didnt 'see' the offence and therefore cant book for it.

Farky asked
"WOW!

Never knew that...is it written somewhere like that or just an unwritten rule."

Here's the reg

Regulation 43 (2) of the 'Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002' states: -
Where the road markings (in reference to advanced stop lines) has been placed in conjunction with light signals, the "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.

So the pedal cycle has to enter the ASL zone via the cycle lane. Not ideal, but that's the law as it stands.

Kendal Brat wrote:

Farky asked

So the pedal cycle has to enter the ASL zone via the cycle lane. Not ideal, but that's the law as it stands.

Thought not - it doesnt actually forbid the entering of an advance box from any direction by cyclists, it just recommends the use of the cycle lane as per design. The only words used are 'may' on the DfT advice leaflet produced for this new legislation in 2002.

CycleCraft, for what its worth, recommends only riding through the 1st Stop line prior to the light being Red, but also recommends not using the cycle lane unless the traffic is stationary.

All this points to ASL's adding directly to the cause of deaths where HGV Left turns have been the actual cause. This design encourages cyclists to ride up the inside even to turn right.....what if you get up the inside and the box is too crowded to move over, forcing you to wait in a dangerous position. You may not be able to see if the box is clear to do so due to the traffic.

No way in hell would I use a nearside cycle lane as any part of a Right Turn at lights! Suicide.

mrmo wrote:

serious question, if i am caught by police doing the same does this set any kind of precidence because there has been no ruling?

Would it just be a case by case basis and assume the CPS will back down????

I doubt it sets a presedent because it was dropped rather than concluded. Having said that, I'd rather put my safety above the worry of being given a ticket so if I find myself in the same situation, I will be doing the same as Alex did and deal with any consequences afterwards!

mrmo wrote:

serious question, if i am caught by police doing the same does this set any kind of precidence because there has been no ruling?

Afraid not. Even if it had have reached the magistrates, it wouldn't have either.