If that consideration has not been tested in the courts then the police can continue to take that line; come to think of it, this may not be part of the new on-the-spot fines because there have been cameras on traffic lit junctions, to catch those who jump the lights (i.e. nothing to do with speeding) for quite a time.
Jumping the lights is undoubtedly a dangerous act, depending on when exactly it is perpetrated within the sequence of lights; it is no comparison with parking in the box, temporarily, while waiting for the lights to change.

__________________
Dave

Anyone entering the box because of genuine confusion should be told the error of their ways and then simply waived on. No need for criminalizing otherwise law abiding motorists. Our failed political masters secretly hate white, middle class, tax paying and law abiding citizens...

The local authorities and Highways are responsible for much of this confusion by installing and erecting far too many signs.

BUT - It's pretty lucrative stuff and so it continues....

Evening all.

__________________
Triumph Bonneville 800 (2004), Yamaha XT600E (1999), Honda XBR500 (1986).

I don't know if it has been tested in court, but the related rules have, indeed, been around for a while - and lack of knowledge of the rules is no excuse, as ever:-
Advanced stop zones - how well are they enforced? | UK Cycle Rules - information on cycling law in England and Wales

Drive Safe, Cycle Safe Advanced Stop Lines - Streets Ahead

Some folks have been talking about this for years!
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...ance-stop-line
One of the more interesting inputs to the discussion in there is:-
"I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere, but nobody seems to have asked why ASLs were invented... And the answer is that it wasn't for bikes.

My understanding is that they came from Sweden in the 1980s, where they found that ASLs reduced the number of pedestrian/car incidents by 70% (a while since I read up on this,so it may be slightly different).

The idea was that there are a few very common types of pedestrian/car incidents:

1) Car stops at a crossing. Another car rear-ends it and pushes it into the pedestrian. Happens surprisingly often.

2) On a dual lane road drivers in the far lane may not see pedestrians crossing, because their view is obscured by the vehicle to their side. By moving traffic back, visibility is increased (cyclists are invisible and so may use the ASL without reducing this benefit).

3) The lights start flashing yellow just before a pedestrian starts crossing... The car driver, foot on the accelerator, carries on anyway and hits said pedestrian.

Whatever the 'blame', they found very real benefits to pedestrian safety from ASLs which is why the older ones are often to be found without bicycle symbols painted on them, and in places cyclists don't frequent such as multi-storey carparks.

So really, whatever the benefits to cyclists, ASLs are worth enforcing, even for people who hate cyclists. After all, we're all pedestrians and none of us like being hit by large vehicles. A year or two back I saw a girl hit by a bus on a pedestrian crossing (mechanism 2). I strongly believe that if it had had an ASL the accident wouldn't have happened"

__________________
Dave

I don't know why we aren't allowed to in the cycle box too, we are vulnerable road users too.

As someone who also cycles daily in London I am quite happy for the police to fine car drivers who stop past the ASL, up until now a lot of taxis have been completely ignoring it. Having an ASL reduces the number of stupid cyclists queuing up on the left and getting taken out by left turning trucks.

I also think they should be stopping all the red light jumping cyclists too, gives the rest of us a really bad name.

To be honest I'm glad they're having a crackdown on it. It had got to the point where more than half the time, taxis, cars and lorries were just routinely stopping well into the cycle boxes when pulling up at red lights as the first vehicle. That makes it more difficult to safely pull up alongside them on a motorcycle (because of the pedestrian crossing islands), and if you want to pull in front of them you end up pretty much in the marked pedestrian crossing.

They did warn people at least a month before they started enforcing it. They had announcements on the radio, I believe various official websites warned of the crackdown, and they had community support officers with flyers at prominent junctions explaining to anyone who stopped in the cycle box that there was going to be a crackdown.


I believe they're only enforcing this on the ground (ie you can't be caught by cctv), and their modus operandi is PCSOs stood next to the cycle boxes, with traffic officer(s) complete with their stupid white hats stood the other side of the junction. The PCSO tells you that you've been caught and directs to pull over next to the traffic coppers. Easy to spot.


For the record, people riding motorbikes in cycle lanes is generally a bad idea and I'd rather less people did it (though admittedly sometimes there's no other option when traffic going nowhere). It makes car drivers move over away from the cycle lane, creating less space to go down the middle. If the cycle lane has a solid white line it's illegal to drive in it, though often there's signs similar to bus lane signs indication the cycle lane is only operating during certain times. Traffic coppers, normally on motorcycles, do occasionally try and catch people on motorcycles riding in them. You should be allright for cycle lanes marked with broken lines, though I suspect the filth might try and tell you otherwise. But to be honest, if you need to be told that riding down the nearside of stationary traffic is a bad idea, you've obviously never had anyone open a door on you. Far less likely to happen going down the middle.

__________________
UK to Mongolia 2009, on a DR350

I would have thought the offence should be "Failing to comply with road markings"

__________________
The electric monk always has faith.

What often happens at busy junctions, especially when turning right is that traffic starts to move, enters the cycling box, and is then prevented from moving further by congestion. The lights change, and lo and behold, you are in the box.

What happens here?

Or... if you are to believe that the line demarking the cycling box is in fact the stop line, it would appear that, having crossed it, you now have right of way over oncoming traffic, the same as in a cross-hatched junction.

I think the cycling box definition should include all two-wheeled vehicles.

__________________
"For sheer delight there is nothing like altitude; it gives one the thrill of adventure
and enlarges the world in which you live," Irving Mather (1892-1966)

Somewhere in one of the links I have given above it is stated that it is necessary to cross into the designated box with the lights already showing red (this may include the case of doing so on amber because this can be interpreted by the courts as red, I believe - but maybe only in the event of a traffic accident??).
Therefore, in the circumstances that you describe, no offence has occurred.
This is why the police have been present when bringing a case - so that there is witness to both the state of the lights and the positioning of vehicles.

I have often taken this to be the case in the past, and now I have learnt my lesson from this thread - on balance, I am never in that much of a hurry and I do take the point (again from above) that only cycles present in the box provides a safety factor to pedestrians.

__________________
Dave

Why would you be entering the junction when your exit isn't clear?