CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News
Cyclist fights fixed penalty for oing over ASL line
(68 posts)-
Posted 11 years ago #
-
I'm curious, what's a cyclist supposed to do if he reaches the ASL box only to find it's taken up by a driver?
Pick up his bike and walk back to the end of the queue?
Posted 11 years ago # -
Wasn't sure which thread to start this one in...
Last night someone mentioned to me that technically it's illegal to filter up to an ASL where there are cars ahead of you, and that this is the reason for the wee section you get leading up to some ASLs - it's to give you 'access' to the whole zone.
That would mean that, if you're not coming to the ASL in front of a line of vehicles, you should simply wait in the line of traffic irrespective of whether or not there is space for you to filter and regardless of the fact this simply emphasises another of the dangers to you which ASLs are (ineptly) meant to address.
Presumably then also, even if there was one of the 'feeder' sections, you would need to be immediately beside the car which was approaching the ASL in order to then access the zone, because as soon as you went through even ahead of just a single car you would technically be filtering.
So, does anyone know if it is as simple as that - is filtering through traffic into the ASL technically illegal?
Posted 11 years ago # -
You have to go in through the death zone in the gutter.
The law is that it is an offence to pass the first white line when the light is red, except in the case of a bike using the feeder bit with broken lines.
It's stupid. Consider a multi-lane ASL where you want to turn right, but the ASL entry is on the left side of the left-only lane. You have to cross three lanes, twice. Very daft.
Posted 11 years ago # -
GDM, IIRC the Highway Code was updated to reflect the reality of filtering - it advises drivers to watch out for filtering cycles and motorbikes, as well as advising motorbikes who are filtering to take care, thus effectively sanctioning the activity.
I believe the point of the wee section leading to the ASL is to give you a legal entry (they are usually dashed rather than solid white) as it is still illegal for a cyclist to enter an ASL through the solid white line that drivers have to stop behind.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Wouldn't it simply be easier to make it legal for cyclists to enter a marked ASL box through the solid white line rather than creating a spurious 'entry' lane that every one knows is not going to be used as the law demands?
Also, if you were driving an unfeasibly narrow car, could you then legally enter the ASL box by driving over the dashed entry to the feeder section?
Posted 11 years ago # -
Thanks both.
Right - so, unless there's a wee section permitting entrance to the ASL and, if I were to filter through between cars which had stopped at the red lights and then entered into the ASL once the lights were red then I would be breaking the law?
Good grief.
Well, I guess I'll have to be a little less smug about car drivers then and stop haranguing them for entering the ASL given my presence in same will in most instances be illegal. Which is essentially to say that I'm not going to change my behaviour in any way in terms of filtering through the traffic to get to the front, I just won't take the time to berate the drivers.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"So, does anyone know if it is as simple as that - is filtering through traffic into the ASL technically illegal?"
Is filtering illegal? Talked about many many times, and basically the answer is 'no'. So there's no reason for it to be deemed illegal if it's to access an ASL.
Dave and BenN have covered it perfectly. Not illegal to filter to an ASL, though technically you have to enter the ASL by a 'feeder lane'. I've seen a few (very few) ASLs with feeder lanes also in the middle, but as is pointed out above, it's a ridiculous notion if you're turning right to have to filter only on the left, then cross traffic (though I guess you could just sit in traffic on the right hand side without filtering).
Posted 11 years ago # -
ASLs are a classic example of the sort of well-meaning, half-baked, badly implemented infrastructure we've come to expect in the UK. It's a confusing grey area and I wish the chap well in his case, might set a bit of precedent and get Plod focussing on the real infringement of them. It's simple for drivers; crossing the first white line on a red: illegal. No ifs or buts. Cyclists may enter the box on red although there are all sorts of technicalities that armchair/behind-the-wheel lawyers could come up with. I've entered an ASL indefensibly legally before in the filter lane as a car rolled indefensibly ilegally into it at the same time. In cases like that, there are 3 options.
1/ do nothing. Run risk of getting squised.
2/ get off the bike and push (why should I?).
3/ take matters into own hand and plonk ones-self clearly and visibly infront of offending motorist in a prime and safe position to carry on ones journey.One thing that I think is legally dubious and could end a cyclist up with a ticket for would be turning into/out of a toucan crossing into a cycle lane on a red. I've been followed down a road and yelled at by a driver before by turning off Melville drive across the Toucan and onto the South Meadow Walk. I really did wonder how else he thought I could compelte the maneouvre betwixt one piece of infrastructure and another bit that directly adjoins it. Wait for the lights to go green then turn across him or sit stopped in the lane with my hand indicating I want to go right?
But most of the "rules of the road" didn't need to be written until the motor vehicle came on the scene, and were written largely with them in mind.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Worth mentioning that not every car in an ASL will be there illegally. If the driver crosses the first line while the lights are green, but they then turn red and it's safe to stop before the second line, then he must do so. Basically unless you see a driver blatantly drive into the reservoir on a red then you can't guarantee he shouldn't be there (though, I'll admit, in 90% of the cases he shouldn't be).
Posted 11 years ago # -
And even if you see them blatantly enter on a red the police may not care....
Posted 11 years ago # -
Oh dear, this discussion suggests that I'm breaking the law nearly every time that I enter the ASL opposite the King's Theatre, which I generally choose to gain access to by approaching from the right, often overtaking one or more cars that are already waiting to turn right in the process by passing them on the right and sometimes overtaking cars that are queuing to turn left as well.
Following the cycle lane and then moving within the ASL manoeuvering area generally seems like a bad idea due to a combination of parked cars and queuing traffic often blocking part of the cycle lane on approach, the fact that the left filter comes into play before the right filter and the likelihood of buses turning left.
I'll certainly have a closer look at the markings on my way home but I don't suppose I'll do anything different.
Posted 11 years ago # -
@jdanielp exactly the same here. It's not really possible and certainly not safe to enter it from the left for a right turn, particularly as there's a left turn advanced filter light for the inside lane which could lead to you being stuck with cars turning across you)
Posted 11 years ago # -
I would absolutely argue that if you are turning right, it's unsafe madness to have to cross lanes to the left and then cross back again to the right.
Particularly at ASZs like Gilmore Place / Kings Theatre, where the left-only lane gets a green filter arrow before the right-only lane gets a green. So you'd just get squished, no question.
Academic really, since the useless advisory cycle lane leading to the ASZ is usually blocked by parked cars.Posted 11 years ago # -
Actually, there's another question. For arguments sake let's assume there are no cars around.
You are approaching in the right lane which still has a red light, and you are intending to turn right.
The left lane has a green filter light.
You cross the first white line into the ASZ.
Is this breaking the law? (you are on a red light...)
Posted 11 years ago # -
I normally enter ASLs by crossing the white line from wherever is most convenient. Don't really care what's legal or not. I don't plan to die on a technicality.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Yes me too. I'll follow the "rules" when they don't directly endanger me. ::-(
Posted 11 years ago # -
sounds like I'm getting ASL/ASZ terminology mixed up for good measure; think I'll just concentrate on the cycling
Posted 11 years ago # -
@jdanielp - "think I'll just concentrate on the cycling"
Totally agree - there's so many ways in which the practical application of what is supposed to be legal is so insensible in terms of actually introducing dangers. On a campaigning side, it's simply about how we get powers that be to understand how merely rolling-out ASLs won't contribute to safety, but instead will introduce uncertainty to already fraught situations.
I'm not so sure though about the whole point about cars being allowed to roll into ASLs while lights are green. My instructor said that if you were uncertain about completing a manoeuvre at a junction, you weren't to progress on to the ASL as - should the lights turn red and you found yourself stopped on the ASL - it would mean an instant fail. That surely implies that it is illegal to be on the ASL irrespective of whether the lights were green on entry. Someone else said to me that this was simply good practice but would be interested if people knew otherwise.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I think the whole debate just shows that ASLs are really poor pieces of "infrastructure" that don't actually benifit cyclists all that much. Just like most cycling infrastructre in this country in general, really.
I think they did ASLs in Holland many years ago, and found they didn't work, and now there aren't many left. So why are we still putting the things in?
On the other hand, an ASL is about the only bit of the road that we as cyclists have any particular "right" to, so it does make sense (and is reasonable) that cyclists make a fuss when they are abused.
Posted 11 years ago # -
My instructor said that if you were uncertain about completing a manoeuvre at a junction, you weren't to progress on to the ASL as
Yes, you should only move ahead if the way is clear but so many drivers just stick to being 6" away from the car in front. You should also not block side streets, ha!
However, there are some junctions where it is really not possible to see if the way ahead is clear or not except by driving through. There are not many of these though. One is Broughton Road/Picardy Place for example.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I must say, whilst I think I have a strong command of the Highway Code (including as it pertains to drivers, though I don't drive myself), I was totally unaware that it might be considered illegal to enter the ASL over the first stop line. And I suspect the vast majority of cyclists("RLJ, pavement-riding lycra louts" or not) would be the same.
After all, the Highway Code doesn't make any mention of that in relation to cyclists
Cyclists: 71
You MUST NOT cross the stop line when the traffic lights are red. Some junctions have an advanced stop line to enable you to wait and position yourself ahead of other traffic (see Rule 178).
Motorists: 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 italics are mine, to emphasise why I say Rule 178 is for motorists, although it's a general road rule really).
A quick Google shows the CTC also sees the ambiguous nature of the ASL rules.
Frankly, if I filter to the front of a queue and find the ASL occupied by a motor vehicle, I'm going to do the same as almost anyone in that situation and position myself in the safest place on the road. If that means being over the front white line (which I never otherwise do) then so be it. Safety first. If a police officer takes action against that, they are putting targets above common sense policing (and safety).
As for crossing a solid first line, I take what I consider the safest way to go to the front. Usually that will be a cycle filter lane (i.e. normally from the far left) but when that is either impractical or less safe, I approach from the right. I'd never considered that might be "wrong". Until such times as filtering itself is made illegal (and that should then apply to all vehicles), I will continue to do that if it's the safe option. That's different to cyclists [i]choosing to stop over a white line at non-ASL junctions, which I personally don't agree with.
Posted 11 years ago # -
From the Road Traffic Act:
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.It's so stupid, consider that they had to add /extra/ words to make it an offence for right-turning cyclists to enter an ASL other than in the left gutter... why didn't they just say "other than a pedal cycle"?
Posted 11 years ago # -
Dave, that's really poor judgement on the RTA authors and a bit of a kick in the teeth for cyclists who ride in primary.
But:
If a fit cyclist is in primary, they can stop at the first line and likely control the traffic behind upon green. It's a bit galling though to have to take up secondary only to 'have to' move back. If the cyclist is slower, they're already more likely to be in secondary. As we all know, starting from the ASL in primary isn't a cast iron guarantee of not getting left-hooked.
And if a cyclist is turning right, in my own experience at least, it can often be safer not to occupy the ASL area because of the risk of collisions or near-collisions with vehicles turning into the adjacent lane. The junctions at Gilmore Place > Leven Street and Comiston Road > Greenbank Crescent are where you could quite easily get demolished by a bus.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Good point @Arellcat – I've certainly had to move to the left in the Gilmore Place > Leven Street ASZ a few times to avoid being clipped by buses turning right from Home Street, and then of course there is the danger that the ability to get a head start when the lights do go green is regularly compromised by one or more vehicles running the red light from Home Street, which leaves the cyclist stuck in the middle of the road trying to avoid traffic coming 'straight' across, which often gets quitey tight.
Posted 11 years ago # -
@ Dave
I knew it would be buried somewhere in the RTA!
Typical legal gobbledegook and I'm still not sure I can read it such that it makes sense (just as the legal set seem to like things, the same as GPs don't want you reading their handwriting!).
Honestly, if you stop short of line one by the letter of the law, I can see either a) a motorist moaning at you for not using cycling infrastructure or b) filing that moment in the "cyclists are a pain in the rear" basket to bring out when foaming at the mouth in the press or pub.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I think one major issue with ASL areas is that most motorists are ignorant of the law. I suspect these things did not exist when many people passed their driving tests. I say this in the full understanding that someone will very likely be able to tell me that, actually, 23 years ago when I passed my driving test, these things *did* exist, and I just forgot about the references in the Highway Code, which is very possible. However, if these things did not exist on the roads, then I can understand having forgotten about them - we all forget things we don't use, after all (except, of course, for riding a bike; oh the irony).
Anyway, the point I'm attempting to make here is that I think one of the major issues is that the typical driver is ignorant of the rules for ASLs, and that instead of the NWC, we could have spent the money on advertising which told drivers what ASLs are, and how they should (not) be used.
Example: my wife. Hadn't a clue about them or that it was illegal to stop in them. Since these things were introduced long after she passed her test, and no-one has ever explained to her how they work (now rectified), she didn't know the rules.
It's not like we all read the Highway Code once a year, is it? I'm not suggesting that this excuses drivers, but merely that it could explain why the rules are so often broken by drivers.
If only we had convenient advertising spaces on the back of public transport which could explain to drivers how ASLs worked, while they sit stationary in queues of traffic.
Posted 11 years ago # -
TBH. A large box painted on the road with a picture of a bike in it.. It doesn't take Einstein to guess what it might be for.
Posted 11 years ago # -
This PDF says the first UK ASL was Oxford 1986 but I've also seen 1984. But I don't know when they were widespread enough to appear in the Highway Code.
Certainly before the mother I educated about them the other week started driving, as I posted elsewhere. She claimed not to know the rules and thanked me for the information but, as I said in that post, she may have done it to reduce a perceived sense of conflict seeing as her child was in the passenger seat. I'm not sure if I'm more concerned that my polite education still made her concerned or that maybe she actually didn't know the law.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Stiltskin - the legal aspect is not well known, I feel. If people knew that they could be fined, I think that would make a huge difference to cars stopping in them.
Posted 11 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
