Nick Leverton wrote:
In article ,
Nick Finnigan wrote:

Ian wrote:

"Nick Finnigan" wrote in message

Walter has posted HC rule 154 which shows it is legal.
If vehicles are close together, one will generally have proceeded over the
first white line at the time the signal turns red.


Only if the driver ignores the meaning of an amber traffic light.

Nope. If the vehicles are close enough, one of them will have to wait
between the different Stop Lines, in order to obey the HC and the law.
And vehicles approaching traffic lights in London are often close enough
to stop a Taxi pulling into the gap.


Sounds like quite a simple decision for a driver then - either be
sensible, look at hazards ahead, and don't stop between stop line and
ASL, or else be aggressive, grab every inch of road space you can
and pay the relevant fine. What's the problem ?

No problem that I can see, no fine to be paid.

Ian wrote:
"Nick Finnigan" wrote in message

Walter has posted HC rule 154 which shows it is legal.
If vehicles are close together, one will generally have proceeded over the
first white line at the time the signal turns red.


Only if the driver ignores the meaning of an amber traffic light.

You seem to have a different interpretation of the regs to me, and I
can't see why, so here a simpler example:

You are driving (a motor vehicle) at a safe and legal speed, with no
other vehicles moving in your direction for 200 yards, approaching some
(green) traffic lights which have these two stop lines in front of them.
Then the lights change to amber; you move your foot to cover the brake
pedal, and realize that you can not (physically, and so safely) stop
before reaching the first stop line. You can, however, stop safely
before passing the second stop line. You can also get past the second
stop line before the lights change to red (based on experience).

What legal options do you have? Which is the best one?

"Heracles Pollux" wrote in message

Of course they are. The stop line for cars is before the cycle box.
The cycle box is for cycles.

And cycles are for ****wits, and thus we close the circle, grasshopper.


And coronary heart disease will kill you but not ****wit cyclists.




Not true. In 2004 there were 3 fatalities in pedestrian versus cyclists
accidents. 2 cyclists died and 1 pedestrian.

Ian

Nick Finnigan wrote:

You are driving (a motor vehicle) at a safe and legal speed, with no
other vehicles moving in your direction for 200 yards, approaching some
(green) traffic lights which have these two stop lines in front of them.
Then the lights change to amber; you move your foot to cover the brake
pedal, and realize that you can not (physically, and so safely) stop
before reaching the first stop line. You can, however, stop safely
before passing the second stop line. You can also get past the second
stop line before the lights change to red (based on experience).

What legal options do you have? Which is the best one?

Stop at the second line.

Though as the lines are so close together it's rarely as cut and dried
as this. Stopping halfway betwen would still allow a bike to fit in
front of you, and is worth doing if you can.

Colin McKenzie

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 15:26:11 +0100, Heracles Pollux wrote:

Of course they are. The stop line for cars is before the cycle box.
The cycle box is for cycles.

And cycles are for ****wits, and thus we close the circle, grasshopper.


And coronary heart disease will kill you but not ****wit cyclists.

Heck two fallacies in one statement. What a clown you are.

"steve" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 23:51:48 +0100, John Rowland wrote:


The City Of London Police have announced that they will prosecute not
only
drivers who go through the final stop line when the traffic light is
reds,
but also drivers who go through the initial stop line before the cycle
box. This makes it noticeably harder to stop legally during the amber
phase.

If driving is too hard for you then don't.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Exterminate
all cyclists kill them & plough them back into our sacred soil ,I will not
cease from mental fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand,
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England's green and pleasant land.

"Nick Finnigan" wrote in message
Ian wrote:
"Nick Finnigan" wrote in message

Walter has posted HC rule 154 which shows it is legal.
If vehicles are close together, one will generally have proceeded over
the first white line at the time the signal turns red.


Only if the driver ignores the meaning of an amber traffic light.

You seem to have a different interpretation of the regs to me, and I
can't see why, so here a simpler example:

You are driving (a motor vehicle) at a safe and legal speed, with no
other vehicles moving in your direction for 200 yards, approaching some
(green) traffic lights which have these two stop lines in front of them.
Then the lights change to amber; you move your foot to cover the brake
pedal, and realize that you can not (physically, and so safely) stop
before reaching the first stop line. You can, however, stop safely before
passing the second stop line. You can also get past the second stop line
before the lights change to red (based on experience).

What legal options do you have? Which is the best one?

Legally you should stop at the second stop line. That is what it says in
TSRGD2002 Section 5 paragraph 43 (b).

As I understand it, red light cameras are normally only active a few seconds
after the red light has come on and they are activated by movement. They
take two photos with a gap between them to prove motion. So a red light
camera wouldn't detect a stationary vehicle in the cycle box. To be detected
it would need to cross the first line a few seconds after the red light came
on.

Ian

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006, VW wrote:

Exterminate all cyclists kill them & plough them back into our sacred
soil,
I will not
cease from mental fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand,
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England's green and pleasant land.

Isn't there quite a bit of cycling in Jerusalem? They've certainly got a
Critical Mass.

tom

--
this place would be a paradise tomorrow if every department had a
supervisor with a sub-machine gun

Ian wrote:
The rule about cyclists obeying traffic lights has been in the Highway Code
even longer, but it is more often than not ignored. I just watched a
recording of a debate this week in the House of Lords on the subject of
cyclists ignoring traffic law. It sounds like something is going to be done
this soon. About time too.

Definitely. We see a lot of jokes on here about people wanting to kill
cyclists that jump lights, but I see pedestrians shouting at, punching
and even pushing cyclists (one or two have fallen off as a result) at a
single crossing - the one that featured on London Tonight not so long
ago, as it happens.

Cyclists are a menace, at least in London, where 80% or more are
flouting the law - even if there is a police officer (or, as ITV
proved, a camera) looking right at them.

As someone who cyclists only occasionally, the quicker these idiots
(and they've multiplied since the congestion charge and sky high
fuel/transport costs) are dealt with the better for all of us.
Especially when I'm nearly hit on the same crossing about two or three
times a month.

When it comes to road junctions, and they're up against a car, taxi,
bus or lorry, I have less concern. If they want to willingly kill
themselves then that is up to them. I just hope the driver isn't
charged and is suitably compensated for the damage, and cleaning, of
their vehicle.

Jonathan

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 00:03:20 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote:

Isn't there quite a bit of cycling in Jerusalem? They've certainly got a
Critical Mass.

Not much cycling in Rome, and they have critical masses.