In article , tim (back at home) wrote:

For a car, TSGRD2002 43(2)(b) defines "stop line" as being the first stop
line, or, if you've passed it, the second stop line. So, if you can's stop
safely before the first line, but you can stop safely before the second,
that is what you must do.

And according to the originator of this thread you
will get a ticket for doing this.

As I read it, he's saying you'll get a ticket for crossing the first stop
line on a red signal. Not for happening to be behind the second stop line
at a red.

So surely the rule is, if you can't stop in time
for the first then you can also legally cross the
second.

Even if your interpretation was correct, the thing to do would be to appeal
any ticket.

Brian
--
* * * * ** * * ** ** * *
* ** * * ** * * * *
* * * * * *

J. Chisholm wrote:

Walter Briscoe wrote:

It is EXTREMELY hard to comply with all traffic regulations and the
policy of automatic penalties is very hard. As an amateur motor vehicle
driver, I get two or three tickets each year. I am currently resisting
one. It was depressing that the helpline of the issuing London Borough
and several others could not point to the relevant legislation.

You are obviously a very amateur driver. I've been driving for 40 years
and at one time drove 30k+ miles pa.
To date I've had no tickets, fines, endorsements or penalty points.


Hear hear. People who complain that they find it difficult to stay
within the legal limit are simply announcing how poor their driving
skills are.

PaulO

Ian wrote:
"Brian Widdas" wrote in message
In article Nick Finnigan wrote:

[apologies if this response comes through twice]


What makes it not legal to drive past the second stop line on amber?

TSRGD2002 36(1)(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;"

For a car, TSGRD2002 43(2)(b) defines "stop line" as being the first stop
line, or, if you've passed it, the second stop line. So, if you can's stop
safely before the first line, but you can stop safely before the second,
that is what you must do.

That is how I see it too.

If you increase your speed before crossing the first line, so that you
are not then able to stop (safely) before crossing the second line, you
will still be able to obey that rule whilst passing both lines on amber.

In article , Nick Finnigan wrote:

For a car, TSGRD2002 43(2)(b) defines "stop line" as being the first stop
line, or, if you've passed it, the second stop line. So, if you can's stop
safely before the first line, but you can stop safely before the second,
that is what you must do.

That is how I see it too.

If you increase your speed before crossing the first line, so that you
are not then able to stop (safely) before crossing the second line, you
will still be able to obey that rule whilst passing both lines on amber.

The same can be said about a traffic light with a single stop line. In
either event, you risk inviting the attention of the local constabulary,
who might fancy a little chat about your driving.

Brian
--
* * * * ** * * ** ** * *
* ** * * ** * * * *
* * * * * *

In article , Nick Finnigan
writes
"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;"

If you increase your speed before crossing the first line, so that you
are not then able to stop (safely) before crossing the second line, you
will still be able to obey that rule whilst passing both lines on
amber.

If you increase your speed after the light turns amber, and could have
stopped at either line if you hadn't increased your speed, then you have
broken the prohibition.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

Tom Anderson wrote:
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.

although Jerusalem is very hilly so cycling there is quite tough.

Jonathan Morris wrote:
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.

And how about the pedestrians that just jump out into the road in front
of cyclists, regardless of the colour of the light or even when there
is no light at all. Or leap out at the junction the moment the signal
turns amber.

Remember that a cyclist will often take longer to cross a junction, so
may well have started to cross on a green signal but not complete yet
when the signal is red, particularly if the junction is on a hill.

And a cyclist who has sweated away to build up the momentum to reach a
traffic light is unlikely to do an emergency stop as the signal turns
amber right in his face. (And remember the cyclist is MUCH closer to
the junction at this time).

Earl Purple wrote:
And how about the pedestrians that just jump out into the road in front
of cyclists, regardless of the colour of the light or even when there
is no light at all. Or leap out at the junction the moment the signal
turns amber.

And what about them? I'm only talking about the MAJORITY of cyclists
that weave through, or simply fly through at high speed, red lights at
crossings and junctions.

Of course we can have a separate argument about idiotic pedestrians,
but I can't see how two wrongs would make a right. It is of course the
sad fact that a pedestrian still has right of way, but my belief is
that they're fair game if they wander into a busy road without looking.

Remember that a cyclist will often take longer to cross a junction, so
may well have started to cross on a green signal but not complete yet
when the signal is red, particularly if the junction is on a hill.

Yes, but that doesn't apply to the crossing on the Clerkenwell Road
where they're on a flat open road and simply ignore the lights
altogether. They only stop when crossing Farringdon Road if they can
see a car or bus about to hit them. They also turn left/right without
permission and, again, cut pedestrians up who aren't expecting them to
go against the 'no xx turn' markings.

Still, some cyclists take heed of the signs and simply use the pavement
instead.

And a cyclist who has sweated away to build up the momentum to reach a
traffic light is unlikely to do an emergency stop as the signal turns
amber right in his face. (And remember the cyclist is MUCH closer to
the junction at this time).

When I read that, I suddenly feel compelled to feel sorry for all the
people that nearly hit me, and DO hit others on an almost daily basis.
Then I realise that your examples don't apply in these situations!

Please bear in mind that I understand what you're saying, and cycle
myself, but unlike you I feel no desire to defend the actions of these
idiots that, sadly, in London make up the majority.

Jonathan

On 28/4/06 22:57, in article , "Chris
Read" wrote:

The first step would have to be to make it illegal to stop there ie
implie there is a yellow box at all ped crossings


See http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/18.htm

168: "In queuing traffic, you should keep the crossing clear."

It's not just queuing traffic that's the problem, many drivers, having
crossed a stop line in slow traffic, see the light on the opposite side of
the junction go red and stop, obstructing pedestrians trying to cross at the
lights.

--

U n d e r a c h i e v e r


_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

On 29/4/06 21:44, in article
, "Colin McKenzie"
wrote:


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

Thinking time is a big factor in stopping distances if my Highway Code is to
be believed. I wonder how much extra thinking time is required to judge safe
stopping distances to a line 5m in advance of a light that's gone amber (as
opposed to judging a safe stopping distance to the light itself)?

--

U n d e r a c h i e v e r


_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account