Roymondo:
Carryfast:
Héraultais:
This morning on BBC news they were reporting that London police are having a crackdown on the behaviour of all road users at junctions, with police stationed at various points at rush hour. They reported the biggest problem so far was car drivers encroaching into the cycle only box.
The police just being a biased group run by their political masters.The biggest problem with the bs two stop line cycle box is that the extra stop line has been added as an afterthought but the lights placing and amount remain the same as before.So you’re approaching and cross the ‘motor vehicle’ stop line then the lights change while you’re in the cycle box and before you’ve crossed the ‘actual’ stop line but which the PC tossers have now made into a so called cycle only stop line.Which just puts drivers of all vehicles into a catch 22 situation of either stopping in the cycle box or carry on across the junction against an amber or red light. 
It’s not called a “cycle only stop line” it is called an “advanced stop line” (advanced meaning “brought forward”). The law is quite clear that in normal circumstances motor vehicles MUST stop at the first line if the signals are already red, but that if you have already passed the first line when the signals change, you MUST stop at the second line. Highway Code rule 178 sets it out in black and white.
Exactly so if the lights change when you’ve crossed the ‘motor vehicles’ stop line then you’ll have to stop at the ‘cycle’ stop line which obviously means that a motor vehicle will then be occupying the cycle only box in that case. 
No surprise that the law don’t seem to recognise that obvious situation in their crusade against motor vehicles ‘encroaching’ into the ‘cycle box’.
Carryfast:
Roymondo:
It’s not called a “cycle only stop line” it is called an “advanced stop line” (advanced meaning “brought forward”). The law is quite clear that in normal circumstances motor vehicles MUST stop at the first line if the signals are already red, but that if you have already passed the first line when the signals change, you MUST stop at the second line. Highway Code rule 178 sets it out in black and white.
Exactly so if the lights change when you’ve crossed the ‘motor vehicles’ stop line then you’ll have to stop at the ‘cycle’ stop line which obviously means that a motor vehicle will then be occupying the cycle only box in that case.
No surprise that the law don’t seem to recognise that obvious situation in their crusade against motor vehicles ‘encroaching’ into the ‘cycle box’.
Funny that, because Raymondo’s post makes it abundantly clear how the law recognises that motorists sometimes have to stop in ASL areas. Try actually reading it, preferably without your anti cyclist blinkers on … you might learn something.
Rhythm Thief:
Carryfast:
Roymondo:
It’s not called a “cycle only stop line” it is called an “advanced stop line” (advanced meaning “brought forward”). The law is quite clear that in normal circumstances motor vehicles MUST stop at the first line if the signals are already red, but that if you have already passed the first line when the signals change, you MUST stop at the second line. Highway Code rule 178 sets it out in black and white.
Exactly so if the lights change when you’ve crossed the ‘motor vehicles’ stop line then you’ll have to stop at the ‘cycle’ stop line which obviously means that a motor vehicle will then be occupying the cycle only box in that case.
No surprise that the law don’t seem to recognise that obvious situation in their crusade against motor vehicles ‘encroaching’ into the ‘cycle box’.
Funny that, because Raymondo’s post makes it abundantly clear how the law recognises that motorists sometimes have to stop in ASL areas. Try actually reading it, preferably without your anti cyclist blinkers on … you might learn something.
I was actually replying to Heraultais’ comments which seems to be obvious in stating that one of the main ‘problems’ which the law have identified is ‘cars’ ‘encroaching’ into the cycle boxes.Which in most cases can be explained by what you’re trying to say is understandable reasons.In which case it wouldn’t have been a ‘problem’ whatsoever because it’s a totally understandable non issue and it’s the ridiculous idea of having one set of lights with two different stop lines which is the real problem.The fact is we managed fine without such bs for decades so why the need for such a stupid idea now.Other than to keep the reclaim the streets cyclist lobby happy helped by their equally raving supporters in government.
Cars in ASLs are not an issue for anyone when they’re there for understandable reasons, such as the lights changing while someone is queueing in traffic. The only person here who is trying to make out that they are is, er, you.
Rhythm Thief:
Cars in ASLs are not an issue for anyone when they’re there for understandable reasons, such as the lights changing while someone is queueing in traffic. The only person here who is trying to make out that they are is, er, you.
As I read it it’s the law that is making it an issue not me.It’s obvious that except in the very rare circumstances,of the lights already being at amber/red,before any traffic has reached the motor vehicles stop line,the idea of the two stop line cycle box system is a pointless, unworkable,liability.
Carryfast:
Rhythm Thief:
Cars in ASLs are not an issue for anyone when they’re there for understandable reasons, such as the lights changing while someone is queueing in traffic. The only person here who is trying to make out that they are is, er, you.
As I read it it’s the law that is making it an issue not me.It’s obvious that except in the very rare circumstances,of the lights already being at amber/red,before any traffic has reached the motor vehicles stop line,the idea of the two stop line cycle box system is a pointless, unworkable,liability.
Obvious to you is a very different thing from being actually obvious. The huge majority of motorists and cyclists manage to function very well under this system, and it works well nearly all the time: why it is that you seem to struggle with it, I can’t think.
Whilst were on about ASLs Advanced stop lines.
CPS drops case against a cyclist who jumped a red light.
road.cc/content/news/99735-cps-d … own-safety
Interesting article, I wonder if the cyclist would have done the same if the area had been full of cyclists?