Fixed Penalty - Cycle box at red light

UKMikey

wiogs wrote: »

Overreact much?

OP stopped in the wrong place and was done for it. Simple really.

No it's not that simple really:

Highway Code-
Rule 178 makes it quite clear you can stop at the 2nd white line if necessary:

"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."

This is a very vague area that needs to be cleared up.

matttye

Cornucopia wrote: »

It would be interesting to know how that (possibly clumsy) wording in the Highway Code relates to (hopefully clearer) wording in the Legislation.

"(2) Where the road marking shown in diagram 1001.2 has been placed in conjunction with light signals, “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."

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/regulation/43/made

Red means stop, amber means stop if it's safe.

So using common sense, you can infer that crossing over the first stop line on amber is okay if it would be too dangerous to stop but it's never okay to cross either of the two lines on a red light.

Cornucopia

Thanks for that.

It sounds much more general even than the Highway Code wording.

It certainly suggests no offence on the part of the OP.

HO87

We should keep in mind that the Highway Code has no weight in law.

Regardless of the additional provisions set out in the TSRGD with regard to the secondary stop line the law remains as it always has been that the offence is committed by passing beyond the stop line on red. That is what it appears the OP has admitted in their description.

For once the Highway Code effectively agrees reasonably well with the law. Its wording is actually very clear and refers to vehicles that have "proceeded over the first white line at the time that the signal goes red" - that is has crossed the line before the lights went red not after it which is the only way in which the offence can be committed.

The fact that officers were "staking" the lights out suggests that red light running is something of a problem at the location.

Might I also suggest that to interpret the law with regard to what you must do on amber as "stop if its safe to do so" may mislead? I'd suggest that it should read - you must stop unless to do so would be unsafe.

matttye

HO87 wrote: »

We should keep in mind that the Highway Code has no weight in law.

Regardless of the additional provisions set out in the TSRGD with regard to the secondary stop line the law remains as it always has been that the offence is committed by passing beyond the stop line on red. That is what it appears the OP has admitted in their description.

For once the Highway Code effectively agrees reasonably well with the law. Its wording is actually very clear and refers to vehicles that have "proceeded over the first white line at the time that the signal goes red" - that is has crossed the line before the lights went red not after it which is the only way in which the offence can be committed.

The fact that officers were "staking" the lights out suggests that red light running is something of a problem at the location.

Might I also suggest that to interpret the law with regard to what you must do on amber as "stop if its safe to do so" may mislead? I'd suggest that it should read - you must stop unless to do so would be unsafe.

That's just a different way of saying 'stop if it's safe to do so.'

Your sentence and mine both suggest that you must stop if it is safe to do so, or continue through if it would be unsafe to stop.

C_Mababejive

These full road with cyclist boxes are a mystery to me. I mean, if the lights are red and the box fills with a posse of cyclists,how will the traffic move off when the lights change?

kizkiz

For all those who have never heard of it, I rather suspect that the op was caught out by Operation Safeway, designed to improve cycle safety
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-31478073

bod1467

C_Mababejive wrote: »

These full road with cyclist boxes are a mystery to me. I mean, if the lights are red and the box fills with a posse of cyclists,how will the traffic move off when the lights change?

Erm ... they'll follow when the cyclists move off? You think the cyclists will just sit there for no reason and block traffic when the lights turn geen?

C_Mababejive

bod1467 wrote: »

Erm ... they'll follow when the cyclists move off? You think the cyclists will just sit there for no reason and block traffic when the lights turn geen?

But is it reasonable to expect cyclists to adopt a single file /riding to the left approach is should we tolerate militant Lycra clad types spanning the full width of the lane and holding up traffic?

al223

No it isn't reasonable, cyclists don't have to ride on the left and don't have to ride single file, give cyclists room.

Also, cyclists can only enter the advanced box on a red light by crossing the broken line that there should be at the left of the first stop line, it isn't always there.

It's simple isn't it? stop when the lights turn to amber, which should give enough time to stop before they turn red. Don't cross either stop line once the lights are red. There should be no reason to still be moving once the lights are red unless you're an 'amber gambler'.