Help with law interpretation

I've been having an email debate with someone over the strict legal
position over cyclists entering an ASL reservoir

Section 43 of the The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions
Statutory Instrument 2002 seems to suggest that cyclists must be
proceeding in a cycle lane to pass the first stop line when lights are
red.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm#43

That would also seem to suggest that cyclists must not enter an ASL
reservoir when the lights are red if no cycle lane or gate[1] are
provided, and may not cross the first stop line other than by the
cycle lane or gate when the lights are showing red.

Am I interpreting Section 43 correctly?

[1] A gate is a broken diagonal line extending from the kerb, about a
metre ahead of the first stop line, and joining the first stop line
about a metre in from the kerb.

On Wed, 26 Nov, Tom Crispin wrote:
I've been having an email debate with someone over the strict legal
position over cyclists entering an ASL reservoir

Section 43 of the The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions
Statutory Instrument 2002 seems to suggest that cyclists must be
proceeding in a cycle lane to pass the first stop line when lights are
red.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm#43

That would also seem to suggest that cyclists must not enter an ASL
reservoir when the lights are red if no cycle lane or gate[1] are
provided, and may not cross the first stop line other than by the
cycle lane or gate when the lights are showing red.

Am I interpreting Section 43 correctly?

Yep. It's a cock-up. If they put an ASL in without the feeder lane,
you can't legally use it for its intended purpose.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Ian Smith wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov, Tom Crispin wrote:
I've been having an email debate with someone over the strict legal
position over cyclists entering an ASL reservoir

Section 43 of the The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions
Statutory Instrument 2002 seems to suggest that cyclists must be
proceeding in a cycle lane to pass the first stop line when lights are
red.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm#43

That would also seem to suggest that cyclists must not enter an ASL
reservoir when the lights are red if no cycle lane or gate[1] are
provided, and may not cross the first stop line other than by the
cycle lane or gate when the lights are showing red.

Am I interpreting Section 43 correctly?

Yep. It's a cock-up. If they put an ASL in without the feeder lane,
you can't legally use it for its intended purpose.

I regularly enter ASLs without using the feeder lane, and if I did get a
ticket, I would be willing to argue to toss in court. Although I doubt
many cops would ticket a cyclist for this if the cyclist stopped at the
second line.

If the cycle lane is advisory, then can a motorcyclist use the ASL?

"Ian Smith" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 26 Nov, Tom Crispin wrote:
I've been having an email debate with someone over the strict legal
position over cyclists entering an ASL reservoir

Section 43 of the The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions
Statutory Instrument 2002 seems to suggest that cyclists must be
proceeding in a cycle lane to pass the first stop line when lights are
red.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm#43

That would also seem to suggest that cyclists must not enter an ASL
reservoir when the lights are red if no cycle lane or gate[1] are
provided, and may not cross the first stop line other than by the
cycle lane or gate when the lights are showing red.

Am I interpreting Section 43 correctly?

Yep. It's a cock-up. If they put an ASL in without the feeder lane,
you can't legally use it for its intended purpose.

Could you stop at the first stop line, dismount and carry the bike into the
ASL resevoir?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ian Smith wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov, Tom Crispin wrote:
I've been having an email debate with someone over the strict legal
position over cyclists entering an ASL reservoir

Section 43 of the The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions
Statutory Instrument 2002 seems to suggest that cyclists must be
proceeding in a cycle lane to pass the first stop line when lights are
red.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm#43

That would also seem to suggest that cyclists must not enter an ASL
reservoir when the lights are red if no cycle lane or gate[1] are
provided, and may not cross the first stop line other than by the
cycle lane or gate when the lights are showing red.

Am I interpreting Section 43 correctly?

Yep. It's a cock-up. If they put an ASL in without the feeder lane,
you can't legally use it for its intended purpose.

And indeed if you are filtering or it's a multi-lane road then you
should, by rights, find the feeder, cross the traffic stream (if you can
find a gap) to the feeder and then move back to the lane you want to use.

Fortunately I have never seen this rule enforced. Mind you, I've never
seen a car or motorcyclist nicked for using the ASL box either and that
happens daily on my commute.

One thing I wish they would do is to put some kind of low-level repeater
on the lights, so you can see them. Often the ASL stop line is right at
the traffic light and it can be hard to see the lights. Harder still if
you've found the ASL box full of taxis and motor scooters and are over
the line, as most cyclists tend to be at Admiralty Arch.

- --
Guy

May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
================================================== =====================
** Please see http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Troll_code **
================================================== =====================
GPG sig #3FA3BCDE http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFJLdqIHBDrsD+jvN4RAiayAJ4v2IMJhXtKRSuFgtW5Hs ToFe87UQCeO86V
dYI2oum2hCYJQUlmWnDv9nU=
=V9gP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Adam Lea wrote:

Could you stop at the first stop line, dismount and carry the bike into the
ASL resevoir?

Interesting philosophical point, you could probably just push for the
same effect - Crank v. Brooks would tend to imply this, but the
regulations regarding stop lines are different from those regarding
pedestrian crossings - however probably not worth the effort as I doubt
if most plod are aware that the rule is so badly written. Might be
worth a letter to Cycle, just for laughs.

- --
Guy

May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
================================================== =====================
** Please see http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Troll_code **
================================================== =====================
GPG sig #3FA3BCDE http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFJLdudHBDrsD+jvN4RAuXnAJ4vXTSffiiMlRWVbszTpx 8MgCv7jQCgkadE
FSDTGFXBzYQhnmKGJEpAgNI=
=yj6e
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 26 Nov, 23:23, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1





Ian Smith wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov, Tom Crispin wrote:
*I've been having an email debate with someone over the strict legal
*position over cyclists entering an ASL reservoir

*Section 43 of the The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions
*Statutory Instrument 2002 seems to suggest that cyclists must be
*proceeding in a cycle lane to pass the first stop line when lights are
*red.

*http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm#43

*That would also seem to suggest that cyclists must not enter an ASL
*reservoir when the lights are red if no cycle lane or gate[1] are
*provided, and may not cross the first stop line other than by the
*cycle lane or gate when the lights are showing red.

*Am I interpreting Section 43 correctly?

Yep. *It's a cock-up. *If they put an ASL in without the feeder lane,
you can't legally use it for its intended purpose.

And indeed if you are filtering or it's a multi-lane road then you
should, by rights, find the feeder, cross the traffic stream (if you can
find a gap) to the feeder and then move back to the lane you want to use.

Fortunately I have never seen this rule enforced. *Mind you, I've never
seen a car or motorcyclist nicked for using the ASL box either and that
happens daily on my commute.

One thing I wish they would do is to put some kind of low-level repeater
on the lights, so you can see them. *Often the ASL stop line is right at
the traffic light and it can be hard to see the lights. *Harder still if
you've found the ASL box full of taxis and motor scooters and are over
the line, as most cyclists tend to be at Admiralty Arch.


I am sure I have seen references somewhere on the interwebby
that suggest that it is Police Policy not to enforce Advance
Stop Lines with respect to motorists. I forget where I saw this
but I think it stated that there had been exactly zero motorist
convictions across the whole of the UK since ASLs were
introduced.

When I as a pedestrian cross the road it appears to me as
if about half of all motorists ignore ASLs. I pay particular
attention since I have a policy of not stepping out in front
of vehicles that are being driven anomalously. It seems to
me that a driver who is incapable of stopping as
required is not one to be trusted. The lack of enforcement
and the consequent motorist behaviour causes me
significant delay in my daily business.

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 16:46:21 -0800 (PST), bod43
wrote:

I am sure I have seen references somewhere on the interwebby
that suggest that it is Police Policy not to enforce Advance
Stop Lines with respect to motorists. I forget where I saw this
but I think it stated that there had been exactly zero motorist
convictions across the whole of the UK since ASLs were
introduced.

Questions to the Mayor 15 October 2008

*****Enforcement of Advance Stop Lines*

***Question No: 2227 / 2008*

John Biggs

Has the Share the Road campaign reduced the need to enforce Advance
Stop Lines to make junctions safer for cyclists? Can you please
provide me with TOCU figures to show the number of enforcements of
this traffic offence for 2007 and 2008?

***Answer from the Mayor:*

A reduction in the need to enforce Advance Stop Lines has not been a
specific objective of Share the Road campaigns or other activities.

The Transport Operational Command Unit (TOUC) ran a 'Share the Road'
enforcement operation specifically targeting Advanced Stop Lines (ASL)
in September 2006, where 20 fixed penalty notices were issued to
drivers who infringed the ASL.

A number of recent operations that tackle infringement of ASLs have
been run by local borough police (Safer Neighbourhood Teams) and the
TOCU continues to enforce this issue where appropriate. As the
infringement of an ASL results in the standard automatic traffic
signal offence of ‘proceeding beyond the stop line’, separate figures
cannot be provided for ASL offences.

TfL and the Metropolitan Police continue to focus on cycling issues.
An education and enforcement operation is currently being planned by
the Police, which is dedicated to tackling several cycling-related
issues, including infringement of advanced stop lines. It is expected
to be run this year.

TfL also undertook a trial of an “awareness raising caution”, given to
drivers and motorcyclists who crossed the stop line and encroached on
the cyclists’ advance stop box. As a result of this, and because
improvements in camera technology make “automatic” detection feasible,
TfL is jointly sponsoring the London Local Authorities and Transport
for London (No 2) Bill, which will make it easier to make signalised
junctions safer for cyclists.

On Nov 26, 9:57*pm, Tom Crispin
wrote:
I've been having an email debate with someone over the strict legal
position over cyclists entering an ASL reservoir

Section 43 of the The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions
Statutory Instrument 2002 seems to suggest that cyclists must be
proceeding in a cycle lane to pass the first stop line when lights are
red.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm#43

That would also seem to suggest that cyclists must not enter an ASL
reservoir when the lights are red if no cycle lane or gate[1] are
provided, and may not cross the first stop line other than by the
cycle lane or gate when the lights are showing red.


The first line applies only to motorists, so a cyclist can cross it,
there is no need for a feeder lane. Many ASL's around Cambridge are
like this. At least this is the interpretation by Council Officers
around here.

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)]


--
Dan

In article , Martin wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov, Tom Crispin wrote:
I've been having an email debate with someone over the strict legal
position over cyclists entering an ASL reservoir

Section 43 of the The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions
Statutory Instrument 2002 seems to suggest that cyclists must be
proceeding in a cycle lane to pass the first stop line when lights are
red.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm#43

That would also seem to suggest that cyclists must not enter an ASL
reservoir when the lights are red if no cycle lane or gate[1] are
provided, and may not cross the first stop line other than by the
cycle lane or gate when the lights are showing red.

Am I interpreting Section 43 correctly?

Yep. It's a cock-up. If they put an ASL in without the feeder lane,
you can't legally use it for its intended purpose.

I regularly enter ASLs without using the feeder lane, and if I did get a
ticket, I would be willing to argue to toss in court. Although I doubt
many cops would ticket a cyclist for this if the cyclist stopped at the
second line.

I doubt they would, but if it did get to court, the law says you have
to be using the cycle lane. (This doesn't stop councils putting in ASLs
without feeder lanes that can't be used legally.)


If the cycle lane is advisory, then can a motorcyclist use the ASL?

Not legally when the light is red and it hadn't crossed the first line
before the light was red. 43 (2) (a)
"vehicle (other than a pedal cycle proceeding in the cycle lane)"
^^^^^