binary_star

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You might also find that a > bunch of white van men might just stick your > camera in a place you will find it difficult to > download the photos from... > Or actually get them prosecuted (admittedly you will need a video camera). Incidently, this was the best I've ever had: Yes: - that's a bike reservoir - I was stopped at a red light when it happened - it wasn't my fault - according to the Police, the photo evidence helped my case against the driver - the driver got repremanded Stick that in your stereotype and smoke it! EDIT: And yes, the driver was changing the destination in the hope that would obscure his identity. It didn't. Neither did turning his ID number in the window upside down. [Edit] Obviously the driver was not prosecuted for disobeying the ASL - the Police and I had better things to do him for in this instance. Had he not driven over the first stop line however...

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There must be an argument to keep right. Yes, there is a very compelling argument, which is that cyclists who wait at junctions on the left are more likely to get killed doing so and that feeder lanes exacerbate the problem. TfL have known this for years, but have refused to publish the report (I have a copy), probably because it also suggests that some cyclists who break the law by jumping red lights may be safer. The same report suggests this is potentially the reason why more women get killed by left turning lorries (because they're more likely to obey the light and wait at the junction). However, unless there is also a feeder lane into it you are still 'technically' breaking the law if you enter it any other way. Which is why common sense needs to be applied in such a situation.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's gonna take a lot to convince you of the > ineffectiveness of CCTV, isn't it? Depends on your definition of effectiveness. Crime prevention or criminal conviction? Even if it only helps one, surely that is more effective than not having CCTV at all?

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The other interesting point was in the comments of > that article. Seems cyclists can only use the ASL > boxes if they enter from the connected cycle lane. > How many cyclists are using the boxes illegally > as well? :)) This is a good point Loz, and I think you are right on a technicality, which I applaud you for and is just the sort of annoying thing I normally do >:D< However, I counted at least 5 ASLs on my commute home this evening with NO feeder lane or entrance to the bike reservoir whatsoever and it looks like more are planned. Are we to infer from this that every cyclist in such a reservoir who has passed the first stop line on a red light is breaking the law? Yes. Are we therefore to infer that no cyclist should be using the reservoir? Common sense dictates that this is a ridiculous situation, as it negates any purpose assigned to the advanced stop line. The DfT's TRAFFIC SIGNS REGULATIONS AND GENERAL DIRECTIONS [.pdf] state "Traffic authorities need to provide layouts that allow pedal cyclists to access the reservoir via the cycle lane without being obstructed by other vehicles. The cycle lane should be long enough for cyclists to bypass the queue of motor vehicles without weaving." Since layouts are being incorrectly provided (they make up the MAJORITY on my commute), I think in all likelihood the Police are forgiving cyclists for 'illegally' entering their reservoirs. Now I don't think ignorance is an excuse to break the law, but if there is NO (or an incorrectly applied) feeder lane into the reservoir then I would forgive a cyclist who enters it illegally without knowing. What I wouldn't forgive is a motorist doing the same. Why? Because it is clear what the intention of these reservoirs is - to allow cyclists not motorists to filter through to a safe space in front of the rest of the traffic. Even with no knowledge of current legislation or the Highway Code, this is indicated physically at the very least by the ASL as well as the four foot long bike symbol painted in the reservoir and in all likelihood by a different colour. However, after Keef's astute insight you may feel differently, so the next time you see a cyclist flouting the law so flagrantly I strongly urge you whip out your camera phone and take a picture for the Police. Edited to add link to attachment

louisiana Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > However, entering the ASL from any connected cycle > lane is more often than not obliging the cyclist > to enter the 'corridor of death' that everyone, > including the Met and cycling organisations, say > that cyclists should not go into i.e. cycling to > the immediate left of and very close to a vehicle > stopped at the lights. We have seen deaths of > cyclists every other week or so in London from > this cause. It's a very stupid place to be unless > you want to commit suicide. Quite.

louisiana Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > on the same legislation* and as such, both > > offences may be dealt with by way of a ?60 > > Endorseable Fixed Penalty Notice that attracts > > three penalty points on a driver's license. > > That - apparently - is the Department's view. Sorry, you've lost me, what department? The DfT? Twirly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I read this article about it a > few months back, and there seems to be some > confusion about the legality of doing so, but the > article concludes that it is illegal to stop in > these boxes. Yes, I read the same article, I've no idea why there is any confusion. Although The Highway Code is not law, it does include many points of law (indicated by 'must' in bold type), and cites the relevant legislation where appropriate. In this case, the highway code is quite clear about this: 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)] The City Police seem quite satisfied that they can book people for ASL encroachment and do book drivers for this offence, the Met on the other hand do not. I can only assume it is ignorance on the Met's part. Edited for clarity.

Keef Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 2 wrongs don't make a right. Just because some > motorists take the p!ss (which they do), doesn't > make all cyclists angels either. No sh!t.

louisiana Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But none of the vehicles in the photos are > motorcycles, PR. They're all cars. And cars are > certainly not allowed. That's not strictly true - they're allowed to be there if the light was amber and they were so close to (or already over) the stop line that it would have been unsafe to stop (but I've no doubt this wasn't the case). It might interest you to know that an offence committed by failing to stop at the white line before a red light and an offence committed by failing to stop at the first white ASL line rely on the same legislation* and as such, both offences may be dealt with by way of a ?60 Endorseable Fixed Penalty Notice that attracts three penalty points on a driver's license. Technically, every driver who does this is running the red light because the ASL repositions the stop the line for vehicles other than cycles. In fact, depending on who you talk to, in terms of recording the contravention itself, it's regarded as a very similar offence (City Police) or the same offence (Met Police). Those red-light-jumping motorists are a menace I tell you! Oh the irony. *[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 36] and [Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10, 36(1) & 43(2)] respectively

That's interesting Peckham Rose, I'd always thought motorbikes should be allowed to share the space at the front with cyclists, or, more specifically have a designated half of it reserved for them because from a safety point of view it makes sense - since they're are allowed to filter they should have complete access to the front or else they are left in vulnerable positions amongst the traffic with larger vehicles on one (or both) sides of them. I wonder whether this will be rolled out in other boroughs? Edited for clarity

This used to infuriate me! Although I see the City Police do it quite a lot, so don't hold your breath for enforcement. A leaflet maybe, but the the fine or points that could be applied? Unlikely.

woofmarkthedog Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Did you know....? > > Britain has the highest rate of shoplifting in the > world > > ( true ) > > > W**F I didn't know that, but it doesn't suprise me. Is there a source available online for that, I'd be interested if you have a link. [Edit] Original post read "I'd be interested if you have a kink." :-$

Saila Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I honestly think most people view alternative > therapies, and other unproven approaches to > medicine, as so ridiculous they don't bother > posting about it Yes, I've been reading this thread with interest/bewilderment but not posted so far for the reason stated above. EDIT: And I probably wont post anything else because as someone once said "against logic there is no armour like ignorance" and quite frankly only a masochist would enjoy the amount of head/brick wall interaction required to convert the believers.

I do see the logic in cycling proficiency tests for the young, especially since children make up a quarter [471kb .pdf] of cyclists killed or seriously injured on Britains roads. It is a frightening statistic given that they're most likely to be killed between 3pm and 6pm (i.e. coming home from school). However if you look at the DfT report linked to above, you'll see that the driver 'failing to look properly' was a contributing factor in 60% of all collisions with cyclists, so cycling proficiency would be no use here. I think my motivations for advocating cycling proficiency might differ wildly from yours! I'd argue that cyclists are really only a danger to themselves - I haven't looked into it properly, so it's largely my opinion only, but I'm prepared to bet that the number of pedestrian deaths caused by cyclists (even the pavement riding ones) is negligible compared to motorists (guardian article here says 1/600). I think what it boils down to is that we should be enforcing the existing laws. Red light jumping cyclists are targeted in the City because Police forces now have an obligation to tackle issues raised by local communities and in the City they've nothing better to complain about. There have been similar sting operations to enforce ASLs, but the police just gave motorists a leaflet advising them they were liable for a ?60 fine, but without actually issuing the fine! I know because I was there watching it. Anyway there's no fence sitting when it comes down to attitudes towards cyclists. All the haters probably do so because cyclists all jump red lights, don't pay road tax and kill kittens and puppies...all whilst wearing lycra, YUK!

Oh em gee, how have I missed this thread!? What on earth is going on here. waynetta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Should I have put this in the cyclist's thread? > > http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/cb3dccb74c279e64_ > landing At least you didn't put it in the 'Pedants' thread. 25 posts and not one monkey.

Cripes, well what was said dahn the pub stays in the pub apparently. In that case, wont you be needing some ermm rather large balls, ahem? The futsal number 4 wont cut it I can wager!

Blimey dita they're a bit fancy - is that glitter AND silver balls??? LM those brownies look lovely too! Erm, are you members yet?

tog_in_sox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cyclist who ride through red lights or across > pedestrian crossings should be forced to pay for > any and all medical treatment and damages they > incur or cause. This should be deducted at source > after Tax and on a payment plan if necessary. tog_in_sox, it's difficult to know from your post whether you think there should be separate laws for cyclists, or whether the laws that apply to road users in motorised vehicles should also apply to cyclists (which is already the case). I think the existing laws are fine, but enforcement is an issue. As a balance, I'd like to see a greater enforcement of ASLs at junctions as well since most motorists completely ignore these, leaving no safe space for cyclists to stop.

Yes can't agree with cycling on pavements for adults, jury is out for me with kids doing it - don't think I'd let mine do it if I had any but not too bothered by smaller children cycling on pavements. Tragic that someone lost their life. Incidentally, on Friday a white van driver very nearly ran me over on Old Kent Rd and when I approached him, his passenger said "Well there's no cycle lanes on here so maybe next time, you'll stick to the pavement". Just goes to show you can't please all of the people all of the time. Still the fuzz are booking cyclists in town for it - ?30 a pop.

I had some soup for lunch! Didn't have carrots in it thank goodness.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > South London Press noticed Yeh, think the OP had something to do with that. I had no idea the facilities were open to the public either. Then, I always seem to hear about such things on the announcement of their closure!

This post has had me in stitches! "Suspiciously similar" vomit? Fnar fnar! I never realised I had such a juvenile sense of humour. Ho hum. Thought this was a corker too: DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TROLL ALERT! > > *detonates a troll buster to offload 3 megatonnes > of vomit on the OP*

computedshorty Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If it was out of service you would not have payed > for a ticket. Did You? Or were you a Free rider? No we didn't pay - in our drunkenness we tried to swipe in but the Oyster reader didn't register. Scandalous! DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hmm a stolen bus.....I didn't think about > that......was the driver wearing a stripey shirt > and a black mask binary? Nope, he was in a uniform (yes a proper bus driver's uniform, no I don't know if he stole that). I am genuinely heartened by the whole experience, as I expect the free-loading passenger's on your Dad's bus were as well :D I can't fault felt-tip for his(?) 'good work'...hilarious (no double irony here...or is there!?)

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My dad (who was a bus driver) used to do that. If > he was on the last bus, he would terminate in > town, before then driving an empty bus back to the > depot which was halfway along the route. If he saw > anyone, especially women, waiting at a stop (not > relaising they'd missed the last bus or otherwise) > he'd give them a lift to anywhere long the route > to the depot. For him it just seemed a safe and > sensible thing to do. That is the conclusion we came to, but it seemed odd that a route would terminate in Brixton then come all the way back through East Dulwich again with no passengers - I'd assumed the last leg of the journey would also be in full service. Well we were grateful anyway, and it was rather fun!

felt-tip Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You should report him. This sounds dangerous and > immoral. I'm not sure it was immoral, a bit irresponsbile perhaps. The journey seemed no more dangerous than a regular bus ride either...when I say 'flew' past, I don't think it was any faster than usual, just felt that way as we didn't stop. I certainly wont be reporting the chap! DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How much had you two had to drink? And was > Sambucca involved? :) Enough! In fact, I'd personally drunk way more than enough, but no Sambucca thankfully...it was a school night after all :D

Twirly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How bizarre - and lucky for you! Sounds like fun. It was quite! Although the whole way my partner kept asking "He's following the route, right?" Maybe the 'real' bus driver was tied up on the upper deck...luckly for us he didn't make a peep!