Jump to content

Recommended Posts

So much stuff on here, as ever, about cyclists taking the piss. And motorists? And pedestrians?


I had an interesting afternoon out on the roads of south London with a cycling instructor this week. I'm a fairly experienced cyclist, who just wanted to update and hone her skills. During the two-hour session, I had more than half a dozen pedestrians try to get run over on the road (not look at the road at all before stepping out onto it, with their backs to the oncoming traffic), and a motorist try to drive over my bike while dragging on a fag, chatting on a phone and looking 180 degrees opposite the direction in which they were travelling.


Then I got off my bike and took these two pictures: motorists taking the piss at an ASL, not a stone's throw from my home, on successive changes of the lights. If motorists behave as in image '4', there is no safe place for the cyclist to position themselves, without breaking the law. This happens at just about every change in the lights at this crossing.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/14068-motorists-taking-the-piss-again/
Share on other sites

And yes, in picture '5' you can't see the cycle symbol on the road as the car driver is 100% covering it. Perhaps the driver thinks he's a bike!


There was also - during the session - a motorcyclist (big machine, too) who drove from one pavement to the other via a busy crossing and a traffic island, dodging the pedestrians. Another motorist who thought he was something else perhaps.

Just a tiny point of information - in the London Borough of Newham, motorcyclists are indeed allowed to join the cyclists at the front at the traffic lights. It makes perfect sense to do so. We're gone before you know it, unless of course we stall like I did the other day. Yikes! VERY blushing embarrassed PeckhamRose with a hundred angry motorists behind me!

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

PeckhamRose Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Just a tiny point of information - in the London

> Borough of Newham, motorcyclists are indeed

> allowed to join the cyclists at the front at the

> traffic lights. It makes perfect sense to do so.

> We're gone before you know it, unless of course we

> stall like I did the other day. Yikes! VERY

> blushing embarrassed PeckhamRose with a hundred

> angry motorists behind me!


But none of the vehicles in the photos are motorcycles, PR. They're all cars. And cars are certainly not allowed.

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

This seems to happen a lot, it annoys me too, and I'm just a car driver (who doesn't stop in them, unless I get caught out at the lights due to an incident ahead). 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.


When did these boxes first appear on our roads? I only passed my text 3.5 years ago, and I learnt then what they are for. One thing that I've noticed from talking to friends who passed their tests 20+ years ago is that they seemed unaware of some of the changes in the law/rules of the road since they started driving. With some of the appalling driving that we see on the roads these days, I do wonder if we should all be forced to resit the driving test every 10 years or so - even an abbreviated version - just to iron out any bad habits we may have picked up, and force us to get our knowledge up to date.

binary_star Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 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).


As you say, it wasn't the case. They just drove up to and past a red light.


>

> 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.


That - apparently - is the Department's view.

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.

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.


Interesting article. Make me wonder how London Borough of Newham (See PR's post) can override the law to say motorcycles can use them as well.


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? :))

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.


But given that the majority of the time the entire ASL box is occupied by motor vehicles (who are thereby committing an offence), it's kind of a moot point.

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.


file.php?5,file=15784

The other day when I was reduced to positioning my bike diagonally in what was was left of the cycle box I saw another cyclist pull out a digital camera and take a photo of the car registration plate (and motorist) of a vehicle that was sat in the box across the ASL.


I have no idea whether the evidence was being sent to anyone or whether it could be proved that the vehicle was stationary and the lights were red at the time, but it did surprise the motorist and was quite amusing.


Presumably if all cyclists carried a camera phone and did this then the message would spread quite quickly. Maybe a good one to do in the safety of a crowd of cyclists rather than to a van full of burly blokes when alone.

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.

>

> But given that the majority of the time the entire

> ASL box is occupied by motor vehicles (who are

> thereby committing an offence), it's kind of a

> moot point.


Well, not really. Is this another law cyclists mark down as 'optional'?

Senor Chevalier Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The other day when I was reduced to positioning my

> bike diagonally in what was was left of the cycle

> box I saw another cyclist pull out a digital

> camera and take a photo of the car registration

> plate (and motorist) of a vehicle that was sat in

> the box across the ASL.

>

> I have no idea whether the evidence was being sent

> to anyone or whether it could be proved that the

> vehicle was stationary and the lights were red at

> the time, but it did surprise the motorist and was

> quite amusing.

>

> Presumably if all cyclists carried a camera phone

> and did this then the message would spread quite

> quickly. Maybe a good one to do in the safety of

> a crowd of cyclists rather than to a van full of

> burly blokes when alone.


I took mine with my camera phone and hope others do to. Given the Met don't seem interested in enforcement, this may be the only avenue for getting something done.

louisiana Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> I took mine with my camera phone and hope others

> do to. Given the Met don't seem interested in

> enforcement, this may be the only avenue for

> getting something done.


As people have noted, a photo cannot be evidence of an infraction. So the best you are going to achieve is worry the motorist that you will report them (as they don't know that), the worst is to seriously piss off some complete loony in charge of a tonne of moving metal.


Seems unnecessarily - and rather pointlessly - dangerous.

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

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.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...