Police spotting (junction watch)

Contact Liberty about that one - police should NEVER ask you for ID unless they are arresting you, and it's one of those things that Liberty are well big on.

http://content.met.police.uk/Article/Advanced-Stop-Lines/1400018009433/1400018009433

If anyone is interested

Thanks. Just out of curiosity, Savage, are you/have you been a constable?

Myth: Motorbikes are allowed in the ASL.

Not true. The law applies to motorbikes and scooters, too.

Wasn't it mentioned on here that some ASL allowed motorcyclists?

Technically, a motorcycle might not cross the first line if there is an entry point on the left.

Thanks. Just out of curiosity, Savage, are you/have you been a constable?

He's got a few more shifts before retirement, nothing bad will happen on his last day.

Wasn't it mentioned on here that some ASL allowed motorcyclists?

In Newham this is the case.

He's got a few more shifts before retirement, nothing bad will happen on his last day.

It does depend on whether the light was red when the line was crossed though.

This is precisely the problem that the coppers have got. Unless they see the car cross the ASL when the light is red, they are reluctant to do anything about it.

This is precisely the problem that the coppers have got. Unless they see the car cross the ASL when the light is red, they are reluctant to do anything about it.

There is nothing that they can do about it (other than have a word, maybe).

(Similarly, if you are on a bicycle in front of the white line, there is fuck all a copper can do, unless they saw you cross the white line while the light was red.)

This is precisely the problem that the coppers have got. Unless they see the car cross the ASL when the light is red, they are reluctant to do anything about it.

While they cannot prove the rule has been broken they can give a bit of advice to the driver, in the same way that they are only giving advice to cyclists re. hi-viz and helmets.

But as Oliver has said, ASLs are a red herring. They do not achieve what they were designed to and act as a misplaced target in an increasingly tit for tat argument which just distracts from the genuine concerns about road safety for all road users.

And they often encourage and enable poor decision making from cyclists as they try to make their way to the "safety" of the "cycle box".

This is precisely the problem that the coppers have got. Unless they see the car cross the ASL when the light is red, they are reluctant to do anything about it.

"Myth: Police don’t enforce ASLs.

Not true. The Cycle Task Force and our colleagues across the MPS regularly report and warn drivers for contravening this law and are supporting Transport for London’s ASL campaign. Any Police Constable (not a Police Community Support Officer) who witnesses an ASL offence taking place can enforce and must provide evidence that they witnessed:

The front of the vehicle cross the stop line
The moment the traffic lights changed
The traffic lights were all working
If the officer sees the vehicle in the zone without witnessing all three of the above, then there is no prospect of prosecution against a burden of proof of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. In any case, the driver could simply have been obeying rule 178 of the Highway Code (see above)."

Not reluctant, they cant.

Article.

"Myth: Police don’t enforce ASLs.

Not true. The Cycle Task Force and our colleagues across the MPS regularly report and warn drivers for contravening this law and are supporting Transport for London’s ASL campaign. .

A spokesperson told me that in the past three years City Police issued 12 fixed penalties to motorists for entering ASZs unlawfully.

Yet in the same period it handed out just over 6,000 fixed penalties to cyclists for jumping red lights.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2011/aug/24/safety-red-lights-cyclists

The Met does not separately record the numbers of motorists infringing ASZs, but does record the number of fixed penalties it hands out each year for red light offences as a whole.

Since 2008 it has issued about 3,000 fixed penalties annually at the roadside to motorists for these offences. In the same period the number of fixed penalties for cyclists for red light offences has gone up from around 1,000 in 2008, to 1,700 in 2009, to over 3,000 in 2010.

So the figures for cyclists and motorists are now roughly equal. The Met says that this is "a result of police attempting to make cycling safer in London"

The LTDA have helpfully posted some videos on Youtube they filmed of a couple of junctions where they left a camera on for an hour in a morning rush hour.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/cyclists-caught-jumping-red-lights-in-london-taxi-drivers-hidden-camera-footage-8969043.html

I still don't get it. Why does the LCC explain that only a small amount of accidents are caused by cyclists RLJing? Surely that is irrelevant and they should be encouraging cyclists to adhere to the rules of the road?

They could dress it up with any caveat that they liked... "Whilst virtually no injuries to cyclists are caused by jumping red lights we encourage cyclists to obey the rules of the road but also ask the police and mayor to focus their resources on issues that cause real danger to road users".

Isn't that sort of statement more likely to win ground?

I still don't get it. Why does the LCC explain that only a small amount of accidents are caused by cyclists RLJing? Surely that is irrelevant and they should be encouraging cyclists to adhere to the rules of the road?

They could dress it up with any caveat that they liked... "Whilst virtually no injuries to cyclists are caused by jumping red lights we encourage cyclists to obey the rules of the road but also ask the police and mayor to focus their resources on issues that cause real danger to road users".

Isn't that sort of statement more likely to win ground?

I started to watch the hour long unedited version. The fun thing is that every time the lights go red, at least one vehicle either jumps the lights, or stops across the ASL first line. I only watched it for a few minutes, but if that pattern continues, then it may well be that 100% of the vehicles observed "jump" the light.

There is nothing that they can do about it (other than have a word, maybe).

(Similarly, if you are on a bicycle in front of the white line, there is fuck all a copper can do, unless they saw you cross the white line while the light was red.)

Yep, which allows all sorts of abuse from motorised vehicles. Very easy to exploit this on a motorbike. Though I'd argue that motorcycles should often be allowed in them, particularly in the right-hand side to keep bikes in front of cars after filtering on the right.

I started to watch the hour long unedited version. The fun thing is that every time the lights go red, at least one vehicle either jumps the lights, or stops across the ASL first line. I only watched it for a few minutes, but if that pattern continues, then it may well be that 100% of the vehicles observed "jump" the light.

I don't intend to be terse towards you but I just don't care. People are twats. Thats about the only thing we can guarantee. This bickering about who does what and whether it is safe or not is a waste of brain cells.

That said, if lots of cyclists didn't jump red lights BoJo and the rozzers wouldn't be wasting such a load of time and money trying to clamp down on it and might actually be doing something worthwhile.

^ yep

Some cyclists jump red lights. We know this.

Just because BoJo and the rest use RLJs as a convenient, yet specious, focus for how to improve cycle safety, doesn't mean that focusing on RLJs will do a damn thing.

Once all cyclists conform to all road laws, and wear hi-viz, and have insurance, and pay road tax, then what? Will cycling suddenly become safer / better / more normalised? Will infrastructure improve? Will drivers be held more accountable to slip-ups and SMIDSYs?

It's a mistake to rail against red light jumpers.

Rail againt Boris et al. for focusing on the wrong thing.

The RLJ crackdown might be a public relations exercise to soften the general public up for the next part of a larger London cycling campaign (I hope). If the police are visibly hard on RLJ cyclists now, then in a few weeks there will be a sympathetic audience when they (the po po) get tougher on drivers using their vehicles as a weapon.

Basically, every man woman and child should go on a cycling holiday in Holland at some point in their lives (preferably before they get a driving license) to understand that weather you are a car, bike, or pedestrian, we are all traffic. Free hugs and all that.

So essentially we’re all in agreement that 99% of police are...

• Completely inept at understanding the law they supposedly enforce.
  
  • More than happy to profile members of the public based on their outward appearance and demeanour with no real justification.
    
  • On a complete small-man/woman trips, asserting their power uneccesarily and towards the wrong people, most of the time.
    
• Pricks.
  
  
  

I genuinely think there is a psychological deficiency with people who want to police others.

I agree. But everybody who jumps reds is fuelling his excuse.

His excuse is see through to us but it isn't to many people. This is as much about perceptions as it is real change.

Some cyclists jump red lights. We know this.

Just because BoJo and the rest use RLJs as a convenient, yet specious, focus for how to improve cycle safety, doesn't mean that focusing on RLJs will do a damn thing.

Once all cyclists conform to all road laws, and wear hi-viz, and have insurance, and pay road tax, then what? Will cycling suddenly become safer / better / more normalised? Will infrastructure improve? Will drivers be held more accountable to slip-ups and SMIDSYs?

It's a mistake to rail against red light jumpers.

Rail againt Boris et al. for focusing on the wrong thing.

well said. If all cyclists were law abiding do gooders then the recent death toll would have been 5 instead of 6... Cyclists don't kill people, not even themselves and using our behaviour to obfuscate and avoid doing something about the safety of cycling is disgusting.

ACAB
ftfy