|
New camera scam
Nick Leverton wrote:
In article , Nick Finnigan wrote: Ian wrote: "Nick Finnigan" wrote in message Walter has posted HC rule 154 which shows it is legal. If vehicles are close together, one will generally have proceeded over the first white line at the time the signal turns red. Only if the driver ignores the meaning of an amber traffic light. Nope. If the vehicles are close enough, one of them will have to wait between the different Stop Lines, in order to obey the HC and the law. And vehicles approaching traffic lights in London are often close enough to stop a Taxi pulling into the gap. Sounds like quite a simple decision for a driver then - either be sensible, look at hazards ahead, and don't stop between stop line and ASL, or else be aggressive, grab every inch of road space you can and pay the relevant fine. What's the problem ? No problem that I can see, no fine to be paid. |
New camera scam
Ian wrote:
"Nick Finnigan" wrote in message Walter has posted HC rule 154 which shows it is legal. If vehicles are close together, one will generally have proceeded over the first white line at the time the signal turns red. Only if the driver ignores the meaning of an amber traffic light. You seem to have a different interpretation of the regs to me, and I can't see why, so here a simpler example: You are driving (a motor vehicle) at a safe and legal speed, with no other vehicles moving in your direction for 200 yards, approaching some (green) traffic lights which have these two stop lines in front of them. Then the lights change to amber; you move your foot to cover the brake pedal, and realize that you can not (physically, and so safely) stop before reaching the first stop line. You can, however, stop safely before passing the second stop line. You can also get past the second stop line before the lights change to red (based on experience). What legal options do you have? Which is the best one? |
New camera scam
"Heracles Pollux" wrote in message Of course they are. The stop line for cars is before the cycle box. The cycle box is for cycles. And cycles are for ****wits, and thus we close the circle, grasshopper. And coronary heart disease will kill you but not ****wit cyclists. Not true. In 2004 there were 3 fatalities in pedestrian versus cyclists accidents. 2 cyclists died and 1 pedestrian. Ian |
New camera scam
Nick Finnigan wrote:
You are driving (a motor vehicle) at a safe and legal speed, with no other vehicles moving in your direction for 200 yards, approaching some (green) traffic lights which have these two stop lines in front of them. Then the lights change to amber; you move your foot to cover the brake pedal, and realize that you can not (physically, and so safely) stop before reaching the first stop line. You can, however, stop safely before passing the second stop line. You can also get past the second stop line before the lights change to red (based on experience). What legal options do you have? Which is the best one? Stop at the second line. Though as the lines are so close together it's rarely as cut and dried as this. Stopping halfway betwen would still allow a bike to fit in front of you, and is worth doing if you can. Colin McKenzie |
New camera scam
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 15:26:11 +0100, Heracles Pollux wrote:
Of course they are. The stop line for cars is before the cycle box. The cycle box is for cycles. And cycles are for ****wits, and thus we close the circle, grasshopper. And coronary heart disease will kill you but not ****wit cyclists. Heck two fallacies in one statement. What a clown you are. |
New camera scam
"steve" wrote in message ... On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 23:51:48 +0100, John Rowland wrote: The City Of London Police have announced that they will prosecute not only drivers who go through the final stop line when the traffic light is reds, but also drivers who go through the initial stop line before the cycle box. This makes it noticeably harder to stop legally during the amber phase. If driving is too hard for you then don't. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Exterminate all cyclists kill them & plough them back into our sacred soil ,I will not cease from mental fight, Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand, Till we have built Jerusalem In England's green and pleasant land. |
New camera scam
"Nick Finnigan" wrote in message Ian wrote: "Nick Finnigan" wrote in message Walter has posted HC rule 154 which shows it is legal. If vehicles are close together, one will generally have proceeded over the first white line at the time the signal turns red. Only if the driver ignores the meaning of an amber traffic light. You seem to have a different interpretation of the regs to me, and I can't see why, so here a simpler example: You are driving (a motor vehicle) at a safe and legal speed, with no other vehicles moving in your direction for 200 yards, approaching some (green) traffic lights which have these two stop lines in front of them. Then the lights change to amber; you move your foot to cover the brake pedal, and realize that you can not (physically, and so safely) stop before reaching the first stop line. You can, however, stop safely before passing the second stop line. You can also get past the second stop line before the lights change to red (based on experience). What legal options do you have? Which is the best one? Legally you should stop at the second stop line. That is what it says in TSRGD2002 Section 5 paragraph 43 (b). As I understand it, red light cameras are normally only active a few seconds after the red light has come on and they are activated by movement. They take two photos with a gap between them to prove motion. So a red light camera wouldn't detect a stationary vehicle in the cycle box. To be detected it would need to cross the first line a few seconds after the red light came on. Ian |
New camera scam
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006, VW wrote:
Exterminate all cyclists kill them & plough them back into our sacred soil, I will not cease from mental fight, Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand, Till we have built Jerusalem In England's green and pleasant land. Isn't there quite a bit of cycling in Jerusalem? They've certainly got a Critical Mass. tom -- this place would be a paradise tomorrow if every department had a supervisor with a sub-machine gun |
New camera scam
Ian wrote:
The rule about cyclists obeying traffic lights has been in the Highway Code even longer, but it is more often than not ignored. I just watched a recording of a debate this week in the House of Lords on the subject of cyclists ignoring traffic law. It sounds like something is going to be done this soon. About time too. Definitely. We see a lot of jokes on here about people wanting to kill cyclists that jump lights, but I see pedestrians shouting at, punching and even pushing cyclists (one or two have fallen off as a result) at a single crossing - the one that featured on London Tonight not so long ago, as it happens. Cyclists are a menace, at least in London, where 80% or more are flouting the law - even if there is a police officer (or, as ITV proved, a camera) looking right at them. As someone who cyclists only occasionally, the quicker these idiots (and they've multiplied since the congestion charge and sky high fuel/transport costs) are dealt with the better for all of us. Especially when I'm nearly hit on the same crossing about two or three times a month. When it comes to road junctions, and they're up against a car, taxi, bus or lorry, I have less concern. If they want to willingly kill themselves then that is up to them. I just hope the driver isn't charged and is suitably compensated for the damage, and cleaning, of their vehicle. Jonathan |
New camera scam
On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 00:03:20 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote:
Isn't there quite a bit of cycling in Jerusalem? They've certainly got a Critical Mass. Not much cycling in Rome, and they have critical masses. |
New camera scam
"Chris Read" wrote in message ... "Chris!" wrote: Chris Read wrote: A much more helpful use of cameras would be to catch those drivers who obstruct pedestrian crossings at traffic light controlled junctions, making pedestrians walk around them whilst they wait for the next green phase. The first step would have to be to make it illegal to stop there ie implie there is a yellow box at all ped crossings See http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/18.htm 168: "In queuing traffic, you should keep the crossing clear." "Should", not "must". |
New camera scam
On 29 Apr 2006 17:33:07 -0700, "Jonathan Morris"
wrote: Definitely. We see a lot of jokes on here about people wanting to kill cyclists that jump lights, but I see pedestrians shouting at, punching and even pushing cyclists (one or two have fallen off as a result) at a single crossing - the one that featured on London Tonight not so long ago, as it happens. Some little scrote decided to try to push me off my bike as I waited at a red light in Farnham yesterday. He obviously didn't expect me to grab him, jump off, and express my general disapproval of that sort of behaviour. He begged me not to damage his new t-shirt, but, sadly, it seemed to get torn... His mates across the road got a good laugh at him though :-) (yoof of today, not very bright, etc etc - when I were a lad in Hull, the people who used to try to knock cyclists off their bikes always had the sense to do it in large groups, just in case the cyclist fought back) -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
New camera scam
Colin McKenzie wrote:
Nick Finnigan wrote: You are driving (a motor vehicle) at a safe and legal speed, with no other vehicles moving in your direction for 200 yards, approaching some (green) traffic lights which have these two stop lines in front of them. Then the lights change to amber; you move your foot to cover the brake pedal, and realize that you can not (physically, and so safely) stop before reaching the first stop line. You can, however, stop safely before passing the second stop line. You can also get past the second stop line before the lights change to red (based on experience). What legal options do you have? Which is the best one? Stop at the second line. Though as the lines are so close together it's rarely as cut and dried as this. Stopping halfway betwen would still allow a bike to fit in front of you, and is worth doing if you can. I believe reversing after stopping would also be legal. |
New camera scam
Ian wrote:
"Nick Finnigan" wrote in message You are driving (a motor vehicle) at a safe and legal speed, with no other vehicles moving in your direction for 200 yards, approaching some (green) traffic lights which have these two stop lines in front of them. Then the lights change to amber; you move your foot to cover the brake pedal, and realize that you can not (physically, and so safely) stop before reaching the first stop line. You can, however, stop safely before passing the second stop line. You can also get past the second stop line before the lights change to red (based on experience). What legal options do you have? Which is the best one? Legally you should stop at the second stop line. That is what it says in TSRGD2002 Section 5 paragraph 43 (b). What makes it not legal to drive past the second stop line on amber? |
New camera scam
Arthur Figgis wrote:
Some little scrote decided to try to push me off my bike as I waited at a red light in Farnham yesterday. He obviously didn't expect me to grab him, jump off, and express my general disapproval of that sort of behaviour. Sounds like he wasn't the brightest lad in the world, but that missing my point a bit. The people I see 'attacking' cyclists (verbally or physically) are only doing it because they're going through red lights on a pedestrian crossing. |
New camera scam
In article , Nick Finnigan wrote:
Ian wrote: "Nick Finnigan" wrote in message You are driving (a motor vehicle) at a safe and legal speed, with no other vehicles moving in your direction for 200 yards, approaching some (green) traffic lights which have these two stop lines in front of them. Then the lights change to amber; you move your foot to cover the brake pedal, and realize that you can not (physically, and so safely) stop before reaching the first stop line. You can, however, stop safely before passing the second stop line. You can also get past the second stop line before the lights change to red (based on experience). What legal options do you have? Which is the best one? Legally you should stop at the second stop line. That is what it says in TSRGD2002 Section 5 paragraph 43 (b). What makes it not legal to drive past the second stop line on amber? TSRGD2002 36(1)(e) "the amber signal shall, when shown alone, convey the same prohibition as the red signal, except that, as respects any vehicle which is so close to the stop line that it cannot safely be stopped without proceeding beyond the stop line, it shall convey the same indication as the green signal or green arrow signal which was shown immediately before it;" For a car, TSGRD2002 43(2)(b) defines "stop line" as being the first stop line, or, if you've passed it, the second stop line. So, if you can's stop safely before the first line, but you can stop safely before the second, that is what you must do. Brian -- * * * * ** * * ** ** * * * ** * * ** * * * * * * * * * * |
New camera scam
"Brian Widdas" wrote in message ... In article , Nick Finnigan wrote: Ian wrote: "Nick Finnigan" wrote in message You are driving (a motor vehicle) at a safe and legal speed, with no other vehicles moving in your direction for 200 yards, approaching some (green) traffic lights which have these two stop lines in front of them. Then the lights change to amber; you move your foot to cover the brake pedal, and realize that you can not (physically, and so safely) stop before reaching the first stop line. You can, however, stop safely before passing the second stop line. You can also get past the second stop line before the lights change to red (based on experience). What legal options do you have? Which is the best one? Legally you should stop at the second stop line. That is what it says in TSRGD2002 Section 5 paragraph 43 (b). What makes it not legal to drive past the second stop line on amber? TSRGD2002 36(1)(e) "the amber signal shall, when shown alone, convey the same prohibition as the red signal, except that, as respects any vehicle which is so close to the stop line that it cannot safely be stopped without proceeding beyond the stop line, it shall convey the same indication as the green signal or green arrow signal which was shown immediately before it;" For a car, TSGRD2002 43(2)(b) defines "stop line" as being the first stop line, or, if you've passed it, the second stop line. So, if you can's stop safely before the first line, but you can stop safely before the second, that is what you must do. And according to the originator of this thread you will get a ticket for doing this. So surely the rule is, if you can't stop in time for the first then you can also legally cross the second. tim |
New camera scam
Brian Widdas wrote:
In article , Nick Finnigan wrote: What makes it not legal to drive past the second stop line on amber? TSRGD2002 36(1)(e) "the amber signal shall, when shown alone, convey the same prohibition as the red signal, except that, as respects any vehicle which is so close to the stop line that it cannot safely be stopped without proceeding beyond the stop line, it shall convey the same indication as the green signal or green arrow signal which was shown immediately before it;" For a car, TSGRD2002 43(2)(b) defines "stop line" as being the first stop line, or, if you've passed it, the second stop line. So, if you can's stop safely before the first line, but you can stop safely before the second, that is what you must do. If you increase your speed before crossing the first line, so that you are not then able to stop (safely) before crossing the second line, you will still be able to obey that rule whilst passing both lines on amber. |
New camera scam
"Brian Widdas" wrote in message In article Nick Finnigan wrote: Ian wrote: "Nick Finnigan" wrote in message You are driving (a motor vehicle) at a safe and legal speed, with no other vehicles moving in your direction for 200 yards, approaching some (green) traffic lights which have these two stop lines in front of them. Then the lights change to amber; you move your foot to cover the brake pedal, and realize that you can not (physically, and so safely) stop before reaching the first stop line. You can, however, stop safely before passing the second stop line. You can also get past the second stop line before the lights change to red (based on experience). What legal options do you have? Which is the best one? Legally you should stop at the second stop line. That is what it says in TSRGD2002 Section 5 paragraph 43 (b). What makes it not legal to drive past the second stop line on amber? TSRGD2002 36(1)(e) "the amber signal shall, when shown alone, convey the same prohibition as the red signal, except that, as respects any vehicle which is so close to the stop line that it cannot safely be stopped without proceeding beyond the stop line, it shall convey the same indication as the green signal or green arrow signal which was shown immediately before it;" For a car, TSGRD2002 43(2)(b) defines "stop line" as being the first stop line, or, if you've passed it, the second stop line. So, if you can's stop safely before the first line, but you can stop safely before the second, that is what you must do. That is how I see it too. Ian |
New camera scam
tim (back at home) wrote:
"Brian Widdas" wrote in message ... In article , Nick Finnigan wrote: Ian wrote: "Nick Finnigan" wrote in message You are driving (a motor vehicle) at a safe and legal speed, with no other vehicles moving in your direction for 200 yards, approaching some (green) traffic lights which have these two stop lines in front of them. Then the lights change to amber; you move your foot to cover the brake pedal, and realize that you can not (physically, and so safely) stop before reaching the first stop line. You can, however, stop safely before passing the second stop line. You can also get past the second stop line before the lights change to red (based on experience). What legal options do you have? Which is the best one? Legally you should stop at the second stop line. That is what it says in TSRGD2002 Section 5 paragraph 43 (b). What makes it not legal to drive past the second stop line on amber? TSRGD2002 36(1)(e) "the amber signal shall, when shown alone, convey the same prohibition as the red signal, except that, as respects any vehicle which is so close to the stop line that it cannot safely be stopped without proceeding beyond the stop line, it shall convey the same indication as the green signal or green arrow signal which was shown immediately before it;" For a car, TSGRD2002 43(2)(b) defines "stop line" as being the first stop line, or, if you've passed it, the second stop line. So, if you can's stop safely before the first line, but you can stop safely before the second, that is what you must do. And according to the originator of this thread you will get a ticket for doing this. So surely the rule is, if you can't stop in time for the first then you can also legally cross the second. No! Why would you deduce the rule from what the originator of this thread wrote (sorry, John, nothing personal!) rather than the actual regulations? Here's what Highway Code Rule 154 has to say on the subject: "Some junctions have advanced stop lines or bus advance areas to allow cycles and buses to be positioned ahead of other traffic. Motorists, including motorcyclists, MUST stop at the first white line reached, and should avoid encroaching on the marked area. If your vehicle has proceeded over the first white line at the time the signal goes red, you MUST stop at the second white line, even if your vehicle is in the marked area." By the way, are there any of those "bus advance areas" in London? -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
New camera scam
In article , tim (back at home) wrote:
For a car, TSGRD2002 43(2)(b) defines "stop line" as being the first stop line, or, if you've passed it, the second stop line. So, if you can's stop safely before the first line, but you can stop safely before the second, that is what you must do. And according to the originator of this thread you will get a ticket for doing this. As I read it, he's saying you'll get a ticket for crossing the first stop line on a red signal. Not for happening to be behind the second stop line at a red. So surely the rule is, if you can't stop in time for the first then you can also legally cross the second. Even if your interpretation was correct, the thing to do would be to appeal any ticket. Brian -- * * * * ** * * ** ** * * * ** * * ** * * * * * * * * * * |
New camera scam
J. Chisholm wrote:
Walter Briscoe wrote: It is EXTREMELY hard to comply with all traffic regulations and the policy of automatic penalties is very hard. As an amateur motor vehicle driver, I get two or three tickets each year. I am currently resisting one. It was depressing that the helpline of the issuing London Borough and several others could not point to the relevant legislation. You are obviously a very amateur driver. I've been driving for 40 years and at one time drove 30k+ miles pa. To date I've had no tickets, fines, endorsements or penalty points. Hear hear. People who complain that they find it difficult to stay within the legal limit are simply announcing how poor their driving skills are. PaulO |
New camera scam
Ian wrote:
"Brian Widdas" wrote in message In article Nick Finnigan wrote: [apologies if this response comes through twice] What makes it not legal to drive past the second stop line on amber? TSRGD2002 36(1)(e) "the amber signal shall, when shown alone, convey the same prohibition as the red signal, except that, as respects any vehicle which is so close to the stop line that it cannot safely be stopped without proceeding beyond the stop line, it shall convey the same indication as the green signal or green arrow signal which was shown immediately before it;" For a car, TSGRD2002 43(2)(b) defines "stop line" as being the first stop line, or, if you've passed it, the second stop line. So, if you can's stop safely before the first line, but you can stop safely before the second, that is what you must do. That is how I see it too. If you increase your speed before crossing the first line, so that you are not then able to stop (safely) before crossing the second line, you will still be able to obey that rule whilst passing both lines on amber. |
New camera scam
In article , Nick Finnigan wrote:
For a car, TSGRD2002 43(2)(b) defines "stop line" as being the first stop line, or, if you've passed it, the second stop line. So, if you can's stop safely before the first line, but you can stop safely before the second, that is what you must do. That is how I see it too. If you increase your speed before crossing the first line, so that you are not then able to stop (safely) before crossing the second line, you will still be able to obey that rule whilst passing both lines on amber. The same can be said about a traffic light with a single stop line. In either event, you risk inviting the attention of the local constabulary, who might fancy a little chat about your driving. Brian -- * * * * ** * * ** ** * * * ** * * ** * * * * * * * * * * |
New camera scam
In article , Nick Finnigan
writes "the amber signal shall, when shown alone, convey the same prohibition as the red signal, except that, as respects any vehicle which is so close to the stop line that it cannot safely be stopped without proceeding beyond the stop line, it shall convey the same indication as the green signal or green arrow signal which was shown immediately before it;" If you increase your speed before crossing the first line, so that you are not then able to stop (safely) before crossing the second line, you will still be able to obey that rule whilst passing both lines on amber. If you increase your speed after the light turns amber, and could have stopped at either line if you hadn't increased your speed, then you have broken the prohibition. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
New camera scam
Tom Anderson wrote: On Sat, 29 Apr 2006, VW wrote: Exterminate all cyclists kill them & plough them back into our sacred soil, I will not cease from mental fight, Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand, Till we have built Jerusalem In England's green and pleasant land. Isn't there quite a bit of cycling in Jerusalem? They've certainly got a Critical Mass. although Jerusalem is very hilly so cycling there is quite tough. |
New camera scam
Jonathan Morris wrote: Ian wrote: The rule about cyclists obeying traffic lights has been in the Highway Code even longer, but it is more often than not ignored. I just watched a recording of a debate this week in the House of Lords on the subject of cyclists ignoring traffic law. It sounds like something is going to be done this soon. About time too. Definitely. We see a lot of jokes on here about people wanting to kill cyclists that jump lights, but I see pedestrians shouting at, punching and even pushing cyclists (one or two have fallen off as a result) at a single crossing - the one that featured on London Tonight not so long ago, as it happens. Cyclists are a menace, at least in London, where 80% or more are flouting the law - even if there is a police officer (or, as ITV proved, a camera) looking right at them. As someone who cyclists only occasionally, the quicker these idiots (and they've multiplied since the congestion charge and sky high fuel/transport costs) are dealt with the better for all of us. Especially when I'm nearly hit on the same crossing about two or three times a month. And how about the pedestrians that just jump out into the road in front of cyclists, regardless of the colour of the light or even when there is no light at all. Or leap out at the junction the moment the signal turns amber. Remember that a cyclist will often take longer to cross a junction, so may well have started to cross on a green signal but not complete yet when the signal is red, particularly if the junction is on a hill. And a cyclist who has sweated away to build up the momentum to reach a traffic light is unlikely to do an emergency stop as the signal turns amber right in his face. (And remember the cyclist is MUCH closer to the junction at this time). |
New camera scam
Earl Purple wrote:
And how about the pedestrians that just jump out into the road in front of cyclists, regardless of the colour of the light or even when there is no light at all. Or leap out at the junction the moment the signal turns amber. And what about them? I'm only talking about the MAJORITY of cyclists that weave through, or simply fly through at high speed, red lights at crossings and junctions. Of course we can have a separate argument about idiotic pedestrians, but I can't see how two wrongs would make a right. It is of course the sad fact that a pedestrian still has right of way, but my belief is that they're fair game if they wander into a busy road without looking. Remember that a cyclist will often take longer to cross a junction, so may well have started to cross on a green signal but not complete yet when the signal is red, particularly if the junction is on a hill. Yes, but that doesn't apply to the crossing on the Clerkenwell Road where they're on a flat open road and simply ignore the lights altogether. They only stop when crossing Farringdon Road if they can see a car or bus about to hit them. They also turn left/right without permission and, again, cut pedestrians up who aren't expecting them to go against the 'no xx turn' markings. Still, some cyclists take heed of the signs and simply use the pavement instead. And a cyclist who has sweated away to build up the momentum to reach a traffic light is unlikely to do an emergency stop as the signal turns amber right in his face. (And remember the cyclist is MUCH closer to the junction at this time). When I read that, I suddenly feel compelled to feel sorry for all the people that nearly hit me, and DO hit others on an almost daily basis. Then I realise that your examples don't apply in these situations! Please bear in mind that I understand what you're saying, and cycle myself, but unlike you I feel no desire to defend the actions of these idiots that, sadly, in London make up the majority. Jonathan |
New camera scam
On 29/4/06 21:44, in article
, "Colin McKenzie" wrote: What legal options do you have? Which is the best one? Thinking time is a big factor in stopping distances if my Highway Code is to be believed. I wonder how much extra thinking time is required to judge safe stopping distances to a line 5m in advance of a light that's gone amber (as opposed to judging a safe stopping distance to the light itself)? -- U n d e r a c h i e v e r _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
New camera scam
"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
... Ian wrote in : If you have difficulty stopping at the correct line you shouldn't be driving. In my experience, in wet weather (when the road is shiny) or at night, it's very hard to see that there's a cycle box from a distance so you plan your braking based on the assumption that the stop line is level with the traffic light pole. Then as you get closer, you suddenly discover that you need to stop further back that you'd anticipated. The solution to this is to move the traffic light poles back so they are level with the car stop line. Or, even easier, for drivers to assume there is a box. Problem solved. |
New camera scam
"Stuart Gray" wrote in message
. 109.145... "J. Chisholm" wrote in news:e2t8v3$nd6$1 @gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk: You are obviously a very amateur driver. I've been driving for 40 years and at one time drove 30k+ miles pa. To date I've had no tickets, fines, endorsements or penalty points. Jim Chisholm If it takes you a year to do 30k miles, you are obviously a slow driver, hence the lack of tickets, fines, endorsements or penalty points. Does everyone spend the exact same amount of time driving a car, in zones of the same speed limit, all year? :) -- Stuart "end user" v. A command regrettably not implemented in most systems. |
New camera scam
Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
In article , Nick Finnigan writes "the amber signal shall, when shown alone, convey the same prohibition as the red signal, except that, as respects any vehicle which is so close to the stop line that it cannot safely be stopped without proceeding beyond the stop line, it shall convey the same indication as the green signal or green arrow signal which was shown immediately before it;" If you increase your speed before crossing the first line, so that you are not then able to stop (safely) before crossing the second line, you will still be able to obey that rule whilst passing both lines on amber. If you increase your speed after the light turns amber, and could have stopped at either line if you hadn't increased your speed, then you have broken the prohibition. No you haven't; that is not what the rules say. |
New camera scam
On Tue, 2 May 2006, d wrote:
"Martin Underwood" wrote in message ... Ian wrote in : If you have difficulty stopping at the correct line you shouldn't be driving. In my experience, in wet weather (when the road is shiny) or at night, it's very hard to see that there's a cycle box from a distance so you plan your braking based on the assumption that the stop line is level with the traffic light pole. Then as you get closer, you suddenly discover that you need to stop further back that you'd anticipated. The solution to this is to move the traffic light poles back so they are level with the car stop line. Or, even easier, for drivers to assume there is a box. Problem solved. Good god: careful, defensive driving - are you mad? I do think it's be a good idea to have some sort of sign on lights that indicated that there was a box, though, so drivers could tell it was there even if it was covered in traffic. Personally, i'd like the same for filter lanes - many is the time i've been riding into a junction and suddenly found myself on top of a huge white arrow telling me 'if you try to turn here, you will be killed'. Why not let cars cross the front line of a bike box on red? Or on amber, at least. That gives cars which are in the box when the lights change a chance to get out of it, making it much more useful to cyclists, and less irritating for drivers. If the timing of the lights was worked out appropriately, i don't see that this would need to be any more dangerous than the present situation. Oh, and somebody suggested making bike boxes and pedestrian crossings effectively box junctions - i'd certainly agree with that. tom -- Civis Britannicus sum. |
New camera scam
Jonathan Morris wrote: Yes, but that doesn't apply to the crossing on the Clerkenwell Road where they're on a flat open road and simply ignore the lights altogether. They only stop when crossing Farringdon Road if they can see a car or bus about to hit them. They also turn left/right without permission and, again, cut pedestrians up who aren't expecting them to go against the 'no xx turn' markings. If a cyclist wishes to turn left at a no-left-turn sign (not into a one-way street) they should technically dismount, manoeuvre the bike on foot and then remount. That would be a legal manouevre. I know Clerkenwell Road reasonably well - full of traffic lights with pedestrian phases. Enough to frustrate anyone. I wonder how they are phased for cycles? Still, a cyclist always has the option of crossing at a pedestrian phase by wheeling the bike across. |
New camera scam
In message . com, Earl
Purple writes I know Clerkenwell Road reasonably well - full of traffic lights with pedestrian phases. Enough to frustrate anyone. I wonder how they are phased for cycles? Still, a cyclist always has the option of crossing at a pedestrian phase by wheeling the bike across. S/he also has the option of leaving said dangerous machine (bike) at home and getting P.T. like everyone else. -- Clive |
New camera scam
In message om, Earl
Purple writes Remember that a cyclist will often take longer to cross a junction, so may well have started to cross on a green signal but not complete yet when the signal is red, particularly if the junction is on a hill. And a cyclist who has sweated away to build up the momentum to reach a traffic light is unlikely to do an emergency stop as the signal turns amber right in his face. (And remember the cyclist is MUCH closer to the junction at this time). Not all, but most cyclists are ignorant pigs who think they can get away with murder. Whether sweating or no to get to a junction, a red light is a red light and means stop. Ban every cyclist that breaks the law, they don't pay anything towards the road network and just complain about the cycle tracks that have been constructed for their use. -- Clive |
New camera scam
In ,
Clive said: Not all, but most cyclists are ignorant pigs who think they can get away with murder. Whether sweating or no to get to a junction, a red light is a red light and means stop. Ban every cyclist that breaks the law, they don't pay anything towards the road network and just complain about the cycle tracks that have been constructed for their use. Like the man said, "The old ones are the best". Can't you come up with any new reasons for getting cyclists off the road? |
New camera scam
In message , Brimstone
writes "The old ones are the best". Can't you come up with any new reasons for getting cyclists off the road? I don't know what man you're on about, but I do know what pests cyclists are, and should be banned from all public areas. -- Clive |
New camera scam
In ,
Clive said: In message , Brimstone writes "The old ones are the best". Can't you come up with any new reasons for getting cyclists off the road? I don't know what man you're on about, but I do know what pests cyclists are, and should be banned from all public areas. Oh dear, don't some people go on. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:43 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk