John has been writing about bikes and cycling for over 30 years since discovering that people were mug enough to pay him for it rather than expecting him to do an honest day's work.
He was heavily involved in the mountain bike boom of the late 1980s as a racer, team manager and race promoter, and that led to writing for Mountain Biking UK magazine shortly after its inception. He got the gig by phoning up the editor and telling him the magazine was rubbish and he could do better. Rather than telling him to get lost, MBUK editor Tym Manley called John’s bluff and the rest is history.
Since then he has worked on MTB Pro magazine and was editor of Maximum Mountain Bike and Australian Mountain Bike magazines, before switching to the web in 2000 to work for CyclingNews.com. Along with road.cc founder Tony Farrelly, John was on the launch team for BikeRadar.com and subsequently became editor in chief of Future Publishing’s group of cycling magazines and websites, including Cycling Plus, MBUK, What Mountain Bike and Procycling.
John has also written for Cyclist magazine, edited the BikeMagic website and was founding editor of TotalWomensCycling.com before handing over to someone far more representative of the site's main audience.
He joined road.cc in 2013. He lives in Cambridge where the lack of hills is more than made up for by the headwinds.
Add new comment
64 comments
and what's this got to do with Fred West?
It'll be tossed due to technicality but that won't actually solve the real legal question
The cop who issued the ticket went on the info supplied by a colleague who witnessed the offence.
You dont know how the cyclist reacted to what he was informed, he may have been completely bolshy or completely denied it or apologetic, you just dont know and because you dont know you cant say the cop didn't act with common sense.
Put it this way from what we DO know from whats printed above i would have given him a ticket, just like i would give anyone a ticket for jumping a red light.
Ever issued a ticket for a car in an ASL?
[[[[[[ Hmmm.. I don't see Stumper addressing this excellent question....is he stumped for an answer?
P.R.
Is his reaction relevant to the correctness or otherwise of issuing the fixed penalty for jumping the red light?
And I think that the whole reason the court case has come about because, whilst the law currently agrees with you, in practical terms it doesn't work. I'm a bit uneasy about having a legal obligation to put myself at risk on the road.
Agree: The reaction of the cyclist has nothing to do with whether or not a ticket should have been issued. I imagine he was, frankly, dumbfounded by ticket. This doesn't warrant a ticket any more or less than being angry, polite, sarcastic or whatever.
Or are we now living in a police state?
I hope he wins the appeal.
The Policeman didn't exercise common sense when issuing the ticket, and seems to have ignored the car in the ASL.
On a multolane road there are suppose to be filter lanes on each lane, but this is rarely the case. I know of plenty of ASLs with no filter lane at all.
Enforcement of ASLs is simple, only a CCTV camera is needed (once the law is changed).
Its a simple question - did he break the law ? the answer is yes, however he does have mitigating circumstances to put to the magistrates, whether those mitigating circumstances are true or not is another matter.
If the account of the rider is correct then is doesn't sound like the police used much discretion which is a shame, since crossing the line on the road is very different to running the junction. Sounds like they were struggling to find enough RLJers to meet their targets that day.
I think advanced stop boxes are a distraction in the cycling facilities argument. As another poster mentions, state of the art cycling facilities don't include ASLs, rather a safe route to the front and an independent phase in the traffic lights for bikes. If they designed the junction properly nobody would run past stop lines or red lights.
Get rid of all ASL's.
They are at best useless, at worse dangerous, ignored by all and enforced by no-one.
The Dutch do not use them because they realised they were a poor solution to the problem.
I agree. Sometimes behaving exactly like any other vehicle is the most prudent thing to do.
Yes. The only problem is, behaving like any other vehicle is too scary for the vast majority of potential cyclists.
My original comment not a call to pay heed to the likes of Forrester & Franklin, in fact quite the opposite.
The ASL is the worst kind of infrastructure solution devised by integrationists that actually gets vulnerable road users killed.
To think that cyclists "behaving exactly like any other vehicle is the most prudent thing to do" is plain daft.
It is actually quite easy to "behave exactly like any other vehicle" especially in these circumstances. All you have to do is what all the other road users around you are doing which is wait in line. Unless there is safe space for you to overtake (preferably not undertake) and you have somewhere safe to land, then just stay put.
Behaving like any other road user, taking your space so that you are visible to others and you can see them, is infinitely a safer way to behave in traffic than weaving in and out of traffic appearing and disappearing out of drivers' views. The latter, in my opinion, is the daft way of behaving.
I would agree with you on ASLs, however as they do put into people's minds the idea that they should get to the front of the traffic come what may.
Stephen
Sounds to me like the PC is not only a Jobsworth but someone with an issue against cyclists. Surely if he spotted this his first concern should have been the car in the ASL?
Nope, thats the easy option though is it.
I think Alex did the SAFE thing - it may not be legally right but is based on the purpose of the ASL - essentially moving himself out in front of the car.
I hope you win Alex, and I hope some does something about the car that blocked the ASL
Sometimes you don't have the option. You filter through traffic only to find the ASL totally blocked. This can leave you in a dangerous situation.
The law allows discretion when your (or someone else's) safety is at risk.
I can imagine that sitting in three lanes of traffic wanting to turn right but unable to position yourself correctly falls into the remit of not feeling safe.
There have been situations where I have done a similar thing - someone else's mistake forces me to choose between a) risk of a serious accident b) minor infringement of the law.
He may have broken the letter of the law but it was in an effort to comply with the spirit of the law concerning cyclists' safety. I don't hold out much hope for his chance of success in court, we all know the level of contempt in which courts hold the safety of cyclists.
Sadly ASL's don't carry nearly the weight they should. A car can park over one if it is stopped there by the lights, but isn't allowed to crawl over it. It makes no sense to me.
But how are you to know the box is occupied until you're up by it? So, so many times I've filtered up stationary traffic when a large vehicle is blocking my view of the box, only to find a car or van occupying it. What should one do then?
I agree with two wrongs not making a right, sitting back is really not dangerous. You get more time to think/react when the light changes for a start!
If you can't see your way out, don't jump blindly in! Filtering to the front is not a requirement. For me personally, squeezing into a gap that's too small regardless of vehicle size, is just as bad an attitude as the most pointless MGIF overtakes by drivers.
It's not Rocket Surgery...!
Have to agree with this. Filtering can be done when safe, but some cyclists see it as a "I must get to the front" no matter how far back they are, I've seen them getting caught between two lanes of traffic as the lights change, which is far more dangerous than just holding back and waiting.
I'm getting a bit fed up of what I would describe as "militant" cyclists. Some of those who post on youtube and think they are doing the right thing by stopping motorists and giving them a warning.
This all leads to a culture of cyclists thinking they know better than the law.
+1 and +1
this happens even when there isnt a large vehicle in the way. even with just a row of cars it is difficult to tell if they decided to edge forwards into the bike box or not.
if i know the lights have only just turned red i will always edge forwards into the box (as i know the lights only just turned red so i have time to get there). if there is a car in the box just sit up along side it's bonnet. the driver cant miss you and you should be able to pull off safely because only an idiot motorist would rev and crash into the back of you the minute the light turns amber/green...
Oh wait.....
Sorry, disagree - two wrongs don't make a right. If there's a vehicle in the advanced box don't just break the law by stopping after the ASL. The fact that another officer issued the fine is a technicality that might get him off, but from the article it seems he has broken the regulations here.
Legalistically, you're right of course. But the attitude still amazes me. Safety always has to come first, and safety for a cyclist is so often a life-and-death matter. I always try to get ahead of traffic at a red light, even if it means going beyond the stop line. And, where an advance stop box exists, it is so often blocked. I don't expect that the motorist at fault in this case suffered any penalty at all.
+1
Pages