Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Londoner to challenge red light fixed penalty notice after appeal raises £2300 for legal fees

Alex Paxton issued fine after moving ahead of occupied advanced stop box

A 27-year-old rider who was issued a fixed-penalty notice for stopping in front of an advanced stop box occupied by a car is appealing the fine after donors kicked in over £2000 to help with his legal fees.

Alex Paxton was issued the notice for allegedly jumping a red light last month. He had positioned himself ahead of an advanced stop box blocked by a motorist at the junction of Fulham High Street and New King’s Road in London.

Alex had intended to position himself in the cyclists’ box in order to turn right. In order to avoid having to cross  three lanes of moving traffic, he decided to position himself ahead of the traffic and ahead of the advanced stop line (ASL).

A police officer witnessed the alleged offence and radioed a colleague, who stopped Alex along the road he had turned into and gave him the fixed-penalty notice. Having not seen the incident, the officer that issued the fine could not assess the greater risk Alex would have been in had he positioned himself behind the white line. Alex was unaware whether the car driver had also been given a fixed-penalty notice.

Unlike many cyclists who begrudgingly pay fixed-penalty notices, Alex decided to contest it in court after receiving advice from the Cyclists’ Defence Fund.

An appeal set up to raise the £2,000 that the case is estimated to cost exceeded the target in just 4 days and has now raised over £2,300.

Alex said: “My resolve probably would have faltered taking this to court had there not been such overwhelming support from fellow cyclists to back my case.”

Advanced Stop Lines are suposed to make junctions safer for cyclists by allowing them to move away ahead of motor vehicles. However, cyclists are only supposed to access advanced stop boxes via filter lanes or dotted access lines on the box, and the law is unclear on how cyclists are supposed to act if they find a box occupied.

Rhia Weston, CTC’s Road Justice campaigner said: “The Department for Transport plans to make amendments to the regulation governing ASLs to overcome the problems of accessing ASLs. The fact that such changes are in the pipeline gives hope that the DfT will also clarify the law governing what a cyclist should do if an ASL is illegally occupied by a vehicle.

“CDF agreed to support his legal challenge on the basis that it could set a legal precedent around the enforcement of ASLs.”

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

Avatar
felixcat replied to Goldfever4 | 11 years ago
0 likes

The law about ASLs is a bit of a mess.
If a cyclist filters up a cycle lane in order to reach an ASL and then move across it in order to make a right turn, (as I understand this one did) but finds the ASL full of motors, what should they do? Turning across the front of the vehicles as they accelerate is suicidal, and could lead to the classic left hook so often reported here and elsewhere. Waiting out the light cycle for the next red may be the only legal course left to the cyclist.
This cyclist's action seems to me a sensible compromise, safer even though technically illegal.
There is another problem with ASLs, even when they are not full of cars. If one reaches the ASL and begins to move across it for a right turn just as the light turns green, one is in a tricky position.

Avatar
Ush replied to Goldfever4 | 11 years ago
0 likes
Goldfever4 wrote:

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.

I disagree strongly. Alex's actions seem prudent and reasonable and the officer that radioed in a colleague to complain about this is at best a time-waster. Hope Alex wins.

Avatar
hoski replied to Goldfever4 | 11 years ago
0 likes
Goldfever4 wrote:

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.

First, pleased don't confuse law with morality.

In this instance there may not have even been a single 'wrong'. The car may have entered the ASL whilst the light was green. From the description of events the cyclist took a reasonable action to ensure their own safety.

The whole point of being able to challenge a FPN is to correct situations where a regulation doesn't cover the complexity of specific circumstance, or where an error has been made.

Avatar
kie7077 replied to Goldfever4 | 11 years ago
0 likes

I agree, 2 wrongs don't make a right, but since he was simply doing the safest thing possible - that's not a wrong so your statement doesnt apply here.

Also, laws aren't always right.

Also, it looks as though he may have acted legally anyway.

Pages

Latest Comments