[Closed] £60 fines and CCTV crackdown on drivers who stop in bike boxes at lights

Is Andrew Gilligan now in charge of 'Sexing Up' cycling in London then? What could possibly go wrong?

tbh, they're not that much of a problem IME, you just sit ahead of the green box.
Mobile phones while driving, accelerating through orange/red, close passes and left hooks are far more dangerous to people cycling in London..

Good PR, easy to do, probably doesn't cost much to set up, and will be a nice revenue stream. Doubt this would even make the top 10 in a cyclists list of dangerous driving practices though.

Edit: Also, WTF is that yellow thing in the photo?

Dear god no. What happens when someone in a car cant stop before the first stop line? Are they going to be encouraged to batter on through the now red light or are they going to be allowed to stop in the box before the 2nd stop line as they are at present?

daft idea.
sometimes cars end up in the ASL, not because they're being pushy but because the traffic has come to a standstill as they're going through and they've got stuck. this will just encourage people to keep going through the reds.

EDIT: what ^^^^^ he said

Superb. I reckon the number of drivers that ignore the boxes and park in them has increased dramatically recently (last year or so). On my south london commute anyway. I'm all for this.

Dear god no. What happens when someone in a car cant stop before the first stop line? Are they going to be encouraged to batter on through the now red light or are they going to be allowed to stop in the box before the 2nd stop line as they are at present?

Are you suggesting it is safer to only partially jump a red. If a cyclist has stopped in the box they get hit in either scenario

when someone in a car can't stop before the first stop line

Amber light should help. That and treat the ASLs as hatched areas. Simple.
Seems like a good idea to me, even if it is just a money-spinner for TfL

If you can't stop safely you treat the ASL as a second stop line Junkyard. Hopefully they will only fine those who deliberately roll into them (which will cover most drivers)

Mobile phones while driving, accelerating through orange/red, close passes and left hooks are far more dangerous to people cycling in London..

Perhaps at some point we will realise that points, fines and cameras don't really help. Police might

If you can't stop safely you treat the ASL as a second stop line Junkyard. Hopefully they will only fine those who deliberately roll into them (which will cover most drivers)

If you can't stop safely before the stop line you're clearly doing something wrong. If lights went straight from green to red then maybe fair enough, fortunately we have that amber light in-between so really there is no excuse.

Exactly. The stop line is a stop line, whether its next to the traffic lights, or 8ft before. If there's only 1 stop line, you wouldn't expect traffic to cross it on red would you?

Money-creating idea, a bit like the box-junctions lights.

If it also impacts m/c's I'm glad I'm no longer commuting on one.

Its also likely to piss motorists off further against us cyclists. They wont view it rationally, just as another thing we have and they don't, because we don't pay road tax yadda yadda yadda etc foam, wibble.

your a driver, your under LICENCE, you do not have a god given right to drive.

If your driving according to the law you have nothing to worry about.

money creating?

I thought the myth of traffic cameras being revenue generators had been debunked when councils started turning them off because they cost too much to run in the austere times

I think its a good idea

on busy days in london ASLs can have 10,20 cyclists sitting in them

might also help with the problem of lorries turning left etc

The war on motorists continues.

Mobile phones while driving, accelerating through orange/red, close passes and left hooks are far more dangerous to people cycling in London..

I'm not a Londonist, but as someone who rides a bicycle on UK roads (we've got them outside of the capital too now!) I'd have to say Drivers using Mobiles, and close passing are way further up my list of gripes than Range rovers drifting over the odd ASL...

TBH a statement like one this just feels like a [I]"Low hanging fruit"[/I] exercise.

Essentially it's a promise to shift responsibility to TFL and make a more a more concerted effort to enforce one of the more minor points of road traffic law, while still failing to enforce some of the more significant elements. All to demonstrate a bit of political alignment with bicyclists in the Capital just as a reminder that Boris (& Co) still apparently care...

I'd be interested to know if TFL are getting any extra funding for the CCTV monitoring and enforcement of ASL's? They would basically be taking over a job the MET can't really be arsed with, so there must be some additional work / cost involved...
And if so is this an effective use of apparently restricted public funds?

If you're going to spend money on some sort of automated CCTV, evidence gathering and enforcement system, develop one that catches motorists using their mobiles while driving!

The war on motorists continues.

Somewhat melodramatic....

The highway code is pretty clear on the matter see rules 175, 176 and 178.

https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/road-junctions-170-to-183

If your driving according to the law [b]in the 5 places where cameras will actually be looking then[/b] you have nothing to worry about.

Camera monitoring has no judgement just absolutes which leads to a lack of respect for it.

Amber light should help.

That and treat the ASLs as hatched areas

Money-creating idea, a bit like the box-junctions lights.

hora - Member

The war on motorists continues.

So as well as having to avoid going into a box junction, not making any u-turns, cameras at lights, various cameras for infringements everywhere if you are in fairly heavy traffic and any part of your car is left in the box you are now fined?

Its inevitable for any honest decent motorist- the vast majority of the ones who will be caught wont be anti-cyclists but it WILL be a good revenue stream.

I was fined £70 by Hammersmith & Fulham for an illegal u-turn- big wide open road on a quiet Sunday morning towards BBC/White City. I went back- no official no Uturn highway signs, just a small council one.

****ers.

if you are in fairly heavy traffic and any part of your car is left in the box you are now fined?

The other main problem with road makings in heavy traffic is they get painted on the actual road 🙂 under the cars. Better signs are probably needed, move the lights back and give the cyclists a bike light ahead of the crowd. Though that might cost money so ignore that

Then there are the bus lane cameras. In some parts of Manchester seeing a regular bus on a route is an enigma- yet most of them now are covered by CCTV/fines in rush hour. Half the road space but don't utilise, thats joined-up thinking for you 🙄

So as well as having to avoid going into a box junction, not making any u-turns, cameras at lights, various cameras for infringements everywhere if you are in fairly heavy traffic and any part of your car is left in the box you are now fined?

Its inevitable for any honest decent motorist- the vast majority of the ones who will be caught wont be anti-cyclists but it WILL be a good revenue stream.

I was fined £70 by Hammersmith & Fulham for an illegal u-turn- big wide open road on a quiet Sunday morning towards BBC/White City. I went back- no official no Uturn highway signs, just a small council one.

Terrible innit!

It's enough to make people want to take up cycling or something...

I always thought U-turns were basically illegal, irrespective of the presence of a sign telling you so...

The other main problem with road makings in heavy traffic is they get painted on the actual road

There've got to be some trolls on here, so I'm going to stop contributing.

The fact is, TfL are going to penalise drivers for breaking the law. Only those drivers who break the law will get penalised. I fail to see how that's a problem.

Yes, there are other (road) laws that get broken and are dangerous, but there seems to be a fairly easy way of monitoring and catching guilty drivers on this one, so why not?

So as well as having to avoid going into a box junction

Read the highway code, you can enter them as long as your exit is clear, otherwise they'd have to say no right turns (or stop oncoming trafic).

bus lane cameras. In some parts of Manchester seeing a regular bus on a route is an enigma

Maybe because the busses get to where they're going rather than sitting in traffic?

so why not?

Doubt this would even make the top 10 in a cyclists list of dangerous driving practices though.

Traffic enforcement has nothing to do with what's needed, but what's easy. If this follows the speed camera policy then pretty soon we'll be hearing that "two thirds of accidents are caused by encroaching on an ASL".

(Seeing as ASL rules are so vital to road safety, they'll also be looking to fine cyclists who enter them through the solid line, yes..? 😉 )

The user group totally forgotten here is motorcyclists. What would the cyclists here prefer them to do when they filter to the front? (And bear in mind you might be behind them when they do.)

I was fined £70 by Hammersmith & Fulham for an illegal u-turn- big wide open road on a quiet Sunday morning towards BBC/White City. I went back- no official no Uturn highway signs, just a small council one.

If the signs present didn't comply with the diagram below then challenge the fine.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/images/uksi_20023113_en_034

What would the cyclists here prefer them to do when they filter to the front?

personally I dunno about motorbikes in bus lanes/asls, seems reasonable for them to use them i guess, but no idea what the arguments against are.

(Seeing as ASL rules are so vital to road safety, they'll also be looking to fine cyclists who enter them through the solid line, yes..? )

Bunny hop the line, problem solved... 😉

The fact is, TfL are going to penalise drivers for breaking the law. Only those drivers who break the law will get penalised. I fail to see how that's a problem.

The fact is that the MET are already supposed to be doing this.
The mayor's office proposal is actually to transfer responsibility for detection and enforcement of a specific (Low level) motoring offence from the police to a regional transport authority, apparently as a means of bolstering their funding...

It's not about enforcing the law or making roads safer (catching Mobile using Drivers would be a far better way to do that), it's about creating a new source of funding for a public body...

[i]If you can't stop safely before the stop line you're clearly doing something wrong. If lights went straight from green to red then maybe fair enough, fortunately we have that amber light in-between so really there is no excuse.[/i]

You have to decide to stop or continue during that amber...I can make that decision. But then they add another stop line five metres further away. Where pre-ASL it would have been fine to continue through on amber, now you'd be cheeky and cutting the red very close on the second stop line. Its not an offence to cross the first stop line on amber and wait at the second line if it would have been unsafe to attempt to stop at the first, so hopefully they will just prosecute those who deliberately stop in the box through laziness/ignorance.

well both are jumping the red light what is your point caller?

What about the situation where stopping for the first stop line would be an emergency stop and dangerous, but stopping for the second one would be safe? Do they just batter on through?

Also - what does an amber light mean?

how do red light cameras work? do they go off just because you are infront of a line, or do they go off if you drive past the line?

IS there a trigger in the road surface that sets off the camera?

Yes the police should be more obvious and pull up drivers using phones etc, the reality is it is not going to happen. So the more drivers are hit for breaking the law the better. Too many drivers think they have a god given right to use the road. Anything that makes them think is good. I am still amazed by the number of drivers who whinge when they are caught speeding. 90% of the time if they had been looking where they were going they would have seen the bright yellow camera or the big transit parked by the side of the road, or more crucially if they had bothered to look at the dial on the dashboard that tells them how fast they are going they wouldn't have to worry!!!!!!

As for the crap about having to many places to look and concentrating on the speedo not the road, highway code is quite clear, drive according to the conditions. If you can't check the speed your traveling at because there is too much going on around you, maybe, just maybe you should think about going SLOWER!!!!!

the speed limit is a LIMIT!!!!

Maybe there should be compulsary tacho's/blackboxes in all cars?

I know I said I wasn't going to comment any more but:

Its not an offence to cross the first stop line on amber

Highway Code begs to differ:

[i][b]178[/b]

Advanced stop lines. Some signal-controlled junctions have advanced stop lines to allow cycles to be positioned ahead of other traffic. Motorists, including motorcyclists, [b]MUST stop at the first white line reached if the lights are amber or red[/b] and should avoid blocking the way or encroaching on the marked area at other times[/i]

Amber light means accelerate.

Traffic lights would be better if they got rid of Amber's completely and made the green lights come on 3seconds before the green light on the opposing side of the junction switched to red.

Everyone would then be far more circumspect at them.

On my ride it this morning every bike box had at least 2 vehicles (taxis, vans and buses) partially of fully inside them.

Hopefully the money generated will go to improving cycling in London I'm all for it.

The other main problem with road makings in heavy traffic is they get painted on the actual road

Most people driving who do this drive for a/as part of their living, they know they're there but choose to ignore them. So they deserve a fine as far as I'm concerned.

Amber light means accelerate.

True, they only stop when the other side's on green.

This is total rubbish, I don't see how they can bring this in without altering the traffic lights. Amber lights are timed so from a certain distance you have enough time to stop before you go through the lights. Unless they change the timings or move the lights this will just encourage more dangerous acceleration through amber, since the stopping distance will be so much shorter.

If they do make suitable changes, fair enough. But I cycle in London from time to time and the boxes are the least of my worries. It's less about catching bad drivers and more about catching innocent mistakes these days. Everybody makes them, except now we have to pay.

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.[b] 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.[/b]

https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/road-junctions-170-to-183
/p>

[img] [/img]

What about the situation where stopping for the first stop line would be an emergency stop and dangerous, but stopping for the second one would be safe?

Amber light means accelerate.

Well quoted Glupton.

I don't know what hora's whinging about here:

if you are in fairly heavy traffic and any part of your car is left in the box you are now fined?

What's the problem?

See above.

[img] [/img]

And also, please remember that if (while the light is red) you enter the ASL on a bike without using the filter lane, or you enter one like this: http://goo.gl/maps/HRjty that doesn't have a filter lane then you're breaking the law. (Crossing the solid white line, even on a bike, is illegal while the light is red)

I don't know if there are any like that in London but will other councils be able to rake in fines from cyclists, who use the 'not legal' infrastructure that the council has built?

Edit: Mind you, the same council also came up with this bit of crystal clear bike signage, so they're not exactly a beacon of good design. http://goo.gl/maps/kkoVb

I'm all in favour of this - it's a red light jump, it should be discouraged.

And for those asking what motorcyclists should do - they should not filter to the front unless it's safe to do so. After several close calls with motorcyclists either cutting into ASL's without looking, or trying to turn left after pulling into the right side of the ASL (or vice versa), they're absolutely a danger to cyclists.

If you're 'caught' in the box when the lights turn red because you're in nose-to-tail traffic then you've done nothing wrong [b]so no fine.[/b]

The fact is that the MET are already supposed to be doing this.

https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/road-junctions-170-to-183
br />
highway code, crystal clear as ever.

Junkyard...sorry mate... I was being ironic....I know what amber means, but my experience at traffic lights suggests that many others take it as a cue to accelerate.

I agree that in some places this is essential but accidents do happen, why not clear things right up and make it a yellow hatched box.

However the cyclist v's motorist debate is getting boring now,not all car/van/truck drivers are out to get us, and accidents do happen. IF we want to enforce the highway code to the word we need to start setting an example too.

I was out with a group the other day and very few signaled in traffic, even less gave time for manovours and i saw a few cars cut up then the cyclists get arsey with the motorist. and the unwillingness of a lot of cyclist especially on Yorkshire's b roads to unbuch creating room is ridiculous.

I wont be riding with that group again.

got sauce? Didn't see any mention of that in the article

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[b]. 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.[/b]

And if you want to look for the law itself

Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10, 36(1) & 43(2)

It's not in the article because there's not really any need, it's not against the law, never has been, so no fine.

Junkyard...sorry mate... I was being ironic.

Glumpton you have moved the goalposts

What about the situation where stopping for the first stop line would be an emergency stop and dangerous, but stopping for the second one would be safe? Do they just batter on through?

[b] Motorists, including motorcyclists, MUST stop at the first white line reached if the lights are amber or red[/b]

Would you like to discuss the initial scenario you were or stay smug about a different one?

I would assume the situation above [ you are excited about]relates to slow moving in traffic jams as I fail to see how you could stop between the first and the second box given they are about 5 feet apart

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are actually being serious

fair enough bails, the article mentioned something about changing the legalities of it wasn't sure whether they were going to change that bit aswell.

I would assume the situation above [ you are excited about]relates to slow moving in traffic jams as I fail to see how you could stop between the first and the second box given they are about 5 feet apart

That's not something I would assume. In fact it's the opposite to what I'd do. If traffic is moving slowly I'd stay behind the first stop line until the junction was clear.

[i]Read the highway code, you can enter them as long as your exit is clear, otherwise they'd have to say no right turns (or stop oncoming trafic).[/i]

READ THE HIGHWAY CODE you say? Maybe you ought to first before quoting incorrect information.

AFAIK You can drive onto a box junction and stop, as long as either your exit is clear or you are the first vehicle.

Hmm, looks like its not only the first vehicle, but I'm pretty sure that use to be the rule.

[i]Rule 174 of The Highway code states the following:

"Box junctions. These have criss-cross yellow lines painted on the road (see 'Road markings'). You MUST NOT enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear. However, you may enter the box and wait when you want to turn right, and are only stopped from doing so by oncoming traffic, or by other vehicles waiting to turn right.
[/i]

SO how does it work?

This:

[i]MUST stop at the first white line reached if the lights are amber or red[/i]

Makes sense.

But to get into this situation:

[i]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[/i]

You've surely broken the first law.

ASLs in London are a joke. I probably find them with only cyclists in them 1 time out of 100. I hope they do this and do it soon.

Motorbikes seem to think the ASL is their own zone and usually push through cyclists to get to the front - thanks your exhaust tastes lovely 🙄

Buses are pretty much always in them and often over the other stop line as well. Delivery vans will normally be fully parked in them. Taxis are variable - some obey, some do not. Private hires always stop in them. I have heard some choice comments mentioned to drivers in them. A favourite was a courier telling an Addison Lee driver that he shouldn't be there, but the next time he sees a picture of a 'fat ****' painted on the raod, he could park on that

Bandito: not if the traffic is moving very slowly.

So the light is green and you cross the first line and put your car completely within the box and stop, because the car in front of you is stopped.

Then the light goes amber->red. You're in the box but you didn't cross the first line while it was red so it's okay.

[b]b r[/b]: No idea what you're talking about tbh, you tell someone they're quoting 'incorrect information', then repeat what they've said in a verbatim copy from the Highway Code 😕

And for those asking what motorcyclists should do - they should not filter to the front unless it's safe to do so.

So filter and stop between the cars, no big deal for them, they can get free and clear. And if you followed them on a bicycle and got stuck between two queues of traffic, well that was a situation you should have seen coming.

You probably couldn't legally enter the ASL from that point anyway without crossing a solid white.

If the law is the law and no moaning, then they should target the most flagrant ASL rule breakers of them all first - cyslists!! Everyday I see dozens enter each ASL straight through the solid white line.

bails

It says you can stop in a boxed junction as long as you are turning right and your exit is blocked. Its quite clear, and has pretty much been so as long as I can remember (been driving over 30 years).

[i]Motorbikes seem to think the ASL is their own zone and usually push through cyclists to get to the front - thanks your exhaust tastes lovely [/i]

But we are there for the same reason as you, safety and an ability to accelerate out of the way.

[i]So filter and stop between the cars, no big deal for them, they can get free and clear[/i]

So we can get squashed? You've never ridden a m/c I take it?

bails

It says you can stop in a boxed junction as long as you are turning right and your exit is blocked. Its quite clear, and has pretty much been so as long as I can remember (been driving over 30 years).

Right...I know.

But when [b]thisisnotaspoon[/b] said that, you told him he was wrong. Hence my 'confused' face.

"[b]Read the highway code, you can enter them as long as your exit is clear, otherwise they'd have to say no right turns (or stop oncoming trafic).
[/b]"
READ THE HIGHWAY CODE you say? Maybe you ought to first before quoting incorrect information.

EDIT: Maybe I misunderstood what he was saying about the right turns. We agree, anyway!

But we are there for the same reason as you, safety and an ability to accelerate out of the way.

So sit at the back of it then, not infront of the cyclists

So filter and stop between the cars, no big deal for them, they can get free and clear

So we can get squashed? You've never ridden a m/c I take it?

Commute on one every day, ridden for over twenty years. I was trying to make the point that in a lot of circumstances a motorcycle refusing to enter an ASL is worse for cyclists than the biker, as they end up stuck behind him.

But we are there for the same reason as you, safety and an ability to accelerate out of the way.

So sit at the back of it then, not infront of the cyclists

So you'd rather we accelerated past/between you once you'd started wobbling along, not eased through while you're stationary?

Right - here's the deal in words that you can all understand.

Some rules of the road:
You don't drive like a muppet,
Emergency stops are for emergencies only (lights changing to amber when you are less than you are less than a safe stopping distance away from the line is not an emergency),
You drive safely,
You don't do anything that would cause a crash,
You pay attention to the road and everything around you.

Those are absolute givens - You cant stick to those then you shouldn't be on the road. We all in agreement? Good.

You are on a journey which takes in three sets of traffic lights, two have an ASL and the other does not, later on in the journey there are two other junctions with yellow boxes. You are approaching the first set of traffic lights - one with no ASL - you are less than a safe stopping distance from the line when the lights change - you keep on going because it's not an emergency and to stop would see you pass the stop line. You are now approaching the second set of traffic lights - again you are less than a safe stopping distance from the lights when they change - you do not stop at the first line because it would be dangerous and it's not an emergency - you do stop at the second line though because that is far enough away to allow you to stop safely. You are on your way again and are approaching the third set of traffic lights which has an ASL where you are wanting to turn right - there is a yellow box junction and a queue of traffic also waiting to turn right - there is no filter and you are 2nd in the queue. The lights turn to green - the first car goes into the yellow box because all that is preventing them from clearing the yellow box is the oncoming traffic - you stay where you are behind the first stop line because you are not allowed to enter the yellow box and to proceed beyond the first stop line would leave you open to blocking the area reserved for cyclists between the two stop lines. When the car in front clears the yellow box you can take their position if the lights allow. Eventually you clear the junction - you are now faced with another yellow box - this time you want to go straight ahead - there are no traffic lights, but traffic is queuing anyway. The yellow box clears, but there is not enough room to fit your car on the other side of the yellow box - you stay where you are until there is enough room to proceed without stopping with any part of your vehicle in the yellow box. You continue on the rest of your journey safe in the knowledge that you haven't broken any laws.

So you'd rather we accelerated past/between you once you'd started wobbling along, not eased through while you're stationary?

I'd prefer you weren't in the ASL at all in the first place, but if you insist, then I don't to sit there sucking up your exhaust fumes.

As for once the lights have changed, then I'd want you to perform a safe overtake when possible. I certainly don't want you riding like a prize tit and accelerating between cyclists 🙄

personally I dunno about motorbikes in bus lanes/asls, seems reasonable for them to use them i guess, but no idea what the arguments against are.

I'm pretty sure about it. They shouldn't be there. It's no fun at all being buzzed by m-bikes travelling at speed when you're cycling in a bus lane. Likewise getting to an ASL and not being able to enter because it's full of m-bikes.

Amber lights are timed so from a certain distance you have enough time to stop before you go through the lights. Unless they change the timings or move the lights this will just encourage more dangerous acceleration through amber, since the stopping distance will be so much shorter.

There's so much wrong with this statement I'm not even going to comment. It's actually rare to NOT see someone pass the lights on red in London. Sometimes some seconds after the light has changed. MOST of the ASL infringement I see is avoidable and you can be damn sure if people think they'll be fined they'll be a lot more careful.

the 'only enter an ASL through the dotted line' bit is just a red herring. Many ASL's aren't even painted with a dotted line and where there is it's in the gutter on the inside of a potentially left turning traffic lane (remind me how the majority of cyclist deaths occur again?). However, filter down the right of traffic and currently you regularly find yourself stuck on outside since the ASL is blocked (cars or m-bikes).

[url= http://departmentfortransport.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/the-road-to-hell-is-paved-with-asls/ ]Ultimately ASLs are a joke anyway[/url]. They'll be better if they're enforced but they're a minor intervention at best and they can't cope with any volume of cyclists. In the Netherlands they've pretty much disappeared by all accounts - they don't install them now and remove them when junctions are updated.

[i]I'm pretty sure about it. They shouldn't be there. It's no fun at all being buzzed by m-bikes travelling at speed when you're cycling in a bus lane[/i]

You'd just prefer buses and taxis sat on your ar5e then?

I think that having m/c's in bus lanes at least makes other drivers (and pedestrians) take a second look before pulling across them. They don't particularly care about a cyclist, they can't do any damage - but a 250kg m/c is another matter.

the 'only enter an ASL through the dotted line' bit is just a red herring

and I believe that's in the process of being rescinded anyway.

You'd just prefer buses and taxis sat on your ar5e then?

I'd rather have a properly segregated lane without any of them.

Failing that I'd rather just have the buses - easily visible and no chance of them trying to squeeze past when there isn't really enough space. Worst of all are the motorbikes - fast moving, more difficult to see (especially when moving through a line of stationary traffic to get to the bus lane). Take the lane to stop cabs pushing past and they're passing without a lot of space. Rarely seem to obey the speed limit.

Allowing motorbikes to use bus lanes made cycling in them more unpleasant. I've not noticed any positive side benefits.

I certainly don't want you riding like a prize tit and accelerating between cyclists

This +1. If there are m-bikes who wait at the back of the ASL I try to wave them past before the far side of the junction.

I've had people fail tests because they have gone into the " bike box " as I call it, but only when they simply have not braked hard enough and gone over the first line.

The speed on approach was fine but simply going in it " coz me mum does " is not a valid excuse 🙄

( sometimes no matter what you teach them, on test mum knows best " coz I'm on me test ")

Away from work, it really get on my ( well 😉 ) when a vehicle stops in a bike box. It's either they simply do not care, are daft, or don't realise but, majority of times, follow the offending vehicle, and you will see speeding, bad positioning, squeezing through gaps etc so anything they brings these kind of motorists to book is good in my opinion.

On the bike, I went to the side of a people carrier that had stopped in a bike box and deliberately went close to the drivers window. Think I shocked the woman but I said " funny looking bike love " at which point I got told to ...... Off so sums it up althougher. OK I was a bit cheeky, but that reaction was unneeded.

[i]Allowing motorbikes to use bus lanes made cycling in them more unpleasant. I've not noticed any positive side benefits.[/i]

If you rode a m/c you would. Or the opposite, when they take it away (A4127 between A40 and M40).

Anyway, the clue is in the name, Bus Lane. So neither of us has a right to be there, but for both of us been allowed in makes the journey both quicker and safer.

Should us m/c-ists petition TfL to get you cyclists out?

Bus lanes are there for public transport - which is a social good - as it reduces pollution and congestion for a given volume of people. Cycles are allowed in for the same reason.

I can see the advantage of motorbikes for the individual but not for society. Most are excessively noisy, ridden too fast and have pretty poor emissions. I don't deny that there are big advantages for motorcyclists in being allowed to use bus lanes but I think it was a mistake.

The research I saw also seemed to point that the reverse of what you claim is true - made it [url= http://lydall.standard.co.uk/2010/06/motorbikes-in-bus-lanes-make-it-more-dangerous-for-all-on-two-wheels.html ]more dangerous for everyone[/url]

CTC position [url= http://www.ctc.org.uk/campaigning/views-and-briefings/motorcycles-in-bus-lanes ]here[/url]

I was under the impression that if someone drove into my boot, that's their problem: inattention, inadequate gap or whatever.

Has it changed? Is it ok to tailgate now in that there London?

I can see the advantage of motorbikes for the individual but not for society

I don't mind them too much - little L-plate scooters are good for dragging behind. 20mph limits in bus lanes would help - might slow the Streethawk-wannabes down a bit.

I was under the impression that if someone drove into my boot, that's their problem: inattention, inadequate gap or whatever.

That's not a lot of help if you're a cyclist. I've had people give me a blast of horn for not jumping a light that was amber (that in my view I'd have crossed at red) and more than once had people in cars undertake me to jump a red light after I've stopped. Shit, I've seen people undertake other cars to jump red lights on a good number of occasions.

Bus lanes are there for public transport - which is a social good - as it reduces pollution and congestion for a given volume of people. Cycles are allowed in for the same reason.

Weird figures in the linked article:
[i]New research published by Transport for London today found that the collision rate for cyclists using bus lanes increased 273 per cent.
...
Figures also show that, over a 10-month comparison period, the rate of motorbikers being in a collision in a bus lane increased 133 per cent.

[b]But bizarrely the collisions were not between pedal cyclists and bikers - but between vehicles and bikers, and vehicles and cyclists.[/b][/i]

So the motorcycles are making cyclists crash into cars? I doubt there's a causal link. Something like (for an example) introducing more (or even just one more) cycle lanes that run up the left hand side of traffic at busy junctions during that period could account for the increase in cyclist collisions. And the sample sizes these figures are taken from are too small for real statistics, cyclist collisions rose from 7 to 21, for example. That could be a single critical mass ride meeting one white van.

The only negative effect on cyclists from bikers sharing bus lanes is a diminished sense of privilege.

they also have an annoying habit of blocking the gaps they can't squeeze their wing mirrors/ bars through that I can on a bike.

Motorcyles are often a superior solution to cycles,

Altho we seem to be ignoring the taxis which I reckon have even less claim to be using bus lanes, IMO

*having difficulty finding the stats.

Motorcyles are often a superior solution to cycles, they take up a similarly small amount of space and have the same jam busting powers in town with far more useful range and speed outside of it.

but are noisy and polluting.

The only negative effect on cyclists from bikers sharing bus lanes is a diminished sense of privilege.

That's just bollocks. This is actually a cycling forum isn't it? I have to remind myself sometimes. Putting bikes in bus lanes and calling it a cycle facility (Barcrap supershitways) is a bad enough joke to start with. Nowhere else considers that a useful intevention. Privilege? FFS

Even if there is no change in actual safety (which I dispute) there is a definite decrease in perceived safety. I'm an experienced, confidant, cyclist and I dislike intensely being close passed by a fast moving motorbike in a bus lane. It will absolutely have a negative effect on take up of cycling and completely fails the 'would you let an unaccompanied 10 year old' test

It's pretty obvious that some people here haven't actually tried riding bicycles on the road for any length of time.