[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?