# Motorists in advanced stop zone



## wafflycat (29 Jul 2010)

Little article in today's Grauniad

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/29/cycling-advance-stop-line


----------



## summerdays (29 Jul 2010)

A friend of mine asked me last week what the regulations regarding ASL's were ... as she pointed out they didn't exist when she took her test - I'd not really thought about the fact that some motorists weren't sure what to do with them before that. 

Its bad though if the police can't make up their minds about the legality of it!


I have to say that its probably the same as RLJ'ing in that we (cyclists) mention cars infringing them quite a bit but actually when you start to look properly most motorists do obey them but its the significant minority that sticks out in your mind.


----------



## marinyork (29 Jul 2010)

I think the 'wasn't part of my test' and having the rather daft PC Aveling quoted as gospel on other articles on ASLs are feeble distractions. It is most definitely an offence in the very obvious cases we go through. The police don't enforce them because in many situations it's just not worth it. As cycling takes off in more cities and ASLs are slowly getting built as junctions come up for a face lift in the future there will need to be a bit of enforcement at key locations. Locally we had a few people get very excited about the issue and do surveys, personally I think it is a waste of time enforcing those particular ones, that is not to say that it won't change in the future, it probably will.


----------



## 661-Pete (29 Jul 2010)

This only goes to reinforce what's been said time and time again - there's no point to them really.

We had discussions about the legality of cyclists entering the ASL. Apparently that's illegal too, if the cyclist would have to cross the stop line at red. Except when the cyclist goes up a feeder lane which is not traversed by the solid stop line. But all too often (and certainly on the one ASL on my commute) this feeder lane is on the left, putting the cyclist at risk of a left-hook.

I've stopped even giving it a second glance if I see a car in the ASL...


----------



## Riverman (29 Jul 2010)

The only problem with these boxes is it could be argued they can encourage some cyclists to pass cars on the left, rather than just taking the primary, staying back and waiting in the queue behind the other cars. I saw one cyclist once do precisely this and almost get run over by a car turning left. The lights changed whilst he was passing the cars but instead of slowing and keeping back, he instead tried to pass the car in front which was about to turn left.


----------



## srw (30 Jul 2010)

On the other hand, Riverman, they allow the vast majority of sensible cyclists to get to the head of the queue in a safe way, and control the speed of traffic off the line. Come to London one day and see what happens when you have (a) lots of cyclists, and (B) assertive cyclists.


----------



## steve30 (1 Aug 2010)

I've seen cars and buses in advanced stop lines before, but I didn't really care because I always wait in the queue. I only use an advanced stop line if I am at the front of the queue. It is quite rare that I even see cyclists in them, so I really don't blame the drivers for ignoring them. But I am in Rotherham, where cycling doesn't seem to be as common as in places like London. I don't know what the situation is like in Sheffield though. It is probably different to Rotherham, as I often see lots of cyclists in Sheffield.


----------



## ComedyPilot (1 Aug 2010)

I live in the sticks, but whenever I go to town, if I get to a red light and there's an ASL with a vehicle in it, I ride to the front, pull across the front and stop. You would not believe how long it takes me to get pedalling again


----------



## ufkacbln (1 Aug 2010)

srw said:


> On the other hand, Riverman, they allow the vast majority of sensible cyclists to get to the head of the queue in a safe way, and control the speed of traffic off the line. Come to London one day and see what happens when you have (a) lots of cyclists, and (
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have one exactly like this..... but I know the light sequence, so if the vehicles in the road parallel are stationary then I am fine to filter to the ASL, at the lights will not change and traffic is stationary. If this line stops moving then a change in lights is imminent - stop and pull into the traffic lane


----------



## Number14 (2 Aug 2010)

marinyork said:


> I think the 'wasn't part of my test' and having the rather daft PC Aveling quoted as gospel on other articles on ASLs are feeble distractions. It is most definitely an offence in the very obvious cases we go through. The police don't enforce them because in many situations *it's just not worth it*. As cycling takes off in more cities and ASLs are slowly getting built as junctions come up for a face lift in the future there will need to be a bit of enforcement at key locations. Locally we had a few people get very excited about the issue and do surveys, personally I think it is a waste of time enforcing those particular ones, that is not to say that it won't change in the future, it probably will.



Three points and up to £1000 fine - not worth it? Maybe it should be three points and a minimum of £1000 fine to make it worth their time.


----------



## 661-Pete (3 Aug 2010)

ComedyPilot said:


> I live in the sticks, but whenever I go to town, if I get to a red light and there's an ASL with a vehicle in it, I ride to the front, pull across the front and stop. You would not believe how long it takes me to get pedalling again


Being suddenly diverted by a long-ish 'phone call' at that moment, is a good dodge. After all we all know you shouldn't use a mobile phone whilst on the move...


----------



## marinyork (3 Aug 2010)

Number14 said:


> Three points and up to £1000 fine - not worth it? Maybe it should be three points and a minimum of £1000 fine to make it worth their time.



ASLs only tend to get put in when a junction is up for renewal. It'll be a couple of decades before ASLs are at routinely useful places for cyclists outside London and a few choice other places. They just aren't in enough places and enough key places for it to be particular worthwhile for the police to enforce them. That'll change in the future but that day hasn't come yet. It'd be far more worthwhile enforcing bus gates that cyclists use or clamping down on mobile phone use by drivers.


----------



## gbs (3 Aug 2010)

661-Pete said:


> Being suddenly diverted by a long-ish 'phone call' at that moment, is a good dodge. After all we all know you shouldn't use a mobile phone whilst on the move...



I am not at all sure that aggravating the errant motorist is smart. You will have made yr point perhaps but if he/she is enraged the consequences may not be amusing for some other fellow


----------



## 661-Pete (3 Aug 2010)

661-Pete said:


> Being suddenly diverted by a long-ish 'phone call' at that moment, is a good dodge. After all we all know you shouldn't use a mobile phone whilst on the move...





gbs said:


> I am not at all sure that aggravating the errant motorist is smart. You will have made yr point perhaps but if he/she is enraged the consequences may not be amusing for some other fellow


I'd meant to insert the 'devil' smiley, but couldn't find it. Ah! This one:  . Sorry, was being a bit flippant, I've never actually *done* this...


----------



## Jezston (4 Aug 2010)

I don't understand why one might think that the confusions over feeder lanes makes them pointless. We just need legal 'clarification' stating cyclists may cross those lines to enter the asz.

I also agree they need enforcement, I'm getting sick of the awful and useless taxi drivers of Nottingham thinking they are for them, and bullying cyclists out of them!


----------



## dellzeqq (4 Aug 2010)

I share Riverman's scepticism. Sure, you can use your judgement, but the way that cyclists attempt to cram through the left hand side feed and then get caught when the lights change is pretty frightening.

I got myself rammed from behind by a cyclist attempting a left side filter the other day. I'd stopped rather than go down the left side of an artic on the north side of Blackfriars Bridge. She yelled 'there's no need to stop'. Well, there you go....


----------



## Globalti (5 Aug 2010)

Since I passed my test in 1974 there have been several changes to the Highway code but nobody has made any attempt to educate me about them; common sense has usually enabled me to work out what they mean and incorporate them in my knowledge. But those green zones were a mystery to me and I often stopped on the further line until a few years ago. I expect the majority of motorists still haven't got a clue what they're for. 

How many on here understand the solid white lines that denote a cycle lane - are you allowed to cross them in order to undertake a stationary right-turning vehicle or not?


----------



## summerdays (5 Aug 2010)

[QUOTE 1145127"]
The highway code will tell you all you need to know.
[/quote]

But how many people look at the highway code after they have passed their test... most people just cram for the test and then forget the information. For example I don't know the stopping distances at all now




. Whereas other bits more relevant to me I know fairly well.


----------



## psmiffy (5 Aug 2010)

Personally I am not sure about the point of AZs - unless I am at the front when the lights go red I do not use them - I prefer to remain in the traffic queue as a vehicle - the time saving by moving forward a few cars is not enough to make it worthwhile - and take up the same space/width as a vehicle and therefore controlling the turning traffic - if I am at the front at the lights and there is no AZ I do the same thing effectively creating my own AZ and preventing traffic turning across me.

From one point of view I quite like to see AZs - it means someone somewhere is thinking about cyclists - however I believe that the majority of them are flawed - the stupid little cycle lanes they put in to access them encourage people to filter down the inside with the associated danger from right turning traffic.

As to prosecuting people in vehicles entering them it would be better to start with the cars that run or jump red lights first - when crossing wide junctions from the front or back of the queue you need to keep your wits about you looking for vehicles going across the junction early or late.


----------



## 661-Pete (7 Aug 2010)

I think, paradoxically, ASLs work best in quiet areas where they're not really needed anyway, on roads where you're likely to share the wait with one or two cars at the most. Then, if you position in the ASL box, and the motorist(s) obey the commonsense intent of the box (law or no law), you can at least be away before the left-hook risk.

But only if the motorist obeys the rules. Not so the prat today - assuredly two planks short of a scaffolding - who crept up behind me (I was the only one at the junction) and then slowly and deliberately passed me and crossed _both_ stop lines, positioning himself with 3/4 of the car across the second line. All the time on full red light. My fault, I suppose, for not positioning myself in primary. His intent became clear. He wanted to turn left, therefore he had to overtake me on the right and then position himself a bit _past_ me so as to make the left-hook more _doable_. Shrewd thinking, that man - obviously obeying the Highway code* to the letter. But I didn't give him the pleasure. I manoeuvred in front of him, eyeballed him and slowly shook my head. And then I wasn't particularly hurried moving off on the green, either.

*well - _some_ version of the HC...


----------



## Banjo (7 Aug 2010)

It isnt entirely wrong for a vehicle to stop at thje advanced stop line as you can do this legally if the light goes red after you cross the first stopline.

Unless you actually see a vehicle deliberately stop in the cyclist area it is possible they are there quite legally.


----------



## 661-Pete (7 Aug 2010)

Banjo said:


> It isnt entirely wrong for a vehicle to stop at thje advanced stop line as you can do this legally if the light goes red after you cross the first stopline.
> 
> Unless you actually see a vehicle deliberately stop in the cyclist area it is possible they are there quite legally.


Quite correct. But I witnessed 'my' motorist break the law - twice. Because he deliberately crossed both stop lines whilst the lights were at red. And he could have safely stopped at the first, knowing the lights were red.

But all this goes to show, the law is an ass. What is wanted is: cyclists allowed to cross the first stop line, any time. Motorists allowed to cross the second stop line, if they were unable to stop at the first stop line for the reasons stipulated in the HC.

Is there a flaw in this? Even if it makes ASLs work in the way they were intended, I'm still unsure if they make it safer for cyclists - particularly inexperienced.


----------



## 661-Pete (7 Aug 2010)

Actually - I have a general, open, message for all motorists thinking of doing this. _If you see a cyclist stopped at an ASL, intending to go ahead (or if you can't tell: cyclists don't have indicators), and you intend to turn left, *don't* stop alongside and to the right of but slightly ahead of the cyclist, intending to cut across his or her path._ Because this action will only infuriate the cyclist. And if they have any nous they will re-position so as to thwart your planned manoeuvre. 

_Capizce?_


----------



## marinyork (8 Aug 2010)

Banjo said:


> It isnt entirely wrong for a vehicle to stop at thje advanced stop line as you can do this legally if the light goes red after you cross the first stopline.
> 
> Unless you actually see a vehicle deliberately stop in the cyclist area it is possible they are there quite legally.



Trivially. We're very obviously talking about those other cases. It's quite common to see vehicles deliberately creep in to block a cyclist when they come along. Not a big deal, but they do do it.


----------



## Headgardener (10 Aug 2010)

Banjo said:


> It isnt entirely wrong for a vehicle to stop at thje advanced stop line as you can do this legally if the light goes red after you cross the first stopline.
> 
> Unless you actually see a vehicle deliberately stop in the cyclist area it is possible they are there quite legally.


The light sequence is green, amber for about five seconds then red. So if the light goes to red as you cross the first stop line then you have RLJ'ed as you should have been stopping at the amber which gives you warning that the light is about to change to red. I would think that even at 30MPH there is time to reduce speed and stop for the red light without going over the vehicular stop line.


----------



## pwh91 (10 Sep 2010)

Headgardener said:


> The light sequence is green, amber for about five seconds then red. So if the light goes to red as you cross the first stop line then you have RLJ'ed as you should have been stopping at the amber which gives you warning that the light is about to change to red. I would think that even at 30MPH there is time to reduce speed and stop for the red light without going over the vehicular stop line.



I think the situation being allowed for is (for instance) when a vehicle is queued turning right as the lights change to red. Seems sensible to allow occupancy this case rather than delcaring the ASL as a no-stop zone which everyone would ignore in any case....

I kind of like ASLs for the reasons given by several others, mainly that they convey some kind of message that cyclists are actually allowed / encouraged to be on the road. Also agreed that they can however give the wrong guidance to inexperience cyclists on filtering etc, but to be frank they're the least of the issues I see around Bristol when it comes to ill-thought out road markings.


----------



## porteous (22 Oct 2010)

If you are really old (like me), you will remember the TV campaign to educate motorists every time a significant new traffic sign came into use. The last one I remember was about box junctions. Surely it's a matter of educating road users (including us), then actually enforcing the rules? So why did the Dept of Transport TV ads stop?


----------

