Driving standards

[JDW]

24 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I've not taken legal advice but the natural reading of that is that no vehicle shall move across the line - be in motion across the line - be in the act of crossing the line.

 

I think the meaning is that the vehicle shall not start to cross the white line when the light is red (ie must wait behind it). I'm pretty sure that the general measure of "crossing the line" is taken to be the front wheels.

[ianwales]

2 hours ago, SM42 said:

 

 

Then there are of course the bicycle boxes at traffic lights that many seem to think are for cars too. Motorised vehicles must stop at the first line. 

 

Andy

 

One of the worst inventions ever the bicycle boxes given that SOME brainless cyclists will insist on moving to the middle of the line and don't seem to realise that my 2.0 in sport mode is going to get away a darn sight quicker than they are, please note I say SOME, like a lot of things  in this life the few let down the majority.

 

Ian

[Compound2632]

2 minutes ago, ianwales said:

One of the worst inventions ever the bicycle boxes given that SOME brainless cyclists will insist on moving to the middle of the line and don't seem to realise that my 2.0 in sport mode is going to get away a darn sight quicker than they are, please note I say SOME, like a lot of things  in this life the few let down the majority.

 

Your 2.0 will only get away faster if you make it do so. It's a good deal safer for the cyclist to lead the line of traffic off at a sedate pace than to be at the side of the road with a line of traffic tearing away; many of the drivers behind the front vehicle might not have observed the cyclist at the side of the road. Moreover, the cyclist may be intending to turn right or need to be in a right-hand lane after the junction. 

 

In driving, as in most areas of life, patience is the watchword.

[petethemole]

As a cyclist (now only occasionally but it was a daily commute) I always understood the advanced bicycle stop line was to enable cyclists to turn right more safely.

[Reorte]

39 minutes ago, petethemole said:

As a cyclist (now only occasionally but it was a daily commute) I always understood the advanced bicycle stop line was to enable cyclists to turn right more safely.

 

I think that might well be the main reason - it certainly makes it a great deal safer, but whilst I wouldn't pull in in front of other traffic if I was carrying on straight on on a bike there's no doubt something to be said for not having cars trying to floor it past you from the line too.

[Martin]

Some lights with a bicycle box have a bikes only green light that comes on a few seconds before the main one

[SM42]

4 hours ago, ianwales said:

 

One of the worst inventions ever the bicycle boxes given that SOME brainless cyclists will insist on moving to the middle of the line and don't seem to realise that my 2.0 in sport mode is going to get away a darn sight quicker than they are, please note I say SOME, like a lot of things  in this life the few let down the majority.

 

Ian

 

The idea of the box  is, I think, to allow the cyclist (s) to establish a dominant position at the head of traffic, thereby allowing straight on, left or right turn with a good chance that the motor vehicle driver immediately behind has a very good chance to see them.  Sitting in the middle is a good choice especially if the first vehicle is an HGV. Less chance of a blind spot dead ahead.

However this strategy doesn't work if fluffy dice, gonks, statues, fast food wrappers, newspapers and satnavs have been placed in the middle of the windscreen or dashboard.

 

Turning left the delay is minimal, turning right also, straight ahead a few seconds whilst they set off across the junction and take up a traditional left biased position.

 

Is a few seconds really that much of a bind compared to the cyclist having a safer ride and you not squashing them?

 

4 hours ago, JDW said:

 

I think the meaning is that the vehicle shall not start to cross the white line when the light is red (ie must wait behind it). I'm pretty sure that the general measure of "crossing the line" is taken to be the front wheels.

 

Does a coach not cross the line when the  front bumper and bodywork, driver, entrance door and another foot or so of bodywork cross it, but the front wheels haven't?

 

It's rather like the definition of overtaking: When any part of a vehicle passes any part of another vehicle.

 

If you look closely at traffic lights with cameras, the sensors are literally a few inches past the stop line. Any movement over the sensor during the red phase will result in a couple of photos being taken and an invitation to either pay a fine or have an audience with the magistrate being received in the post.

 

Andy

 

 

[JDW]

If the sensors are in the road (rather than cameras) they should be able to differentiate between a vehicle passing over after the lights change, and one which has been waiting there already.

 

That said, I've sat behind many numpties who don't understand what the sensors in the road are for on the approach to traffic lights, who don't pull right up to the lights, sit over a car length back and then wonder why the lights aren't changing... 

 

As regards the front overhand of (most) buses and coaches, I was always taught that it is the front wheels which count - presumably in the same way that it is acceptable [providing it is safe etc, obviously] to swing the front overhang over the kerb, so long as the wheel itself doesn't mount it. Whether it's advisable, especially with some of the big mirrors buses and coaches have these days, is an entirely different matter!

[chriswright03]

16 hours ago, SM42 said:

Yep

 

The law says "no vehicle shall cross the transverse line shown in diagram 1002.1"  TSRGD sect 16,  (Diagram 1002.1 is a stop line) when the lights are red. Doesn't matter which part of the vehicle crosses the line.  Silly really but it's the law

Many a bus or HGV driver has been caught out by red light cameras and of course there is generally a traffic light on the opposite side of the junction so they are always visible.

PC Copper using mark 1 eyeball may be more forgiving in this situation though

 

Then there are of course the bicycle boxes at traffic lights that many seem to think are for cars too. Motorised vehicles must stop at the first line. 

 

Andy

That does not mean any part though.  Reason you are allowed to clear the junction is to make it clear for other traffic.  I would be interested where you got 'your' definition of any part of the vehicle from.  Perhaps you have case law that indicates that.

 

I can tell you having been PC Copper with a Mk 1 eyeball I wouldn't even consider pulling a motorist for that.  I can also tell you that when I was being trained to drive buses this was discussed at some length and had I or any other driver on test stayed in the junction having crossed the line with the front of the vehicle where I was blocking the junction I would have failed.  Obviously we are not talking about Box junctions at any point.

[ianwales]

16 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

It's a good deal safer for the cyclist to lead the line of traffic off at a sedate pace than to be at the side of the road with a line of traffic tearing away; many of the drivers behind the front vehicle might not have observed the cyclist at the side of the road. Moreover, the cyclist may be intending to turn right or need to be in a right-hand lane after the junction. 

 

In driving, as in most areas of life, patience is the watchword.

 

Why should a cyclist Lead the line off are they something special, if they stay on the left, other than if they are intending to turn right and most good cyclists if that is their intention they signal that intention, then cars can get away at their own pace. there is one set of traffic lights near me on a 40mph road where there is one of these cycle stop lines where the only options are turn left or straight on yet some cyclists insist on coming down the inside of waiting traffic and lining up 2 or 3 abreast at their stop line and then cycling off side by side leaving the cars behind no chance to pass due to the oncoming traffic, similarly, last year there were months of delays and tailbacks on the same road while the council installed a cycle lane either side and yet the cyclists still use the road and the cycle lane is clear.

 

Ian 

[ianwales]

11 hours ago, SM42 said:

 

 

Turning left the delay is minimal, turning right also, straight ahead a few seconds whilst they set off across the junction and take up a traditional left biased position.

 

Is a few seconds really that much of a bind compared to the cyclist having a safer ride and you not squashing them?

 

 

Andy

 

 

 

Hi Andy

 

I have never squashed a cyclist yet although there has been the odd occasion I have felt like it! And if they move left after the junction that is fine also, but some insist in staying in the middle of the carriageway or even hugging the white line,  Its the air of arrogant superiority of SOME cyclists that gets me. 50 years ago I did my cycling proficiency test in primary school and one of the things I was taught as part of the test was that it was ok to cycle side by side when the road was quiet, but, when there was traffic around cyclists should ride in single file and as near to the left as possible yet cycling 2 or 3 abreast in the middle of the carriageway as if they are on the Tour de France seems to be more the norm than the exception these days.

 

Ian

[caradoc]

14 minutes ago, ianwales said:

 

Why should a cyclist Lead the line off are they something special, if they stay on the left, other than if they are intending to turn right and most good cyclists if that is their intention they signal that intention, then cars can get away at their own pace. there is one set of traffic lights near me on a 40mph road where there is one of these cycle stop lines where the only options are turn left or straight on yet some cyclists insist on coming down the inside of waiting traffic and lining up 2 or 3 abreast at their stop line and then cycling off side by side leaving the cars behind no chance to pass due to the oncoming traffic, similarly, last year there were months of delays and tailbacks on the same road while the council installed a cycle lane either side and yet the cyclists still use the road and the cycle lane is clear.

 

Ian 

 

I agree that cyclists should not deliberately obstruct traffic, and when I am out on my bike I do my best not to. However please remember that cyclists are extremely vulnerable: The poor quality of road surfaces, particularly at the edges, and debris which have minimal, or no effect on vehicles, cause cyclists serious problems, including injury or death. When I cycle towards the middle of the road it is not to delay motorists, it is to avoid being unseated and wrecking my bike, or myself !

 

Regarding cycle lanes, I do not always use them, because; People (and dogs) walk on them, park cars along or across them, and where side roads join, even when the road markings are set back from the cycle lane, I simply do not trust motorists to observe them and stop.

 

We share road space and must consider others, even it it means our progress might be slightly delayed.

 

 

 

 

[Joseph_Pestell]

21 minutes ago, ianwales said:

 

Hi Andy

 

I have never squashed a cyclist yet although there has been the odd occasion I have felt like it! And if they move left after the junction that is fine also, but some insist in staying in the middle of the carriageway or even hugging the white line,  Its the air of arrogant superiority of SOME cyclists that gets me. 50 years ago I did my cycling proficiency test in primary school and one of the things I was taught as part of the test was that it was ok to cycle side by side when the road was quiet, but, when there was traffic around cyclists should ride in single file and as near to the left as possible yet cycling 2 or 3 abreast in the middle of the carriageway as if they are on the Tour de France seems to be more the norm than the exception these days.

 

Ian

 

Guidance has changed since you did your test. Advice now is that cyclists should keep to the middle of the lane.

 

This is sound for two reasons. It encourages drivers to wait for safer overtaking places. It avoids cyclists suddenly weaving about to avoid obstructions (e.g. potholes around drainage grilles) which occur more near the kerb.

 

I do totally agree with you about the "Tour de France" tendency of riders to ride three-abreast these days. I don't give them the 1.5m space when passing and if they all end up in a heap, serve them right.  

[caradoc]

As both a cyclist and a motorist (and, BTW, I would have thought that by far the majority of adult cyclists nowadays are motorists too), what gets me is the arrogant superiority of anyone who thinks they have a greater right to the road than everybody else, regardless of other users, and woe betide anybody who dares to get in their way.

 

[Reorte]

Consideration for other road users extends to both not expecting everyone to dive out of your way and not being an obstruction. And both are tempered by "more than necessary" because there's a point where they start to contradict a bit and a reasonable degree of give and take by all concerned is required.

 

Personally speaking when I cycle I hate having cars waiting to get past me.

[Nick C]

12 hours ago, JDW said:

That said, I've sat behind many numpties who don't understand what the sensors in the road are for on the approach to traffic lights, who don't pull right up to the lights, sit over a car length back and then wonder why the lights aren't changing... 

 

Much funnier, however, are those who ignore the first stop line, pull up to the cycle one, and then sit there for ages waiting for the lights to change, because the sensors haven't detected them. Which serves them right for breaking the rules!

[Reorte]

8 minutes ago, Nick C said:

 

Much funnier, however, are those who ignore the first stop line, pull up to the cycle one, and then sit there for ages waiting for the lights to change, because the sensors haven't detected them. Which serves them right for breaking the rules!

 

Always wonder about some of these people, either going way over the line or stopping far short of it. How do they manage to park?

[Nick C]

3 minutes ago, Reorte said:

 

Always wonder about some of these people, either going way over the line or stopping far short of it. How do they manage to park?

If the local supermarket car parks are anything to go by, badly...

[jcm@gwr]

6 minutes ago, Reorte said:

 

Always wonder about some of these people, either going way over the line or stopping far short of it. How do they manage to park?

 

They don't know where to stop, because the parking sensors haven't beeped at them yet!

[JDW]

36 minutes ago, jcm@gwr said:

 

They don't know where to stop, because the parking sensors haven't beeped at them yet!

 

As a highly trained, highly experienced, highly skilled professional driver I have to say that ... I managed to reverse my car into a fence once because I was paying attention to Jeremy Vine on Radio 2 and not to the beeping coming from the parking sensors... Thankfully only a minor tap and no damage done!

 

 

[Compound2632]

7 minutes ago, JDW said:

As a highly trained, highly experienced, highly skilled professional driver I have to say that ... I managed to reverse my car into a fence once because I was paying attention to Jeremy Vine on Radio 2 and not to the beeping coming from the parking sensors... Thankfully only a minor tap and no damage done!

 

As a very ordinary driver I have twice reversed into things despite the sensors beeping away. On the first occasion, reversing out of my drive in the dark, I very gently dented the wheel arch of my neighbour's parents' dark blue car parked opposite - normally, the curb opposite triggers the sensors, so I assumed... (My father says that whenever he's nearly had an accident, it's because he didn't see the blue car.) The second time, I broke the nearside rear lamp housing on a lamp-post; despite the frantic beeping, I kept going because I couldn't see the post in my rear view mirror - it was obscured by the rear pillar. My defence on this occasion was that driving to these particular friends is very stressful because I always get lost and have to loop round some Liverpool back streets at least twice. 

[mcowgill]

2 hours ago, ianwales said:

 

Why should a cyclist Lead the line off are they something special, if they stay on the left, other than if they are intending to turn right and most good cyclists if that is their intention they signal that intention, then cars can get away at their own pace. there is one set of traffic lights near me on a 40mph road where there is one of these cycle stop lines where the only options are turn left or straight on yet some cyclists insist on coming down the inside of waiting traffic and lining up 2 or 3 abreast at their stop line and then cycling off side by side leaving the cars behind no chance to pass due to the oncoming traffic, similarly, last year there were months of delays and tailbacks on the same road while the council installed a cycle lane either side and yet the cyclists still use the road and the cycle lane is clear.

 

Ian 

 

When commuting on my cycle I feel most vulnerable at the point I start moving away from traffic lights, for a few seconds my progress is likely to be a little unsteady until both pedals are loaded equally, I'm at risk of wobbling one way or the other, the last thing I want is a vehicle close to my right shoulder, as a driver you can't accurately predict my path.  As others have said close to the left side of the road is a poor place to cycle, it has drainage ironwork, often sunken, loose chippings, gravel and even broken glass.  If there's an advance cycle box I'll take up a position further from the kerb than I would otherwise be and then pull over to the left once I'm in motion and stable, I would hope that other vehicles would be able to cope with a few seconds delay as a result.

 

The guidance in traffic these days is to 'take the lane' where you perceive you are at risk, that way you have some control over when vehicles overtake you where they need to wait for a safer location.   I've had a few near misses and (worse) that have been captured on my video camera and in almost all cases the police officers involved felt I was cycling too close to the kerb and should have been in the middle of the lane to stop overtaking - I tend not to argue with the police.

 

I cycle to work along a busy single carriageway A road with roadside parking in front of terrace houses.  The only safe place to be is the middle of the road, I'm at risk of being hit by a parked car door opening and people trying to squeeze past on my right in a gap that's only a car's width between me and approaching cars.  I'f I'm hit by an opening door at 8am I'm going home in a box as there's bound to be a car immediately behind me as I hit the deck.   One of my early commutes ended up with me hitting a parked car, I was too far left and was hit by the nearside mirror of a Transit squeezing past me.

 

As for not using cycle lanes, there's one elsewhere on my journey, I don't use it as it's shared with pedestrians.  If I'm doing 15mph+ along it I'm a danger to them, I'm much closer to the speed of traffic in the morning rush and that road is wide enough for people to pass safely without me delaying them.

 

Martin

[dvdlcs]

I haven't cycled for a long time (late 1990s) but when I did something that I used to do at a red traffic light was to stop in the queue of vehicles, rather than proceed to the front of the line. Reason I did this was because, as far as I was concerned, the biggest risk to me as a cyclist was the passing traffic. Therefore the vehicles in front of me, most of which had already passed me, would remain in front of me and I wouldn't pass them (often to the left) to proceed to the head of the line so that they might have another chance of passing me all over again.

 

I also know, as a motorist, the frustration of sitting behind a slow moving cyclist, particularly when you have been able to pass them previously, only to have them pass you while you are held at a red light to move to the front of the line and have the process repeat.

[SM42]

6 hours ago, chriswright03 said:

That does not mean any part though.  Reason you are allowed to clear the junction is to make it clear for other traffic.  I would be interested where you got 'your' definition of any part of the vehicle from.  Perhaps you have case law that indicates that.

 

I can tell you having been PC Copper with a Mk 1 eyeball I wouldn't even consider pulling a motorist for that.  I can also tell you that when I was being trained to drive buses this was discussed at some length and had I or any other driver on test stayed in the junction having crossed the line with the front of the vehicle where I was blocking the junction I would have failed.  Obviously we are not talking about Box junctions at any point.

 

Well the RAC and various motor solictors amonst others agree on "any part of the vehicle." For instance

 

http://www.motorlawyers.co.uk/offences/traffic_lights.php

 

See the last frequently asked question.

 

Many a motoring forum has cases where HGV trailers have passed on red whilst the tractor unit didn't and 3 points and £100 fine was the result.

 

The TSRGD 2016 and the RTA 1988 are the legislation in play.

 

Andy

 

 

 

[jjb1970]

The problem with cycle lanes and paths is that in the case of the first they are narrow and struggle to accommodate different types of riding, while in the second if they are mixed use it becomes awkward for everyone. 

 

If we split cycling into three general groups:

 

-slow riders, perhaps with small children or less fit people;

-proficient riders commuting who want to make good progress but who aren't pretending to be amateur Tour de France wannabes; and

-those wannabe racing cyclists using apps like strava.

 

It may be apparent why they struggle to co-exist in narrow cycle lanes. In the case of the first two, I think they generally can co-exist but the last group can be a complete pain in the backside. I ride my bike pretty quickly at times but use the road as I'm aware that it can be intimidating to recreational and commuting riders. Funnily enough I have heard far more abusive words from fellow cyclists when out riding with the children coming from people time trialling along cycle paths and lanes than I have from drivers (and I used to ride a bike a lot in central London where cyclists aren't too popular with a lot of drivers).

 

Then there are paths, in Milton Keynes we have a good network of redway mixed use paths crossing the town which are great for gentle recreational riding or commuting but not suitable for quick riding. And the big issue with them is dog walkers who use those extendable leads and allow dogs to wander around so the lead effectively shuts off the path and seem oblivious to other users (it's annoying for other pedestrians let alone cyclists). I find most pedestrians generally know how to use the redway system and stay to one side but dog walkers can be a complete pain on the system. If people want to use those long leads then go to the park or go onto the grass bits along the side of the paths so the dogs can run around without becoming a nuisance for other path users.