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

Once again the real problem is road design.

I don't know this particular junction but most ASLs have nearside filter lanes encoraging cyclists to filter inside cars to reach the ASL where they should then position themselves appropriotly depending on which direction they are going ie moving over to the right if turning right. If the ASL is used as intended nd the cyclits find the box occupied they are left with little option but to cross the stop line and position correctly if turning right. Most of us realise that it is better to filter between lanes if turning right, allowing us to merge into the correct lane if the trafic starts moving again, but road markings and lanes rarely encorage this behaviour.

For what its worth I hope that Alex wins his case and the design of the junction is reviewed as a result. Maybe he was pushing his luck at the time, maybe he wasn't; that's not really the point.

[[[[ I cycle, I drive. When I approach a YELLOW BOX junction in me car, I know how to keep off it---I don't drive onto it. Our cyclists' ASL boxes have been around long enough now for drivers to AVOID encroaching onto them. All this twaddle suggesting drivers "sometimes have no choice" is just that---twaddle.
And, as mentioned by FARRELL earlier, our policeman "Stampy", ever keen to uphold the law--to the letter--must surely have rebuked, if not ticketed, countless DRIVERS for encroaching onto cyclists' ASL's. N'est pas?
P.R.

@Colin, I think it's just the one post by Housecathst which is particularly anti police and provocative. Appears to be a one off trolling post

The rest of the debate is fair, and in response to one policeman giving his views on here, which appear to represent standard policy, which were always likely to cause a backlash, based the sense of injustice we feel about this story, weren't they?

I don't think there's any less respect being shown one way or the other, not that Stumpy is expecting any, as he said.

As for 'poor old plod'

Anyone who's surpised by stumps' "revelation" that acting like a self-important twat when you get pulled over is more likely to get you a ticket probably needs to go and make sure all the pencils are in a nice straight line on their desk or something equally OCD. We don't live an objective and impartial world, it's full of irrational humans. of which you are one. not acting like a twat towards the other humans is just general good practice, regardless of who they are.

Well I sort of think the lack of respect here for Stumps is astounding, and the way people seem to have tarred every officer by the same brush.

I'm sorry about this Stumps. But I guess it is the sort of attitude you are used to.

I'm not saying that every police officer is brilliant, and lord knows there have been things in the news about the police (the Lawrence defaming and Plebgate) which show that the police can be excessive with the use of their powers, but equally there are those who are sensible practisioners. This case will test the abilities of those officers involved, but as is clear the police are seen here as an inconvience rather than an independent arbiter of the rules of the road.

People seem to want it both ways - strict adherence to the rules, but when they are caught 'using their own discretion' they want the police to also....I think you have to wise up and realise that you can't have it both ways.

It may have been that the cyclist involved looked like he was unjustly going to break a red light, maybe he was using his road sense. Let's hope that the facts are laid out and fairness provided. We only have his side of the story. I hope that he is given a fairer shot than some people are willing to give poor plod.

Suggestions here that cyclists should fall in line with the cars rather than filter past to the ASL to avoid this problem.

So what if the queue of cars is a mile long tailback which is pretty much stationary most of the time? Am I OK to carefully cycle down the marked kerb-side cycle lane or do I have to suck it up and get to the back of the mile long queue, possibly adding half an hour to my journey time?

And if the latter, then where is the point in taking the bike, just to sit there in a haze of exhaust fumes going nowhere; my journey time dictated by how many drivers chose to clog up the roads on any given day?

ASLs are not great, but neither is any of the infra in the UK. We can get rid of the ASLs when we replace them with something better.

I don't think the cyclist did anything wrong.
PC Stumps blindly shows solidarity with fellow officers which is the order of the day, given the nature of their work.
Our force as a group of cyclists is our numbers. Ensure the "waste-of-time-and-space" officer who saw the offence of the car in the ASL is called to give evidence, then let all of us write to the Minister of Justice ( and whoever else counts) to suggest this officer goes on a course (in the winter in the Outer Hebrides ?)to learn that cyclists are also tax-payers, fathers, mothers, etc. He is the root of this problem, which is costing a lot of public money to achieve absolutely nothing.

What the article does not make clear is if the car was legally inhabiting the box, most of the comments seem to assume that this is not the case, but if you look at rule 178 you can see there are circumstances where this is possible. "...Motorists, including motorcyclists, MUST stop at the first white line reached if the lights are amber or red and shoudl avoid blocking the way or encroaching on the marked area at other times. If your vehicle has proceeded over the first white line at the time that the signal goes red, you MUSTstop at the secon white line, even if your vehicle is in hte marked area. Allow cyclists time and space to move off when the green signal shows."
Secondly, having crossed the white line it is an offence. Regardless of mitigating situations so the police were right to ticket, perhaps a warning may have sufficied I do not know.
However, it is perfectly right that the cyclist should contest this in court. He feels that he has mitigating circumstances and it does sound that way, after all the spirit of the law is to enable to safe(r) passage of cyclists, which his actions tried to do.
The only part which worries me is that the wording of the ASL for cyclists (rule 71) says to only use them when it is safe to do so, which if there is already someone in there it is dubious if it is the case.

I hope that common sense will provail and then this can be cited in future to the benefit of all.

[[[[ Yikes!! What's all this about "apologising to a police officer"? Why would I do that? I haven't hurt or offended the cop who's stopped me, have I? An offence is an offence and should be dealt with impartially, regardless of whether or not I grovel, Stumpio.
P.R.

@Stumps - clearly the chap in this case didn't kiss the officers arse enough, so discretion to emphasise rider safety over a technical infringement of the law was not used and a ticket issued.

That's how it works then?

It's small wonder that police get grief in their line if duty from otherwise reasonable citizens, if this kind of attitude is prevalent.

I can well imagine the scenario here, where an officer stops a cyclist for an offence he did not witnesses, refuses to listen to any mitigating circumstances, winding up the guy and when he doesn't drop to his knees begging forgiveness, a ticket is issued in a fit of peak by the officer in an attempt to assert himself.

I go through this exact junction most days on my way to/from work. I cycle 2-3 days a week and motorbike the other days.

The police were having a 1 week 'clampdown' for 1 week in August. I suspect this is when Alex got his FPN. There were probably 10-15 policemen/women around that junction every morning all week, pulling people over (cyclists, cars, motorbikes).

I feel the police were taking a zero-tolerance approach.

I was pulled over on my motorbike after following traffic through the junction on a green light (no trace of an offence). They seemed to be doing random spot checks on motorbikes that morning, and 'apparently' my motorbike chain was a little loose. I was 2 weeks away from the MOT on my 2008 Honda 125, but it didn't stop the officer giving me a £60 fine, 3 points and prohibiting me from riding my bike until I got the chain tightened ( I was told I could push it to a garage or get it picked up on a truck).

In my opinion, the chain was slightly looser than ideal, but perfectly ok and typical for a bike 11.5 months through a 12 month maintenance cycle. The officer simply didn't agree - there was no common sense, just zero tolerance.

Alex has a good chance of getting let off, and I hope he does.

I've lost any respect for (traffic) police after this incident. They were just finding reasons to issue fines/points without exercising judgement.

Nick

Sadly, very few cyclists know how or when to use ASL's and stop boxes properly. Combine this with driver ignorance and you have in many cases a pointless escalation of the antagonism between cyclist and driver. I see the obsession with getting into the stop box every day and wonder if these guys have ever given a thought to how pissed off the driver they have effectively "cut up" is. It also pisses me off because I stopped behind the bus and have to watch these nuggets filter past me knowing that I'm gonna be stuck at their pace until the bus makes it past them...
I would get rid of ASL's as they cause as much trouble as good.
However...
Whipping in front of traffic to turn right is generally a no-no, so my gut feeling is that Alex should have either moved in behind the traffic earlier or, if he's less confident, walked it. However, without the detail of the junction and knowledge of the scenario in the lead up to the line its a tougher call.
My personal opinion is that while the ticket is maybe somewhat harsh, it is by no means entirely unjustified.

I'm usually against cyclists doing things against the law ostensibly for the sake of "safety", e.g. cycling on the pavement or jumping red lights. But in this case I have to side with the cyclist.

I don't know just how busy the road was, and whether he might have been able to position himself behind the car in the ASL. But I know that, as much as I try to keep to the letter of the law myself, there are times when I filter up to the front only to find the ASL occupied by a vehicle. Usually I'll try to get in behind that vehicle, but if traffic is tight then I can't really do that, so position myself in front, ahead of the ASL. I don't see that I have much of a choice, I can't even turn around and go back. So it seems absolutely silly to fine a cyclist for this, given the circumstances.

Taylor Lautner?

qwerky, where did i say i expect respect from people. As i said if i stop someone for an offence and they are apologetic they will generally be given a warning or a quiet word, its the arseholes who swear blind that they have done nothing wrong and come up "have you got nothing better to do" and "i pay your wages" and "why dont you catch a rapist" that end up getting the ticket or summons.

Now if you fall into that category well thats your problem, not mine.

My safety trumps the law every time. If the law does not protect me then it is it that has failed. If he felt safer taking the position he did, then the infastructure and the law have failed. Not the person. The law is for people not people for the law.

Its the attitude of cyclists, drivers or whatever that does go a long way to deciding if a person gets a ticket, a bollocking or a summons when they have committed an offence.

If someone is apologetic, genuine and the offence is of a minor nature then a cop can use their discretion, however if the offence is denied or the person is a complete knacker about it then usually a ticket or summons will follow.

We do have discretion and its used quite regularly but those of you who have no idea whatsover about our job just keep rolling off the excuses.

Put it this way, "if you play with fire you will get burnt", in other words break the law and you will have to suffer the consequences whatever they maybe. This goes for everyone. If people dont like it then tuff, i make no apologies about doing it.

So. I recently completed a cycle instructor course. Get me. I raised this very point with our instructor and he indicated that when he'd spoken to police officers about it they didn't care if you went passed an ASL (or even went beyond a stop line if there was no ASL) as long as you didn't encroach on a pedestrian crossing or actually cross the junction. Seems like a sensible approach to me. Shame it wasn't taken in this instance.

I would like to mention that a police officer at Hyde Park during the Prudential Ride London said that cyclists should move in front of the ASL if it was not safe to be behind it.

With all these things I guess officers have a certain discretion to make a fine based upon their reading of the circumstances, though there are still too many cars in the bike boxes.

So we all get whiney when motorists break laws but it's OK for us? Loads of hypocrite cyclists out there