Cyclists get fined, drivers get a leaflet

spindrift said:

Between Monday 8th and Sunday 14th October the City of London Police
will again be running a campaign to "promote safer cycling in the
City".

The key message is around staying safe, which means the police will
not only focus on cyclists but also on drivers. Where drivers fail to
observe the advance stop line at automatic traffic signals, they will
be given educational leaflets pointing out the offence.

The City of London Police will also be targeting four 'hotspot'
junctions to enforce traffic regulations.

A few facts:

Three hundred cyclists were fined for the technical offence of
breaching the cycle path at Smithfield.

I have just done a quick search and can't find any offence technical or
not called "Breaching a cycle path" are you using the term the same way
a sapper would?

Quoted message said:

No driver in London has ever been prosecuted for encroaching an ASL,
an offence as serious as RLJing since last February.

"as serious"? Say's who?

Quoted message said:

No driver has been prosecuted in The City for driving on a mobile.

They are probably likely to fall off first!

marc said:

spindrift said:

Between Monday 8th and Sunday 14th October the City of London Police
will again be running a campaign to "promote safer cycling in the
City".

Quoted message said:

The key message is around staying safe, which means the police will
not only focus on cyclists but also on drivers. Where drivers fail to
observe the advance stop line at automatic traffic signals, they will
be given educational leaflets pointing out the offence.

Quoted message said:

The City of London Police will also be targeting four 'hotspot'
junctions to enforce traffic regulations.

Quoted message said:

A few facts:

Quoted message said:

Three hundred cyclists were fined for the technical offence of
breaching the cycle path at Smithfield.

I have just done a quick search and can't find any offence technical or
not called "Breaching a cycle path" are you using the term the same way
a sapper would?

Quoted message said:

No driver in London has ever been prosecuted for encroaching an ASL,
an offence as serious as RLJing since last February.

"as serious"? Say's who?

Quoted message said:

No driver has been prosecuted in The City for driving on a mobile.

They are probably likely to fall off first!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The Smithfield cycle lane led riders to a four foot bit of pavement to
cross to continue south. Johnny Law lay in waite and dished out wagon
laods of fines. Fair play, it's against the law, mea culpa, shotting
fish in a barrel a bit though,

"Says who"? The law.

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

http://www.towerhamletswheelers.org.uk/media/2005releases/thw04asl_survey051109.html

So cyclists get slapped with a fine, drivers get given a leaflet. I
play by the rules and don't RLJ, why so much latitude for drivers?

spindrift said:

marc said:

spindrift said:

Between Monday 8th and Sunday 14th October the City of London Police
will again be running a campaign to "promote safer cycling in the
City".
The key message is around staying safe, which means the police will
not only focus on cyclists but also on drivers. Where drivers fail to
observe the advance stop line at automatic traffic signals, they will
be given educational leaflets pointing out the offence.
The City of London Police will also be targeting four 'hotspot'
junctions to enforce traffic regulations.
A few facts:
Three hundred cyclists were fined for the technical offence of
breaching the cycle path at Smithfield.

I have just done a quick search and can't find any offence technical or
not called "Breaching a cycle path" are you using the term the same way
a sapper would?

Quoted message said:

No driver in London has ever been prosecuted for encroaching an ASL,
an offence as serious as RLJing since last February.

"as serious"? Say's who?

Quoted message said:

No driver has been prosecuted in The City for driving on a mobile.

They are probably likely to fall off first!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The Smithfield cycle lane led riders to a four foot bit of pavement to
cross to continue south. Johnny Law lay in waite and dished out wagon
laods of fines. Fair play, it's against the law, mea culpa, shotting
fish in a barrel a bit though,

"Says who"? The law.

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

Which law? The ones you have quoted make it an offence for both cars or
cycles to cross a stop line when the light is red, but you used the TLA
"RLJ" which means Red Light Jumping, to me that means a vehicle that
continues through the junction when the light is red and other traffic
is proceeding. Unless you can show me how a vehicle stopped beyond the
Sl but behind the ASL is as serious as a vehicle that continues through
the junction I'm going to have to treat your statment as another piece
of hyperbole.

Quoted message said:

http://www.towerhamletswheelers.org.uk/media/2005releases/thw04asl_survey051109.html

So cyclists get slapped with a fine, drivers get given a leaflet. I
play by the rules and don't RLJ, why so much latitude for drivers?

I would suggest that drivers that stop at the ASL can't be counted as
RLJers and that any driver that was found on the Smithfield cycle lane
and then drove over the four foot bit of pavement would have been fined.
So it seems the same latitude is given to both class of vehicle operators.

marc said:

spindrift said:

marc said:

spindrift wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Between Monday 8th and Sunday 14th October the City of London Police
> will again be running a campaign to "promote safer cycling in the
> City".
> The key message is around staying safe, which means the police will
> not only focus on cyclists but also on drivers. Where drivers fail to
> observe the advance stop line at automatic traffic signals, they will
> be given educational leaflets pointing out the offence.
> The City of London Police will also be targeting four 'hotspot'
> junctions to enforce traffic regulations.
> A few facts:
> Three hundred cyclists were fined for the technical offence of
> breaching the cycle path at Smithfield.
I have just done a quick search and can't find any offence technical or
not called "Breaching a cycle path" are you using the term the same way
a sapper would?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> No driver in London has ever been prosecuted for encroaching an ASL,
> an offence as serious as RLJing since last February.
"as serious"? Say's who?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> No driver has been prosecuted in The City for driving on a mobile.
They are probably likely to fall off first!- Hide quoted text -

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

- Show quoted text -

Quoted message said:

The Smithfield cycle lane led riders to a four foot bit of pavement to
cross to continue south. Johnny Law lay in waite and dished out wagon
laods of fines. Fair play, it's against the law, mea culpa, shotting
fish in a barrel a bit though,

Quoted message said:

"Says who"? The law.

Quoted message said:

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

Which law? The ones you have quoted make it an offence for both cars or
cycles to cross a stop line when the light is red, but you used the TLA
"RLJ" which means Red Light Jumping, to me that means a vehicle that
continues through the junction when the light is red and other traffic
is proceeding. Unless you can show me how a vehicle stopped beyond the
Sl but behind the ASL is as serious as a vehicle that continues through
the junction I'm going to have to treat your statment as another piece
of hyperbole.

Quoted message said:

http://www.towerhamletswheelers.org.uk/media/2005releases/thw04asl_su...

Quoted message said:

So cyclists get slapped with a fine, drivers get given a leaflet. I
play by the rules and don't RLJ, why so much latitude for drivers?

I would suggest that drivers that stop at the ASL can't be counted as
RLJers and that any driver that was found on the Smithfield cycle lane
and then drove over the four foot bit of pavement would have been fined.
So it seems the same latitude is given to both class of vehicle operators.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"I would suggest that drivers that stop at the ASL can't be counted
as
RLJers"

The law disagrees, thankfully.

The legal status of ASLs has now been clarified and they are now fully
enforceable following Parliamentary legislation which came into force
on 31st January 2003: Anyone driving a motor vehicle which stops in an
ASL when the light is red will be committing an offence contrary to
section 38 of the Road Traffic Act of not obeying a traffic signal.

Its difficult to believe that when this taxi driver stopped at this
red light he did not understand the significance of a green box
sporting a large cycle logo - its far more likely he just did not
care. Agar Grove/St Pancras Way, NW1

http://www.camdencyclists.org.uk/info/designing/practiceandimple

So why do drivers get let off the same offence that cyclists are fined
for?

spindrift said:

marc said:

spindrift said:

On 9 Oct, 09:11, marc <[email hidden]> wrote:
> spindrift wrote:
>> Between Monday 8th and Sunday 14th October the City of London Police
>> will again be running a campaign to "promote safer cycling in the
>> City".
>> The key message is around staying safe, which means the police will
>> not only focus on cyclists but also on drivers. Where drivers fail to
>> observe the advance stop line at automatic traffic signals, they will
>> be given educational leaflets pointing out the offence.
>> The City of London Police will also be targeting four 'hotspot'
>> junctions to enforce traffic regulations.
>> A few facts:
>> Three hundred cyclists were fined for the technical offence of
>> breaching the cycle path at Smithfield.
> I have just done a quick search and can't find any offence technical or
> not called "Breaching a cycle path" are you using the term the same way
> a sapper would?
>> No driver in London has ever been prosecuted for encroaching an ASL,
>> an offence as serious as RLJing since last February.
> "as serious"? Say's who?
>> No driver has been prosecuted in The City for driving on a mobile.
> They are probably likely to fall off first!- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
The Smithfield cycle lane led riders to a four foot bit of pavement to
cross to continue south. Johnny Law lay in waite and dished out wagon
laods of fines. Fair play, it's against the law, mea culpa, shotting
fish in a barrel a bit though,
"Says who"? The law.
(Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 43(2))

Which law? The ones you have quoted make it an offence for both cars or
cycles to cross a stop line when the light is red, but you used the TLA
"RLJ" which means Red Light Jumping, to me that means a vehicle that
continues through the junction when the light is red and other traffic
is proceeding. Unless you can show me how a vehicle stopped beyond the
Sl but behind the ASL is as serious as a vehicle that continues through
the junction I'm going to have to treat your statment as another piece
of hyperbole.

Quoted message said:

http://www.towerhamletswheelers.org.uk/media/2005releases/thw04asl_su...
So cyclists get slapped with a fine, drivers get given a leaflet. I
play by the rules and don't RLJ, why so much latitude for drivers?

I would suggest that drivers that stop at the ASL can't be counted as
RLJers and that any driver that was found on the Smithfield cycle lane
and then drove over the four foot bit of pavement would have been fined.
So it seems the same latitude is given to both class of vehicle operators.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"I would suggest that drivers that stop at the ASL can't be counted
as
RLJers"

The law disagrees, thankfully.

Ok , no problem, you will be able to cite which law describes RLJers,
and publish here the laws definition of an RLJer?

Quoted message said:

The legal status of ASLs has now been clarified and they are now fully
enforceable following Parliamentary legislation which came into force
on 31st January 2003: Anyone driving a motor vehicle which stops in an
ASL when the light is red will be committing an offence contrary to
section 38 of the Road Traffic Act of not obeying a traffic signal.

Its difficult to believe that when this taxi driver stopped at this
red light he did not understand the significance of a green box
sporting a large cycle logo - its far more likely he just did not
care. Agar Grove/St Pancras Way, NW1

http://www.camdencyclists.org.uk/info/designing/practiceandimple

I don't see any mention in there of RLJers or RLJing, did I miss it?

Quoted message said:

So why do drivers get let off the same offence that cyclists are fined
for?

I don't think any cyclist has ever been fined for being in an ASL box.

"I don't see any mention in there of RLJers or RLJing, did I miss it?
"

Yep.

See where it mentions Section 38, or don't you think traffic lights
are signals....

marc said:

spindrift said:

marc said:

spindrift wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Between Monday 8th and Sunday 14th October the City of London Police
> will again be running a campaign to "promote safer cycling in the
> City".
> The key message is around staying safe, which means the police will
> not only focus on cyclists but also on drivers. Where drivers fail to
> observe the advance stop line at automatic traffic signals, they will
> be given educational leaflets pointing out the offence.
> The City of London Police will also be targeting four 'hotspot'
> junctions to enforce traffic regulations.
> A few facts:
> Three hundred cyclists were fined for the technical offence of
> breaching the cycle path at Smithfield.
I have just done a quick search and can't find any offence technical or
not called "Breaching a cycle path" are you using the term the same way
a sapper would?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> No driver in London has ever been prosecuted for encroaching an ASL,
> an offence as serious as RLJing since last February.
"as serious"? Say's who?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> No driver has been prosecuted in The City for driving on a mobile.
They are probably likely to fall off first!- Hide quoted text -

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

- Show quoted text -

Quoted message said:

The Smithfield cycle lane led riders to a four foot bit of pavement to
cross to continue south. Johnny Law lay in waite and dished out wagon
laods of fines. Fair play, it's against the law, mea culpa, shotting
fish in a barrel a bit though,

Quoted message said:

"Says who"? The law.

Quoted message said:

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

Which law? The ones you have quoted make it an offence for both cars or
cycles to cross a stop line when the light is red, but you used the TLA
"RLJ" which means Red Light Jumping, to me that means a vehicle that
continues through the junction when the light is red and other traffic
is proceeding. Unless you can show me how a vehicle stopped beyond the
Sl but behind the ASL is as serious as a vehicle that continues through
the junction I'm going to have to treat your statment as another piece
of hyperbole.

Quoted message said:

http://www.towerhamletswheelers.org.uk/media/2005releases/thw04asl_su...

Quoted message said:

So cyclists get slapped with a fine, drivers get given a leaflet. I
play by the rules and don't RLJ, why so much latitude for drivers?

I would suggest that drivers that stop at the ASL can't be counted as
RLJers and that any driver that was found on the Smithfield cycle lane
and then drove over the four foot bit of pavement would have been fined.
So it seems the same latitude is given to both class of vehicle operators.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"I would suggest that drivers that stop at the ASL can't be counted
as
RLJers "

Please refer to Section 38, Road Traffic Act.

spindrift said:

"I don't see any mention in there of RLJers or RLJing, did I miss it?
"

Yep.

See where it mentions Section 38, or don't you think traffic lights
are signals....

Looked again , still can't see RLJers or RLJing, I even used a search
with "RLJ as the string, nope nothing there..... can you possibly point
out to me where it is?

spindrift said:

marc said:

spindrift said:

On 9 Oct, 09:11, marc <[email hidden]> wrote:
> spindrift wrote:
>> Between Monday 8th and Sunday 14th October the City of London Police
>> will again be running a campaign to "promote safer cycling in the
>> City".
>> The key message is around staying safe, which means the police will
>> not only focus on cyclists but also on drivers. Where drivers fail to
>> observe the advance stop line at automatic traffic signals, they will
>> be given educational leaflets pointing out the offence.
>> The City of London Police will also be targeting four 'hotspot'
>> junctions to enforce traffic regulations.
>> A few facts:
>> Three hundred cyclists were fined for the technical offence of
>> breaching the cycle path at Smithfield.
> I have just done a quick search and can't find any offence technical or
> not called "Breaching a cycle path" are you using the term the same way
> a sapper would?
>> No driver in London has ever been prosecuted for encroaching an ASL,
>> an offence as serious as RLJing since last February.
> "as serious"? Say's who?
>> No driver has been prosecuted in The City for driving on a mobile.
> They are probably likely to fall off first!- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
The Smithfield cycle lane led riders to a four foot bit of pavement to
cross to continue south. Johnny Law lay in waite and dished out wagon
laods of fines. Fair play, it's against the law, mea culpa, shotting
fish in a barrel a bit though,
"Says who"? The law.
(Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 43(2))

Which law? The ones you have quoted make it an offence for both cars or
cycles to cross a stop line when the light is red, but you used the TLA
"RLJ" which means Red Light Jumping, to me that means a vehicle that
continues through the junction when the light is red and other traffic
is proceeding. Unless you can show me how a vehicle stopped beyond the
Sl but behind the ASL is as serious as a vehicle that continues through
the junction I'm going to have to treat your statment as another piece
of hyperbole.

Quoted message said:

http://www.towerhamletswheelers.org.uk/media/2005releases/thw04asl_su...
So cyclists get slapped with a fine, drivers get given a leaflet. I
play by the rules and don't RLJ, why so much latitude for drivers?

I would suggest that drivers that stop at the ASL can't be counted as
RLJers and that any driver that was found on the Smithfield cycle lane
and then drove over the four foot bit of pavement would have been fined.
So it seems the same latitude is given to both class of vehicle operators.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"I would suggest that drivers that stop at the ASL can't be counted
as
RLJers "

Please refer to Section 38, Road Traffic Act.

I have, no mention there , anywhere, of "RLJ"

marc said:

spindrift said:

"I don't see any mention in there of RLJers or RLJing, did I miss it?
"

Quoted message said:

Yep.

Quoted message said:

See where it mentions Section 38, or don't you think traffic lights
are signals....

Looked again , still can't see RLJers or RLJing, I even used a search
with "RLJ as the string, nope nothing there..... can you possibly point
out to me where it is?

Ok, let's break it down.

Traffic lights are a traffic signal.

Red light jumping is ignoring a traffic signal.

ASL encroachment is ignoring a traffic signal.

Ignoring a traffic signal is against section 38 blah blah blah

So drivers get a warning for the same breach as cyclists get fined
for.

City Of London cops have a long record of this kind of abuse of the
law and harassment of cyclists with partisan policing.

marc said:

spindrift said:

marc said:

spindrift wrote:
> On 9 Oct, 09:11, marc <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> spindrift wrote:
>>> Between Monday 8th and Sunday 14th October the City of London Police
>>> will again be running a campaign to "promote safer cycling in the
>>> City".
>>> The key message is around staying safe, which means the police will
>>> not only focus on cyclists but also on drivers. Where drivers fail to
>>> observe the advance stop line at automatic traffic signals, they will
>>> be given educational leaflets pointing out the offence.
>>> The City of London Police will also be targeting four 'hotspot'
>>> junctions to enforce traffic regulations.
>>> A few facts:
>>> Three hundred cyclists were fined for the technical offence of
>>> breaching the cycle path at Smithfield.
>> I have just done a quick search and can't find any offence technical or
>> not called "Breaching a cycle path" are you using the term the same way
>> a sapper would?
>>> No driver in London has ever been prosecuted for encroaching an ASL,
>>> an offence as serious as RLJing since last February.
>> "as serious"? Say's who?
>>> No driver has been prosecuted in The City for driving on a mobile.
>> They are probably likely to fall off first!- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
> The Smithfield cycle lane led riders to a four foot bit of pavement to
> cross to continue south. Johnny Law lay in waite and dished out wagon
> laods of fines. Fair play, it's against the law, mea culpa, shotting
> fish in a barrel a bit though,
> "Says who"? The law.
> (Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 43(2))
Which law? The ones you have quoted make it an offence for both cars or
cycles to cross a stop line when the light is red, but you used the TLA
"RLJ" which means Red Light Jumping, to me that means a vehicle that
continues through the junction when the light is red and other traffic
is proceeding. Unless you can show me how a vehicle stopped beyond the
Sl but behind the ASL is as serious as a vehicle that continues through
the junction I'm going to have to treat your statment as another piece
of hyperbole.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>http://www.towerhamletswheelers.org.uk/media/2005releases/thw04asl_su...
> So cyclists get slapped with a fine, drivers get given a leaflet. I
> play by the rules and don't RLJ, why so much latitude for drivers?
I would suggest that drivers that stop at the ASL can't be counted as
RLJers and that any driver that was found on the Smithfield cycle lane
and then drove over the four foot bit of pavement would have been fined.
So it seems the same latitude is given to both class of vehicle operators.- Hide quoted text -

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

- Show quoted text -

Quoted message said:

"I would suggest that drivers that stop at the ASL can't be counted
as
RLJers "

Quoted message said:

Please refer to Section 38, Road Traffic Act.

I have, no mention there , anywhere, of "RLJ"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"I have, no mention there , anywhere, of "RLJ" "

You don't think traffic lights are a signal?

Try jumping them in front of a copper, then tell us what section of
road law you're charged under!

LOL!!

spindrift said:

marc said:

spindrift said:

On 9 Oct, 09:54, marc <[email hidden]> wrote:
> spindrift wrote:
>> On 9 Oct, 09:11, marc <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>> spindrift wrote:
>>>> Between Monday 8th and Sunday 14th October the City of London Police
>>>> will again be running a campaign to "promote safer cycling in the
>>>> City".
>>>> The key message is around staying safe, which means the police will
>>>> not only focus on cyclists but also on drivers. Where drivers fail to
>>>> observe the advance stop line at automatic traffic signals, they will
>>>> be given educational leaflets pointing out the offence.
>>>> The City of London Police will also be targeting four 'hotspot'
>>>> junctions to enforce traffic regulations.
>>>> A few facts:
>>>> Three hundred cyclists were fined for the technical offence of
>>>> breaching the cycle path at Smithfield.
>>> I have just done a quick search and can't find any offence technical or
>>> not called "Breaching a cycle path" are you using the term the same way
>>> a sapper would?
>>>> No driver in London has ever been prosecuted for encroaching an ASL,
>>>> an offence as serious as RLJing since last February.
>>> "as serious"? Say's who?
>>>> No driver has been prosecuted in The City for driving on a mobile.
>>> They are probably likely to fall off first!- Hide quoted text -
>>> - Show quoted text -
>> The Smithfield cycle lane led riders to a four foot bit of pavement to
>> cross to continue south. Johnny Law lay in waite and dished out wagon
>> laods of fines. Fair play, it's against the law, mea culpa, shotting
>> fish in a barrel a bit though,
>> "Says who"? The law.
>> (Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 43(2))
> Which law? The ones you have quoted make it an offence for both cars or
> cycles to cross a stop line when the light is red, but you used the TLA
> "RLJ" which means Red Light Jumping, to me that means a vehicle that
> continues through the junction when the light is red and other traffic
> is proceeding. Unless you can show me how a vehicle stopped beyond the
> Sl but behind the ASL is as serious as a vehicle that continues through
> the junction I'm going to have to treat your statment as another piece
> of hyperbole.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>http://www.towerhamletswheelers.org.uk/media/2005releases/thw04asl_su...
>> So cyclists get slapped with a fine, drivers get given a leaflet. I
>> play by the rules and don't RLJ, why so much latitude for drivers?
> I would suggest that drivers that stop at the ASL can't be counted as
> RLJers and that any driver that was found on the Smithfield cycle lane
> and then drove over the four foot bit of pavement would have been fined.
> So it seems the same latitude is given to both class of vehicle operators.- Hide quoted text -

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> - Show quoted text -

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"I would suggest that drivers that stop at the ASL can't be counted
as
RLJers "

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Please refer to Section 38, Road Traffic Act.

Quoted message said:

I have, no mention there , anywhere, of "RLJ"- Hide quoted text -

Quoted message said:

- Show quoted text -

"I have, no mention there , anywhere, of "RLJ" "

You don't think traffic lights are a signal?

Try jumping them in front of a copper, then tell us what section of
road law you're charged under!

LOL!!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Pushy police. Did the City police do anything about this van cutting
into the cycle lane? Well of course being diligent they followed it.
Into the cycle lane. In fact while the City Police happily ticket
cycles going through red lights, they have never stopped drivers
stopping in Advanced Stop Lines (cycle reservoirs at traffic signals)
despite this being exactly the same traffic offence. When their
driving sets an example like this, it's hardly surprising.

http://www.ralphsmyth.me.uk/citycyclists/hoshame.html

spindrift said:

marc said:

spindrift said:

"I don't see any mention in there of RLJers or RLJing, did I miss it?
"
Yep.
See where it mentions Section 38, or don't you think traffic lights
are signals....

Looked again , still can't see RLJers or RLJing, I even used a search
with "RLJ as the string, nope nothing there..... can you possibly point
out to me where it is?

Ok, let's break it down.

Traffic lights are a traffic signal.

Yes

Quoted message said:

Red light jumping is ignoring a traffic signal.

Yes(1)

Quoted message said:

ASL encroachment is ignoring a traffic signal.

Yes

Quoted message said:

Ignoring a traffic signal is against section 38 blah blah blah

Yes

Quoted message said:

So drivers get a warning for the same breach as cyclists get fined
for.

No (2)

Quoted message said:

City Of London cops have a long record of this kind of abuse of the
law and harassment of cyclists with partisan policing.

Are you Dugh with a different coat on?

(1) You still haven't supplied a defintion of RLJ, so I'm forced to use
mine ("RLJ" which means Red Light Jumping, to me that means a vehicle
that continues through the junction when the light is red and other
traffic is proceeding.) and will continue to use mine until you supply
another definition.

(2) I don't know about you, but I have often (and often seen others)
cycled just across the SL to make my position safer. I don't regard this
as RLJing and have never seen or heard of a cyclist recieving a ticket
for doing so. I have heard of cylcists failing to stop at red lights,
and receiving tickets for it after sailing through the juction/crossing,
I have also heard/seen car drivers been treated in the same manner for
the same offence.

I don't care whicjh way you want to jump but it may be worth you tryign
to compare like with like rather than trying to find something to stuff
into the chip on your shoulder.

marc said:

spindrift said:

marc said:

spindrift wrote:
> "I don't see any mention in there of RLJers or RLJing, did I miss it?
> "
> Yep.
> See where it mentions Section 38, or don't you think traffic lights
> are signals....
Looked again , still can't see RLJers or RLJing, I even used a search
with "RLJ as the string, nope nothing there..... can you possibly point
out to me where it is?

Quoted message said:

Ok, let's break it down.

Quoted message said:

Traffic lights are a traffic signal.

Yes

Quoted message said:

Red light jumping is ignoring a traffic signal.

Yes(1)

Quoted message said:

ASL encroachment is ignoring a traffic signal.

Yes

Quoted message said:

Ignoring a traffic signal is against section 38 blah blah blah

Yes

Quoted message said:

So drivers get a warning for the same breach as cyclists get fined
for.

No (2)

Quoted message said:

City Of London cops have a long record of this kind of abuse of the
law and harassment of cyclists with partisan policing.

Are you Dugh with a different coat on?

(1) You still haven't supplied a defintion of RLJ, so I'm forced to use
mine ("RLJ" which means Red Light Jumping, to me that means a vehicle
that continues through the junction when the light is red and other
traffic is proceeding.) and will continue to use mine until you supply
another definition.

(2) I don't know about you, but I have often (and often seen others)
cycled just across the SL to make my position safer. I don't regard this
as RLJing and have never seen or heard of a cyclist recieving a ticket
for doing so. I have heard of cylcists failing to stop at red lights,
and receiving tickets for it after sailing through the juction/crossing,
I have also heard/seen car drivers been treated in the same manner for
the same offence.

I don't care whicjh way you want to jump but it may be worth you tryign
to compare like with like rather than trying to find something to stuff
into the chip on your shoulder.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Marc, where in the name of Grek buggery have I said cyclists would be
fined for going over the SL in an ASL?

Drivers doing so are breaking the law, I'm not sure where you've got
the impression that cyclists using ASLs are doing the same. Maybe you
could tell me?

Bike is the new Black, again.

Apparently Koy Thomson (new Director, London Cycling Campaign), told
us at Camden Cyclists last night that last year's 'Share the Road'
campaign ended up very anti-cyclist as the sharing expected of
motorists (enforcement of ASLs and cycle lanes) never materialised.

Ralph's link offers a clue as to why this is.

Cyclists get fined, drivers get a leaflet, sheesh.

marc said:

spindrift said:

marc said:

spindrift wrote:
> "I don't see any mention in there of RLJers or RLJing, did I miss it?
> "
> Yep.
> See where it mentions Section 38, or don't you think traffic lights
> are signals....
Looked again , still can't see RLJers or RLJing, I even used a search
with "RLJ as the string, nope nothing there..... can you possibly point
out to me where it is?

Quoted message said:

Ok, let's break it down.

Quoted message said:

Traffic lights are a traffic signal.

Yes

Quoted message said:

Red light jumping is ignoring a traffic signal.

Yes(1)

Quoted message said:

ASL encroachment is ignoring a traffic signal.

Yes

Quoted message said:

Ignoring a traffic signal is against section 38 blah blah blah

Yes

Quoted message said:

So drivers get a warning for the same breach as cyclists get fined
for.

No (2)

Quoted message said:

City Of London cops have a long record of this kind of abuse of the
law and harassment of cyclists with partisan policing.

Are you Dugh with a different coat on?

(1) You still haven't supplied a defintion of RLJ, so I'm forced to use
mine ("RLJ" which means Red Light Jumping, to me that means a vehicle
that continues through the junction when the light is red and other
traffic is proceeding.) and will continue to use mine until you supply
another definition.

(2) I don't know about you, but I have often (and often seen others)
cycled just across the SL to make my position safer. I don't regard this
as RLJing and have never seen or heard of a cyclist recieving a ticket
for doing so. I have heard of cylcists failing to stop at red lights,
and receiving tickets for it after sailing through the juction/crossing,
I have also heard/seen car drivers been treated in the same manner for
the same offence.

I don't care whicjh way you want to jump but it may be worth you tryign
to compare like with like rather than trying to find something to stuff
into the chip on your shoulder.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"I don't care whicjh way you want to jump but it may be worth you
tryign
to compare like with like rather than trying to find something to
stuff
into the chip on your shoulder. "

RLJing is the same offence as a driver encroaching an ASL. That's the
law, and as I've shown it is not applied equally. If you are unhappy
about this then lobby City cops as I do.

spindrift said:

marc said:

spindrift said:

On 9 Oct, 10:13, marc <[email hidden]> wrote:
> spindrift wrote:
>> "I don't see any mention in there of RLJers or RLJing, did I miss it?
>> "
>> Yep.
>> See where it mentions Section 38, or don't you think traffic lights
>> are signals....
> Looked again , still can't see RLJers or RLJing, I even used a search
> with "RLJ as the string, nope nothing there..... can you possibly point
> out to me where it is?
Ok, let's break it down.
Traffic lights are a traffic signal.

Yes

Quoted message said:

Red light jumping is ignoring a traffic signal.

Yes(1)

Quoted message said:

ASL encroachment is ignoring a traffic signal.

Yes

Quoted message said:

Ignoring a traffic signal is against section 38 blah blah blah

Yes

Quoted message said:

So drivers get a warning for the same breach as cyclists get fined
for.

No (2)

Quoted message said:

City Of London cops have a long record of this kind of abuse of the
law and harassment of cyclists with partisan policing.

Are you Dugh with a different coat on?

(1) You still haven't supplied a defintion of RLJ, so I'm forced to use
mine ("RLJ" which means Red Light Jumping, to me that means a vehicle
that continues through the junction when the light is red and other
traffic is proceeding.) and will continue to use mine until you supply
another definition.

(2) I don't know about you, but I have often (and often seen others)
cycled just across the SL to make my position safer. I don't regard this
as RLJing and have never seen or heard of a cyclist recieving a ticket
for doing so. I have heard of cylcists failing to stop at red lights,
and receiving tickets for it after sailing through the juction/crossing,
I have also heard/seen car drivers been treated in the same manner for
the same offence.

I don't care whicjh way you want to jump but it may be worth you tryign
to compare like with like rather than trying to find something to stuff
into the chip on your shoulder.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Marc, where in the name of Grek buggery have I said cyclists would be
fined for going over the SL in an ASL?

Drivers doing so are breaking the law, I'm not sure where you've got
the impression that cyclists using ASLs are doing the same. Maybe you
could tell me?

I made no mention of ASLs, read again, I have never heard of a cyclist
crossing a Sl for safety , then stopping, having recieved a ticket, have
you? You are comparing cyclists that continue through the
junction/crossing with drivers that cross the SL but not the ASL, your
argument is invalid.

spindrift said:

"I think you will find ( if you ever want to take your blinkers off)
that
any driver that was seen by a police officer driving through a
junction/crossing in the same way that the cyclists that were fined
did
, would also be fined. "

I'm afraid not.

City Of London Police are leafletting drivers for the exact some
offence instead of fining them, see first post.

So the Police are interpreting traffic law in a biased, partisan way-
the exact same offence treated differently according to road user with
the odds weighed against the same vulnerable road users that ASLs were
set up to protect!

You are Dugh AICMFP!

marc said:

spindrift said:

"I think you will find ( if you ever want to take your blinkers off)
that
any driver that was seen by a police officer driving through a
junction/crossing in the same way that the cyclists that were fined
did
, would also be fined. "

Quoted message said:

I'm afraid not.

Quoted message said:

City Of London Police are leafletting drivers for the exact some
offence instead of fining them, see first post.

Quoted message said:

So the Police are interpreting traffic law in a biased, partisan way-
the exact same offence treated differently according to road user with
the odds weighed against the same vulnerable road users that ASLs were
set up to protect!

You are Dugh AICMFP!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The real danger, highlighted by the police, is being caught by a left
truning vehicle.

Now, a cyclist using the cycle lane feeder will get to the ASL and see
a driver tossing a COLP leaflet out the window. The cyclist has
nowhere to go cos the cops aren't doing their job. City of London
Police are putting cyclists' lives in danger for the sake of saving on
paperwork, presumably.

Yet when cyclists break the exact same law....

spindrift said:

Yet when cyclists break the exact same law....

You are Dugh AICMFP!