Do tell us o wise one where's the red light? For we cannot see beyond our blindness.
https://www.google.ch/maps/@46.52768...2!8i6656?hl=en
That was not the link in the quote in my post .
Btw. I don't do catfights. Not even with guys. So as OP - I guess - has his answer now, I wander off ....
Who cares about that post of you? The post of me that you quoted was not a reaction to your posting, but to a posting from op which included the pedestrian crossing and had absolutely nothing to do with your posting.
Lean to read and look before you tell other people that they can get help from an optician. You call it a catfight, i call it the result of somebody who cannot admit she's wrong, and therefor wanders of...
I wanted to double check this, since I have been nagging the wife about those stop lines so I sent an email to stva.zh.ch and they replied:
As the name suggests, you must always perform a security stop. He then quoted the text we have been all quoting.
I think the word gegebenenfalls everyone is mentioning applies to the traffic light only in the sentence : " und gegebenenfalls bei Lichtsignalen, Bahnübergängen und Fahrstreifen"
I always said you must to a full stop if there is a stop sign (except there is also a green traffic light or a police man)
Reply to them what to do if there is No Stop sign like here https://goo.gl/maps/mzYTGdGoSPy
or a flashing yellow traffic light (and also no stop sign) like here https://goo.gl/maps/W2bjZdUtC322 .
(I think "where applicable" is a perfect match for "gegebenenfalls")
What exactly did you ask them, if you asked the same thing as the OP is asking, then there's someone working at stva who has no clue about the rules.
Hello experts
In the case where such a "second solid line" is a few tens of metres behind a traffic light, is it considered a red light crossing if one crosses it (on red light) but (of course) stops behind the "actual" solid line closer to the traffic light?
Thanks
You mean like here? https://goo.gl/maps/iTJhsfabCxCwpqqF9
One line is for the red light, the other is to be stopped behind to allow cars to exit and enter the side street.
By solid lines I assume you meant those 40-50cm wide lines, right?
But, what is the color of the lines? When there's 2 lines, usually 1 is white and the 2nd is yellow. The space between those those thick lines is reserved to cyclists.
Yes exactly. My understanding has been so far that when the light is red, you stop behind the further line, even if the road in front of you is clear up to the traffic light. Is that wrong?
And if you fail to stop by the further line (on light being red), but stop on time before the closer one, it's not a red light crossing?
No it's not that. It's the situation mentioned in the comment above you (by Ato).
I'll admit I'm not sure. But I'd be interested to see what ASITUS says.
I'd go to the forward line as long as I would not then be blocking the side road.
It's not considered jumping the red light. It's mildly discourteous if you cross and don't leave enough room, not downright dangerous.
Definitely this - the second line is to stop at if the traffic isn't flowing freely, in order to not block the side road.
Can you even see the signal clearly from the back line??
That's precisely the reason I asked. Sometimes, e.g. on a bright Sunday, it may be not easy to determine immediately from that distance whether the traffic light is working at all or turned off.
I can't find anything in the actual law about it, but unfortunately it's not translated to English and isn't the easiest to read.
https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1...1_1961_1961/de
The diagrams show the halt line as item 6.10 and nothing else has a similar appearance.
Maybe it has no legal standing, just an indicator.
I almost stepped out in front of a car today because there was a white line *across* the road. When I took a closer look there were traffic lights.