Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • theobearman
    • By theobearman 6th Jun 17, 10:32 AM
    • 4Posts
    • 0Thanks
    theobearman
    Yellow Box at T Junction - PCN Advice
    • #1
    • 6th Jun 17, 10:32 AM
    Yellow Box at T Junction - PCN Advice 6th Jun 17 at 10:32 AM
    Hello all,

    This morning, I received a PCN for entering and stopping in the yellow box located at the junction of Finchley Road and Bridge Lane, London, NW11. This is a yellow box at a T junction.

    If you look at yellow box in Google street view (I can't post links or screenshots as a new user), I was in exactly the same position as the grey Ford seen inside the box in street view. Like this Ford, I was forced to stop inside the box due to a car pulling out to turn right from the Bridge Lane on the left hand side.

    Does this particular circumstance constitute a legitimate infringement of a yellow box? I am confused around the rules for how yellow boxes work at T junctions,

    Thanks very much in advance,

    Theo
Page 2
    • NBLondon
    • By NBLondon 7th Jun 17, 2:00 PM
    • 1,319 Posts
    • 6,927 Thanks
    NBLondon
    Having finally found it on StreetView - the point of the box junction is clearly so that if the traffic is solid on Finchley Road, it leaves a gap for a vehicle to turn right out of Bridge Lane.


    So as DTD says - if the car was already in the turn right position when the OP arrived - the OP should have stopped short and only continued into the box when the path and exit were clear, If the emerging car pushed out when the OP was about to enter (or had just entered) the box then the OP has a defence.


    Whether the emerging car has the right to enter the junction and wait for a space to turn right is a different question.... I agree with Nodding Donkey - if the yellow box covered both lanes, that would be OK. But as it is, I'm not sure.
    One day I'll think of something witty - Apparently I have!
    • Car 54
    • By Car 54 7th Jun 17, 4:22 PM
    • 2,027 Posts
    • 1,282 Thanks
    Car 54
    Whether the emerging car has the right to enter the junction and wait for a space to turn right is a different question.... I agree with Nodding Donkey - if the yellow box covered both lanes, that would be OK. But as it is, I'm not sure.
    Originally posted by NBLondon
    No matter the size of the box, there is no way in which a vehicle emerging from the side road can be "prevented from completing the right turn by oncoming vehicles or other vehicles which are stationary whilst waiting to complete a right turn", and so that exemption does not apply.
    • NBLondon
    • By NBLondon 8th Jun 17, 9:24 AM
    • 1,319 Posts
    • 6,927 Thanks
    NBLondon
    I might regret disagreeing with 54 but...

    "Oncoming vehicles" - agreed - there is nowhere for them to come from.

    "Other vehicles which are stationary" - what if the right-turner's exit from the box is blocked by a previous vehicle? Can they enter the box and wait? Since the box only covers one lane then it's possible for the traffic to be stationary in both directions on Finchley Road and the right-turner would be faced with a solid row to push into. If the box covered both lanes then the right-turner would at least have the rest of the box to get into but still might not be able to exit because of stopped traffic. Whether that is covered by the exemption or not is the question. It's not explicit in the wording (possibly because it was originally designed with a classic crossroads in mind) so it might have ended up being challenged and clarified in court.

    Looking at it the other way.... The box also helps people turning right into Bridge Lane by keeping a gap in stopped traffic for them to cross. Even if the box covered both lanes, they would still be entitled to enter and wait.
    One day I'll think of something witty - Apparently I have!
    • Car 54
    • By Car 54 8th Jun 17, 9:37 AM
    • 2,027 Posts
    • 1,282 Thanks
    Car 54
    I might regret disagreeing with 54 but...

    "Oncoming vehicles" - agreed - there is nowhere for them to come from.

    "Other vehicles which are stationary" - what if the right-turner's exit from the box is blocked by a previous vehicle? Can they enter the box and wait?
    Originally posted by NBLondon
    I didn't mention the second exemption, since it didn't seem to apply in the OP's case.

    However, it does seem slightly absurd that a driver stopping in the box waiting to turn right would be committing an offence, but anyone following him wouldn't.
    • NBLondon
    • By NBLondon 8th Jun 17, 9:49 AM
    • 1,319 Posts
    • 6,927 Thanks
    NBLondon
    I guess someone measured the traffic flows and decided that heavy traffic on Finchley Road was stopping traffic into or out of Bridge Lane and the box junction was a simpler/cheaper solution than traffic lights. The box doesn't really help anyone turning left out of Bridge Lane as far as I can see.
    One day I'll think of something witty - Apparently I have!
    • unholyangel
    • By unholyangel 8th Jun 17, 12:55 PM
    • 10,997 Posts
    • 8,258 Thanks
    unholyangel
    I might regret disagreeing with 54 but...

    "Oncoming vehicles" - agreed - there is nowhere for them to come from.

    "Other vehicles which are stationary" - what if the right-turner's exit from the box is blocked by a previous vehicle? Can they enter the box and wait? Since the box only covers one lane then it's possible for the traffic to be stationary in both directions on Finchley Road and the right-turner would be faced with a solid row to push into. If the box covered both lanes then the right-turner would at least have the rest of the box to get into but still might not be able to exit because of stopped traffic. Whether that is covered by the exemption or not is the question. It's not explicit in the wording (possibly because it was originally designed with a classic crossroads in mind) so it might have ended up being challenged and clarified in court.

    Looking at it the other way.... The box also helps people turning right into Bridge Lane by keeping a gap in stopped traffic for them to cross. Even if the box covered both lanes, they would still be entitled to enter and wait.
    Originally posted by NBLondon
    They'd still be committing an offence if they entered a box and their exit wasn't clear - even if they were turning right. The exemption is only for being hindered from turning by oncoming traffic or other cars waiting to turn right - not when your exit is blocked by traffic.

    But as I said, its a moot point because the car emerging from bridge lane should have given way to OP - as denoted by the road markings.
    Money doesn't solve poverty.....it creates it.
    • NBLondon
    • By NBLondon 9th Jun 17, 8:48 AM
    • 1,319 Posts
    • 6,927 Thanks
    NBLondon
    The exemption is only for being hindered from turning by oncoming traffic or other cars waiting to turn right - not when your exit is blocked by traffic.
    Originally posted by unholyangel
    Right - that's the clarification - the stationary vehicles bit refers to others waiting in the middle.


    Hmmm. So it could be theoretically possible for me to enter a box when turning right - stop in the middle because of oncoming traffic (not an offence) and find that when there is a gap in the oncoming traffic - my exit has been blocked so I have to stay where I am. A camera shot at that point would show an offence but without the previous footage it wouldn't show that I entered the box legally. So the OP has a point about a still photo not always showing the whole story whereas a short video clip would.
    One day I'll think of something witty - Apparently I have!
    • unholyangel
    • By unholyangel 10th Jun 17, 6:27 PM
    • 10,997 Posts
    • 8,258 Thanks
    unholyangel
    Right - that's the clarification - the stationary vehicles bit refers to others waiting in the middle.


    Hmmm. So it could be theoretically possible for me to enter a box when turning right - stop in the middle because of oncoming traffic (not an offence) and find that when there is a gap in the oncoming traffic - my exit has been blocked so I have to stay where I am. A camera shot at that point would show an offence but without the previous footage it wouldn't show that I entered the box legally. So the OP has a point about a still photo not always showing the whole story whereas a short video clip would.
    Originally posted by NBLondon

    Yes thats right.

    The offence is:
    7.—(1) Except when placed in the circumstances described in paragraph 8, the road markings shown in diagrams 1043 and 1044 shall each convey the prohibition that no person shall cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles.

    (2) The prohibition in sub-paragraph (1) does not apply to any person—

    (a)who causes a vehicle to enter the box junction (other than a box junction at a roundabout) for the purpose of turning right; and
    (b)stops it within the box junction for so long as it is prevented from completing the right turn by oncoming vehicles or other vehicles which are stationary whilst waiting to complete a right turn.
    So strictly speaking, its not an offence to stop in a box junction - therefore any picture showing a car stationary in a box junction is not proof of an offence. It would have to be a picture of them entering when their exit is blocked.

    Likewise if you were planning on turning right, there was no oncoming traffic but the road you were turning into had traffic which would cause you to stop within the limits of the box junction and you entered it, you would be committing an offence.

    That is also why special mention is made of box junctions on roundabouts - because obviously "turning right" at a roundabout is entirely different to doing so at a junction and extending the exemption to roundabouts would create circumstances where anyone taking an exit past 12 o'clock could ignore the prohibition because they would ALWAYS be hindered by other cars "turning right" (no oncoming traffic on a roundabout).
    Money doesn't solve poverty.....it creates it.
    • Wig
    • By Wig 10th Jun 17, 9:58 PM
    • 13,530 Posts
    • 7,322 Thanks
    Wig
    OP if the traffic, turning right from Bridge Ln, was already stopped in the junction before you entered the council may have a case, if not you should be able to win at appeal.
    Originally posted by DTDfanBoy
    What makes you think that it is not an absolute offence, i.e. although your exit was clear when you entered and it was clearly not your intention to get trapped in the box, another vehicle appeared and stopped, thus causing you to stop in the box. You have still IMO committed the offence of causing a vehicle to enter the box and stop in the box due the presence of stationary vehicles. I have not read the legislation in full but I don't think it gives any exemptions for "ok if it was clear when you entered but then fate deals you a blow and you HAVE to stop in the box...then that's ok".

    They'd still be committing an offence if they entered a box and their exit wasn't clear - even if they were turning right. The exemption is only for being hindered from turning by oncoming traffic or other cars waiting to turn right - not when your exit is blocked by traffic.
    Originally posted by unholyangel
    I don't quite understand what the scenario is here, but if the right turner was blocked by "oncoming traffic" which itself had become "stationary oncoming traffic" then IMO there is no offence because although they are stationary they are still "oncoming vehicles", if it is not this scenario than I can't see what is being talked about?

    But as I said, its a moot point because the car emerging from bridge lane should have given way to OP - as denoted by the road markings.
    But how does that help the OP, as I mentioned above, how is it not an absolute offence?

    Hmmm. So it could be theoretically possible for me to enter a box when turning right - stop in the middle because of oncoming traffic (not an offence) and find that when there is a gap in the oncoming traffic - my exit has been blocked
    Originally posted by NBLondon
    How would your exit become blocked if there was a gap in oncoming traffic?


    I would advise the OP to look at the layout of the yellow box to make sure it conforms with the diagrams and regulations in TSRG(?) presumably diagrams 1043 & 1044. I think that's your best bet of beating the penalty.

    The arguments of showing only 1 picture showing a stopped vehicle, will only hold water if when it goes to appeal the council does not provide at least two pictures with different time stamps or a video. Which they probably will do given that they will know that they have to do this to win a case in court.

    Again I have not looked on streetview (I cant see street view on my old computer), but the OP should also consider, was there an alternative exit the OP could have taken which was open to them when they were stopped from exiting by the car from bridge lane? i.e. was there two exit lanes and only the exit lane that the OP wanted, was blocked by the car from bridge lane. i.e. The OP exit 1 was blocked by the bridge car, but the OP could have pulled over to the left, swung around the rear of the bridge car and taken exit lane 2 if they had wanted to but the OP chose to remain in the box and wait rather than take the alternative exit... this would then not be an offence, because you have not caused your car to stop in the box due to a stationary vehicle but rather you have caused your car to stop in a box because you wanted to.
    Last edited by Wig; 10-06-2017 at 10:09 PM.
    My latest discovery, LSAT test questions online, logical questions, fun to do. Find example and past tests online, start at the LSAC.org website.
    • unholyangel
    • By unholyangel 11th Jun 17, 3:48 AM
    • 10,997 Posts
    • 8,258 Thanks
    unholyangel

    I don't quite understand what the scenario is here, but if the right turner was blocked by "oncoming traffic" which itself had become "stationary oncoming traffic" then IMO there is no offence because although they are stationary they are still "oncoming vehicles", if it is not this scenario than I can't see what is being talked about?
    Originally posted by Wig
    If you were at a crossroads, you are turning right, there is no oncoming traffic but your exit is blocked by stationary traffic - you would be committing an offence if you entered the box in such circumstances

    But how does that help the OP, as I mentioned above, how is it not an absolute offence?
    Its moot in OP's circumstances because he says the car pulled out in front of him. Therefore theres no point debating if the car emerging from bridge lane was right to be sitting in the box or whether the box should have been over both lanes for him to be sitting in it because he failed to give way.

    Its not an absolute offence because the wording of it doesn't make it an offence to stop in the box - only to enter in such circumstances that you'd have to stop because of stationary vehicles.

    That helps OP because (at least according to OP - we have no reason to doubt them) when OP entered, there were no stationary vehicles that would have caused him to stop. It was only after he had entered within the limits that the other car blocked his path and thus, he had to stop to avoid a collision.

    Again I have not looked on streetview (I cant see street view on my old computer), but the OP should also consider, was there an alternative exit the OP could have taken which was open to them when they were stopped from exiting by the car from bridge lane? i.e. was there two exit lanes and only the exit lane that the OP wanted, was blocked by the car from bridge lane. i.e. The OP exit 1 was blocked by the bridge car, but the OP could have pulled over to the left, swung around the rear of the bridge car and taken exit lane 2 if they had wanted to but the OP chose to remain in the box and wait rather than take the alternative exit... this would then not be an offence, because you have not caused your car to stop in the box due to a stationary vehicle but rather you have caused your car to stop in a box because you wanted to.
    No, none of that would have been possible. For a start, even if you weren't hindered by the layout, box junctions tend to exist at intersections where traffic is extremely congested (ie not the kind of place you want to be making sudden alterations to your course).

    If you looked at streetview, perhaps what people were saying would make a little more sense. Its pretty clear when you see the layout imo.
    Money doesn't solve poverty.....it creates it.
    • Wig
    • By Wig 11th Jun 17, 9:57 AM
    • 13,530 Posts
    • 7,322 Thanks
    Wig
    If you were at a crossroads, you are turning right, there is no oncoming traffic but your exit is blocked by stationary traffic - you would be committing an offence if you entered the box in such circumstances
    Originally posted by unholyangel
    Ok I see that.

    Its not an absolute offence because the wording of it doesn't make it an offence to stop in the box - only to enter in such circumstances that you'd have to stop because of stationary vehicles.
    I guess it depends on how you interpret the wording, to me it is not clear cut either way. Is that a legitimate defence then? Have people won cases on the subsequent events taking place after they entered the box? That would then also potentially include a line of slow moving traffic into and beyond the yellow box, everyone keeps moving in the flow of traffic, at the time of entering the box there are no stationary vehicles, but up ahead the vehicles stop causing feedback down the line until people are stopped inside the box due to stationary vehicles. but at the the time they entered the box there were no stationary vehicles. I don't think this would be a valid defence, will be very surprised if it is in this circumstance. But I don't see much difference between my example and the Bridge Lane example.


    No, none of that would have been possible. For a start, even if you weren't hindered by the layout, box junctions tend to exist at intersections where traffic is extremely congested (ie not the kind of place you want to be making sudden alterations to your course).
    Nonetheless it is a valid defence. People have won using it.

    If you looked at streetview, perhaps what people were saying would make a little more sense. Its pretty clear when you see the layout imo.
    Ok
    My latest discovery, LSAT test questions online, logical questions, fun to do. Find example and past tests online, start at the LSAC.org website.
    • NBLondon
    • By NBLondon 12th Jun 17, 9:06 AM
    • 1,319 Posts
    • 6,927 Thanks
    NBLondon
    How would your exit become blocked if there was a gap in oncoming traffic?
    Originally posted by Wig
    Hypothetically we're at a classic crossroads... On of the oncoming vehicles makes a left (for them) turn into my planned exit and then stops e.g. they are a bus and there is a bus stop right after the junction (bad road design but they exist). That exit was clear when I entered the box - so not an offence at that point - but is still blocked when the oncoming traffic stops. Playing word games now.... If I remain stationary; I have not committed an offence because I was already in the box when the exit became blocked yet if I start to move off and then stop again without leaving the box - I have because I have then caused the vehicle to stop in the box. Again - a single photo is misleading.


    Back to the OP - the OP did have an escape route viz. turn left into Bridge Lane thus exiting the box correctly instead of stopping. But I doubt many people would think of that on the fly...
    One day I'll think of something witty - Apparently I have!
    • unholyangel
    • By unholyangel 12th Jun 17, 2:40 PM
    • 10,997 Posts
    • 8,258 Thanks
    unholyangel
    Hypothetically we're at a classic crossroads... On of the oncoming vehicles makes a left (for them) turn into my planned exit and then stops e.g. they are a bus and there is a bus stop right after the junction (bad road design but they exist). That exit was clear when I entered the box - so not an offence at that point - but is still blocked when the oncoming traffic stops. Playing word games now.... If I remain stationary; I have not committed an offence because I was already in the box when the exit became blocked yet if I start to move off and then stop again without leaving the box - I have because I have then caused the vehicle to stop in the box. Again - a single photo is misleading.


    Back to the OP - the OP did have an escape route viz. turn left into Bridge Lane thus exiting the box correctly instead of stopping. But I doubt many people would think of that on the fly...
    Originally posted by NBLondon
    It wouldn't be an offence because as I quoted above, the offence is:
    no person shall cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles
    As you can see, the offence is not "no person shall cause a vehicle to stop within a box junction due to stationary vehicles". It is purely on the basis of when you enter the box whether you commit an offence or not.
    Money doesn't solve poverty.....it creates it.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

5,119Posts Today

9,188Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Byebye! I'm about to stop work & twitter, to instead spend glorious time with Mrs & mini MSE. Wishing u a lovely summer. See u in 10 days.

  • WARNING Did you start Uni in or after 2012? The interest's rising to 6.1%; yet it doesnt work like you think. See https://t.co/IQ8f0Vyetu RT

  • RT @JanaBeee: @MartinSLewis Boris is the anomaly (coffee), the others are versions of normal (beer). Lots of same candidates = vote share d?

  • Follow Martin