can i contest a box junction violation due to poor visibility?

vaio

steve-L wrote: »

........Equally, I never understood how a car turning right in a box junction is not a hazard but one going straight on is? It's either a hazard in that position or not?

it's not to do with hazard (dangerous or otherwise), it's to do with delaying traffic. Cars turning right but prevented from doing so by oncoming traffic can clear the box as soon as the oncoming traffic stops which is why they are allowed to stop in the box.

steve-L

You are going to have to do some work to substantiate that claim.

It's not me that has to do that it's (in this case) TfL

The purpose as stated for the Road traffic act 1962 is

An Act to make further provision as to road safety and road traffic and for purposes connected therewith.

According to http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/10-11/59/introduction - that has not changed.... (hence still stands)

So everything SHOULD be justified according to "road safety and road traffic and for purposes connected therewith"

There have been changes justified on the grounds of reducing pollution but these fall in a roundabout way under road safety .... if they didn't the text of the 1962 Act would need to be amended at this point in the text.

This is the primary reason it is illegal to use PCN's as a mean's to generate revenue, be it speeding cameras or bus lane cameras or ... box junction cameras .... it has to be by some tenuous link 'safety' because that is the purpose the Act was written for. If it can't somehow come under that 'purpose' any new legislation is overstepping it's authority and should go back to the commons for change.

'Flow of traffic' tenuously comes under safety....
It's a stretch I realise it but that is the justification of why we have all the traffic regulations.

If you search PATAS and browse successful appeals you will probably find very few where the basis of the appeal was 'it was safe to ignore the rule'.

Indeed, there is a finite list of people allowed to ignore the box junction if they 'deem' it safe at the time. (incl. blood bank carriers, emergency services... etc.)

Almost every box junction case won is due to technicalities
That might be the markings, the box itself does not meet the criteria, you entered the box PLANNING to turn right but didn't.... you entered whilst the traffic in front was not stationary and in some cases TfL has made it impossible to exit due to the size of the box and sticking traffic lights....

One of the best technicalities is you simply CHOSE to stop..... if you COULD have kept moving but CHOSE to stop that is technically not contravening... so long as your reason is NOT stationary traffic when you ENTERED the box junction.... and you could keep moving....

Nerja_2

neilmcl wrote: »

OP, any chance contributing to this thread you started then?

He is stuck in a box junction.

brat

steve-L wrote: »

It's not me that has to do that it's (in this case) TfL

Rubbish! TfL does NOT have to show danger. All it has to do is prove the offence.

steve-L wrote: »

The purpose as stated for the Road traffic act 1962 is


According to http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/10-11/59/introduction - that has not changed.... (hence still stands)

So everything SHOULD be justified according to "road safety and road traffic and for purposes connected therewith"

There have been changes justified on the grounds of reducing pollution but these fall in a roundabout way under road safety .... if they didn't the text of the 1962 Act would need to be amended at this point in the text.

You're failing to make any cogent point here. If you are trying to say that every part of the Road Traffic Act is about road safety, then why would the act feel the need to add

"road safety and road traffic and for purposes connected therewith"?

There is much in the Road Traffic Act that has nothing to do with Road Safety, but to do with inconvenience or legislative conditions.

steve-L wrote: »

This is the primary reason it is illegal to use PCN's as a mean's to generate revenue, be it speeding cameras or bus lane cameras or ... box junction cameras .... it has to be by some tenuous link 'safety' because that is the purpose the Act was written for. If it can't somehow come under that 'purpose' any new legislation is overstepping it's authority and should go back to the commons for change.

'Flow of traffic' tenuously comes under safety....
It's a stretch I realise it but that is the justification of why we have all the traffic regulations.

If you search PATAS and browse successful appeals you will probably find very few where the basis of the appeal was 'it was safe to ignore the rule'.

Indeed, there is a finite list of people allowed to ignore the box junction if they 'deem' it safe at the time. (incl. blood bank carriers, emergency services... etc.)

Almost every box junction case won is due to technicalities
That might be the markings, the box itself does not meet the criteria, you entered the box PLANNING to turn right but didn't.... you entered whilst the traffic in front was not stationary and in some cases TfL has made it impossible to exit due to the size of the box and sticking traffic lights....

One of the best technicalities is you simply CHOSE to stop..... if you COULD have kept moving but CHOSE to stop that is technically not contravening... so long as your reason is NOT stationary traffic when you ENTERED the box junction.... and you could keep moving....

"Technicalities" is often another word for lying about your intent or omission, ie "I know I committed the offence, but now I want to get out of it"
The legal "technicality" is to argue points of law, maintenance or faulty signage, and is IMO an acceptable line of defence.
The other type of technicality is to lie about your purpose, which is what you seem to be proposing. This is an unacceptable "techincality" because it involves the commission of a more serious offence, that of perverting the course of justice.

Driving carries a low level of risk, something like 0.2 micromorts per hour on top of your daily death risk. If you are arguing that driving itself is dangerous, then fair enough, but I don't think you are. So you therefore have created your own arbitrary line below which is safe, and above which is dangerous. Is 5mph safe and 10mph dangerous? Is 30 safe and 50 dangerous? Or does it depend on specific circumstances?

The Road Traffic Act that you keep mentioning to support your argument has been very helpful because it has deined "dangerous" for us. It defines it as when "the way a person drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.

CPS have helpfully compiled a list of examples of driving that might be considered to be dangerous. Have a look!
Unsurprisingly, stopping in a box junction didn't make the list! :doh:

dacouch

In London, if there's a camera covering a box junction then the chances of the paint being faded are slim.

londonTiger

Ok the original thread is here

I have started a new thread because this forum is full of busybodies who like to have a go at people. I'm not asking you for you opinion on "safe driving" - you weren't there, you have no business giving an opinion on the matter when it hasn't been asked for it.

So I'll start again. I've revisited the location where I may have violated the box junction rule and may have a ticket being processed through the system heading my way.

1) I understand that I have violated the rules and do not want to be lectured here about this.
2) I feel (like most people) that a £130 penalty is wholly unjustified for a traffic violation that's silly and made primarily for revenue collection
3) I am, like most people here, on a bit of a budget, so I want to wiggle out of this one.

So if you udnerstand these 3 points read one

Background story.
Traffic was moving at a crawl during rush hour, during which time people always cut into someone else lane that's moving a little bit faster than theirs to get that tiny bit of advantage. Traffic is moving at 5mph or less because everyone is quing up to go through the tunnel to cross the river. Actually 5mph is probably an overshoot. The traffic was start stopping constantly.

I got caught unawares as my attention was focused on keeping a 6ft or less gap with the car in front to avoid being cut in. So I ended up being trapped in a box junction

Box junction is quite faded and it was around 5-6pm after work when it was really dark so visibility was poor.

I have gone through the location again during the day and recorded the road on my video camera. It is clear that the markings are really faint. But is it faint enough to argue that it was not visible. I honestly think that it's not bright enough to grab your attention say 20-30 meters awy, it only becomes noticeable enough once you're in the box.


Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=did57jUsCsQ offending box juction around 3:58 mark

p.s. listening to podcast, not me speaking.

TonyMMM

If your defence is that you didn't see the box junction because it was incorrectly marked,i.e. too faded to be seen by a driver, you will need to opt for a court hearing and present your evidence - pictures/video etc. it will then be for the magistrate to decide.

The fact you were in traffic, trying to stop people cutting in and got caught "unawares" is irrelevant and only reinforces the potential prosecution case that you either weren't looking or chose to ignore the box. I would leave all that out, it doesn't help your case at all.

londonTiger

TonyMMM wrote: »

The fact you were in traffic, trying to stop people cutting in and got caught "unawares" is irrelevant and only reinforces the potential prosecution case that you either weren't looking or chose to ignore the box. I would leave all that out, it doesn't help your case at all.

Yes that fopr the forum not for the magistrates. Might as well be honest if I'm going to ask for advice here.

neilmcl

So what was wrong with your other thread other than you not even bothering to contribute to it yourself, other than starting it to provoke a response. Sounds like an epitome of internet trolling to me. I believe you got your answer in the other thread.

steve-L

brat wrote: »

Rubbish! TfL does NOT have to show danger. All it has to do is prove the offence.



You're failing to make any cogent point here. If you are trying to say that every part of the Road Traffic Act is about road safety, then why would the act feel the need to add
There is much in the Road Traffic Act that has nothing to do with Road Safety, but to do with inconvenience or legislative conditions.


"Technicalities" is often another word for lying about your intent or omission, ie "I know I committed the offence, but now I want to get out of it"
The legal "technicality" is to argue points of law, maintenance or faulty signage, and is IMO an acceptable line of defence.
The other type of technicality is to lie about your purpose, which is what you seem to be proposing. This is an unacceptable "techincality" because it involves the commission of a more serious offence, that of perverting the course of justice.

Driving carries a low level of risk, something like 0.2 micromorts per hour on top of your daily death risk. If you are arguing that driving itself is dangerous, then fair enough, but I don't think you are. So you therefore have created your own arbitrary line below which is safe, and above which is dangerous. Is 5mph safe and 10mph dangerous? Is 30 safe and 50 dangerous? Or does it depend on specific circumstances?

The Road Traffic Act that you keep mentioning to support your argument has been very helpful because it has deined "dangerous" for us. It defines it as when "the way a person drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.

CPS have helpfully compiled a list of examples of driving that might be considered to be dangerous. Have a look!
Unsurprisingly, stopping in a box junction didn't make the list! :doh:

You seem to be missing the point.
Show one appeal for a box junction that was successful when the person making the appeal stated "I entered the box junction because I deemed it was safe, even though I had no exit"

You will be unlikely to find one because TfL's representative will maintain that they (TfL) decide if that box junction is required...
... it's a pointless track to defend.

However, you will find several where the traffic was not stationary when the appealer entered, the markings were technically incorrect or the appealer said they intended to turn right or the appealer said they could have left but didn't bother. (As if you can leave no offence)

The offence is Entering and Stopping in a box junction (when prohibited)... not stopping in a box junction.

Arguments over if it was safe or not safe are just pointless. Even if the OP proves it was he still committed the offence.