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

Wig

steve-L wrote: »

The relevance is if the light stopped other vehicles at the exact moment londontiger ENTERED the junction.

No.
If the lights stopped "other vehicles" and they in turn stopped the OP inside the box, then the OP has "stopped in the box due to the presence of stationary vehicles" and could be guilty.

If the *lights* stop *your vehicle* in the box then you have a get out.

steve-L

Wig wrote: »

No.
If the lights stopped "other vehicles" and they in turn stopped the OP inside the box, then the OP has "stopped in the box due to the presence of stationary vehicles" and could be guilty.

If the *lights* stop *your vehicle* in the box then you have a get out.

According to successful appeals via PATAS ...
If the cars were moving when you entered and you then stopped because they did due to the lights changing (OR even because you felt like it) no offence.

The offence is only committed if the vehicles are already stationary WHEN you enter the junction. (Even if they are merely choosing to be stationary not due to the red light)

As such video evidence is required ... or several photo's only seconds apart.

If the OP searches they will be able to find several PATAS records where this has already been used and the appeal allowed.

londonTiger

steve-L wrote: »

According to successful appeals via PATAS ...
If the cars were moving when you entered and you then stopped because they did due to the lights changing (OR even because you felt like it) no offence.

The offence is only committed if the vehicles are already stationary WHEN you enter the junction. (Even if they are merely choosing to be stationary not due to the red light)

As such video evidence is required ... or several photo's only seconds apart.

If the OP searches they will be able to find several PATAS records where this has already been used and the appeal allowed.

again, thanks for the clarification Steve.

People seems to be very unfamiliar with the box junction rule. Me included I thought that the box junction had to be completely clear before entering. So I used to stop on my tracks before the junction and then wait for enough space for a single car on the other end before proceeding to cross it (while traffic was moving slowly).

I am pretty sure that traffic was moving when I entered the junction because I ended up stopping just a car length in on the opposite site, so it must've been moving for me to stop that far out. Because admittedly I was following the car in front very closely.

londonTiger

NBLondon wrote: »

However, if flashed - I think you're gonna lose. If you claim you didn't see the box junction, you may leave yourself open to other charges. Especially if the court asks whether you drive that route regularly and thus might already know there was one there. If you want to claim the junction isn't correctly painted so invalid - you'r gonna need some specialist advice and may still lose if you come up against an awkward magistrate or whatever...

Well box junctions don't flash, they're not like speed cameras that take a snap of you in two different spots in the speed trap and use the time stamp to measure speed. they have to use video evidence to prove the opposite (that you were stationary in the box).

I can't see any CCTV. But there are a few unconventional bulbus shaped street lamps that may be CCTV posts. I'm not sure.

londonTiger

on a side note. if you get stuck in a box. can you just move backwards and forward to keep moving to avoid a box junction penalty?

dacouch

If the traffic ahead of me stops unexpectedly I drive really really slowly and it usually clears thus I'm not stopping.

It helps that I leave a nice big gap in front of me at box junctions when the traffic is dodgy.

Sgt_Pepper_2

londonTiger wrote: »

on a side note. if you get stuck in a box. can you just move backwards and forward to keep moving to avoid a box junction penalty?

And you referred to someone as an IDIOT on another thread?

dacouch

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

And you referred to someone as an IDIOT on another thread?

Amusingly if the OP and the driver behind both adopt the don't leave a gap for another car to jump into they would not be able to move backwards and forwards.

Reminds me of the LWB sprinter I watched the other day do a four point turn in the middle of a set of traffic lights the other day.

Wig

steve-L wrote: »

According to successful appeals via PATAS ...
If the cars were moving when you entered and you then stopped because they did due to the lights changing (OR even because you felt like it) no offence.

The offence is only committed if the vehicles are already stationary WHEN you enter the junction. (Even if they are merely choosing to be stationary not due to the red light)

As such video evidence is required ... or several photo's only seconds apart.

If the OP searches they will be able to find several PATAS records where this has already been used and the appeal allowed.

First, These PATAS rulings do not make case law.
Second, Any adjudicator can make a different decision (subject to law/case law) from any other adjudicator.
Third, The law is not clearly written on this point...but the intention is that if you have to stop inside due to a stationary vehicle then the offence has been commited.
Fourth, if you get a decision against you by a PATAS adjudicator and you feel hard done by (because you can quote other case numbers where the decision was the opposite) and you go to the higher PATAS adjudicator. That higher adjudicator only looks to see if your decision and the reasons given it were valid, i.e. that they can be justified according to the way the law is written. In this example, I am positive they would not overturn the your ruling because the law can be interpreted (at a stretch) both ways. I also imagine the normal and most frequent interpretation of the law, will be that the vehicles don't have to be stationary at the time you entered the box for the offence to occur.
Fifth, The quoted case does not back you up. If they are easily obtained in a google search perhaps you can quote one or two which do back you up.

londonTiger wrote: »

again, thanks for the clarification Steve.

Read my reply, before taking what Steve says as gospel.

londonTiger wrote: »

on a side note. if you get stuck in a box. can you just move backwards and forward to keep moving to avoid a box junction penalty?

No, because when you change direction you momentarily stop. The best you can do is slow as much as possible and crawl forward at a snails pace.

steve-L

londonTiger wrote: »

People seems to be very unfamiliar with the box junction rule. Me included

So was I .... I had to search PATAS for a couple of NON BOX JUNCTION PCN's..... and you start reading a few .... hence why I knew this in advance... (mine were parking and I got both revoked)

I thought that the box junction had to be completely clear before entering.

I believe that is probably the INTENTION of the rule.... it's worded poorly if you stick to correct English ... if that is the intention!

However ... PCN's have sod all to do with intention (hence why no point about it being safe or not safe) ... and everything to do with technicalities! 9/10 times the local authority or TfL will try and screw people on technicalities (from setting their clock on the parking machine forwards deliberately to setting up a speed camera and deliberately hiding the speed sign behind an obstruction.... etc. In most they are no better than the thieving private parking firms issuing non enforceable PCN's and relying on people's ignorance and scaring them into paying.

Hence the way to win an appeal is (IMHO) on technicalities OR anything they cannot prove.

Incidentally people have had mixed results from the I was not blocked because I could have used the other lane .... some have been allowed and others not... one I was had the 'left lane was empty argument rejected BUT the appeal upheld as they had put the wrong code (It was filed as say a 31 and it should have been a 31J - the difference being the J or whatever meant they were using video evidence)

I am pretty sure that traffic was moving when I entered the junction because I ended up stopping just a car length in on the opposite site, so it must've been moving for me to stop that far out. Because admittedly I was following the car in front very closely.

with a bit of luck you won't get the PCN...... either from that or the funny bubbles are not that sort of camera????

However, Id recommend you search for and read the successful appeals.

A good start would be a google on:
Jennings v Transport for London PATAS Case no. MV0285GT01
(This was I think the landmark case)

By reading them you see how the PATAS people's minds work.... what works and what doesn't.