We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
PCN Notice Greenford / otter road yellow box
Comments
-
Edwood_Woodwood wrote: »Anyway OP, this thread has been hijacked initially by those who immediately dismissed your situation.
Please take note of the following, as I stated earlier, it appears you have several grounds for appeal-
1 You have not committed the offence as alleged.
When you entered the box junction the van in front of you was moving, as was the car in the next lane.
As such, you were not committing an offence, even when you subsequently stopped in the box.
Had you entered the box with the van already across the box junction, blocking the exit, then that would be the offence.
4 Being behind a large sprinter van will obviously obscure your vision going forward. There are obviously traffic lights ahead of the queue of traffic and I, and everyone else, will have been in this situation where such a large vehicle does not enable you to view traffic lights.
This alone is a mitigating factor.
1. The law actually defines the offence thus: "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". It makes no mention of whether the vehicles are stationary when the box is enters. Therefore it appears the OP is guilty.
Bear in mind that the HC is not the law. Sometimes, in trying to make the law more accessible, it leaves the door open to misunderstandings.
4. That is not mitigation - if anything, it is an aggravating factor. If a large vehicle is limiting your view of signs, lights or the road ahead then you are too close to it.0 -
1. The law actually defines the offence thus: "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". It makes no mention of whether the vehicles are stationary when the box is enters. Therefore it appears the OP is guilty.
.
I'm sorry but I don't understand the point, in bold, you are attempting to make here. I assume it is a typing error.
Nonetheless, to reiterate-
The law is clear, which you have provided above.
When the OP entered the box, the vehicle in front of him, and beside, was moving.
He did not enter the box with a stationary vehicle already blocking his exit.
When the van did eventually become stationary the OP had to stop, in the box.
That is not an offence, as alleged.0 -
4. That is not mitigation - if anything, it is an aggravating factor. If a large vehicle is limiting your view of signs, lights or the road ahead then you are too close to it.
I think this statement is rather impractical & quite ridiculous.
This would not, and does not, happen in busy, congested city centre traffic.
Do you really think that gaps of several meters from one vehicle to another would ever be observed by drivers at 8am & 5pm in order to get a clearer view?
Or is it more likely, as happens, vehicles are nose to tail?
If any large gaps are left you just have other vehicles driving into it thinking your lane is moving faster than theirs whilst in a crawl.
In any case, a bend in the road can obscure one's view of, say, traffic lights ahead, which one can do nothing about.0 -
Edwood_Woodwood wrote: »I'm sorry but I don't understand the point, in bold, you are attempting to make here. I assume it is a typing error.
Nonetheless, to reiterate-
The law is clear, which you have provided above.
When the OP entered the box, the vehicle in front of him, and beside, was moving.
He did not enter the box with a stationary vehicle already blocking his exit.
When the van did eventually become stationary the OP had to stop, in the box.
That is not an offence, as alleged.
Let me try again. "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".
The OP entered the box, He had to stop, due to the presence of stationary vehicles. Guilty.0 -
Here is a Streetview link to the site of the incident mentioned in the original post.
Still doesn't look like a dual carriageway to me.
From what I gather and hope to confirm shortly-
About a year ago, Cardiff became the first city outside of London to introduce moving traffic offences, such as bus lane fines & box junction transgressions.
In order for this to be compliant the city had to convince the Secretary of State that it was needed to keep traffic flowing and roads had to be reclassified and, from my understanding, roads who now have this with solid white line bus and or cycle lanes are now dual carriageways.
I believe that had the roads remained remained single carriageway roads then fines would not have been allowed.
As I stated earlier, a thick white line is considered a barrier and essentially has the same effect whether it is a solid barrier or not, minus the obvious vehicle damage with a solid barrier.
As the law does not specifically define what a dual carriageway must look like, it was felt the regs already satisfy that requirement.
I will confirm this once I have more time.0 -
Let me try again. "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".
The OP entered the box, He had to stop, due to the presence of stationary vehicles. Guilty.
Let me try again!
When the OP entered the box, the van was not stationary at that point, it was moving, just like the OP was too.
Even though he subsequently stopped in the box, once the van became stationary, that is not an offence.
You are obviously finding it difficult to understand this concept.0 -
Edwood_Woodwood wrote: »Even though he subsequently stopped in the box, once the van became stationary, that is not an offence.
Yes it is.
The Regulations state:...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.0 -
Edwood_Woodwood wrote: »Let me try again!
When the OP entered the box, the van was not stationary at that point, it was moving, just like the OP was too.
Even though he subsequently stopped in the box, once the van became stationary, that is not an offence.
You are obviously finding it difficult to understand this concept.
It's difficult to understand because it's wrong. The regs say "due to the presence of stationary vehicles". They do NOT say that those vehicles have to be stationary at the moment the box is entered.0 -
It's difficult to understand because it's wrong. The regs say "due to the presence of stationary vehicles". They do NOT say that those vehicles have to be stationary at the moment the box is entered.
The Act also does not say that merely stopping in a box junction is an offence.
Simply because it isn't.
It is an offence to enter a box junction when your exit is blocked ( ie the presence of stationary vehicles).
Entering a box junction with moving vehicles, as in the footage, and then stopping because the vehicle in front then becomes stationary is simply not an offence.
I would liken it to passing the stop line of traffic lights on green at a junction, waiting in the middle of the road, wishing to turn right.
In the event the lights turn red and you are still waiting to turn, there is no offence as you had passed the lights whilst on green.
Similarly, if you are in moving traffic and there is capacity beyond the box junction, not blocked with stationary vehicles, and you proceed but then stop in the box junction, that is not an offence.
However, in this video, had the van already been across the box junction where it ended up stationary, yet the OP had proceeded nonetheless knowing this, then that would be an offence.
Except he didn't.0 -
Oh gawd!
The van was not stationary when both it, and the OP, entered the box junction.
Even though the OP subsequently stopped in the box, that is not an offence.
This is not what the Act says.
You obviously think the only requirement for a box offence is "stopping" in one.
Simply not the case.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards