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, we're all waiting for something.Edwood_Woodwood wrote: »I'm waiting.
Me? I'm waiting for the link to that bit of the A48 you mentioned:Edwood_Woodwood wrote: »No it isn't, I'll post up the link when I have more time.
I'm also waiting for your confirmation of this:Edwood_Woodwood wrote: »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 -
No, far from it when he entered he clearly can't drive straight through.
Not the test for the offence.
Was it blocked though at the time he entered the box?
No, it wasn't, regardless that the van eventually did block the exit.
I think you will find many people on a certain website have appealed this circumstance and been informed that a contravention did not occur in the first place.
Alas, links are deleted if posted.0 -
Edwood_Woodwood wrote: »Then why are you choosing to ignore what you see?
One of us is. It isn't me.The van wasn't already stationary at the exit, it drove to it.
Yep, the van's exit was clear. Nobody's saying otherwise.
The OP's exit, though, was not clear, else he'd have not had to stop in the box.
As far as the actual legislation goes, it's already been posted, remember? I know that ignoring it is convenient for your denial of reality, but there we go. Still, if he'd have kept going, he might have fallen off the edge of the flat earth and been eaten by our reptilian overlords, so it's probably just as well the van was there, eh?
Now, into your righteous place in the bozobin, because you've lost your entertainment value. But I'm sure I'll see you again once you've morphed again to avoid another PPR.0 -
As far as the actual legislation goes, it's already been posted, remember? I know that ignoring it is convenient for your denial of reality, but there we go..
I asked for your version of legislation where just stopping in box is an offence.
Alas, you have not provided it. Instead, you point me to the actual legislation that doesn't just say stopping is an offence!
:rotfl:
What a card!;)0 -
Edwood_Woodwood wrote: »Not the test for the offence.
Was it blocked though at the time he entered the box?
No, it wasn't, regardless that the van eventually did block the exit.
Can you identify any legislation or case law to establish that that is the test?0 -
His exit was blocked when he entered the box.
Can you not see it, where was he going to exit with the van stationary on the other side of the box?
The van doesn't come to a stop until 22 secs, the OP is almost half way across the box by then.
Therefore, one of his exits doesn't even become blocked until that time, 22 secs.
The car in the right hand lane doesn't come to a stop until 24 secs, this is the second last car in that lane.
The OP is entitled to use that lane too.
That lane isn't blocked until 30 secs by the last car in the right hand lane, and the OP is as far across the box as he can get.
In my opinion, the last car in the right hand lane takes up far more room than is needed.
His exits were not blocked when he entered the box at all.
What are you watching?0 -
-
Nope. It proves the exact opposite.
His exit was NOT clear when he entered - because there was a van between him and it. The van then stopped just outside the box, leaving him in the box without any clear exit.
Even when the van blocks that lane, the other lane is still clear, both lanes can be his exits.
That then becomes blocked, rather needlessly too, in my opinion.
So, he did not enter the box with exits blocked at all.
And that's the offence.0 -
He couldn't have exited in lane 2 without cutting up the people carrier. Surely the exit of the junction has to be lawful and not careless?
He didn't need to. He could have passed into that lane once that car has passed.
There was plenty of room which was taken up by that last car in the r/h lane.
On 21 secs a bus passes in the opposite direction and it shows about 4/5ths of a bus length's free space taken up by one car.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