PCN Notice Greenford / otter road yellow box

bod1467

Regardless of what the law actually states (and I can see both sides of the argument), anyone with an ounce of common sense wouldn't enter a box junction until they could confirm that their exit would be clear before they entered.

OP was following too close to the large van, so had very limited visibility of what was ahead, so should not have entered until the van had cleared the junction by a car length.

Has the OP committed an actual offence? Hard to say, but I'm on the side of the Yes opinions.
Was the OP careless in entering the box the way he did? Yes.

benjus

I haven't seen the video (I'm at work and can't open it) but I don't see how a lane can be simultaneously "clear" and "needlessly blocked" as seems to be the argument above.

bod1467

I think that's an inference (not supported by what can actually been seen in the video, as I recall) regarding the right hand lane ... a bus crosses the box followed by a car and then another car. One of those cars stayed so far back from the bus that the exit was blocked unnecessarily in that lane. (At least one more car could have made it across the box if those cars had shuffled up - that's the inference bit, because you can't see what's forward from the CCTV).

Mind you, OP was in the left hand lane behind a large Sprinter van, not in the right hand lane. (Changing lanes in a box is not a normal act).

Edwood_Woodwood

All of this could be academic anyway.

As I pointed out earlier, the hatched box of the junction is meant to go up to the kerb/s.

However, where the bus lane begins, the left hand lane the OP was in, it appears double yellow lines go through the box junction.

It is my understanding that to be compliant the yellow box junction should have been constructed up to the double yellow lines, not over them.

It could be that the double yellow lines were added after the box junction was constructed. Either way, it appears non-compliant.

The OP is entitled to see proof that this box junction was signed off as compliant.

Interestingly, the Ealing authority has a long history of having non-compliant road markings, including box junctions, and have had to refund thousands of motorists in the past.

Edwood_Woodwood

bod1467 wrote: »

Mind you, OP was in the left hand lane behind a large Sprinter van, not in the right hand lane. (Changing lanes in a box is not a normal act).

I see vehicles changing lanes in a box all the time, specifically to avoid actually stopping in the box. I'd say it's a regular act.

Also, it isn't prohibited to do so.

In fact, I believe it is a ground for appeal ie as with the OP's case, if he could convince an adjudicator that, had that last car in the right hand lane moved forward and not taken up so much space he could have safely moved into it.

Indeed, toward the end of the video, it appears he hangs off a bit to do just that, but only he can say that.

I would point out that the legislation states..."exit lane or road..."

The OP had a road ahead, not just a lane.

Both lanes are exits because changing lanes isn't prohibited.

dannyrst

Edwood_Woodwood wrote: »

I see vehicles changing lanes in a box all the time, specifically to avoid actually stopping in the box. I'd say it's a regular act.

Also, it isn't prohibited to do so.

In fact, I believe it is a ground for appeal ie as with the OP's case, if he could convince an adjudicator that, had that last car in the right hand lane moved forward and not taken up so much space he could have safely moved into it.

Indeed, toward the end of the video, it appears he hangs off a bit to do just that, but only he can say that.

I would point out that the legislation states..."exit lane or road..."

The OP had a road ahead, not just a lane.

Both lanes are exits because changing lanes isn't prohibited.

But he didn't switch lanes to avoid stopping, did he? He stopped.

Am I missing something here. He stopped in a yellow box, he got caught, he got fined. Isn't that how the cameras are meant to work?

Edwood_Woodwood

benjus wrote: »

I haven't seen the video (I'm at work and can't open it) but I don't see how a lane can be simultaneously "clear" and "needlessly blocked" as seems to be the argument above.

That particular lane was clear but then became blocked by a car taking up at least two car length spaces.

The OP's exit ahead contains two lanes, not just one.

Despite being in one lane, changing lanes, even on a box junction, isn't prohibited.

The right hand lane was clear when he entered the box and there was a gap to easily accommodate at least two cars, in my opinion.

(On 21 secs a bus passes by in the opposite direction and it appears the gap was some 4/5ths of the buses length as a scale).

However, the last car that enters the right hand lane stops as soon as they pass the box, not going forward to the ample space still in front of them to free up space for another car.

dannyrst

Edwood_Woodwood wrote: »

That particular lane was clear but then became blocked by a car taking up at least two car length spaces.

The OP's exit ahead contains two lanes, not just one.

Despite being in one lane, changing lanes, even on a box junction, isn't prohibited.

The right hand lane was clear when he entered the box and there was a gap to easily accommodate at least two cars, in my opinion.

(On 21 secs a bus passes by in the opposite direction and it appears the gap was some 4/5ths of the buses length as a scale).

However, the last car that enters the right hand lane stops as soon as they pass the box, not going forward to the ample space still in front of them to free up space for another car.

If he wanted to switch lanes to exit the box, he should have indicated. I appreciate he is driving a BMW and the indicators are notoriously difficult to locate, but I can't see him having lane switching as a defense without indicating that he wanted to switch lanes.

Edwood_Woodwood

dannyrst wrote: »

But he didn't switch lanes to avoid stopping, did he? He stopped.

Am I missing something here. He stopped in a yellow box, he got caught, he got fined. Isn't that how the cameras are meant to work?

Not quite.

The offence is entering the box knowing your exit is already blocked with stationary vehicle/s.

The van wasn't stationary, it was moving.

The car in the right hand lane wasn't stationary, it was moving.

The OP's car was moving with them, he didn't wait until his exit was blocked, he moved.

The legislation would otherwise simply say that "stopping in a box junction" is an offence.

Except it doesn't.

It effectively says your exit has to be blocked by stationary vehicles before entering the box and stopping due to that.

A moving vehicle eventually stops, it isn't already stationary.

This cannot be ignored, that is a requirement.

Edwood_Woodwood

dannyrst wrote: »

If he wanted to switch lanes to exit the box, he should have indicated. I appreciate he is driving a BMW and the indicators are notoriously difficult to locate, but I can't see him having lane switching as a defense without indicating that he wanted to switch lanes.

Yes, he should have indicated but it isn't compulsory.

However, had the car that was the last one in the right hand lane moved forward instead of taking so much space, don't you think he would have had the opportunity to move into it, like many others do on a daily basis at box junctions?