PCN Notice Greenford / otter road yellow box

dannyrst

Edwood_Woodwood wrote: »

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.

From https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/road-junctions-170-to-183

You MUST NOT enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear.

The road or lane isn't clear in front of the OP until the car has given sufficient room for the OP to fit his car into, regardless of whether they are moving and there is space in front of the vehicle ahead or not.

IMO - you cannot confirm that the exit road or lane is clear until there is sufficient room for you to clear the yellow box. Everyone else seems to be playing by those rules.

dannyrst

Edwood_Woodwood wrote: »

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?

Yes but his exit lane/road isn't clear until the car has moved. Therefore he broke the law.

almillar

Edwood Woodwood - a cycle lane or bus lane does not make a dual carriageway. You disagree with this. If a road has six lanes, it's STILL not a dual carraigeway, no matter how thick the paint. It's ONLY a dual carriageway if there are 2 strips of tarmac, with a gap (a central reservation, between the 2 directions of traffic).
These rules were not rewritten when bus lanes came along.

wealdroam's link shows a SINGLE carriageway, with 3 lanes, one of which is a bus lane at some times and locations. Is this where it happened?

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.

What, on earth, then, is a box junction actually for?! Seriously though - take a step back from all this arguing, and think about what you're saying.

BTW Edwood mentions that OP should have changed lane in the box junction. Firstly, the other lane would need to be clear of course, but I would also state that it's bad practice to change lane in a box junction, as we can tell from the OP, there's already enough going on without making lane changes. If you do this, you might leave some other poor sap with nowhere to go.
Of course, you also can't do this if it's an operational bus lane!

Edwood_Woodwood

dannyrst wrote: »

Yes but his exit lane/road isn't clear until the car has moved. Therefore he broke the law.

Watch the video again.

By the time the right hand lane becomes blocked by the last car in that lane and becomes a stationary vehicle, the OP is already at the end of the box.

An offence would be if one of the cars who are waiting to enter the box junction at the end of the video had proceeded as the two lanes obviously became blocked.

However, the OP was not one of them, he had already entered the box.

Yes, he is stopping in a box, but only because his exits became blocked, after he entered the box.

That is not an offence.

If the law was so simple on this issue then it would just say "stopping in a yellow box is an offence."

It doesn't say that.

You simply cannot say stopping in a yellow box is an offence when the law says nothing of the sort.

Edwood_Woodwood

almillar wrote: »

Edwood Woodwood - a cycle lane or bus lane does not make a dual carriageway. You disagree with this. If a road has six lanes, it's STILL not a dual carraigeway, no matter how thick the paint. It's ONLY a dual carriageway if there are 2 strips of tarmac, with a gap (a central reservation, between the 2 directions of traffic).
These rules were not rewritten when bus lanes came along.

Maybe you should read what I posted before jumping in head first.

It is my belief that when areas outside of London wished to fine motorists for using a bus lane then the roads classifications had to change.

This has happened only within the past year or so and Cardiff was the first city to do so.

That's what I posted, not what you are banging on about.

dannyrst

Edwood_Woodwood wrote: »

Watch the video again.

By the time the right hand lane becomes blocked by the last car in that lane and becomes a stationary vehicle, the OP is already at the end of the box.

An offence would be if one of the cars who are waiting to enter the box junction at the end of the video had proceeded as the two lanes obviously became blocked.

However, the OP was not one of them, he had already entered the box.

Yes, he is stopping in a box, but only because his exits became blocked, after he entered the box.

That is not an offence.

If the law was so simple on this issue then it would just say "stopping in a yellow box is an offence."

It doesn't say that.

You simply cannot say stopping in a yellow box is an offence when the law says nothing of the sort.

The car next to him is blocking the lane next to him. The lane in front of him is blocked. His exit, his lane and the road isn't clear...therefore he has been punished.

Are you just trolling now or do you actually still think he has a case to appeal? I fear you are trying to make this far too complicated to try and prove that you are correct when all you need to do is realise he's in the wrong.

wealdroam

almillar wrote: »

wealdroam's link shows a SINGLE carriageway, with 3 lanes, one of which is a bus lane at some times and locations. Is this where it happened?

Yes, that link I posted earlier is the exact same place as the incident described in the opening post.

Here is another view of the same junction showing that the length of continuous white line separating the bus lane from the rest of the carriageway is approximately 30 metres long.

A thirty metres long dual carriageway? Surely not.

Edwood_Woodwood

almillar wrote: »

BTW Edwood mentions that OP should have changed lane in the box junction. Firstly, the other lane would need to be clear of course, but I would also state that it's bad practice to change lane in a box junction, as we can tell from the OP, there's already enough going on without making lane changes. If you do this, you might leave some other poor sap with nowhere to go.

It doesn't matter what you think is good or bad practice, it is the law that matters.

And there is no law that prohibits changing lanes in a box junction.

It happens every day.

Also, if some poor sap ends up on the end of this kind of thing then they have the right of appeal and an adjudicator would almost certainly allow the appeal.

Edwood_Woodwood

dannyrst wrote: »

Are you just trolling now or do you actually still think he has a case to appeal? I fear you are trying to make this far too complicated to try and prove that you are correct when all you need to do is realise he's in the wrong.

The yellow box junction doesn't even look compliant, thus unenforceable.

By the bus lane double yellow lines appear to run through the box.

That would render anything else posted here purely academic.

So yes, the OP has several lines of appeal.

wealdroam

This view of the junction, and this one clearly show that the double yellow lines do not encroach upon the box markings.