PCN Notice Greenford / otter road yellow box

Edwood_Woodwood

force_ten wrote: »

At what point in the video was the exit in the outside lane clear for the OP to safely access the outside lane and exit the box?

From the first second until the last car in the right hand lane blocked the access for another vehicle.

force_ten

Edwood_Woodwood wrote: »

From the first second until the last car in the right hand lane blocked the access for another vehicle.

sorry but that makes no sense at all

Edwood_Woodwood

force_ten wrote: »

so has admitted that he could not see his exit was clear so for that reason alone he should not have entered the box junction

Not the case.

Like many others on this thread he has an alarming misconception of road traffic law.

"The lane he was in was obviously not clear, however, that is not the same thing as the road ahead of him not being clear."

ie The right hand lane was clear and was clear enough for him to move into had it not been needlessly blocked.

This was not a single carriageway, it had two lanes.

How many more times must I repeat this?

Edwood_Woodwood

force_ten wrote: »

sorry but that makes no sense at all

The OP could have moved to the right at any time during the video, and even up to the point the last car in lane two blocked the access to it needlessly.

AdrianC

Edwood_Woodwood wrote: »

You are just incorrect, simple as.

The sprinter is not up close to the box junction at all, the Op could probably have got to a third, maybe a half, of his car up close to the sprinter.

0:29


The pale car in the RH lane hasn't quite finished moving forwards, but is pretty close. None of the Golf, the Sprinter or the first pale car (back of roof just visible) have moved for several seconds in the van's case, a chunk longer for the other two, and none move again before the end of the video.

Car_54

Edwood_Woodwood wrote: »

Not the case.

Like many others on this thread he has an alarming misconception of road traffic law ...

This was not a single carriageway, it had two lanes.

Talking of misconceptions, that is definitely a single carriageway. The number of lanes is irrelevant:

Edwood_Woodwood

Car_54 wrote: »

Talking of misconceptions, that is definitely a single carriageway. The number of lanes is irrelevant:

This post simply proves what I stated earlier, that essentially a lot of people on this thread have no idea what they are on about.

Unbelievable.

Edit: And member AdrianC even thanks it!

Shocking.

AdrianC

Edwood_Woodwood wrote: »

This post simply proves what I stated earlier, that essentially a lot of people on this thread have no idea what they are on about.

Unbelievable.

Edit: And member AdrianC even thanks it!

Shocking.

<chuckle>
Quoted for posterity, once the dim light dawns in the depths of your brain.

There is a clue in the name. The number of carriageways. It's not a hard thing to grasp. Let me remind you of something...
https://www.gov.uk/general-rules-all-drivers-riders-103-to-158/multilane-carriageways-133-to-143

Note the header between rules 136 and 137, and the first bits of wording in 135 and 136.

This is a single carriageway :-


This is a dual carriageway :-

Edwood_Woodwood

Oh dear, put your foot in it pal!

Failed to notice that the left hand lane is a bus lane at certain times of the day with a thick white line separating it from the other lane did you?

That makes it a non-physical barrier and the classification of the road.

You are amusing!

AdrianC

Edwood_Woodwood wrote: »

Oh dear, put your foot in it pal!

Failed to notice that the left hand lane is a bus lane at certain times of the day with a thick white line separating it from the other line did you?

That makes it a non-physical barrier and the classification of the road.

You are amusing!

Again, quoted for posterity. And hilarity.