Yellow Box Junction - PCN Advice sought

barbiedoll

I got a fine in this box junction, because the stupid bint in front of me decided to stop immediately after leaving the box, despite having at least one full car length clear in front of her. :mad:

I don't think OP will get off on a "technicality" over the location name though. The junction is where Park View road becomes Welling High Street, so the location on the ticket is correct.

Cornucopia

I didn't have time this morning to properly examine the document I linked to.

Having now done so, it seems like the OP's scenario is specifically mentioned (indeed, it is example number 1 in the context of discretion):

1. If 2 cars travel across a box junction in their own lanes to go straight ahead, but there is only one space in one of the lanes on the exit of the box, one car may cross from one lane to the other to get in front of the other car already in that lane and take the space. Therefore the car in the correct lane with the space originally, had reason to believe they could get to it, before being “cut up” by the other car...

Unfortunately, the OP's video is not particularly conclusive in establishing that scenario, so "they" may take some persuasion to apply it.

Joe_Horner

kmb500 wrote: »

I literally never have to go in a junction like that, not really sure why you keep getting at me for not knowing it.

I never have to deal with level crossings or tram tracks but I'm damn sure I know what to do if I ever come across one. And that's from a test over 30 years ago.

Car_54

Cornucopia wrote: »

I didn't have time this morning to properly examine the document I linked to.

Having now done so, it seems like the OP's scenario is specifically mentioned (indeed, it is example number 1 in the context of discretion):



Unfortunately, the OP's video is not particularly conclusive in establishing that scenario, so "they" may take some persuasion to apply it.

Interesting document, but AFAIK the OP wasn't in Hammersmith and Fulham.

The document appears to be a local view of the rules.

Cornucopia

Car_54 wrote: »

Interesting document, but AFAIK the OP wasn't in Hammersmith and Fulham.

The document appears to be a local view of the rules.

I think that it's a reasonable assumption in the absence of any evidence to the contrary to presume that the LBHF document is a reasonable assessment of the law.

If the processes or principles are markedly different from borough to borough then our chances as ordinary drivers of keeping up with them are completely scuppered.

unholyangel

Cornucopia wrote: »

I didn't have time this morning to properly examine the document I linked to.

Having now done so, it seems like the OP's scenario is specifically mentioned (indeed, it is example number 1 in the context of discretion):



Unfortunately, the OP's video is not particularly conclusive in establishing that scenario, so "they" may take some persuasion to apply it.

I disagree, its not like OP's scenario. The scenario you quoted is where 2 cars are in different lanes, there is only a space at the other side of the box in 1 lane and the driver in the wrong lane cuts in front of the driver in the correct lane (with correct lane meaning the lane that has the space).

In OP's case, both cars were in the same lane and there wasn't even space for 1 car.

IMO OP's best bet is still the box markings extending past the corners.

ETA: As for evidence to the contrary, check out what TFL say about box junctions and simply following the car in front without checking if there is enough space for you to exit.

Cornucopia

TFL say this: "You may enter a yellow box junction when your exit is clear and there is enough space on the other side of the junction for your vehicle to clear the box completely without stopping", which is an extension to the Highway Code definition which tries to resolve its ambiguity - just because the exit is clear, is the box clear?

All it proves it that the authorities are incapable of producing a succinct and consistent statement that accurately encapsulates what can only be a very, very simple principle.

As I said, as an erstwhile wordsmith, I find this kind of thing very, very disappointing. To be fair, I think we now have a reasonable version of the likely truth: the authorities historically had the right idea which intrinsically embedded reasonableness into the definition. This has been lost, and in their attempt to square the circle in its absence, the present-day authorities are clutching at different definitions that are inconsistent with each other, inconsistent with best driving practice and most worryingly inconsistent with the legislation (which itself is ambiguous). My slightly jaundiced view is that this is as a result of overzealous, patronising stupidity in public service - it's a persistent theme with me.


In regards to the OP's scenario, his description is similar to scenario #1. His video not so much, hence my comment. My view is that the "cutting up" is not critical to the possible discretion of the authority - it is that two cars legitimately entered the box each with their sight on the same space on the far side.

Joe_Horner

Car_54 wrote: »

The offence IS stopping. More precisely "to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop due to the presence of stationary vehicles".

Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, schedule 19, part II, section 7.

It's now TRSDG 2016 sched 9 part 7 section 11.

Interesting point from the wording is that, if you drove into one where there's enough room to exit but stopped in it anyway, you wouldn't be committing the offence

ElefantEd

I'd also be interested to know what would be considered to be stopping........ I'm thinking of a scenario where the car crawls along at 1mph, or less (down to an infinitesimal speed, if you like). Could a driver argue that, initial appearances to the contrary, they hadn't in fact stopped? If the exit was clear by the time the car reached the other side, could they be prosecuted?

unholyangel

Cornucopia wrote: »

TFL say this: "You may enter a yellow box junction when your exit is clear and there is enough space on the other side of the junction for your vehicle to clear the box completely without stopping", which is an extension to the Highway Code definition which tries to resolve its ambiguity - just because the exit is clear, is the box clear?

All it proves it that the authorities are incapable of producing a succinct and consistent statement that accurately encapsulates what can only be a very, very simple principle.

As I said, as an erstwhile wordsmith, I find this kind of thing very, very disappointing. To be fair, I think we now have a reasonable version of the likely truth: the authorities historically had the right idea which intrinsically embedded reasonableness into the definition. This has been lost, and in their attempt to square the circle in its absence, the present-day authorities are clutching at different definitions that are inconsistent with each other, inconsistent with best driving practice and most worryingly inconsistent with the legislation (which itself is ambiguous). My slightly jaundiced view is that this is as a result of overzealous, patronising stupidity in public service - it's a persistent theme with me.


In regards to the OP's scenario, his description is similar to scenario #1. His video not so much, hence my comment. My view is that the "cutting up" is not critical to the possible discretion of the authority - it is that two cars legitimately entered the box each with their sight on the same space on the far side.

OP's description was based on a lot of straw clutching as to why it wasn't his fault, that he thought there were 2 lanes due to the car in front moving over the hatched markings to the right. Its still not similar to scenario 1 though - they were both in the same lane and there was not space for 1 car, never mind 2 (I judge that space behind the black car as half a car length at most).

However as I have subsequently pointed out, if there was a 2nd lane, it would have been to the left, not the right and also that the car in front was only halfway through the box themselves at the time OP came to the box (so had not yet moved further over to the right). OP also claimed he couldn't see ahead of the car in front - his apparent solution to that was to keep going. Mine would have been to slow down until I could see.

(ETA: In fact, that seems to be covered by scenario 6 of the document you linked: )

If a drivers sight, to make that judgement, is impaired however, i.e. being too close to the rear of a large lorry in front of them, then we should look to enforce as they should have given themselves more room to make the judgement.

Sorry but everything the OP has said indicates (imo) that he wasn't paying attention.

As for the legislation/guidance, I used to think the same. But if you try and write some guidance yourself, you'll quickly find that even 1 sentence in legislation can take pages and pages of complex explanation and that its not as easy as you might imagine (which is usually why my posts end up always being long winded!).