Yellow Box Junction - PCN Advice sought

unholyangel

rosturra wrote: »

This thread's been busy!
In my defense, the road leading to the box junction has two lanes. I am not familiar with the area and my assumption - and I accept this was wrong - was that two lanes continued after the junction. Hence I was not expecting the traffic to stop and merge.
My fault - but I believe an understandable mistake. There were no signs or markings prior to the junction to indicate the loss of a lane and a need to merge.
I actually had room to clear the box junction as there was room to the left, but the car braking in front of me surprised me so much that I instinctively braked to a stop.
To those to say I was bang to rights. Well yes. But I challenge you to honestly say you always wait for the preceding car to clear a box junction when traffic is apparently flowing!
I don't think I drove inconsiderately; No intention was meant to cause an obstruction, and none was actually caused.
I absolutely agree that some people who abuse box junctions are vile creatures. This is usually in the rush hour when there is a traffic jam, and cars go on the junction with no hope of getting across and leave other cars with nowhere to go when their lights go green. I hope you can see this was not my action. I made a misjudgment and was caught in no man's land.
I have been researching other cases, and the fact that two lanes went into one IS a consideration for appeal. As another successful case was similar but with a bus lane causing the squeeze.
So I hope that you don't think it is unreasonable that I give an appeal a go. No harm in trying. We are, after all, all here on this forum to save money! Similarly, when I noticed the location error, I couldn't look a gift horse in the mouth. Would you have done otherwise?
As it turns out the good folk at pepipoo have informed me that my penalty notice had some errors in it too. The deadlines are wrong.
Whilst I may have got lucky in this helping my appeal on a technicality, you shouldn't feel any sympathy for the council. Those same errors may have caused worry and concern to other poor punters for no reason. There's no excuse for careless admin errors when you get a scary legal notice.
I'll keep this thread up to date.

The 2 lanes don't appear to have merged though. It appears the left lane is intended for people turning left and stops at the junction rather than 2 lanes actually merging into 1 (which would be denoted by signs/road markings).

Technically you have committed a criminal offence. Fixed penalty notices are given as an alternative to being formally charged and possibly having a criminal conviction against you, mainly for offences that would otherwise see a large % of the population with a criminal conviction. So things like taking your kids out of school, not wearing a seatbelt, entering a box junction etc. Would you prefer councils sought conviction instead of offering you the FPN?

Not saying councils don't get it wrong (often ticketing people for stopping in the box junction when thats not the offence, entering when your exit isnt clear is), just that FPN's are technically in your favour rather than not.

Cornucopia

unholyangel wrote: »

The 2 lanes don't appear to have merged though. It appears the left lane is intended for people turning left and stops at the junction rather than 2 lanes actually merging into 1 (which would be denoted by signs/road markings).

I know the area and the two lane section is fairly short and relatively new. I think the intention is as you say, however there are no road markings to indicate it (as you can see on the Satellite images). The inner lane is also blocked for part of its length by a marked parking bay. The whole thing is a bit of a mess, and Danson Lane is only a minor road.

...ticketing people for stopping in the box junction when thats not the offence, entering when your exit isnt clear is...

Looking at the video, I'd say that was what has happened to the OP - there was a viable exit, but the OP either did not or could not use it by the time it was necessary. I've certainly had this happen to me before - you arrive at the far edge of the box and the person in front of you stops short of where you expected them to for no apparent reason - sometimes you can hoot and get them to move forward for you.

unholyangel

Cornucopia wrote: »

I know the area and the two lane section is fairly short and relatively new. I think the intention is as you say, however there are no road markings to indicate it (as you can see on the Satellite images). The inner lane is also blocked for part of its length by a marked parking bay. The whole thing is a bit of a mess, and Danson Lane is only a minor road.


Looking at the video, I'd say that was what has happened to the OP - there was a viable exit, but the OP either did not or could not use it by the time it was necessary. I've certainly had this happen to me before - you arrive at the far edge of the box and the person in front of you stops short of where you expected them to for no apparent reason - sometimes you can hoot and get them to move forward for you.

This is the thing though, there wasn't enough room behind that car - thats why the car in front of OP went off to the right, because otherwise they too would have had to stop in the box junction. But OP didn't even wait to check there was going to be room for him, he just carried on.

Car_54

unholyangel wrote: »

Technically you have committed a criminal offence. Fixed penalty notices are given as an alternative to being formally charged and possibly having a criminal conviction against you, mainly for offences that would otherwise see a large % of the population with a criminal conviction. So things like taking your kids out of school, not wearing a seatbelt, entering a box junction etc. Would you prefer councils sought conviction instead of offering you the FPN?

Not saying councils don't get it wrong (often ticketing people for stopping in the box junction when thats not the offence, entering when your exit isnt clear is), just that FPN's are technically in your favour rather than not.

But he hasn't committed a criminal offence, and he hasn't received an FPN. Box junction matters have been "decriminalised" in certain areas, along with parking, bus lanes etc.

That's why he's got a PCN from the council, not an FPN from the police. It will be pursued as a civil matter, not a criminal one.

DoaM

Car_54 wrote: »

That's why he's got a PCN from the council, not an FPN from the police. It will be pursued as a civil matter, not a criminal one.

Which is why Pepipoo have separate boards for each class of ticket ...

Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Private Parking Tickets & Clamping

(That last one is akin to the Parking Tickets board here).

Cornucopia

unholyangel wrote: »

This is the thing though, there wasn't enough room behind that car - thats why the car in front of OP went off to the right, because otherwise they too would have had to stop in the box junction. But OP didn't even wait to check there was going to be room for him, he just carried on.

That's not how I see it, and if I had been in the OP's situation I would probably have tried to squeeze into the gap on the left, even if only to put my front wheels over the line, outside the box. I appreciate that the angle of the video may be deceptive in terms of the amount of space available.

I still maintain that the vast majority of people in the vast majority of instances do not use Box Junctions in the manner suggested by the wording of the law. If they did, there would be traffic chaos - each vehicle queuing at the entry to the box, waiting to have exclusive use of the entire box and a suitable exit. Multi-lane Yellow Boxes would become impossible to use, as you could never be sure whether the car next to you would swap lanes in-transit and steal your exit.

rosturra

unholyangel wrote: »

OP's actually scaring me with some of the stuff he's said there.

Want a side dish with that hyperbole?

unholyangel wrote: »

It appears the left lane is intended for people turning left.

Why would you think this?
If the left hand was intended to be left turn only lane, the road markings would have been marked as such.
In the absence of such markings, one should assume not.

unholyangel wrote: »

Technically you have committed a criminal offence.

No I haven't. This transgression is not a crime.

unholyangel wrote: »

Fixed penalty notices are given as an alternative to being formally charged...

Close. But I didn't get a Fixed Penalty Notice. I got a Penalty Charge Notice. The clue was in the thread title!

Unholyangel has also ripped my defence apart, a draft of which I offered up for advice in pepipoo. Well, fill your boots! I'm not going to argue the toss over your points.

But of course in my appeal, I will present my defence in the best light as possible.
So I am obviously going to claim the layout was bad (I believe it was) and that the action of the car ahead was unexpected (it was, to me).

It's not my job to point out that the exit should have been clear when I entered it, or I should have being paying more attention etc. when I'm presenting a defence!!!

So I'm just not understanding the vitriol.

It's not as if I'm claiming I did nothing wrong.

I have always accepted fault but only offered explanation and mitigation for my action.
See some phrases from my last post #70:

I am not familiar with the area...
I accept this was wrong...
My fault...
Understandable mistake...
Yes. Bang to rights...
I made a misjudgment...

If I was stopped by a copper in the street for this, like the old days. I would like to think that I would explain my actions,
and that hopefully the officer would let me on my way with a warning. And if I got a ticket, well so be it.
All I expect is the chance to offer my defence in a similar way.
Which is not only reasonable, but my right.

I'm done here until I get a response from the council.

Have a good day everyone.

unholyangel

Car_54 wrote: »

But he hasn't committed a criminal offence, and he hasn't received an FPN. Box junction matters have been "decriminalised" in certain areas, along with parking, bus lanes etc.

That's why he's got a PCN from the council, not an FPN from the police. It will be pursued as a civil matter, not a criminal one.

moving traffic offences were always classed as criminal offences, when did that change? Any chance around the same time they were laying off police officers?

unholyangel

Cornucopia wrote: »

That's not how I see it, and if I had been in the OP's situation I would probably have tried to squeeze into the gap on the left, even if only to put my front wheels over the line, outside the box. I appreciate that the angle of the video may be deceptive in terms of the amount of space available.

I still maintain that the vast majority of people in the vast majority of instances do not use Box Junctions in the manner suggested by the wording of the law. If they did, there would be traffic chaos - each vehicle queuing at the entry to the box, waiting to have exclusive use of the entire box and a suitable exit. Multi-lane Yellow Boxes would become impossible to use, as you could never be sure whether the car next to you would swap lanes in-transit and steal your exit.

The offence is committed if any part of your vehicle is within the box. Its not enough to just get your front tyres over - you need to be able to clear the box completely.

The rest of what you said, yes but that's because in those scenarios they're still not obeying the rules - it would be extremely dangerous to change lanes while going through a box junction because well, its a junction. In a perfect world where we were perfect drivers (not purporting to be one) you wouldn't have that happen but of course if some people don't stick to the rules then things like this and collisions happen.

rosturra wrote: »

Want a side dish with that hyperbole?


Why would you think this?
If the left hand was intended to be left turn only lane, the road markings would have been marked as such.
In the absence of such markings, one should assume not.


No I haven't. This transgression is not a crime.


Close. But I didn't get a Fixed Penalty Notice. I got a Penalty Charge Notice. The clue was in the thread title!

Unholyangel has also ripped my defence apart, a draft of which I offered up for advice in pepipoo. Well, fill your boots! I'm not going to argue the toss over your points.

But of course in my appeal, I will present my defence in the best light as possible.
So I am obviously going to claim the layout was bad (I believe it was) and that the action of the car ahead was unexpected (it was, to me).

It's not my job to point out that the exit should have been clear when I entered it, or I should have being paying more attention etc. when I'm presenting a defence!!!

So I'm just not understanding the vitriol.

It's not as if I'm claiming I did nothing wrong.

I have always accepted fault but only offered explanation and mitigation for my action.
See some phrases from my last post #70:



If I was stopped by a copper in the street for this, like the old days. I would like to think that I would explain my actions,
and that hopefully the officer would let me on my way with a warning. And if I got a ticket, well so be it.
All I expect is the chance to offer my defence in a similar way.
Which is not only reasonable, but my right.

I'm done here until I get a response from the council.

Have a good day everyone.

Because I have never seen a road that just stops when its supposed to be a merging of 2 lanes rather than an end to 1 (an end which coincides with a junction). Yes they usually do have arrows indicating its for left turns but I'd still think that would be more likely than 2 lanes into 1 because the road doesn't taper and nor are there any markings indicating that the 2 lanes are merging. You say so yourself, the other car moved to the right.....you were both already in the right lane so did you not find it strange that he would be moving to the right when the 2nd lane (if it had existed) would have been to the left?

Would you prefer me just to tell you "yeah that sounds great" when there are glaring holes in it? Thats not doing you any favours is it? I dont like being overly harsh - I meant it when I said sorry, but hopefully it will help ensure you don't make those mistakes again. Imo you'd be better off trying the argument the box extends past the 4 corners (which is something the adjudicator has apparently ruled previously).

I don't think the location argument will stand up either as the way it was described in that cases notice was "in high road n22" which was a long road with several box junctions on it. In this instance, I really don't see how any reasonable person wouldn't know exactly what box junction they were referring to given they mention a specific junction with danson lane.

As always, you're free to do what you wish. After all, its only you who's going to be affected by it.

I was also being quite serious when I said some of the things you were saying scared me. People making mistakes cause enough accidents as it is without adding in people who are ignorant of the rules of the road/can't recognise when they've made a mistake. If you can't recognise when you've made a mistake, you'll never improve.

As the saying goes, good judgement comes from experience. Sometimes experience comes from bad judgement.

Car_54

unholyangel wrote: »

moving traffic offences were always classed as criminal offences, when did that change? Any chance around the same time they were laying off police officers?

Traffic Management Act 2004.

Still criminal outside the areas affected.