Help!!! Appealing against penalty charge for stopping at yellow box junction

mkoprulu

lister wrote: »

I thought the law was very much simpler than the OP seems to be making it:

.....


Frankly, if you entered a box without your exit being clear, you are bang to rights. If somehow the clear exit became blocked after you entered the box (which I struggle to see happening, but never say never) then you might have a case, although proving it would be next to impossible.

Thanks for the research Lister, but please bear in mind that i'm contesting against the lack of evidence that supports their claim. If they claim that i have broken the law by entering a box junction "WITHOUT" making sure the exit was empty, then they surely would need to prove it, wouldn't they?

If you consider the picture they have provided, think of it this way: a few seconds prior to that situation occuring, the traffic was moving and the car in front of me was moving away from the exit of the junction, so i made a decision to enter the junction with the intent of clearing it, but as i was in the junction, the traffic stopped and although i've cleared most of the junction, my rear tyres were still in it.

If you can picture the situation just before this happened, you can see where i'm coming at.

What they are trying to say is that the traffic was "STATIONARY" at the exit of the junction, and i still entered it with this knowledge.


The reason i'm not stating exactly what happened as i remember it, is purely because i don't. Unfortunately i'm not able to remember every piece of road i've been down to scientific detail, but from what i've seen in the picture supplied, there's no indication that the exit was stationary before i moved in the junction.

lister

tomstickland wrote: »

How about, in a practical situation, the traffic on the other side is moving, so you enter based on the assumption that it will move, but then the traffic stops.

You shouldn't make that assumption - that is the whole point of a box junction. If you are going to allow that assumption to stand as a reasonable point of view, then there is no point having box junctions.

It is very simple in my view. If you cannot see a clear space on the far side to go to, don't enter.

As a caveat though, there are a very few cases I have come across where poor junction design makes this very difficult, but this is a very, very small percentage of such junctions.

mkoprulu

lister wrote: »

...

In the second case there is a clear space on the far side so you enter the box. Something (and I struggle to think of a good example) happens to fill that clear space before you reach it, so you are stranded. In this case you shouldn't be prosecuted in my view.

If the first case applies to you, pay the fine and learn your lesson. If not, then appeal.

Lister, if you look at the picture they supplied again, you'll see just after the exit of the box junction two traffic lanes merge into one, and obviously it wasn't a clear road at that time and there was continuous traffic, either because of congestion or some other obstruction (traffic lights ahead, another junction, etc).


What's more, i'm not only appealing against this fact. Also, maybe even more important, is that this boxed junction was at a T junction, therefore had to be painted to only the half width of the road, whereas this covers the whole width.

There's another example i've just found on the internet from someone appealing against the width restrictions:

HERE

Badger_Lady

I'm just thinking of my normal route home from work - I drive (in heavy traffic) past a hospital entrance which has an enormous box junction across it to ensure that people can still enter and leave the hospital through queues (good practice anyway, whether there are yellow lines or not).

Often, I (and every other driver) end up partially on this box junction, due to a scenario:

a) The line of traffic is moving as far as you can see, so you keep moving. Unfortuntely, since the box junction is about 60 yards long, you don't quite make it off the other end before the traffic comes to a halt.

b) You are an extremely careful driver so, when you get to the start of the box junction, you stop (much to the annoyance of those behind you) and wait for the car in front to leave the box junction before you enter. As you move into the junction, cars start piling out of the hospital ahead of you, blocking the exit.

c) You get part-way along, realise that you might not be able to get off the junction, so you tuck yourself into a position which, although still technically on the box junction, does not block the flow of any other traffic.

I don't think I've ever seen this particular box junction completely clear during rush hour, and dread approaching it every time. If the police gained powers to prosecute every driver that ever stopped even partially over it, we'd be in trouble.

mkoprulu

Badger_Lady wrote: »

Hmm... that's very interesting, you may well be able to use that (assuming they don't have video evidence of the entire event).

It certainly seems a bit shaky - you've made me nervous just by the fact that it's got to this stage!

So what are they threatening you with, anyway? Have they stated a penalty?

Definitely! First off, the charge is discounted first 14 days, and becomes £120 after that, then if not paid within 28 days, it increases to £180. If you still don't pay, they go to county court then send the nice looking bailiffs :rolleyes:.

Of course they also claim that

"The alleged contravention was detected by an enforcement camera and has been recorded on a video tape or DVD"

Well, that's fine, all i want for them to do is to produce that video tape or DVD to prove i was wrong.

And even if they do that, i'm still contesting against the legality of the box junction markings anyway.

lister

mkoprulu wrote: »

If you consider the picture they have provided, think of it this way: a few seconds prior to that situation occuring, the traffic was moving and the car in front of me was moving away from the exit of the junction, so i made a decision to enter the junction with the intent of clearing it, but as i was in the junction, the traffic stopped and although i've cleared most of the junction, my rear tyres were still in it.

If you can picture the situation just before this happened, you can see where i'm coming at.

What they are trying to say is that the traffic was "STATIONARY" at the exit of the junction, and i still entered it with this knowledge.


The reason i'm not stating exactly what happened as i remember it, is purely because i don't. Unfortunately i'm not able to remember every piece of road i've been down to scientific detail, but from what i've seen in the picture supplied, there's no indication that the exit was stationary before i moved in the junction.

I know exactly what you have done, and can't say I haven't on a few occasions found myself in the same position. Doesn't change the fact that you shouldn't have entered without the exit being completely clear. I would be really annoyed in your position, but with myself.

I think what they are actually saying is that you entered without knowing the exit was clear (pretty much self-evident unless a car has backed up or something strange on the other side - which is what I dislike about using fixed cameras for this, and in this respect the judgement you posted is dead right).

From what I can tell from the pictures and what you say, you probably have committed the offence they want to do you for, but at the same time, I think they would be hard pushed to prove it in court for exactly the reasons the judgement makes clear.

mkoprulu

Fair enough. Like i said, i don't remember the situation exactly, so i can neither claim the exit was stationary nor flowing as i entered the junction.

All i can say is that if they want to prosecute me, they will have to prove

A - The evidence they have supports it

B - The box junction was marked according to regulations

ailuro2

Or you could just admit you stopped in a box junction, pay the fine at half price, and make a note to never ever give them any money ever again!

If we all did this, the revenue from fines would go down,wouldn't that be nice for us?

Of course, the roads might flow a bit better- where I drive it's the people jumping lanes, red lights etc. and trying to get there just a little faster that end up blocking other people's way, so ending up slowing traffic for everyone.:rolleyes:

mkoprulu

Ailuro2, I've already made that note before when they charged me for speeding horribly at an ungodly 33mph on a 30mph road. I'm not going to be the easy money making motorist for them anymore.

Like you said, justice would be better served if they could target the people who jump lanes, run red lights, cut people across, or even mid lane huggers...

ailuro2

I didn't say they shouldn't target people in box junctions...:p

the point I'm making is if every one of us tried to avoid giving out any money in fines, then we'd be driving a little better than we do now, which I think would improve the fgeneral flow of traffic.

Of course, I'm coming from the smug position of never having had a parking fine, or speeding ticket, so maybe I'm not best placed to comment.