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

mkoprulu

By the way, does anyone know where i can find guidelines that define a T Junction? I've been googling it around but no luck yet. I need to make sure the junction is legally classified as a t junction.

mkoprulu

WestonDave wrote: »

I think you need to forget about the half road rule - there is little in the actual guidance which suggests this is a wrong application in this situation. There is one ray of light for you in the guidance :-
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/tsmanual/trafficsignsmanualchapter5ro4183

If you go to page 78 section 12.8.v it states

(v) the carriageway beyond the junction
should be free from obstruction (this
may necessitate the imposition of
waiting or loading restrictions, or the
adjustment of bus stops on the lengths

concerned),

You might, just might have an argument that the siting of the bus lane beyond the junction and the consequent forced merging of traffic controvenes this guidance and also makes it more likely that an offence will occur because of the sudden slowing of traffic to allow merging.

Other than that I think you are wasting your time as the box is probably OK, and you are in it which is prima facie against the law. If anything is at fault its the bus lane.

WestonDave,

I was just reading this through again, and realised this wouldn't be valid in my case as it talks about bus stops or waiting/loading restrictions. In my case there's a bus lane not a bus stop that is in close proximity to the junction.

sillygoose

This gives me an idea for a new antisocial behaviour hobby... getting people fined. It goes like this - you get a nippy little gti or something like that and wait until someone slowly enters a box with adequate room to exit the other side, you blast past in the other lane and cut in front of them then stop just over the edge of the box forcing them to stop in it and get a nasty fine - hours of fun (tongue in cheek of course) but also a plausable form of defence depending on what video evidence they can supply? My other suggested course of action would be to get a Hummer and simply not stop, if your blocked keep going and shunt your way off the box!

anewman

I personally think most people will have ended up stuck partly over hatch marks at least once because they believed the exit would be clear once they got there. There are of course some people who intentionally block them because they can't be bothered waiting.

calisto

This is the most rediculous state of affairs - people arguing over the most trivial nuances of how many millimetres over a council laid road mark is legal or not.

It is simply because of the draconian legislation that relies on Orwellian enforcement and Kafkaesque government that we now have the brain washed proles arguing over whether someone was over a line or not, to completely miss the point.

Back in the day, when speed limits were determined by science (85% percentile) and not by politicians,

Back in the day that road priorities were invented such as bus lanes and yellow boxes,

This was in the day that no policeman or politician ever envisaged such extremes as zero tolerance 100% camera enforcemant linked into an ID card/Reg No/DVLA database.

Back in the day, if a traffic "offender" merely stopped a couple of inches within a box junction, causing no impede to the oncoming traffic whatsoever, there would be no policeman in the land who would have stopped and hauled them up.

The alternative to not predicting traffic flow using common driver sense, is to stop-start at every single piece of lined paint in any road, making sure that the current (revised for the year 20nn volume) of the Highway Code meets with the Nu-Labour current revision of their interpretation, and even legislations of the "Nu Driver-law". Notwithstanding Red Kens nutty variations whilst within the London Boroughs.

The original laws and extremes where all in place during a time when we had real traffic police who could be trusted, could be right !!!!!!!s, but over all totally fair.

Now we are anally probed by lesbian feminista communista gaylord treehugging five-a-day-councilling social working natzi ethnically challenged nutsucklers who go to work by LONDON busses and LONDON tube-trains every day.

Thank you and goodnight - The wine is good. :beer:

mkoprulu

calisto wrote: »

Thank you and goodnight - The wine is good. :beer:

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

5 stars to calisto! loved your post. What brand is that wine of yours? I'd like to try some too.

I received the bloody PCN at 10am this morning (now yesterday) and spent the whole day trying to find out legislations, previous cases, etc...

Finally, i've got a letter ready. For those interested, here it is:

LETTER

pompeyrich

Well put calisto, I was going to reply expressing my disbelief that this matter warrants a potential £120 penalty. I have heard of serious criminal cases being dropped because it is not in "the publics interest" to prosecute the so called offender. How is this incident, at worst a misjudgement, worthy of the penalty? Did London grind to a halt because of this incident, were lives endangered, was anyone caused any major, or even minor distress? Imagine the chaos there would be if every car that approached a box junction stopped to make 100% sure their car would fit over the line before proceeding to cross the junction. I'm sure the shut up and pay up types would soon be whinging about that. Good luck with your appeal, I hope common sense wins the day.

calisto

mkoprulu wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

5 stars to calisto! loved your post. What brand is that wine of yours? I'd like to try some too.

I received the bloody PCN at 10am this morning (now yesterday) and spent the whole day trying to find out legislations, previous cases, etc...

Finally, i've got a letter ready. For those interested, here it is:

LETTER

Not read your letter yet, but without a shadow of a doubt you must visit http://www.pepipoo.com - though I guess you have already?

And for all the naysayers, try visiting a proper road safety site such as http://www.safespeed.org.uk for the actual facts, from real Government Transport Research Labs, scientific figures proving whats working or not. Politicians refuse to believe in science and keep trying to fudge the reports to suit their visions instead.

SafeSpeed is a much better analysis of the facts compared to feeble minded politicians trying to bury the evidence, or treehuggers who couldn't care less, using soundbites like "Speed Kills" :rolleyes:

And finally, if you refuse to remove the blinkers, try http://www.randi.org for a real education in observation of the world around you.

pompeyrich

mkoprulu wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

5 stars to calisto! loved your post. What brand is that wine of yours? I'd like to try some too.

I received the bloody PCN at 10am this morning (now yesterday) and spent the whole day trying to find out legislations, previous cases, etc...

Finally, i've got a letter ready. For those interested, here it is:

LETTER

i have read your letter and in my unqualified opinion, the point you make regarding the legality of the "box" is interesting, however the fact that you were stationary inside the box for 10 seconds surely dilutes your argument that it wasnt blocked when you entered, indeed if it wasnt blocked, why were you still unable to exit it 10 seconds later?

As I said in the previous post it saddens me that common sense wasn't used by the issuing authority, however as you now need to respond dont undo the good work re the box size with your second point, which I feel only stregthens their case against you.

anewman

Sorry to say I can't help but feel your letter will go in the bin without being read in any detail. What you really need is a one page, one paragraph hitting letter.