Fine for stopping in a box junction

prowla

   

Okell said:

Herzlos said:

Where was the car when the pedestrians blocked the path? You could try and argue that you were already in the box junction and had to stop for safety reasons, but I'm not sure if that'd be corroborated by the camera that caught you in the box.

I may be mistaken but my understanding is that stopping in a yellow box is only an infringement if you have to stop because of the presence of stationary vehicles.  I know the Highway Code says you must not enter a box junction unless your exit is clear, but I don't think that that is strictly correct.

If I've understood the OP correctly, they didn't stop in the box junction because of stationary vehicles ahead of them, but because they were waiting for pedestrians to clear the bit of footpath that the OP wanted to drive over.

I would have thought that was OK and not a traffic offence - but I may be wrong - or may have misunderstood what the OP has said...

You're a star!

Re-reading the rejection, it states:

The contavention an rules for a Yellow Box Junction are defined in The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016) TSRGD Schedule 9. Part 2 Paragraph 11, The purpose of a yellow box is to mark an area of carriageway conveying the prohibition to a motorist that a person must not cause a vehicle to entethe box junction so it has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles.

The TSRGD states the following:

Box junctions – diagram 1043
11.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2), (3) and (4), the marking provided for at item 25 of the table in Part 6 (“a diagram 1043 marking”) conveys the prohibition
that a person must not cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles.
(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (4) the diagram 1043 marking when placed so as to be a box junction within paragraph (c) of the definition of that expression conveys
the prohibition that a person must not cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of oncoming
vehicles or other stationary vehicles beyond the box junction.
(3) The prohibition in sub-paragraph (1) does not, in respect of a box junction within paragraph (a) of the definition of that expression, apply to a person who—
(a) causes a vehicle to enter the box junction for the purpose of turning right; and
(b) stops the vehicle within the box junction for so long as the vehicle is prevented from completing the right turn by oncoming vehicles or other vehicles which
are stationary whilst waiting to complete a right turn.
(4) When a vehicle is being used for one or more of the purposes mentioned at sub-paragraph (5) and the observance of the prohibition in sub-paragraph (1) or (2)
would be likely to hinder the use of that vehicle for the purpose for which it is being used, then that prohibition does not apply to the driver of the vehicle.

There were no  stationary vehicles, but rather intermittent pedestrians crossing the entrance area.

prowla

born_again said:

I guess their argument will be you should have seen the pedestrians crossing before starting your turn. 🤷‍♀️

They might try that.

prowla

Incidentally, the rejection states that the vehicle was stationary for a total of 8 seconds!

That's not sufficient time to allow pedestrians to cross and check it was safe to proceed with others approaching.

Okell

prowla said:

   

Okell said:

Herzlos said:

Where was the car when the pedestrians blocked the path? You could try and argue that you were already in the box junction and had to stop for safety reasons, but I'm not sure if that'd be corroborated by the camera that caught you in the box.

I may be mistaken but my understanding is that stopping in a yellow box is only an infringement if you have to stop because of the presence of stationary vehicles.  I know the Highway Code says you must not enter a box junction unless your exit is clear, but I don't think that that is strictly correct.

If I've understood the OP correctly, they didn't stop in the box junction because of stationary vehicles ahead of them, but because they were waiting for pedestrians to clear the bit of footpath that the OP wanted to drive over.

I would have thought that was OK and not a traffic offence - but I may be wrong - or may have misunderstood what the OP has said...

You're a star!

Re-reading the rejection, it states:

The contavention an rules for a Yellow Box Junction are defined in The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016) TSRGD Schedule 9. Part 2 Paragraph 11, The purpose of a yellow box is to mark an area of carriageway conveying the prohibition to a motorist that a person must not cause a vehicle to entethe box junction so it has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles.

The TSRGD states the following:

Box junctions – diagram 1043
11.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2), (3) and (4), the marking provided for at item 25 of the table in Part 6 (“a diagram 1043 marking”) conveys the prohibition
that a person must not cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles.
(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (4) the diagram 1043 marking when placed so as to be a box junction within paragraph (c) of the definition of that expression conveys
the prohibition that a person must not cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of oncoming
vehicles or other stationary vehicles beyond the box junction.
(3) The prohibition in sub-paragraph (1) does not, in respect of a box junction within paragraph (a) of the definition of that expression, apply to a person who—
(a) causes a vehicle to enter the box junction for the purpose of turning right; and
(b) stops the vehicle within the box junction for so long as the vehicle is prevented from completing the right turn by oncoming vehicles or other vehicles which
are stationary whilst waiting to complete a right turn.
(4) When a vehicle is being used for one or more of the purposes mentioned at sub-paragraph (5) and the observance of the prohibition in sub-paragraph (1) or (2)
would be likely to hinder the use of that vehicle for the purpose for which it is being used, then that prohibition does not apply to the driver of the vehicle.

There were no  stationary vehicles, but rather intermittent pedestrians crossing the entrance area.

Ah.

I see you've done your own research which appears to confirm what I thought.

I'd still say, however, to post on FTLA (Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) ) as suggested by @Car_54.  They'll tell you exactly how to challenge the rejection to get the ticket cancelled.  These tickets are process driven and you have to follow the correct procedure to win.  In particular your challenge needs to be worded correctly.

When you (or your friend) post on FTLA make sure you follow the instructions on the "Read this first before posting your case" thread.  If you don't provide all the info they ask for they may not assist as it's a waste of their time.

You'll need to post up the PCN and photos.  If you haven't asked for the video from the council you may need to.  Apparently the video is the only acceptable evidence as to whether an offence was committed or not.

Okell

born_again said:

I guess their argument will be you should have seen the pedestrians crossing before starting your turn. 🤷‍♀️

You mean "before entering the box"?

I don't think it matters what the council argues.

So long as you haven't stopped because of the presence of stationary vehicles, you can wait as long as you like in a yellow box to allow pedestrians to clear.

born_again

Okell said:

born_again said:

I guess their argument will be you should have seen the pedestrians crossing before starting your turn. 🤷‍♀️

You mean "before entering the box"?

I don't think it matters what the council argues.

So long as you haven't stopped because of the presence of stationary vehicles, you can wait as long as you like in a yellow box to allow pedestrians to clear.

Well given box starts at the point of turning in. you can say both.👍

Had driver not turned in on seeing pedestrian's, then they would not have entered box.

LightFlare

When posting in FTLA I would strongly suggest the person in receipt of the ticket post there.

Third hand info is rarely accurate,timely and thus accepted/tolerated

Okell

born_again said:

Okell said:

born_again said:

I guess their argument will be you should have seen the pedestrians crossing before starting your turn. 🤷‍♀️

You mean "before entering the box"?

I don't think it matters what the council argues.

So long as you haven't stopped because of the presence of stationary vehicles, you can wait as long as you like in a yellow box to allow pedestrians to clear.

Well given box starts at the point of turning in. you can say both.👍

Had driver not turned in on seeing pedestrian's, then they would not have entered box.

Not really.

The ticket the OP's friend will have received won't say that he stopped while turning in - it will say that he stopped in a yellow box junction, and that's what the local authority need to prove, possibly in front of the tribunal.

So long as the OP (or their friend) didn't stop in the box because of the presence of stationary vehicles, I don't think they've done anything wrong.  Stopping in a yellow box to allow pedestrians to clear is perfectly ok.

Of course the Local Authority is likely to reject any challenge and argue that simply stopping in a box constitutes the infringement itself - hoping that people will just pay up because most people don't know what the law is.  (And the Highway code doesn't help here as it's wrong*...)

LightFlare said:

When posting in FTLA I would strongly suggest the person in receipt of the ticket post there.

Third hand info is rarely accurate,timely and thus accepted/tolerated

Yes.  Unless the OP's friend can't access the internet or can't speak English or is otherwise incapacitated it'll be better for the friend to post on FTLA themselves.


*  Or at least thet's my understanding from several years following first pepipoo and latterly FTLA

prowla

Thanks for the helpful updates, folks; I'll go on to FTLA and see what they say.

In the interim, I had put together the following to post:

Overview:
1. Transport for London (TfL) issued a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for allegedly "Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited".
2. An appeal was submitted stating that the destination was the Ambulance Station at the site and the vehicle was prevented from moving forwards to one of the vacant parkng spaces in front to the building by pedestrians crossing in front of the vehicle.
3. An appeal rejection was received quoting the "Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD) Schedule 9, Part 2, Paragraph 11" as the contravention and stating "It is clear the PCN has been correctly issued".

Facts:
1. The quoted law, TSRGD Paragraph 11 states: "11.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2), (3) and (4), the marking provided for at item 25 of the table in Part 6 (“a diagram 1043 marking”) conveys the prohibition that a person must not cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles."
2. The rejection includes 3 photographs which each show people crossing in the vehicle's would-be path.
3. The rejection states that the vehicle was "stationary for a total of 8 seconds" for the duration of which there were always pedestrians blocking access.
4. The photographs show 2 empty parking spaces in front of the destination building.
5. The photographs show the exit of the box junction to be clear and a number of vehicles passing by and proceeding on through.
6. The TfL rejection states "It is clear the PCN has been correctly issued".
7. The rejection states that "we do not consider the mitigating factors present give reason to cancel".


Analysis:
1. The law states that a vehicle must not enter the box junction if its egress is prevented by stationary vehicles: this was simply not the case, with TfL's supplied photographs showing (a) that there were no stopped vehicles in-play and (b) other vehicles were freely proceeding on through the box junction.
2. The vehicle had to stop to give way to crossing pedestrians who are not criteria of the stated law because: (a) they were not stopped and (b) they are not vehicles.
3. The PCN stated "when prohibited", but the criteria for the alleged contravention were not met.
4. The rejection's statement that "It is clear the PCN has been correctly issued" is not borne out by the facts.
5. (Arguably the mitigating factors of the pedestrians preventing progress forwards into a vacant parking space at the destination should have been a reasonable basis for cancelling the notice, but the fact that no law was broken makes that point moot.)

Conclusion:
TfL have issued the PCN incorrectly and then rejected it by quoting a law which was not broken; thus there is no basis for the fine and the PCN mst be cancelled.

Ironically, the rejection letter even includes the "stationary vehicles" clause from Paragraph 11!

Okell

prowla said:

Thanks for the helpful updates, folks; I'll go on to FTLA and see what they say.

In the interim, I had put together the following to post:

Overview:
1. Transport for London (TfL) issued a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for allegedly "Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited".
2. An appeal was submitted stating that the destination was the Ambulance Station at the site and the vehicle was prevented from moving forwards to one of the vacant parkng spaces in front to the building by pedestrians crossing in front of the vehicle.
3. An appeal rejection was received quoting the "Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD) Schedule 9, Part 2, Paragraph 11" as the contravention and stating "It is clear the PCN has been correctly issued".

Facts:
1. The quoted law, TSRGD Paragraph 11 states: "11.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2), (3) and (4), the marking provided for at item 25 of the table in Part 6 (“a diagram 1043 marking”) conveys the prohibition that a person must not cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles."
2. The rejection includes 3 photographs which each show people crossing in the vehicle's would-be path.
3. The rejection states that the vehicle was "stationary for a total of 8 seconds" for the duration of which there were always pedestrians blocking access.
4. The photographs show 2 empty parking spaces in front of the destination building.
5. The photographs show the exit of the box junction to be clear and a number of vehicles passing by and proceeding on through.
6. The TfL rejection states "It is clear the PCN has been correctly issued".
7. The rejection states that "we do not consider the mitigating factors present give reason to cancel".


Analysis:
1. The law states that a vehicle must not enter the box junction if its egress is prevented by stationary vehicles: this was simply not the case, with TfL's supplied photographs showing (a) that there were no stopped vehicles in-play and (b) other vehicles were freely proceeding on through the box junction.
2. The vehicle had to stop to give way to crossing pedestrians who are not criteria of the stated law because: (a) they were not stopped and (b) they are not vehicles.
3. The PCN stated "when prohibited", but the criteria for the alleged contravention were not met.
4. The rejection's statement that "It is clear the PCN has been correctly issued" is not borne out by the facts.
5. (Arguably the mitigating factors of the pedestrians preventing progress forwards into a vacant parking space at the destination should have been a reasonable basis for cancelling the notice, but the fact that no law was broken makes that point moot.)

Conclusion:
TfL have issued the PCN incorrectly and then rejected it by quoting a law which was not broken; thus there is no basis for the fine and the PCN mst be cancelled.

Ironically, the rejection letter even includes the "stationary vehicles" clause from Paragraph 11!

Damnably sporting of them to undermine their own case.