Fine for stopping in a box junction

TooManyPoints

(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

They are not mitigating factors. It is the reason why no offence was committed, so no mitigation is required. I appreciate you've added a rider to that effect but I would leave it out. You don't need to get into a debate about why the notice should have been cancelled if the law had been broken.

prowla

TooManyPoints said:

(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

They are not mitigating factors. It is the reason why no offence was committed, so no mitigation is required. I appreciate you've added a rider to that effect but I would leave it out. You don't need to get into a debate about why the notice should have been cancelled if the law had been broken.

Thanks - was wondering if I was over-egging it!

HillStreetBlues

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...

It looks like  you educated a few posters on here what the actual law is.

Goudy

There is a similar yellow box junction near me that is meant to keep the exit to a fire station clear.

When approached from one end, there is a pedestrian (Pelican) crossing directly at the opposite end.
The traffic lights for this crossing is actually pre box, but when traffic is heavy, cars stop short of the crossing to let people cross and by doing so, stop in the box.

Yes, TFL dish out penalty notices for this, my other half did it as someone actually stepped out on the crossing in slow moving traffic on a red man and left her no choice but to stop in the box.
TFL rejected the appeal even though we had dash cam footage.
She stopped in the yellow box, pay up is their attitude.

They wouldn't take that she would have had to otherwise mow down a jay walking pedestrian as mitigation.
They see it you've just stopped in the box because the exit, for whatever reason, is blocked.

Okell

Goudy said:

... Yes, TFL dish out penalty notices for this, my other half did it as someone actually stepped out on the crossing in slow moving traffic on a red man and left her no choice but to stop in the box.
TFL rejected the appeal even though we had dash cam footage.
She stopped in the yellow box, pay up is their attitude.

They wouldn't take that she would have had to otherwise mow down a jay walking pedestrian as mitigation.
They see it you've just stopped in the box because the exit, for whatever reason, is blocked.

Did she take it to the tribunal?

Unless she stopped because of the presence of stationary vehicles she would almost certainly have won an appeal at the tribunal.  Stopping in a yellow box to allow pedestrians to cross etc is NOT a decriminalised (or criminal) traffic offence.

TFL and all London local authorities will send out tickets for almost anything and will refuse informal representations and formal appeals as a matter of course.  They are gambling that 99% of motorists don't know the law and will pay up rather than take it to the tribunal.

Unfortunately 99% of people don't know the law.

(Parking adjacent to a dropped kerb is another one.  It's only the part of the kerb that is completely lowered to the level of the road that you can't park next to.  You can park next to the sloping part of the kerb with impunity)

HillStreetBlues

Okell
When I started reading this thread I didn't know the law on this issue, but because of  possible issue with pedestrians it just didn't make sense to me say OP friend was at fault. You can't simply run a pedestrian down to avoid a fine for stopping in a box, or to know if they are actually going to cross the road/ path you're about to turn into. They could simple  turn and not even cross the road. I would have to look up the rules but you saved me the effort.
I would have done the same as the OP's friend, although not knowing the law I can't see how I would have been at  fault in that situation.

Okell

@HillStreetBlues -  all I know about these parking and moving traffic offences is stuff I've picked up from the pepipoo forums (now defunct) and their successor, FTLA  (Free Traffic Legal Advice - Index)

If you aren't familiar with FTLA it's worth a regular browse.

What I find interesting is that civil enforcement (parking offences, yellow boxes, bus lanes etc) is very much process driven and if the local authority hasn't followed the process to the letter (and many don't) then these tickets are often very easy to get cancelled if you know how to challenge them.  A lot of parking tickets get defeated because of technicalities on the wording of the PCN itself.  (The other side of this is that if you don't follow the correct procedure then you are usually stuffed...)

I'd say if you ever get a parking etc ticket from a local authority or TFL, always start a thread on FTLA rather than just think "it's a fair cop" and pay up.

(Of course if you get a ticket from a private parking company, I think the parking board here is generally considered as one of - if not the - best place to go)

prowla

So, TfL have stated there was an 8 second period when the vehicle was stationary and then rather helpfully included pictures at the start and end showing pedestrians crossing in the vehicles path and also other cars and vans going past along the main road unhindered through and out of the box junction.

We've now requested the video showing the alleged transgression; apparently they send out a DVD!

I think the 2nd appeal will simply say that there were no stationary vehicles blocking the exit of the box junction and so no law was broken.

Okell

Go with whatever the people on FTLA advise, but I think you are right it will be along the lines of  "The alleged contravention did not occur as the vehicle stopped because of the presence of pedestrians and not because of the presence of stationary vehicles*.  I should be grateful if you would confirm you have cancelled the PCN."

I presume TFL have told you (or your friend) that the PCN is put on hold until the DVD has been sent out?  If you haven't received it in a week or so let TFL know you still haven't received it.


*  I suppose you need to wait until you've actually seen the DVD to ensure that your friend's recollection of what happened is correct, but be guided by whatever FTLA say

prowla

Okell said:

Go with whatever the people on FTLA advise, but I think you are right it will be along the lines of  "The alleged contravention did not occur as the vehicle stopped because of the presence of pedestrians and not because of the presence of stationary vehicles*.  I should be grateful if you would confirm you have cancelled the PCN."

I presume TFL have told you (or your friend) that the PCN is put on hold until the DVD has been sent out?  If you haven't received it in a week or so let TFL know you still haven't received it.


*  I suppose you need to wait until you've actually seen the DVD to ensure that your friend's recollection of what happened is correct, but be guided by whatever FTLA say

I'm leaning towards something similar to that - maybe even "The alleged contravention did not occur as the photographs and video clearly show that there were no stationary vehicles prevening progress through or exit from the box junction.".

We checked on the TfL site and it didn't yet have a record of the video request.