Penalty Notice Yellow Box Junction Road Works Ahead

daveyjp

Nice amount of victim blaming going on here.  I don't know what others see on the photo, but I see a car in the dark approaching two unlit temporary road work signs.

One in red provides in very large letters info that a road ahead is closed, the yellow sign alongside is one which often provides more detailed information on what that road closure entails.  For example ' access to X roads or X businesses unaffected'.  Its much smaller lettering and may need to be read and understood by drivers.  Putting that sign there is the bigger issue and is almost entrapment.

Regardless it doesn't alter the principle basis of any appeal that the photo doesn't show the car in the box when its exit wasn't clear due to presence of another vehicle.

TooManyPoints

That's what I find bizarre, and I'm amazed that it seems to be a legal loophole as I'm pretty sure that wasn't what was intended by the legislation.

Please see my response on 20th Jan @ 2:07pm.

born_again

daveyjp said:

Nice amount of victim blaming going on here.  I don't know what others see on the photo, but I see a car in the dark approaching two unlit temporary road work signs.

One in red provides in very large letters info that a road ahead is closed, the yellow sign alongside is one which often provides more detailed information on what that road closure entails.  For example ' access to X roads or X businesses unaffected'.  Its much smaller lettering and may need to be read and understood by drivers.  Putting that sign there is the bigger issue and is almost entrapment.

Regardless it doesn't alter the principle basis of any appeal that the photo doesn't show the car in the box when its exit wasn't clear due to presence of another vehicle.

Maybe it is considered that a "Road Closed" sign means exit blocked??

Not blaming anyone. Just wondering why & the signs are very clear in the picture that they did not stop before box junction?
While yellow sign writing is not that big, it appears to be around the size of number plate letters 🤷‍♀️

Wonder if Op will come back with outcome of any appeal?

Car_54

born_again said:

daveyjp said:

Nice amount of victim blaming going on here.  I don't know what others see on the photo, but I see a car in the dark approaching two unlit temporary road work signs.

One in red provides in very large letters info that a road ahead is closed, the yellow sign alongside is one which often provides more detailed information on what that road closure entails.  For example ' access to X roads or X businesses unaffected'.  Its much smaller lettering and may need to be read and understood by drivers.  Putting that sign there is the bigger issue and is almost entrapment.

Regardless it doesn't alter the principle basis of any appeal that the photo doesn't show the car in the box when its exit wasn't clear due to presence of another vehicle.

Maybe it is considered that a "Road Closed" sign means exit blocked??

The sign says "Road Closed AHEAD". That does not mean it is closed immediately: it may be closed some distance ahead, with various options to re-route. It may even mean a side road ahead is closed. It is fair to say it is not the most helpful of signs.

Whatever, the OP chose to stop, when he was perfectly entitled to do so. 

Okell

Car_54 said:

Okell said:

Ectophile said:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/schedule/19/part/IIn1/made...

Prohibition conveyed by markings in diagram 1043 or 1044

7.—(1) Except when placed in the circumstances described in paragraph 8, the road markings shown in diagrams 1043 and 1044 shall each convey the prohibition that no person shall 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...

This ^.

As I pointed out a couple of days ago the offence is causing a vehicle "...  to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles..." 

Despite what the Highway code says it's got absolutely nothing to do with not entering a box junction if your exit isn't clear.  It's perfectly possible to commit the offence if your exit was clear when you entered the box, and it isn't by itself an offence to enter the box if your exit is not clear.  The Highway Code does not reflect the law correctly.

As I said previously, if the OP wants confirmation of this they should post on FTLA.

In this case there is no offence because the OP has not - so far as we can tell from the single image* they have shared - stopped because of the presence of stationary vehicles and they should challenge the PCN.


*I suppose it's possible (but unlikely) that an earlier extract from the video shows the OP stopping because of the presence of stationary vehicles that have subsequently moved off before the image shared by the OP.  But if the image shared is the only evidence Havering has, then there is no proof of an offence

No, you have quoted selectively from the law. The offence is actually "... causing 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..." 

It may seem pedantic, but the offence is committed when you enter, not when you stop.

No worries.

If you look at the earlier post that I was quoting you will see that - for emphasis - I'd already put in bold everything that you reference from the legislation in your post.

I chose to repeat only the "stopping due to the presence of stationary vehicles" bit in an attempt to dispell the common misunderstanding - repeated by several other posters and perpetuated by the Highway Code - that the offence is committed whenever you enter a yellow box if your exit isn't clear, and not when you stop because of other stopped vehicles.

The more pedants the merrier, and the more accurate everything will be...

Okell

HillStreetBlues said:

TooManyPoints said:

 "...it's the stopping that causing the offence."

Yes but only if the vehicle has to stop within the box due to he presence of stationary vehicles.

Yes, what I replied too stated that, I don't tend to give chapter and verse in my replies as expect what I quoted to read along with my post (or am I giving posters too much credit?).

Careful!

I know someone who was banned for being only a little less nice than that...  

Okell

Jenni_D said: )

Car_54 said:

There was nothing to prevent him stopping in the yellow box, and he has been penalised for an offence he didn't commit.

That's what I find bizarre, and I'm amazed that it seems to be a legal loophole as I'm pretty sure that wasn't what was intended by the legislation.

I was taught that the first rule of statutory interpretation was to look at the natural and normal meaning of the words used in the legislation in order to discover what Parliament intended.

What Parliament apparently intended here was to penalise drivers who entered a yellow box and then stopped inside the box due to the presence of stationary vehicles.

Whether that works as an effective way to prevent yellow box junctions being grid-locked by traffic jams and stationary traffic is another question.  

It would have been simpler if it had been worded either as @TooManyPoints suggested a couple of days ago (ie it is an offence to enter a box junction and stop unless: (a list of exceptions...) or as per the Highway Code.

I suspect that when drafting the wording the legislative draftsmen became aware of some scenario that they thought required them to word it as they did - so as to avoid ambiguity and confusion...(!)   

Or that wording was specifically suggested during Parliamentary debate or committee.  (MPs know everything ...  )

HillStreetBlues

Okell said:

Jenni_D said: )

Car_54 said:

There was nothing to prevent him stopping in the yellow box, and he has been penalised for an offence he didn't commit.

That's what I find bizarre, and I'm amazed that it seems to be a legal loophole as I'm pretty sure that wasn't what was intended by the legislation.

I was taught that the first rule of statutory interpretation was to look at the natural and normal meaning of the words used in the legislation in order to discover what Parliament intended.

What Parliament apparently intended here was to penalise drivers who entered a yellow box and then stopped inside the box due to the presence of stationary vehicles.

Whether that works as an effective way to prevent yellow box junctions being grid-locked by traffic jams and stationary traffic is another question.  

It would have been simpler if it had been worded either as @TooManyPoints suggested a couple of days ago (ie it is an offence to enter a box junction and stop unless: (a list of exceptions...) or as per the Highway Code.

I suspect that when drafting the wording the legislative draftsmen became aware of some scenario that they thought required them to word it as they did - so as to avoid ambiguity and confusion...(!)   

Or that wording was specifically suggested during Parliamentary debate or committee.  (MPs know everything ...  )

I would disagree in the most friendly way
It must be simpler like they have done and just have a sole reason that an offence took place, it's black & white (maybe with a it of yellow thrown in).

TooManyPoints

I would say it must be simpler to say that you cannot stop in a box junction. No exceptions. There's would then be no requirement for the prosecution to show why the driver stopped (as there is at present).

HillStreetBlues

TooManyPoints said:

I would say it must be simpler to say that you cannot stop in a box junction. No exceptions. There's would then be no requirement for the prosecution to show why the driver stopped (as there is at present).

I doubt the pedestrian you run over as you can not stop would agree making it that simple.