C31 J Yellow Box Jct. LB Lewisham. Turning from side road onto main route which had yellow box.

steven239

Video: imgur.com/a/VGwLGDE

 

Location: google.com/maps/@51.465218,-0.010962,161m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en-GB&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDMxMS4wIKXMDSoJLDEwMjExNDU1SAFQAw%3D%3D

 

Annotated location diagram: imgur.com/a/u1o7pYc

 

Roadworks photos as of today 14/03/2025; these roadworks were more significant on the date of contravention which was 04/03/2025. : imgur.com/a/qTxPwQh

 

Hi all,

 

The driver received a PCN for C31 J. Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited (Camera enforcement). London Borough of Lewisham via NSL.

 

Video link above, vehicle is the grey VW van.

 

NB: The yellow box junction must be very new as it does not appear in google satellite imagery dated 2025, however it is located where the 'KEEP CLEAR' markings are in my annotated location above.

 

The driver was turning right from the side road (Lewisham High Street) onto the main road (Lewisham Road). (Shown by the red lines on the annotated location diagram).

 

The main road (Lewisham Road) is 2 lanes on the entrance to the yellow box junction and 1 lane on the exit. (Shown by the green dots on the annotated location diagram).

 

The camera enforcement images, some may say conveniently, are angled so as to completely hide the wider context of the yellow box junction, specifically that significant roadworks impede views, encroach on lanes and make turning out significantly more difficult than if the roads were opertaing unimpeded and as the Traffic Management Order for this yellow box junction would have been designed. (These roadworks locations are shown in orange and I have included a selection of photos to show these roadworks as of today 14/03/25; these roadworks were significantly worse on the date of the contravention 04/03/2025 with diggers/dumpers and piles of materials obscuring far more of the view).

 

When the driver begun the right hand turn, the exit from the yellow box junction was clear; the small white hatchback then nipped in front. The narrowing of the road means that had the driver continued to push forward and therefore cleared out of the yellow box junction, then they would have risked colliding with the side of this white hatchback vehicle.

 

Many thanks for any advice. If I can provide anymore context please ask.

Gr1pr

As this is not about private parking charge notice,  please try the FTLA parking forum website 

https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/

Car1980

Don't fancy your chances. You had an eternity to stop, but you just crawled into the box even though the white Fiesta van had cleared the roadworks and was clearly visible.

steven239

Thank you Gr1pr, I've posted at ftla.

Thanks Car1980 but there are no roadworks on that side of the road, they all surround the junction of the road that the contravention driver is pulling out from and limiting the view for that driver, hence the creeping out. The driver of the contravention van could not see what was coming in the furthest lane (that which the white Fiesta van comes from) when they pulled out of the side road onto the main road. The contravention van began the manoeuvre to turn right when they crossed the double broken giveway lines on the side road and moved into the main road to turn right. At this point (17:01:53) the exit space on the otherside of the yellow box junction was free, at 17:01:54 the white van comes up the far side of the two lanes and merges into 1 lane on the exit of the yellow box. So the question is 'is the contravention van committed to not stopping in the yellow box when they begin there manoeuvre from the junction or when they first roll their front wheels into the yellow box?'. And who has the right to the exit space? The contravention driver believed it was theirs but the small white van was more forceful. The contravention driver could have accelerated quicker but that would have caused an accident. Rock and a hard place.

steven239

meant to read: The contravention driver could have accelerated quicker but that would have caused an accident or could have slammed on the brakes and blocked all traffic travelling in the opposite direction. Rock and a hard place. 

Car1980

I'm on your side, but I don't think you'll be successful. Yes, you would have had to slam your brakes on and yes you would have blocked the traffic. That is exactly what they will say you should have done to avoid committing the contravention.

steven239

I sent my representation on 17 March and it was accepted and PCN cancelled 20 March. 

I went for a three pronged attack. The response from NSL/Lewisham gave no information on what specific point the PCN was cancelled it simply said: "I have noted your comments. I am pleased to inform you that after careful consideration your representations have been accepted and the Penalty Charge Notice has been cancelled. You need take no further action".

My representation read:

1) The contravention did not occur

The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, UK Statutory Instruments, 2016 No. 362, Schedule 9, PART 7, Paragraph 11: (1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2), (3) and (4), the yellow criss-cross marking provided for at item 25 of the sign table in Part 6 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 marking when placed as a box junction within sub-paragraph (6)(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.

It is important to remember that this specific contravention (C31 J) is not that of causing an obstruction or blocking the yellow box, it is quite simply “entering a box junction when your exit is not clear”. It is possible to stop within a yellow box without committing an offence. For example if at the time you entered the box the exit was clear but then a driver cut in front of you and stopped, forcing you to stop in the yellow box. 

The video evidence shows that the driver begun their right turn out from the junction of the minor road Lewisham High Street onto the major road Lewisham Road when the exit was clear and had sufficient exit space for the vehicle (evidence ‘1 CCTV Still 17.01.54.480’). Another vehicle (white/red vehicle) then cuts in front of the turning driver (evidence ‘2 CCTV Still 17.01.55.280’), stops in the available space and forces the driver to stop on the yellow box; if the driver had moved forward at this point then they would have caused a collision with the side of the white/red vehicle (evidence ‘3 CCTV Still 17.02.03.250); alternatively had the driver moved across the lane dividing lines they would have caused a collision with oncoming traffic that had been funnelled into a single lane because of the presence of roadworks, evidence ‘4 CCTV Still 17.02.21.685’ shows how close passing traffic came as they are forced into the right hand turning lane despite the fact that they are actually turning left or continuing straight on. The driver acted within the legislation as quoted above when entering the yellow box junction and acted calmly and responsibly to avoid a collision when another driver cuts in front.

The evidence shows that the exit was clear with sufficient space when the driver entered the yellow box junction therefore the contravention did not occur.

In light of the above, I ask that the PCN be cancelled.

2) Irregularites in the issuing of the PCN

A PCN issued under the 2003 act cannot possibly act as Notice to Owner. Furthermore, there is a whole passage on the PCN/Notice to Owner (sic) which contains information concerning the 56 days period in which to respond which clearly is taken from parking law. So it follows that this hybrid document should also contain grounds which belong to parking legislation.

3) Roadworks at this location increased complexity and risk for the driver

The 2 sets of roadworks at the junction of Lewisham High Street and Lewisham Road limited the view and increased the complexity and risk level for motorists trying to manoeuvre their vehicle from the junction of Lewisham High Street out onto the Lewisham Road. The yellow box junction is located at this exact intersection. These roadworks form part of Lewisham’s Town Centre Improvement Programme:

See Lewisham website:

(https://lewisham.gov.uk/inmyarea/regeneration/lewishamtowncentre/lewisham-town-centre-improvement-programme )

Quote: “Installing a new green space with planting and seating, at the north end of the high street (near the Premier Inn) by the River Quaggy.”

If Lewisham Council are to pursue this alleged contravention then they will need to provide evidence that a full Construction Management Plan (CMP) was undertaken to assess and show the change in risk levels to motorists that resulted in the temporary road layout changes and specifically that these changes did not increase the complexity and risk for motorists turning out from Lewisham High Street and therefore led to an increase in alleged contraventions. These roadworks involved shutting lanes, narrowing lanes, storing materials and plant/machinery on the intersections; all these will need to be shown as abiding by the CMP. Photographic evidence of the roadworks as of the date the driver received the PCN (14/03/2025) has been included; the roadworks however were more substantial on the date of the alleged contravention and therefore if Lewisham Council are to pursue this alleged contravention then the driver requests wider angled CCTV footage to show the extent of these roadworks at the exact time of the alleged contravention.

If Lewisham Council are to pursue this alleged contravention then the driver requests under their Freedom Of Information legislation, the right to request that Lewisham Council provide evidence of the number of issued PCNs for this location before roadworks beginning and the number of issued PCNs for this location after roadworks beginning.

In light of the above, I ask that the PCN be cancelled.

Coupon-mad

Love it! Nicely done.