Box junction fine

[xoxoemzxoxo]

Hi,

I have been referred to this forum from the MSE forum.

I received a box junction fine. Picture attached.

I believe on the day (I use the junction everyday and cannot view any footage online) that I entered the box when the car blocking me in the picture was still moving and the car behind them had waved to give way to let me out. However the first car did not move far enough forward for me to exit the box junction.

I have read through some over posts on box junctions and wondered if the below would be valid for me as i was turning right?

12.2 Drivers entering the box when their exit is
obstructed by stationary vehicles, whether in the road
ahead or to either side, commit an offence. It is
permissible, however, to enter and become stationary
if turning right and prevented from leaving the
junction only by oncoming traffic, or by other
vehicles waiting to complete the right turn

[Kati]

Re: Box junction fine

tagging [MENTION=39710]des8[/MENTION] [MENTION=71570]R0b[/MENTION] [MENTION=39331]ostell[/MENTION] ... any ideas??

[des8]

Re: Box junction fine

Hi and welcome

The actual wording from Statutory Instrument 2002 No. 3113 The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 Schedule 19 Regulation 29 reads:
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.
(2) The prohibition in sub-paragraph (1) does not apply to any person –
(a) who causes a vehicle to enter the box junction (other than a box junction at a roundabout) for the purpose of turning right; and
(b) stops it within the box junction for so long as it is prevented from completing the right turn by oncoming vehicles or other vehicles which are stationary whilst waiting to complete a right turn.

Presumably when you entered the junction there were no stationary vehicles which would prevent you exiting
From the picture it appears you were unable to complete your manoeuvre because of oncoming vehicles from your left. These vehicles having right of way.

IMO certainly worth a punt, but you really need to view the footage or ask if they can supply a series of stills, to check what hapened.

The other point I note is that the location is not very detailed, and Barley Lane is quite long.
I think (i.e. not sure) that locations have to be exact.

[Snoopy1948]

Re: Box junction fine

Am I right in assuming that this is a T Junction? If so, the odds are heavily stacked against any driver as there is technically no 'oncoming traffic' to stop or clear before you can execute a right hand turn and although you state that a driver from your left 'waved you on' ( and I believe the legislation states that drivers should not move into the box on the prompting or beckoning of other drivers ) it is quite clear that your exit was not clear ( even a traditional cross roads could exhibit the problem and put you in the same situation ). I see these conveniently sited enforcement cameras at such junctions as money spinners and there must have been a lot of enforcement at that spot. I can only see that at busy periods , and I suspect this junction is always busy, you could react to a driver prompt from a driver in traffic from the left but only if the traffic in front of him is clearing the box. Clearly from this picture that is not happening.

Seems to me that the critical issue for the issuing of a ticket is if you entered the box junction and stopped in it due to the presence of stationary vehicles. That is the test.

But basically this junction is a pig to exit right from and requires the compliance of traffic from the left, or so it seems.

[des8]

Re: Box junction fine

Could start an interesting debate over the meaning of "oncoming traffic"
I can;t find a definition in the traffic regulations, although there are signs and directions which obviously refer to "oncoming" as meaning "from the opposite direction".
However this does not preclude the word being used in a wider form of "approaching" or "coming nearer".

I'm out shortly so will let you get on wih it!

[xoxoemzxoxo]

Re: Box junction fine

i have called the council to ask for the CCTV footage so i can see exactly what happened. They have advised that this is only available to view by appointment on a friday morning, which is really helpful and I cannot get to due to work commitments!

Someone else has advised me that as Barley Lane is a long road, with other box junctions, and that the exact location is not stated I could appeal on these grounds as was won in the PATAS case under the name Adamou/LB Haringey?

[des8]

Re: Box junction fine

If there are other box junctions on that road (Google is only shows one but is possibly out of date) certainly use that case.
I did refer to possibility of inexact address in an earlier post.
You might also like to read this thread on Pepipoo http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?...&#entry1179801

[Snoopy1948]

Re: Box junction fine

I believe the accepted meaning of 'oncoming traffic', for purposes of the driving test, is traffic coming from the opposite direction. So it would be interesting to know if this indeed a T junction with no 'oncoming traffic' and also is this junction regulated by traffic lights as that's unclear. If there are no traffic lights here to regulate traffic, how on earth can you guarantee a safe and unhindered right turn? However, if I was making this making this manoeuvre, I would not have proceeded unless there was a clear passage to exit i.e my access was clear outside the hatched box area, or it could be seen clearing at the point of manoeuvre. From the picture provided, then the vehicle has had to stop to a halt, as there was nowhere to proceed to, hence a stopping offence has been committed. The only defence to that, as far as I can see, is was the traffic that you approached in front of you moving swiftly enough to allow you to escape 'quickly' enough to not be classed as 'stopped'. Presumably their CCTV would be time framed and allow you or the operator to see if that is the case. It is a shame that you cannot make the council appointment to view as that would reassure you or otherwise.

In these days of hectic motoring, it would be impossible to remember your every manoeuvre at every junction but you state that you cross this junction regularly. How do you normally deal with it and were you aware that it was ANPR camera enforced?


I guess you are already aware of this posting on pepipoo.com ? http://www.pepipoo.com/forums/lofive...p/t106139.html

And just another thought, from what I can see ( which is limited ) surely they need to extend the hatched box area to the far kerb, i.e. to the nearside of the two cars blocking you, to make exit out of the box a lot easier and with a lot less chance to flout the law. It may be useful to contact the main local newspaper here to request if this is a known traffic problem with a lot of disgruntled motorists accumulating daily. One thing I do agree on, £130 is a very painful penalty from simply trying to make progress on your journey. And on thing that ADI instructors are trained to do is to train people to 'push their nose out into traffic' if the only option is to stay there all day.

[xoxoemzxoxo]

Re: Box junction fine

I guess you are already aware of this posting on pepipoo.com ? http://www.pepipoo.com/forums/lofive...p/t106139.html

No I hadn't seen this one thank you for pointing it out!

I do agree that this junction should have the box extended all the way to the kerb on the other side of the road as it is so busy.

There is not a fixed enforcement camera at the junction (i checked the next time i drove through it) it was a sneaky mobile camera on the dayI was not aware of a camera being at the junction, I usually do edge out when there are no vehicles coming from my right as this is the only way to get out of the junction without sitting there all day!

- - - Updated - - -

great thanks

[xoxoemzxoxo]

Re: Box junction fine

I have drafted an appeal using the same basis as the successful appeal at the same junction. Any comments on this before i sent would be much appreciated?

I would like to challenge the council's notice on the ground, “The contravention alleged by the Authority on the Penalty Charge Notice did not occur”. This is because stationary vehicles played no part in stopping my car within the box for the reason that I had proceeded into the box junction when the dark coloured vehicle was still moving and the driver of the loghter coloured vehicle behind had slowed signigficantly signalling that he was allowing me to go ahead of him. However as you can see the darker coloured vehicle then stopped , instead of continuing forward enough to allow space for my vehicle, which there would have been if he had proceeded further forward. Throughout there was sufficient space to receive my vehicle especially into the left hand lane as this was my chosen exit lane. In the process of heading across the box towards my chosen lane, what in fact briefly brought my car to a halt in the box before moving on again, was the moving vehicles to my left. The contravention must include three parts to be proven. The vehicle must enter the box. This happened. The Vehicle must stop. This happened. The stop must be due to stationary vehicles. This did not happen.

I also wish to appeal with the point that the exact location of the box junction is not noted on the Penalty Charge Notice, it states Barley Lane. However Barley Lane is a very long road and there are other box junctions along this road. I cite in support of this statement, PATAS case number 2110522979. In which the adjudicator said: "There is no legal requirement that a Penalty Charge Notice must state on it the precise location of a box junction within a road. However Piccadilly is a long road. There are a number of box junctions. I find that in this instance the Penalty Charge Notice contained insufficient information to enable the recipient to identify the location of the contravention. For this reason I allow the appeal”.

There are some additional concerns about this box junction which I want to highlight in my appeal.

The junction is a very busy junction and the queues usually tail back on both lanes forming the T junction. There is large number of cars turning right at this junction which reduces the effectiveness of this box junction. Below is one of the factors mentioned in section 12.8 of Chapter 5 of Traffic Signs Manual which influence decisions about considering box junctions:
“(vii) there should preferably not be a high proportion of right-turning traffic, since experience has shown that the effectiveness of the marking is reduced under these conditions.”
Just a few yards further from the junction, Barley Lane (B177) joins the road A12. This junction is controlled by traffic signals. It is obvious and from experience, these traffic lights always cause a tail back on both the lanes (Barley Lane and Chadwell Heath Lane). The council must instead look into alternative methods to effectively manage traffic flow at this junction. Below are some factors mentioned in section 12.8 of Chapter 5 of Traffic Signs Manual that influence decisions about considering box junctions:
(i)the junction should preferably, though not necessarily, be controlled by signals (see also para 12.3),
(ii)blocking back from a junction ahead should occur under existing conditions, even if only for short periods,
(iii)there should preferably be heavy traffic flows on both opposing arms of the junction. At unsignalled
Junctions with minor roads where blocking of the mouth of the minor road is infrequent, a KEEPCLEAR
marking (see paras 22.11to22.14) may be more appropriate,

I hope the council has addressed these issues before considering the box junction by conducting appropriate survey and obtained approval from Department for Transport if it was required. This box should be deemed as non-compliant if any survey to study the traffic pattern is not conducted or necessary approval is not obtained.

[Snoopy1948]

Re: Box junction fine

No I hadn't seen this one thank you for pointing it out!

I do agree that this junction should have the box extended all the way to the kerb on the other side of the road as it is so busy.

There is not a fixed enforcement camera at the junction (i checked the next time i drove through it) it was a sneaky mobile camera on the dayI was not aware of a camera being at the junction, I usually do edge out when there are no vehicles coming from my right as this is the only way to get out of the junction without sitting there all day!

- - - Updated - - -

great thanks

You are welcome. I have been driving for nearly 50 years without incident, ten of those as a professional driver. I was lucky enough to be once double crewed with an ex class 1 police driver and he taught me a lot, leading me to pass the IAM in 1972. But a lot has changed since then, roads more crammed and driver education sadly lacking. Plus we have the heavy infiltration of 'big brother, with ANPR everywhere, safety cameras, traffic light cameras, average speed cameras, you cannot even go through a drive in McDonalds without your face on film. I wish you success here ... :goodjob:

[xoxoemzxoxo]

Re: Box junction fine

thanks, I'm just starting out as a Fleet Manager and deal with parking fines every day and have got those down well to appeal! But box junction with my own car was a whole new experience!

I will update once I receive a response.

[des8]

Re: Box junction fine

Just a small point.
You are claiming the PCN did not contain sufficient information to identify the junction, but then go on to discuss the site in some detail.
Might be counter productive.

[h4ngover]

Re: Box junction fine

What was the outcome?