Please help - H&F state box junction rule allowing waiting while turning right in box junction does not apply at T Junctions |
Please help - H&F state box junction rule allowing waiting while turning right in box junction does not apply at T Junctions |
Thu, 15 Dec 2011 - 08:29
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 16 Joined: 14 Dec 2011 Member No.: 51,782 |
I am looking for help on the question as to whether Hammersmith and Fulham are right in claiming that I was not allowed to wait behind right turning traffic in a box junction because it was a T Junction.
H&F claim the rule giving the right to wait while turning right only applies where there is oncoming traffic and because I was at a T Junction I no longer have a right to wait while turning right behind other vehicles waiting to complete a right turn. It doesn't seem to be an accurate interpretation of the law to me. Has anyone been given a PCN this way and successfully appealed? This post has been edited by Deborah*: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 - 09:36 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Thu, 15 Dec 2011 - 08:29
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Thu, 15 Dec 2011 - 08:36
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Validating Posts: 1,464 Joined: 24 Jul 2010 From: London, UK Member No.: 39,238 |
In my opinion in the letter of the law they are correct as you can only be in a yellow box junction for the purpose of turning right and are prevented from completing the turn because of oncoming traffic or because of other vehicles waiting to complete the right turn.
The question to ask is whether there was any oncoming traffic and that would not be the case with a T-junction. It is a mood point. However, if you post up the PCN and the 2nd page of the rejection letter there may be some other faults. |
|
|
Thu, 15 Dec 2011 - 08:43
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 16 Joined: 14 Dec 2011 Member No.: 51,782 |
But I was behind other vehicles waiting to turn right, although stopped due to traffic lights and not due to oncoming traffic. Does that not apply?
|
|
|
Thu, 15 Dec 2011 - 08:56
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Validating Posts: 1,464 Joined: 24 Jul 2010 From: London, UK Member No.: 39,238 |
Not in my opinion.
Was there enough space for you to move into at the exit of the box junction when you moved into it? |
|
|
Thu, 15 Dec 2011 - 09:07
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,159 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
Without wishing to usurp the authority of the moderators - one issue, one thread. You've got two.
HCA |
|
|
Thu, 15 Dec 2011 - 09:13
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 16 Joined: 14 Dec 2011 Member No.: 51,782 |
Sorry -I didn't know it wasn't allowed. Can I link them? I just wanted the answer to a specific question about the T Junction and thought maybe I hadnt worded it properly.
I guess there isn't a clear answer to the T Junction question regarding box junctions. I might just give up and pay as it seems to only be me who things the LA has got this one wrong. I could not see if there was space to exit when I entered the box. I just blindly followed the right turning vehicle that moved off ahead of me when the lights I was waiting at went green. The right exit lane was blocked back with traffic due to more lights so it was probably not visible whether the left lane exit was clear. As it happens, the right turning vehicle ahead of me stopped in a queue to the lights just in front of the box, leaving me stuck wholly in the box until the lights changed. This post has been edited by Deborah*: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 - 09:17 |
|
|
Thu, 15 Dec 2011 - 09:20
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Validating Posts: 1,464 Joined: 24 Jul 2010 From: London, UK Member No.: 39,238 |
Post up the second page of the rejection letter as it is bound to say that they WILL issue a Charge Certificate rather than MAY issue a Charge Certficicate.
That point won me a case at the PATAS. |
|
|
Thu, 15 Dec 2011 - 09:38
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 16 Joined: 14 Dec 2011 Member No.: 51,782 |
I just posted it. As you can see, it says "may issue a charge certificate". Looks like they learned from your case!
|
|
|
Thu, 15 Dec 2011 - 09:44
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,159 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
I've posted my reply in your other thread and will reply further there.
HCA |
|
|
Thu, 15 Dec 2011 - 09:44
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Validating Posts: 1,464 Joined: 24 Jul 2010 From: London, UK Member No.: 39,238 |
Looks like they indeed did learn.
|
|
|
Thu, 15 Dec 2011 - 10:24
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 5,731 Joined: 14 Jan 2009 Member No.: 25,447 |
In my opinion in the letter of the law they are correct as you can only be in a yellow box junction for the purpose of turning right and are prevented from completing the turn because of oncoming traffic or because of other vehicles waiting to complete the right turn. The question to ask is whether there was any oncoming traffic and that would not be the case with a T-junction. It is a mood point. However, if you post up the PCN and the 2nd page of the rejection letter there may be some other faults. I don't admit to any expertise concerning YBJs. But I just don't get how this can be right. Where in the highway code (not strictly legally binding, I know) is a different set of rules applied to a T-Junction? |
|
|
Thu, 15 Dec 2011 - 10:27
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 5,243 Joined: 9 Jul 2004 From: Devon Member No.: 1,388 |
-------------------- Peter
What I'd like to see police/local authorities do is deal with important issues and not these sorts of victimless crimes when society is riddled with problems. If it's true that we are here to help others, then what exactly are the others here for? 'The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.' - Albert Einstein |
|
|
Thu, 15 Dec 2011 - 10:29
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Validating Posts: 1,464 Joined: 24 Jul 2010 From: London, UK Member No.: 39,238 |
The OP did a right turn when there was no oncoming traffic so that excludes waiting to complete the right turn.
The second one is waiting behind another vehicle that is waiting to complete the right turn. Given that such vehicle (if it exists in this case) was doing so, it shouldn't have been in the box too as there was no oncoming traffic. Basically, the right turn the OP made would equal going through the box junction straight and those rules would apply. |
|
|
Thu, 15 Dec 2011 - 10:43
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,159 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
IMO, there is nothing in the regs which states or implies that the only reason for stopping has to be as a direct or indirect consequence of the presence of oncoming traffic. (b) offers two alternatives i.e. oncoming traffic or another vehicle waiting to turn right.
When you think about it, there would be no need to have the "or" if it was predicated on the same or substantially the same condition that preceded it. IMO, logically it must refer to another condition which is being caused to stop by the presence of a stationary vehicle executing a right turn and wholly or partly in the box. HCA |
|
|
Thu, 15 Dec 2011 - 10:54
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Validating Posts: 1,464 Joined: 24 Jul 2010 From: London, UK Member No.: 39,238 |
But the vehicle in front completed the turn and wasn't waiting to turn. According to the pictures on the PCN, the black car was stood in the junction not having fully completed the turn. The car in front (assuming this is the car the back car followed) wasn't waiting to turn.
|
|
|
Thu, 15 Dec 2011 - 11:09
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,159 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
But we're discussing the regulations, not the actual events. As I've posted in the other thread and we've yet to have confirmed, it's unclear when the OP's car first stopped and why. In any event, as the NOR did not acknowledge that there was an exemption if the OP's car was stopped by another vehicle situated within the box and if the OP made that point then the NOR is, IMO, flawed. In any event, it rests on their "finding of fact" as regards the exact cause of the OP's vehicle stopping and not the law. If they make an incorrect finding and don't know the law then it's possible that their consideration was flawed.
We need to see the PHOTO(s) that establish the contravention and the OP's reps. OP - docs and pics pl, not more words. HCA |
|
|
Thu, 15 Dec 2011 - 11:43
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,286 Joined: 20 Nov 2004 Member No.: 1,898 |
I see what interlog, and the council, are saying. The stationary vehicles are very likely not waiting to complete a right turn as most of them probably went straight on, and the video would presumably show this. They would also likely be found to have already completed it in any case.
I do agree that they have mis-stated the law somewhat in the rejection, but would this be enough to make it flawed? -------------------- Posts by me are intended as a discussion of the issues involved, as these are of general interest to me and others on the forum. Although it is hoped such discussion will be of use to readers, before exposing yourself to risk of loss you should not rely on any principles discussed without confirming the situation with a qualified person.
|
|
|
Thu, 15 Dec 2011 - 16:58
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 5,731 Joined: 14 Jan 2009 Member No.: 25,447 |
I see two lanes on New Kings Road that the OP could have turned right into.
The view to the nearside lane is blocked or obscured by the white van. The OP appears to follow a dark coloured saloon turning right. The saloon disappears into the nearside lane and is maybe hidden from camera view by the van. It seems that the OP wanted the offside lane so chose to stop in the box. If the nearside lane was still available to exit then no contravention occurred. That is one possibility. So I would want to see the video. Another possibility! This box junction stretches across both sides of the road. The normal rules for a T junction are that only the half adjacent to the side road has the YB. So where the OP was stopped would not normally have a YB which could be stopped in. However this particular junction has a non compliant YB layout that has been authorised by the Secretary of State. If the junction had the standard YB layout then the OP appears to have have legally crossed the junction and then turned right. However the non-standard extension of the YB onto the destination carriageway now comes into play. I think the H&F reasoning is flawed and if it is not flawed it is simply not reasonable and does not reflect the intent that the SoS approved. It is entirely a technical infringement contrived from an omission in the legislation that might address a non-standard layout. If the OP had another car behind her, then this hypothetical car would not be in contravention. It is a just ridiculous notion. How is a person to know that some non-standard special set of rules happens to apply to this junction? Therefore common sense must apply. The OP was entitled to stop and wait in the YB until the right turn could be safely completed. This is just another example of Council's trying to milk the system. |
|
|
Thu, 15 Dec 2011 - 17:52
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 5,243 Joined: 9 Jul 2004 From: Devon Member No.: 1,388 |
I am looking for help on the question as to whether Hammersmith and Fulham are right in claiming that I was not allowed to wait behind right turning traffic in a box junction because it was a T Junction. H&F claim the rule giving the right to wait while turning right only applies where there is oncoming traffic and because I was at a T Junction I no longer have a right to wait while turning right behind other vehicles waiting to complete a right turn. It doesn't seem to be an accurate interpretation of the law to me. Has anyone been given a PCN this way and successfully appealed? In picture three, I am looking at the pedestrian on the crossing and in the following sequence of stills, it does look as if you are stationary. That's if I am following the car in picture three which appears to be just entering the box. If that is the case, who are you obstructing? This post has been edited by Bluedart: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 - 17:54 -------------------- Peter
What I'd like to see police/local authorities do is deal with important issues and not these sorts of victimless crimes when society is riddled with problems. If it's true that we are here to help others, then what exactly are the others here for? 'The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.' - Albert Einstein |
|
|
Thu, 15 Dec 2011 - 18:15
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 18,751 Joined: 20 Sep 2009 Member No.: 32,130 |
Using a full yellow box at that T junction is pointless and only there as a cash cow, surely. No obstruction of anyone and as the OP says, as you are performing a right turn, there is not a clear view when you first enter the junction which could tell you soon enough whether both lanes around the corner are clear! There's no reason at all for that side of the YBJ to be there, a half-size one across the junction itself would suffice to prevent obstruction. How on earth did they get special authorisation for it?
There is a big chunk of the yellow markings missing on the YBJ itself so could it be argued the junction doesn't match the authorisation? |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Wednesday, 17th April 2024 - 19:08 |