PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN Fulham - Stopping in a box
daxilic
post Wed, 23 May 2018 - 17:38
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 57
Joined: 26 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,772



At morning rush hour in Fulham, London I was at a set of lights at a t-junction needing to go right (exact location details below). Even when the lights went green I couldn't go right as there was no space to enter the short piece of road after the box, which had another set of lights. I must have been waiting at least 5 minutes to go right and the lights had changed about three times. Due to the way the lights were synced and the heavy traffic it was impossible to go right without stopping in the box and I was holding up a lot of traffic behind me, with cars wanting to go left - which they could have if I wasn't waiting to go right. Because of this a few drivers behind were heavily beeping me and eventually I gave in and joined the road after the box, with my car in the box (not blocking any other traffic). I'm certain that I would have been stuck at the lights holding everyone up behind me for a good 5-10 more minutes.

I suppose to get around this I could have gone left then somewhere down the road turned around to come back on myself, but in London rush hour that probably would have cost me 20 extra minutes which I didn't have, plus I really shouldn't have to do that. Ideally there should be two lanes - one for going left, one for right, but that wasn't the case.

Of course today I receive the PCN for £65 (reduced amount). Have I got any chance of appealing here or was it a case of s**t happens?


Location:

Bagleys Lane where it meets New King's Road

Location on Google Maps




Here's a diagram to show the problem:




The PCN letter:







Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
7 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Wed, 23 May 2018 - 17:38
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 24 May 2018 - 20:32
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (daxilic @ Thu, 24 May 2018 - 19:39) *
Ah I see. So you're saying "However, you may enter the box and wait when you want to turn right, and are only stopped from doing so by oncoming traffic, or by other vehicles waiting to turn right." could apply in my case?

Yes that's correct. The annoying thing is that, under the 2002 regulations, this sort of box junction would have been illegal and the road markings could have covered only one half of the road, for exactly this reason (i.e. it otherwise can become impossible to ever turn right). I suspect some bright spark in the Department for Transport must have assumed that no council would be so stupid.

The key issue now is the car that was in front of you. Had it turned right out of the same junction as you, or did it come from the left? If it came from the left, it is arguable the right-turn exception does not apply. This could be rebutted by stating that Parliament never intended for the restriction to be used in this manner, or else that the restriction is Wednesbury unreasonable, but that would be a rather technical argument..

This post has been edited by cp8759: Thu, 24 May 2018 - 20:32


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
daxilic
post Thu, 24 May 2018 - 20:56
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 57
Joined: 26 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,772



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 24 May 2018 - 20:40) *
QUOTE (daxilic @ Thu, 24 May 2018 - 20:35) *
QUOTE (Neil B @ Thu, 24 May 2018 - 19:47) *
Which other vehicle was stationary and waiting to turn right?


Well this is what I'm not clear on. The vehicle in front of me when I stopped in the box may have come from either my direction (making a right turn and clearing the box) or come from the road coming from the left (straight forward in his case). Even if he was making a right turn from my road it doesn't show that on the video footage.

The reason I stopped in the box was cause I was blocking traffic behind from going left due to the design of the junction, but I'm guessing there is no legislation for that.


That's where the purposive view comes in, as taken by the adjudicator in the case quoted.


So when appealing I should say that the white car in front of me (when I'm in the box) was also making a right turn and I was forced to stop in the box as I couldn't complete the turn, despite the vehicle in front clearing the box?

But as this isn't shown on the video footage I can't prove it.

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 24 May 2018 - 21:32) *
QUOTE (daxilic @ Thu, 24 May 2018 - 19:39) *
Ah I see. So you're saying "However, you may enter the box and wait when you want to turn right, and are only stopped from doing so by oncoming traffic, or by other vehicles waiting to turn right." could apply in my case?

Yes that's correct. The annoying thing is that, under the 2002 regulations, this sort of box junction would have been illegal and the road markings could have covered only one half of the road, for exactly this reason (i.e. it otherwise can become impossible to ever turn right). I suspect some bright spark in the Department for Transport must have assumed that no council would be so stupid.

The key issue now is the car that was in front of you. Had it turned right out of the same junction as you, or did it come from the left? If it came from the left, it is arguable the right-turn exception does not apply. This could be rebutted by stating that Parliament never intended for the restriction to be used in this manner, or else that the restriction is Wednesbury unreasonable, but that would be a rather technical argument..


I honestly can't remember which direction the white car came from, it's possible it came from my road (turning right), but after my lights turn red, then road from the left is next in the sequence to go green so it's more likely it came from the left. The other thing is that the white car had already completed the right turn and was clear the box before I starting entering the box - it was my decision to enter the box and go behind him knowing the road ahead wasn't clear.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MrChips
post Thu, 24 May 2018 - 21:45
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,120
Joined: 10 Jul 2009
Member No.: 30,237



Surely the burden is on the council to prove that you committed the contravention. Their video starts too early to demonstrate this:

i) it starts after you enter the box so doesn't show categorically that you caused the vehicle to enter the box (required for the contravention). It's possible (although admittedly unlikely) you got shunted in. While this might sound like an implausible argument, read this "key case" from London Tribunals

https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/de...aders%20Ltd.doc

ii) more crucially, it doesn't show if the car you end up waiting behind had also turned right. If so, you would be permitted to wait in the box behind it while turning right yourself.

No proof, no contravention?

Also...any (hypothetical) vehicle which queued behind you in the box would also not be committing a contravention (being as they would be entering to turn right, and prevented from doing so by your vehicle waiting to turn right). It would seem a bit paradoxical (to me anyway) for them not to be committing a contravention while you are?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
daxilic
post Fri, 25 May 2018 - 01:40
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 57
Joined: 26 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,772



QUOTE (MrChips @ Thu, 24 May 2018 - 22:45) *
Surely the burden is on the council to prove that you committed the contravention. Their video starts too early to demonstrate this:

i) it starts after you enter the box so doesn't show categorically that you caused the vehicle to enter the box (required for the contravention). It's possible (although admittedly unlikely) you got shunted in. While this might sound like an implausible argument, read this "key case" from London Tribunals

https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/de...aders%20Ltd.doc

ii) more crucially, it doesn't show if the car you end up waiting behind had also turned right. If so, you would be permitted to wait in the box behind it while turning right yourself.

No proof, no contravention?

Also...any (hypothetical) vehicle which queued behind you in the box would also not be committing a contravention (being as they would be entering to turn right, and prevented from doing so by your vehicle waiting to turn right). It would seem a bit paradoxical (to me anyway) for them not to be committing a contravention while you are?


Lots of good points there, thank you! I'll appeal tomorrow and give this a go, will post the outcome after.

Thank you everyone for the help, it means a lot smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Fri, 25 May 2018 - 10:05
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,060
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Video clearly shows OP entering the box (and therefore the posted decision does not apply), it's the first second of the video.

And the other car is parallel to the carriageway and not executing any sort of turn. If it had turned, then this is history.

Sorry to march out of step, but this looks bang-to-rights and IMO the OP should set their expectations accordingly.

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Fri, 25 May 2018 - 10:06
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 25 May 2018 - 10:18
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 25 May 2018 - 11:05) *
Video clearly shows OP entering the box (and therefore the posted decision does not apply), it's the first second of the video.

And the other car is parallel to the carriageway and not executing any sort of turn. If it had turned, then this is history.

Sorry to march out of step, but this looks bang-to-rights and IMO the OP should set their expectations accordingly. made

To be honest I think there's an argument to be made that, even if the 2016 regulations do technically allow the restriction as devised by the council, there's a clear case of the restriction being Wednesbury unreasonable and therefore unlawful. They serve no legitimate purpose (other than to make money for the council, which is an irrelevant consideration), are disproportionate, and are such that no reasonable decision maker would ever have created the restrictions as they are.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Fri, 25 May 2018 - 10:21
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



H&F very unlikely to give way on this and it will have to go to adjudication.


The exemption wording is sort of ambiguous but I don't reckon it was intended to apply in the OP's situation:

(b)stops the vehicle within the box junction for so long as the vehicle is prevented from completing the right turn by an oncoming vehicle or other vehicle which is stationary whilst waiting to complete a right turn.

The 'other vehicle' I read as another waiting to turn right not one outside the box.

If this was a crossroads, as H&F says in its guidance:

"If a vehicle is making a right turn and is being held up from completing that turn, by oncoming traffic as in the exemption for vehicles on box junctions, the TSR&GD 2002 National standard is silent on whether the exit should also be clear. Therefore we do not need to not consider the state of the exit in this circumstance."

But it's not a crossroads with oncoming traffic.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 25 May 2018 - 10:25
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



stamfordman I agree, the exemption isn't designed for this situation, but this is because yellow box junctions were never intended to apply in these circumstances. I have no doubt this would need to go to the tribunal and the appeal itself will need to be very, very carefully drafted.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Fri, 25 May 2018 - 11:10
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,060
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



If they want to, then the OP needs to address the issue in their reps. This being not that they were not stationary etc. but that the box junction at that point served no proper traffic management purpose as is therefore unlawful .

AND require them, should they reject, to provide the council report/Portfolio decision which authorised the box junction to extend into the W/E carriageway of the road when its purpose was to manage E/W traffic.

Personally, I don't see the merit in this argument. The YBJ at this point is designed to help traffic exiting Bagley's, without it they'd just be nose-to-tail W/E traffic n New King's Road with no exit for Bagley's traffic turning east.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Fri, 25 May 2018 - 11:19
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,265
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



I also think the box covering both carriageways is justified, otherwise traffic in the other direction would
block the exit from Bagleys.


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Fri, 25 May 2018 - 11:19
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



For me the crucial point is if both lanes eastbound had been blocked then the OP would be justified in moving into the box to release traffic behind him turning left. But as we can see from the video the far side lane was not blocked and it was a self-inflicted contravention. But well worth appealing. It's also the case that from ground level it's harder to see what's going on - adjudicators should bear in mind that what the CCTV sees is not the same thing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 25 May 2018 - 11:33
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Fri, 25 May 2018 - 12:19) *
For me the crucial point is if both lanes eastbound had been blocked then the OP would be justified in moving into the box to release traffic behind him turning left. But as we can see from the video the far side lane was not blocked and it was a self-inflicted contravention. But well worth appealing. It's also the case that from ground level it's harder to see what's going on - adjudicators should bear in mind that what the CCTV sees is not the same thing.


as should be clear I am a proponent of appealing and all points should be made Shaun Stanton Dunne to my mind makes the strongest although he weakens it somewhat Stamfs and HCA's stets the tone and direction of the appeal. But realistically this could depend very much on the allocation of adjudicators. Sad but true


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
daxilic
post Fri, 25 May 2018 - 11:48
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 57
Joined: 26 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,772



Is it worth going down the route of adjudicators/tribunals? And how much more money would be risk if I lost?

I've accepted that most likely they would reject an appeal and I'll have to pay the £65, but I still believe it's not justified given that it was a choice of £65 fine, be forced to go left and waste valuable time in traffic or block all the traffic behind. As hcandersen mentions, the clear outside lane after the box appears to be the nail in the coffin.

Moral of the story: don't drive in London.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Meldrew
post Fri, 25 May 2018 - 14:31
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 546
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



£130 if you loose, £0.00 and a great big grin if you win.

Is the extent of the box visible to the driver of a Honda Civic whose eyes would be perhaps about 1.3 metres above the road surface at the exit of Bagleys Lane? I think there is a distinct camber and road crown noticeable even from the elevation of the Google car camera, which is perhaps about 2.5 metres.

Potentially, H&F could fail to address this if true and supported by your own photos (or address it in any case summary ohmy.gif ).

Just wondering if due to local knowledge, this is something you hadn’t considered in mitigation. The photo is zoomed-in in an attempt to get a lower angle.



--------------------
I do tend to have a bee in my bonnet re failing to consider and fairness
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 27 May 2018 - 13:24
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Neil B @ Fri, 25 May 2018 - 12:19) *
I also think the box covering both carriageways is justified, otherwise traffic in the other direction would
block the exit from Bagleys.

I disagree, the box on the far side does not help traffic turning right out of Bagleys, so it serves no legitimate traffic management purpose. I don't see how being prevented from turning right by a yellow box is preferable to being prevented from doing so by a yellow box junction. At least if you were prevented from turning right by queuing traffic, there's the chance there might be a gap / someone might let you out, while with a yellow box the council will come down on you like a ton of bricks no matter what.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sun, 27 May 2018 - 13:30
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 27 May 2018 - 14:24) *
QUOTE (Neil B @ Fri, 25 May 2018 - 12:19) *
I also think the box covering both carriageways is justified, otherwise traffic in the other direction would
block the exit from Bagleys.

I disagree, the box on the far side does not help traffic turning right out of Bagleys, so it serves no legitimate traffic management purpose. I don't see how being prevented from turning right by a yellow box is preferable to being prevented from doing so by a yellow box junction. At least if you were prevented from turning right by queuing traffic, there's the chance there might be a gap / someone might let you out, while with a yellow box the council will come down on you like a ton of bricks no matter what.



It would serve a purpose if traffic turning right were allowed into the box without penalty!

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Sun, 27 May 2018 - 13:30
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 27 May 2018 - 13:35
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Sun, 27 May 2018 - 14:30) *
It would serve a purpose if traffic turning right were allowed into the box without penalty!

True, but as traffic turning right isn't allowed into the box, the OP's best bet remains that the restriction is irrational and therefore unlawful.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Sun, 27 May 2018 - 13:51
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,265
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 27 May 2018 - 14:24) *
QUOTE (Neil B @ Fri, 25 May 2018 - 12:19) *
I also think the box covering both carriageways is justified, otherwise traffic in the other direction would
block the exit from Bagleys.

I disagree, the box on the far side does not help traffic turning right out of Bagleys, so it serves no legitimate traffic management purpose.

It clearly does: Without it, NE bound traffic on NKR would block the junction.

As it is, the problem seems to be that traffic can't progress quickly enough further up the road. Either the light sequence
is inappropriate or just can't cope with the weight of traffic.


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 27 May 2018 - 14:02
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Neil B @ Sun, 27 May 2018 - 14:51) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 27 May 2018 - 14:24) *
QUOTE (Neil B @ Fri, 25 May 2018 - 12:19) *
I also think the box covering both carriageways is justified, otherwise traffic in the other direction would
block the exit from Bagleys.

I disagree, the box on the far side does not help traffic turning right out of Bagleys, so it serves no legitimate traffic management purpose.

It clearly does: Without it, NE bound traffic on NKR would block the junction.

If the junction is blocked by the presence of the yellow box, then the junction is blocked anyway. So at best, the presence of the yellow box means the junction is no less blocked than it would otherwise be. Introducing road signs and markings to make things no better than they would otherwise be is not a legitimate traffic management purpose and is arguably contrary to sign clutter guidance (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/reducing-sign-clutter).


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Sun, 27 May 2018 - 15:05
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,265
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 27 May 2018 - 15:02) *
QUOTE (Neil B @ Sun, 27 May 2018 - 14:51) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 27 May 2018 - 14:24) *
QUOTE (Neil B @ Fri, 25 May 2018 - 12:19) *
I also think the box covering both carriageways is justified, otherwise traffic in the other direction would
block the exit from Bagleys.

I disagree, the box on the far side does not help traffic turning right out of Bagleys, so it serves no legitimate traffic management purpose.

It clearly does: Without it, NE bound traffic on NKR would block the junction.

If the junction is blocked by the presence of the yellow box, then the junction is blocked anyway. So at best, the presence of the yellow box means the junction is no less blocked than it would otherwise be. Introducing road signs and markings to make things no better than they would otherwise be is not a legitimate traffic management purpose and is arguably contrary to sign clutter guidance (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/reducing-sign-clutter).

Again, it clearly is better, for the reason stated. Traffic exiting Bagleys turning right would never reach the far side as the OP did.
The box protects rather than blocks: The part blocked is the exit.
I'm sure I recall reading somewhere a previous victim claiming to have figured out a workable sequence for the lights but,
of course, the Council don't want that!

If I'm understanding you correctly, would this not be the result?
Bagleys by Neil Black, on Flickr


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 16:39
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here