Yellow Box Junction - Highway Code vs TSRGD 2016 |
Yellow Box Junction - Highway Code vs TSRGD 2016 |
Fri, 16 Aug 2019 - 19:26
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,120 Joined: 10 Jul 2009 Member No.: 30,237 |
Hello. I'm involved in a protracted debate with a relatively ill informed individual on another forum. I've explained that it is only a contravention to stop in a yellow box junction if this is due to stationary vehicles. He says that any stop (other than where the right turn exemption applies) is a contravention.
I've pointed him to the TSRGD 2016, but he just keeps repeating back that according to the Highway Code you MUST NOT enter until the exit is clear. And that the highway code says that anything that says "must not" is a legal requirement. Why is it that there is a divergence between what the Highway Code says you can/cannot do in a box junction and what the law actually requires?? |
|
|
Advertisement |
Fri, 16 Aug 2019 - 19:26
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Fri, 16 Aug 2019 - 19:47
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
TSRGD take precedent send him a copy of this case
ETA Register of Appeals Register Kept Under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators)(London) Regulations 1993, as amended or Paragraph 21 of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007, as applicable Case Details Case reference 2160252038 Appellant alan branch Authority London Borough of Waltham Forest VRM V361GOO PCN Details PCN FR24355799 Contravention date 24 Apr 2016 Contravention time 16:44:00 Contravention location Hall Lane/Albert Crescent Penalty amount GBP 130.00 Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction Referral date Decision Date 11 Jul 2016 Adjudicator Gerald Styles Appeal decision Appeal allowed Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice. Reasons The appellant attended the hearing arranged for 11 July. The Council did not send a representative. The appellant brought with him a freehand sketch in plan to explain and support his argument that the driver could have cleared the box without stopping for the 12 or so seconds recorded. I have retained this and accepted the measurements as shown. The appellant's daughter Rebecca is shown driving on the clip. I understood she had passed her test two years ago. I have accepted that she could have cleared the box without stopping within it. In the event the rear wheels straddled the far perimeter. She may through inexperience have misjudged the length of her father's car but I do not incline to allow an appeal of this type on that account. An obvious feature of the evidence was that when she stopped, that she did so for the purpose of adjusting controls on her music. I was inclined to be very critical of her taking her eyes off the road as she did and when she chose to do that. I did however conclude there was insufficient evidence to support this particular penalty charge as I could not attribute the reason for stopping as being essentially the presence of stationary vehicles, as opposed to preoccupation with what was playing music. I have recorded the appeal as allowed. -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Fri, 16 Aug 2019 - 20:35
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,120 Joined: 10 Jul 2009 Member No.: 30,237 |
Thanks PMB. I was aware of the case, and have cut and pasted it into the thread.
But do you (or anyone else) know why the Highway Code is plain wrong on what you MUST NOT do in a yellow box junction? There is no requirement to wait until the exit is clear before entering - although it is generally good advice. |
|
|
Fri, 16 Aug 2019 - 20:39
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
Ask the Department for Transport. Stop arguing with idiots on the internet.
-------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Fri, 16 Aug 2019 - 20:51
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
Ask the Department for Transport. Stop arguing with idiots on the internet. Include us in the latter The Highway code gives the general basic, just not the full story. It should link to the legislation (I haven't checked) to qualify the MUST NOT. Your antagonist probably works for a London Council, they seem to believe the same, that Highway Code trumps legislation. Anyone who cites HC as the legal rulebook without checking the actual legislation is an idiot BTW. But if they follow the dictates, will usually be on the right side of the law. I do say usually as I seem to remember a Bus Lane issue where HC inferred use which would have breached legislation and potentially copped a PCN. |
|
|
Fri, 16 Aug 2019 - 22:16
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Ask the Department for Transport. Stop arguing with idiots on the internet. + 1 million. There's people out there who things Act of Parliament are not laws, the police can't arrest you without your consent, and the Earth is flat. Seriously, I'm sure you have better things to do with your time. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Guest_Charlie1010_* |
Sat, 17 Aug 2019 - 06:05
Post
#7
|
Guests |
😂 and we never landed on the moon and 9/11 was a conspiracy too! 😂
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 08:42 |