Yellow Box Junction Fine Newham Barking Road/Oak Cres |
Yellow Box Junction Fine Newham Barking Road/Oak Cres |
Sat, 13 Jul 2019 - 15:37
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25 Joined: 13 Jul 2019 Member No.: 104,763 |
Hi,
If anyone could assist me it would be appreciated. Received pcn for yellow box junction, from the pictures it looks like I was in there for 10 seconds. There was no video - just a greyed out area with a play sign but nothing to play. Offence 31J. I believe that I moved out of the box in time, yet the pictures stop when I was half out in a total of ten seconds. From reading this forum, I tend to doubt the legality of this box junction too. Once again, any help would be appreciated, even if it's just to pay these t**ts. The last pic wouldnt upload but it shows the car stationary but at 14:56.27 - so presumably a total of ten seconds - where I must have gone forward and taken the space I had. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sat, 13 Jul 2019 - 15:37
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sat, 13 Jul 2019 - 16:12
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
This box is well known to us and the good news is that I think the last adjudication we reported was that the box was no longer serving its original purpose as the junction has been remodelled and the side road is no longer there.
Neil B. will confirm this. Of course this doesn't stop the most venal of councils, Newham, from continuing to issue PCNs here. This post has been edited by stamfordman: Sat, 13 Jul 2019 - 16:47 |
|
|
Sat, 13 Jul 2019 - 16:52
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
This the one you thinking of Stamf
2190120207 Mr Jumorain Gani attended today. He is the appellant’s son. He was also a passenger on 6th January 2019. Mr Abul Gani appealed as he argued that there was sufficient space beyond the box junction to enable him to drive out of the box. Mr Jumorain Gani also argues that the box junction does not comply with the relevant regulations I have seen the CCTV footage. The footage shows that the box junction markings are very faded. I looked at google street view of the location taken over a period of years during the hearing. Regulation 11 (6) in Part 7 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 defines a box junction as an area of carriageway where the marking has been places and which is at a junction between two or more roads, at a gyratory system or roundabout, along a length of two way road the carriageway of which is not greater than 4.5 metres wide at its narrowest point or a length of road adjacent to a fire or police or ambulance station. The box junction in Barking Road is at a dual carriageway. The area to the left of the box is pedestrianised. I find that the box is not at a junction of two or more roads and therefore it is not a box junction as defined by the Regulations. -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Sat, 13 Jul 2019 - 19:00
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,268 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
That is actually a side road, albeit a dead-end, limited parking area.
But I'm looking at the markings; is that 'substantially compliant'? It now reduced to a series of Xs an adjudicator might rule it not. -------------------- |
|
|
Sat, 13 Jul 2019 - 19:10
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
This the one you thinking of Stamf 2190120207 Yes indeed. This has got to be worth citing. If I was the OP I'd take it to the tribunal. Plus anything else on the stop, markings etc. Neil is right that traffic can enter the dead end side road, as I first noted about this location some time ago. But it is not by any stretch of the imagination a route that has the status of what was there for the box in the first place. |
|
|
Sun, 14 Jul 2019 - 11:06
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25 Joined: 13 Jul 2019 Member No.: 104,763 |
Thanks to all who have contributed.
I will send my appeal off as below and if they don't cancel, take it to the tribunal. This the one you thinking of Stamf 2190120207 Mr Jumorain Gani attended today. He is the appellant’s son. He was also a passenger on 6th January 2019. Mr Abul Gani appealed as he argued that there was sufficient space beyond the box junction to enable him to drive out of the box. Mr Jumorain Gani also argues that the box junction does not comply with the relevant regulations I have seen the CCTV footage. The footage shows that the box junction markings are very faded. I looked at google street view of the location taken over a period of years during the hearing. Regulation 11 (6) in Part 7 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 defines a box junction as an area of carriageway where the marking has been places and which is at a junction between two or more roads, at a gyratory system or roundabout, along a length of two way road the carriageway of which is not greater than 4.5 metres wide at its narrowest point or a length of road adjacent to a fire or police or ambulance station. The box junction in Barking Road is at a dual carriageway. The area to the left of the box is pedestrianised. I find that the box is not at a junction of two or more roads and therefore it is not a box junction as defined by the Regulations. |
|
|
Sun, 14 Jul 2019 - 11:28
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
don't send anything without posting here first.
get the video This post has been edited by stamfordman: Sun, 14 Jul 2019 - 11:28 |
|
|
Sun, 14 Jul 2019 - 11:33
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 546 Joined: 31 Aug 2015 From: 19 Riverbank Member No.: 79,151 |
So, the yellow box junction is considered:
- very faded - not at a junction of two or more roads - not a box junction as defined by the Regulations - not enforceable I’m not confident the council could prove you wrong. -------------------- I do tend to have a bee in my bonnet re failing to consider and fairness
|
|
|
Sun, 14 Jul 2019 - 11:50
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25 Joined: 13 Jul 2019 Member No.: 104,763 |
Thanks!
So, the yellow box junction is considered: - very faded - not at a junction of two or more roads - not a box junction as defined by the Regulations - not enforceable I’m not confident the council could prove you wrong. There is no video, it says allow up to 3 working days from date of contr. which was 3/7. I was not in the box for long, ten seconds according to the stills and from what I remember. don't send anything without posting here first. get the video |
|
|
Sun, 14 Jul 2019 - 12:16
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,268 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
You need to draft representations in a cogent, readable statement.
Not just c&p cases and opinions from here. -------------------- |
|
|
Sun, 14 Jul 2019 - 16:51
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25 Joined: 13 Jul 2019 Member No.: 104,763 |
|
|
|
Wed, 6 Nov 2019 - 22:03
Post
#12
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 3 Joined: 1 Nov 2019 Member No.: 106,435 |
Hi,
Any luck with your appeal? I understand it's been 4 months since then. I've recently received 2 PCN for supposedly stopping in the junction. The first one I was in the box for 12 seconds and the second one I was in there for 9 seconds. I managed to retrieve video footage for both.. I've uploaded it to the forum, hopefully you'll be able to view it. I do agree that the road markings are faded and you can easily enter the box without knowing. There is also no signage warning road users of any CCTV in operation. Thus making it another scam to get money from road users. Has anyone on been successful with appealing. Thank you |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 22:24 |