Yellow Box Junction - Peckham |
Yellow Box Junction - Peckham |
Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 21:13
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 683 Joined: 19 Jul 2017 Member No.: 93,086 |
Hi; This request is on behalf of my sister; who was caught in a YBJ by Peckham Bus Garage.
This is handled by TfL - whose website doesn't have a video facility. It seems to me that she has too much car in the YBJ to justify a de-minimus argument. My sister's is the red car. Not the idiot trying to drive down a cycle lane! However the photo seems to show that she was unfortunate. There is clearly room for three cars in the roadway ahead of the YBJ. There are three cars in the right hand lane, and the left hand lane - my sister's lane - is slightly longer, being on the diagonal! But for some reason the lead car pulled up short of the stop line, leaving my sister stranded. Yellow boxes GSV Is there any mileage in a challenge based on reasonable expectation of clearing the box junction? Lead car's action being inexplicable? This post has been edited by rosturra: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 21:25 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 21:13
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 21:18
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
post the PCN and ask TfL for the video they will send it
-------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 07:45
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 683 Joined: 19 Jul 2017 Member No.: 93,086 |
PCN now posted in lead post (I only have the front page) . And I have asked my sister to request video.
The PCN has date of notice 04/10/2018. So we have until tomorrow to challenge within discount period. I have suggested she challenge on the basis of reasonable expectation of clearing the box junction. In the knowledge that this will probably be rejected. But the discount will be re-offered, and in the meantime the video will give a better idea of whether to make formal reps. |
|
|
Sat, 8 Dec 2018 - 14:07
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 683 Joined: 19 Jul 2017 Member No.: 93,086 |
Hi;
We finally have the video from TFL. Yellow Box Junction incursion 2m19s. My sisters car moves onto the YBJ, when there are two cars ahead of her in a stretch of road which can contain three cars. 2m20s. The first of the two cars in front inexplicitly brakes before the stop line. 2m28s. My sisters car reaches the back of second stationary car, and stops. So the offence is committed. 2m36s. My sisters car moves. Is there any defence here? Or suck it up? There is no obstruction. I estimate she is stationary for 8 seconds. Is this two long for de minimus? As an aside, why is the camera panning on her car, and not the idiot behind her? The evidence that there is room for three cars can be seen with other cars at 45s, 1m 00s, 1m 12 s, 1m 31s (with a transit van!) , 2m 55s, 3m13s, 3m 25s ; 4m 22s. If you don't want to trawl through all those; the last example is a good one at 4m 22s. Any advice appreciated muchly. |
|
|
Sat, 8 Dec 2018 - 15:13
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Looks banged to rights to be honest, obstruction is irrelevant, and she entered the junction when the exit was not clear. Nobody cut into her path, and 8 seconds is too much for de-minimis, normally the maximum you get away with is 5-6 seconds. Upload the other pages of the PCN so we can check for errors.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sat, 8 Dec 2018 - 15:21
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,268 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
+1
But one thing I found irritating was the inconsistency of enforcement: The camera operator had every opportunity to zoom for the VRM of the car behind, a worse offender imo, but didn't? -------------------- |
|
|
Sat, 8 Dec 2018 - 15:36
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 683 Joined: 19 Jul 2017 Member No.: 93,086 |
Upload the other pages of the PCN so we can check for errors. Page one is at top of thread. page 2: page 3: page 4: +1 But one thing I found irritating was the inconsistency of enforcement: The camera operator had every opportunity to zoom for the VRM of the car behind, a worse offender imo, but didn't? I don't think the "imo" qualifier is necessary here! This post has been edited by rosturra: Sat, 8 Dec 2018 - 16:33 |
|
|
Sat, 8 Dec 2018 - 20:56
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
I disagree, when your sister entered the box she had a reasonable expectation that she could cleat it, not as if she was blindly following the car in front
-------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Sat, 8 Dec 2018 - 23:48
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 683 Joined: 19 Jul 2017 Member No.: 93,086 |
|
|
|
Sun, 9 Dec 2018 - 00:31
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
I disagree, when your sister entered the box she had a reasonable expectation that she could cleat it, not as if she was blindly following the car in front I agree PMB. But is "reasonable expectation" a defence? Or is it strict liability? see this panel decision in particular para 35 https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/de...n%20v%20TfL.doc -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Sun, 9 Dec 2018 - 12:46
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 683 Joined: 19 Jul 2017 Member No.: 93,086 |
Paragraph 37 is useful.
"We have had regard to the relevant paragraph advising motorists in the Highway Code. The warning is “ You must not enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear.” However we are of the view that this steps rather beyond what is required by the Regulation. A driver may exercise a prediction in his judgment as to whether the exit space will be clear. He is not to blame if the exit is thereafter blocked by an unexpected event such as the intervening action of another vehicle cutting into his right of way without warning. " So can a challenge be cited as follows? My sister exercised a prediction that the exit space will be clear. Her prediction was based on realistic expectation that there was room for 3 cars. This expectation can be demonstrated as realistic by screen shots (a,b,c,d etc) where 3 cars are indeed stopped without incursion into YBJ. The exit was blocked by an "unexpected event" namely that the lead car inexplicitly stopped half a car length short of the stop line. This event could not have been predicted by my sister. If this is challenged - do you know if the discount period is always re-offered? Do TFL routinely reject challenges automatically, in the same way that councils do? This post has been edited by rosturra: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 - 12:48 |
|
|
Mon, 10 Dec 2018 - 13:27
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
I believe TFL normally re-offer the discount if a challenge is rejected.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 00:59
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 683 Joined: 19 Jul 2017 Member No.: 93,086 |
How's this for a challenge?
I would like to challenge PCN no ####. The alleged contravention was “Entering and stopping” in a box junction when prohibited. The actual contravention is “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” The video (Timed at 15:24:43) shows that when my vehicle entered the yellow box junction there were no stationary vehicles which could cause my vehicle to stop in the box junction. It can be seen that at this time there are two cars in front of my car, but they are moving into a stretch of road, bordered back and front by Box Junctions, but where there is room for three cars to stop without encroaching on either. My vehicle did, in fact, subsequently stop in the yellow box, but this was due to stationary vehicles AFTER my vehicle had entered the yellow box. I refer to the document attached, which is a discussion of yellow box junction appeals. In particular the case Essoo –v- L.B. of Enfield (2130232767). Note Paragraph 37: "We have had regard to the relevant paragraph advising motorists in the Highway Code. The warning is “ You must not enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear.” However we are of the view that this steps rather beyond what is required by the Regulation. A driver may exercise a prediction in his judgment as to whether the exit space will be clear. He is not to blame if the exit is thereafter blocked by an unexpected event such as the intervening action of another vehicle cutting into his right of way without warning. " I submit that this case replicates my situation. I had a realistic expectation that I would clear the box junction, but my exit was blocked by an "unexpected event" namely that the lead car inexplicitly stopped half a car length short of the traffic light stop line. This event could not have been reasonably predicted by me, as general practice is to pull up as close to the stop line as possible, as indeed the highway code advises. Hence it is my belief that the contravention didn't not occur. However if you are minded to reject this challenge, I would request that you would use your discretion to rescind this PCN on this one occasion. I clearly had no intention of blocking the Yellow Box junction, and indeed no obstruction was made. However my car positioning was compromised by the inexplicable actions of the car in front. Perhaps it stalled? I had no way of anticipating this. This post has been edited by rosturra: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 01:09 |
|
|
Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 09:13
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Change "Hence it is my belief that the contravention didn't not occur." to "Hence the contravention didn't not occur.", your beliefs are largely irrelevant.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 09:31
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 683 Joined: 19 Jul 2017 Member No.: 93,086 |
Is it worth mentioning Fairness?
It seems unfair that the operator zoomed in on my sister's car, which was at worst a marginal contravention. Whereas the car behind her, had no chance of clearing the junction. And was ignored by the camera operator? Or is that a whinge? |
|
|
Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 10:14
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Is it worth mentioning Fairness? It seems unfair that the operator zoomed in on my sister's car, which was at worst a marginal contravention. Whereas the car behind her, had no chance of clearing the junction. And was ignored by the camera operator? Or is that a whinge? a whinge -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 11:33
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 287 Joined: 29 Sep 2016 Member No.: 87,439 |
Not sure it if matters but perhaps change ”inexplicitly” to inexplicably?
This post has been edited by Starworshipper12: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 17:45 |
|
|
Mon, 21 Jan 2019 - 15:52
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 683 Joined: 19 Jul 2017 Member No.: 93,086 |
Rep got rejected.
I don't think it is worth risking the discount appealing further. The annoying thing is that the rejection is wrong in a matter of fact, it states: "You have stated that another vehicle pulled in front of your vehicle, forcing you to stop in the box. [paraphrasing] The video says nope" Whereas we made no such statement. We stated that a lead car stopped half a car's length short of the stop line. Meaning that a stretch of road which we expected to contain 3 cars, could only hold 2.5. I enclose the rejection, for your light reading. |
|
|
Mon, 21 Jan 2019 - 17:09
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
There's a will/may flaw on the Notice of Rejection, they say that if you don't pay the charge certificate, they will apply for a County Court Order to enforce payment. This is wrong, they're only allowed to say that they may apply for a county court order.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 21 Jan 2019 - 20:35
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 683 Joined: 19 Jul 2017 Member No.: 93,086 |
There's a will/may flaw on the Notice of Rejection, they say that if you don't pay the charge certificate, they will apply for a County Court Order to enforce payment. This is wrong, they're only allowed to say that they may apply for a county court order. Thanks CP. Is this a fatal flaw, or is it dependant on the breakfast the adjudicator had in the morning? I note the flame pit discussion on this very topic. http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t105499.html http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t105499.html This post has been edited by rosturra: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 - 20:45 |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 22:48 |