PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Yellow box junction, WESTERN AVENUE / VICTORIA RD / HORN LANE
joe89
post Sun, 14 Oct 2018 - 16:14
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 22 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,628



Hi

Im posting for a friend who got a pcn from tfl for "Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited"
wanted to see if its worth appealing

The photos show the car but its hard to tell if it is in the box much if at all as the lines arent visible under the car maybe due to wet floor/lighting, theres no video on tfl site. This box is also diagonal so there would be less of the car on the box anyway

Its the black car on the left behing the van and in front of the silver car. Any advice appreciated thanks!

Attached Image

Attached Image

Attached Image
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 13)
Advertisement
post Sun, 14 Oct 2018 - 16:14
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Incandescent
post Sun, 14 Oct 2018 - 17:02
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,914
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



Your friend looks half-in/half-out of the box to me, so not de minimis. Only the video can show how long stopped and the circumstances, so he needs to ask TfL for the video, but not miss deadlines whilst they send it out as TFL have cocked-up in the past.

With four cars in contravention, it must be a nice little earner there, (4x £65/130 = £260/520)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MrChips
post Sun, 14 Oct 2018 - 17:28
Post #3


Member


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



Hard/impossible to tell from photos alone, but if the stopping is where the photo suggests then it looks to be beyond the actual junction. A box junction is (generally) only valid at a junction so even if this box junction extends to where the black car is situated (which is difficult to tell due to light reflecting on the wet road surface) it isn't necessarily a contravention if that's the point at which the car came to rest.

This is an aerial view of where I think your friend stopped - the YBJ seems to extend at least 2 car lengths beyond the junction itself.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Horn+Ln,+...33;4d-0.2687703
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DastardlyDick
post Sun, 14 Oct 2018 - 20:28
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,860
Joined: 12 May 2012
Member No.: 54,871



To me, it looks like the black car is in the box (if you extend the lines in front, and to the left of it). I believe this was re-marked recently, so the image on GSV may not be correct.

I'm working in that area tomorrow, if time allows, I'll go and have a look.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Sun, 14 Oct 2018 - 21:09
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,914
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



My memory is that an appeal did succeed on the basis that a YBJ can only cover the junction area. Any extension beyond the junction is invalid as a YBJ. The CCTV photos do show the yellow markings extending some way beyond the actual junction, so well worth following up. I believe HCA found the relevant regulations on this. Last year is was, I think.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MrChips
post Sun, 14 Oct 2018 - 21:22
Post #6


Member


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



2090257179

There is a Secretary of State's special authorisation purportedly authorising this yellow box. There seems to me, however, to be a difficulty with it. The prohibition that the yellow box is supposed to indicate is that in Part II of Schedule 19 to the Traffic signs Regulations 2002. That prohibition relates to box junctions.

Paragraph 7 of the Schedule states the prohibition. The relevant part for these purposes is as follows.

' … 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.'

Paragraph 6 of the Schedule defines a box junction as follows.

' "box junction" means the area of carriageway marked with yellow cross-hatching at a junction between two or more roads on which there has been placed [a yellow box]' (my emphasis).

The problem with the special authorisation is this. Part of the box that it purportedly authorises is not within the junction of the roads. At its southern side it includes a triangle of road that is not within the junction and is therefore not 'at a junction between two or more roads'. The prohibition, however, relates only to a box junction as defined. The special authorisation therefore purports to extend the prohibition outside the junction. It does not seem to me that the power to authorise signs empowers the Secretary of State to effectively redefine the prohibition prescribed by Schedule 19.

This is not an insignificant matter. The box as purportedly authorised extends for a significant distance beyond the junction itself. This increases the distance the motorist has to traverse without stopping, and therefore makes it more difficult for them to make progress without falling foul of the box. It is also difficult to see what the point of extending the box beyond the junction is, given that the purpose of the prohibition plainly is to stop stationary vehicles blocking the junction to crossing traffic. Clearly, stopping in the area beyond the junction would not block the junction.

I accordingly find that this yellow box is not a lawful road marking. Therefore the contravention did not occur. I allow this appeal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
joe89
post Sun, 14 Oct 2018 - 23:01
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 22 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,628



So looks like it would be worth a challenge, I'll tell him to ask tfl for the video. Thanks guys
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 07:02
Post #8


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



This is the ground that Incandescent refers to:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1302318

But read the other comments.

With respect to MrChips, I understand that the TSRGDs 2016 obviate the need to seek DfT approval for yellow boxes since it allows Councils much more flexibility than before. Which in itself should render the existing authorisation void--maybe not --an interesting dichotomy!

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 18:13
Post #9


Member


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



It's still part of the junction if you consider the junction with Horn lane that is to the right of the camera shot.


--------------------
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
MrChips
post Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 21:38
Post #10


Member


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



To my mind, on the side of the road which is relevant in this case, the box extends further than it needs to, and by more than a trivial amount. There's no way that a car stationary at the far end of the box would impede traffic crossing the junction from Horn Lane.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 22:11
Post #11


Member


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



QUOTE (MrChips @ Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 22:38) *
To my mind, on the side of the road which is relevant in this case, the box extends further than it needs to, and by more than a trivial amount. There's no way that a car stationary at the far end of the box would impede traffic crossing the junction from Horn Lane.

Been there, done that. PASTMYBEST and I put quite a lot of effort arguing this in another case, where on the relevant side of the road there wasn't a junction at all, we still lost. Under the 2002 TSRGD I would have said the case could have been challenged further, but under the 2016 regs it was the end of the road. I see little to no chance of this argument working.


--------------------
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
MrChips
post Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 22:29
Post #12


Member


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



I certainly bow to your experience in these matters which is considerably greater than mine.

I've read what I think is the relevant part of 2016 TSRGD which says that:

(6) For the purposes of this paragraph “box junction” means an area of the carriageway where the marking has been placed and which is—

(a)at a junction between two or more roads;

So, I guess it comes down to a subjective view of how far up the road the junction extends?

What has changed between 2002 and 2016? Reading the Tribunal decision I posted earlier (which is from pre 2016) I cannot immediately see how the definition the adjudicator ponders on is different from this?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 17:36
Post #13


Member


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



QUOTE (MrChips @ Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 23:29) *
What has changed between 2002 and 2016? Reading the Tribunal decision I posted earlier (which is from pre 2016) I cannot immediately see how the definition the adjudicator ponders on is different from this?

The key difference is that the 2016 regs only require the highways authority to give adequate guidance to motorists, while the 2002 regs were very prescriptive, to the extent that a non-compliant sign could be ignored no matter how obvious its significance. Ultimately, we know the tribunal has recently ruled that this sort of yellow box is enforceable so I cannot recommend an appeal on that basis. Still, a different adjudicator might take a different view so if the OP wants to go down that route I will try and help.


--------------------
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
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 18:23
Post #14


Member


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



The box extending beyond the junction can be argued still


This comes about using aa purposive interpretation of JUNCTION s11 of part 7 of schedule 9 TSRGD2016


11.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2), (3) and (4), the yellow criss-cross marking provided for at item 25 of the sign table in Part 6 conveys the prohibition that a person must not 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.



What would be relevant is that had the box ended at the kerb line of the junction, you would have cleared the kerb.



Contravention date of quoted case is October 2017






Decision Date
01 May 2018
Adjudicator
Monica Hillen
Appeal decision
Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
This appeal arises from a Penalty Charge Notice issued on 11 October 2017 for a contravention of stopping within a box junction on 3 October 2017 at 15.48 in York Street and Arragon Road.
Mr Forshaw has argued the box junction is invalid for the reasons set out in his representations to the Authority and reiterated for this appeal.
The box junction observed in the CCTV is not standard. The furthest point of the yellow hatching proceeds beyond the junction. The same is not at commencement of the yellow hatchings entry point. The junction protrudes well beyond the junction mouth.
Boxes should not intrude into side roads and should be no bigger than is strictly necessary to protect the junction. The purpose is to prevent obstruction of the junction space not parts of the approaches or exits.
There are three elements to the contravention; firstly causing a vehicle to enter the box junction, secondly stopping within the box junction and finally stopping because of the presence of stationary vehicles. All three elements are present in this case.
The Highway Code specifically states “if the driver enters the box junction while another vehicle ahead of him/her is still in it, the driver takes the risk that the vehicle may stop. The Code succinctly states “you must not enter the box until the exit road or lane is clear”.
In this case had the markings finished at the mouth of the junction Mr Forshaw’s vehicle would not have been stationary in the yellow hatchings but would have cleared the box junction. Motorists are entitled to make the assumption that the yellow box will finish once the junction is cleared. The markings in this box junction went well beyond the junction of the two roads in question.
On the evidence I cannot be satisfied the junction was correctly marked. The junction went beyond the two roads for an necessary length. The Authority has failed to prove their case to the required standard. I cannot be satisfied there was a contravention. The doubts raised must necessarily be resolved in favour of the Appellant.


--------------------
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

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 - 11:14
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