I am appealing a box junction notice for my fiancee. It was at
Battersea Bridge Rd/ Westbridge Rd/ Parkgate Rd
Please note that StreetView is outdated so you can not view the box junction as it is at present.

I have read in detail all aspects relating to this law and I know she was within the letter of the law and need some help proving this point.

The situation is that two lanes become one lane (because of a bus lane) on the opposite side of the box junction. So if there is a one car space on the other side of the box junction, and two cars enter side-by-side, one car will be the "loser" and end up sitting in the box junction.

This is what happened to my fiancee and I have viewed the video evidence - there is a space (albeit a small one) when she entered. Does any know of any similar cases involving merging of lanes that I can quote that were won on appeal?

Additionally crossing the box junction was further made difficult by the density of traffic turning left into the same space. Any small gaps were taken by this traffic. Although this is not an allowed reason for appeal according to my intepretation of the law are there any guidelines or previous cases where the phasing of traffic lights and density of traffic have been allowed?

I have now uploaded the video to YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgrhB5Xc3io
I have appealed - and TFL wrote to PATAS saying that the "the appelant had to stop their vehicle inside the box junction when the vehicle in front stopped due to stationary traffic" (My bold).

Of course the car only became the "vehicle in front" after the traffic lights, off camera the vehicles are side by side.

I have an opportunity to further write back to PATAS before the decision - any advice?

I had a look and when your fiancee entered the box junction the exit did not appear to be clear, if she was in the silver car.

Another car had already come from the left and blocked the merging left hand lane, before your fiancee entered the box junction. There was not even a space for the first car let alone your fiancee's, IMHO, I can't see why both cars went forward at all across a box junction with the exit blocked; should have waited a few seconds (never mind the green light, the way wasn't clear). I struggle to see that the offence did not occur, TBH. Sorry.

But post up pics of all pages of the PCN and any letters - maybe the paperwork will be a pile of rubbish.

I dont believe you have a strong case here.

When the first car enters the box (at 32 second on the vid) there isnt room for that to leave the junction, but there is arguably a space, as the exit is blocked by the black car.

When the silver enters at 33 seconds there is no clear space.

I cant see you succesfully arguing this one.

You may however want to look at whether the box is compliant as the top left corner does not appear to meet the kerb.

On the face of it -- I would agree with previous posters --- particularly since you cite the bus lane as contributory -- errrr -- what bus lane????? Yeah I can see the one in the vid BUT -- was it operational at that time??? (Big london driving trait). If not - then she assumed she had no exit - but maybe did -- as at least two cars clearly thought!!.

If it was operational? --- must be fairly new not to be on google earth --- soooooo -- check signage and then if missing/misleading/incorrect --- then that would make u think u could not use it and create box contravention.

--

Having a yellow box where 2 lanes merge is stupid planning, but the black (BMW?) has clearly taken that space out, the silver car progressed into the yellow box when no exit was clear for even a single car, the only caveat as Neil has indicated is that if the BMW shouldn't have been stopped there (bus lane inactive) she may have an argument that the exit was clear and the obstruction caused by the BMW was the issue.

Simon

The bus lane was outside of hours but cars don't know that until they reach the other side of the box junction of course. Also - the gap on the right is "just" long and wide enough for a car - in my opinion - although I grant it's not perfect.

Also - put yourself in the silver driver's situation. You enter - assuming to take the space on the right. The car directly by your side accelerates towards where you had planned to go.They enter box junction at 32 seconds - exit clear. You enter at speed at 33 seconds. Without performing a sudden stop you are already in the box junction and your exit is no longer clear.

I also argued in the same appeal that the sequencing of the traffic lights and the density of traffic made it almost impossible to cross this junction without stopping in the box junction. This can be seen in the way both cars "leap" forward to try and get through the lights. My fiancee watched the lights change several times and no-one progressing because traffic from the left had already filtered in and taken any spaces.

TFL declined to provide footage of 10 minutes earlier (to show the general flow of traffic) citing the "data protection act". Being able to show our car and others but not being able to show others 10 minutes before seems to be an unlikely condition of the data protection act.

Council talking bollocks IMO
DPA excludes material used for any legal proceedings - even for preparing for any potential legal proceedings.
And adjudications are Judicial Proceedings.
see S.35
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?...ppressWarning=1

DPA says the council must pony up the video before the adjudication according to my reading.

I suspect both cars received PCNs, so changing positions with the car on the right would not have achieved a great deal.

I think we're in the realms of what is required of a prudent driver and to what degree a driver can be expected and allowed to anticipate the actions of other drivers. As the bus lane was not in operation then IMO vehicles should, not may, use it. If you look at the video in detail, the BMW that has entered from the left is moving when the silver car enters the box, in which case it would have not have been unreasonable from the silver car's perspective to anticipate that the vehicle would use the space available i.e. the bus lane, which was clear. Had it done so, there would not have been a problem. But it didn't, its driver was no doubt scared of even breathing next to a bus lane and erred on the side of caution and reduced the capacity of that part of the carriageway by half - ridiculous, but that's what bus lane enforcement has led to.

The silver car was forced to stop by a car which had been in motion when it entered the box and which stopped for a reason which an experienced and prudent driver could not have foreseen - the sudden onset of buslanaphobia.


HCA

The contravention is entering such that you would have to stop etc. There very clearly isn't enough room for another vehicle behind the Toyota (the BMW only manages to get its front wheels clear of the pedestrian crossing), and both the Toyota and the BMW were stationary at the moment you both entered the box. Whether they should have been stationary is irrelevant, the only thing that's important is that they were.

I think we'd be looking for a technical appeal on faulty paperwork here.

I couldn't fault the paperwork initially received (I read it through thoroughly for all the usual mistakes and phrasing) although their response to the appeal is all over the place so I will definitely be picking up this. Also - I do appreciate the yellow box junction doesn't meet the curb on the top left - but does that necessarily mean it doesn't conform? I have read conflicting information on the net - some people saying it has to touch the curb, others saying that a double-red line for example means it doesn't have to go quite the full distance.

We also opted for a decision by post - I hope that wasn't an error on my part. I thought it would not add a lot and just be an inconvenience to me if I had to attend in person.

Looking again at the vid.

I don't think my argument could honestly be used.

Whilst the car turning left -- suffers what 'hcand' accurately calls 'buslanophopia' and blocks that route -- the appellant initially enters the box drifting right - and clearly not intending to use the left lane they were originally in.

A subsequent positive move to the left looked hopeful until they again veer right in BLphobia.

Can't argue that the failings of anyone in front caused u to stop when u ended up doing the same as them!
-

You can't really argue this in any circumstances - if the vehicle was stationary when you entered the box and it being there caused you to stop, the contravention is complete regardless of how wrong that vehicle was.

Please look again. Not only is the BMW still moving when the sliver car enters the box, it's steering angle is to the left and its left indicator is operating which could indicate that the driver is about to make the logical manoeuvre of continuing its turn to miss the nearside of the car in front of it and thereby steer into the bus lane (I grant it could also indicate that it hadn't cancelled from its preceding turn). It then stopped with its wheels steering left and its indicator on.

Not saying this is a clincher, but it's what the video shows.

As drivers, don't we use these indicators of vehicle movements all the time? Take roundabouts where I for one look for vehicle position, steering angle, indicator lights and speed to guide me as to a driver's intentions. More than once I've been thrown a dummy by an enterprising driver, thankfully without accident so far.

HCA

The Toyota, however, is stopped dead. The contravention is "due to the presence of stationary vehicles". That's a stationary vehicle, and its presence caused two vehicles to stop on the box, and there's no room behind it to stop. Had you made it, you'd just have got a PCN for a different contravention instead.

Don't want to divert this from something that might assist the OP, but while we have the benefit of a quasi-bird's eye view, the drivers at ground level didn't. Their horizon would legitimately be the vehicle nearest to them and their appreciation of the situation informed by what they'd seen.

The two vehicles immediately in front of the silver car went straight across the junction into the bus lane. It was therefore anticipated that this was a legitimate option. The BMW turns left (I'm surmising that this was against at least an orange light and probably red given the short time that elapsed before the OP's lane moved); the Toyota is not in the lane that the OP intends to occupy; all that's needed is for the BMW to continue its turn into the bus lane, instead it stopped, and blocked the access to an unrestricted part of carriageway. Take the BMW away and there's no problem, the bus lane is open and the OP's exit is clear.

The more I look at it, the more I believe that an argument could be put forward based on the unnecessary and unexpected actions of the driver of the BMW, a vehicle that was not stationary when the OP set off.

If the OP was in a queue for any length of time then I'd be inclined to ask to see the video for that period and see whether it was the norm for that lane to move into the bus lane.


HCA

Unfortunately TFL declined to provide this video (although requested) under the data protection act (see my post above). I will however also write back to PATAS additionally citing the BMW driver's actions as contributing. Thanks for the input on this one! Will of course post back any result.

Had similar this afternoon at PATAS and the appeal wasn't allowed.

Enter the box... traffic was moving... vehicle in front tries to change lanes to no avail (it could have travelled in its lane but chose not to and subsequently came to a halt), eg that vehicle caused my vehicle to stop.

Adjudicator (Mr. Greenslade) wouldn't have any of it. He argued that my vehicle should have waited and made sure that it would have space at the end of the box no matter what the action of the other driver was. He wouldn't have it that if the other driver had carried on, the contravention wouldn't have occurred.

The law is not clear here. Why does it make reference to STATIONARY vehicles? When does the contravention occur? Mr. Greenslade said that the law doesn't say that at the time of entering the box there have to be stationary vehicles. He argued that the vehicle that tried to change lane was stationary and because of that stationary vehicle the contravention occurred. But the vehicle wasn't stationary when my vehicle entered the box?

Was he wrong?

I don't know the specifics in your case, but in general I'm not surprised. However, I still think it could be argued, but if the downside is having to pay an additional charge then it's up to the OP.

So traffic in London is now constrained by having to wait until there is a vehicle's worth of free space beyond a box junction? Try it the next time you drive in London and post how many irate gestures/horns you got.



HCA

You may want to seek a review, and pop the details in a new thread if you haven't already.


No idea. However, under the doctrine of legislative intent, that they make specific reference to it means it must be important.


Mr. Greenslade needs to re-read para.7 Sch.19 TSRGD.

Put simply, it's entering a box and stopping, but there is more to it. The contravention occurs at the point of entering if the presence of stationary vehicles at that point causes you to stop within the box. No stationary vehicles, no contravention. Most usually, the stationary vehicle will be in or immediately outside the box, but it doesn't have to be. If there are two junctions in quick succession, then it can be that the vehicle at the head of the queue is already stationary by the time you enter.

Many thanks for your reply.

With regards seeking a review, I think that this applies:



That is going to be very costly.

In my opinion he did interpret the law incorrectly but what can I do?

You want one of the specified grounuds for internal review, usually mistakes in law are "the interests of justice". No need to go to JR.

I have had the opportunity of meeting Mr Greenslade myself when he trashed my appeal over an appalling double yellow line. The council then repainted the line as they knew it was a disgrace. I found him absolutely awful. He just ignores facts and will pick up on some trivial completely irrelevant point. In my case he said the line was visible beneath my vehicle. So remember people to look under you car not just behind it or in front as Mr Greenslade will side with the council. Tried telling me about the highway code also. If you get this guy for your appeal I would suggest changing the date as your in with a poor chance and in my personal opinion and I stress this is an opinion he is a poor adjudicator.

In my case council even repainted lines but I was then told on internal review that the line is visible to someone with eyesight standard to take a driving test. I wrote back explaining my eyesight is 6/4 (both eyes). Anyway £100 down the drain in my case but at least I got lines repainted so wont happen to others. Greenslade useless!

Thanks.

I will start a new topic.

Here was my case. . He threw it out even despite fact lines were terrible. Lines even repained but counted for nothing. When you complain told to take an eye test? Good luck with the review appeal it took four months for me to get a reply which said I need an eye test and they did not need to review it in my case. Just avoid Greenslade he is awful.

http://www.pepipoo.com/forums/lofiversion/...php/t44341.html

How do you know which Adjudicator is going to hear the appeal beforehand? Handy to know as I am up there quite frequently.

Their refusal to release the video was unlawful due to S.35 of the DPA.
Withholding it was ultra vires and prejudicial to your appeal.

As hcan said - it was not stationary when she entered!!!! -- I'm rusty - but yet again some clarification needed on what exactly the contravention is.

Stopping - as u say - due to the presence of stationary vehicles -- OR

entering when your exit is not clear ( as in, presumably, already clear).

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

I still say subsequent actions of trying to avoid BL negate any positive argument.

Yes it was. It is stationary by frame 784. The two vehicles enter from the bottom at 789 and 809.


I have no idea what this sentence is supposed to mean.