Yellow Box junction fine - worth appealing?
Discussion
Hi all,
Had a penalty come through yesterday and wondering whether it's worth appealing it.
For those who know North London, the junction is the A5 Cricklewood Broadway and A407, where I was driving down the Cricklewood Broadway towards central London.
Fortunately, I remember events quite clearly, as the other guy (see below) was driving like a muppet.
There are 2 lanes entering that junction. No road markings on either lane to limit direction. I was on the right lane, and when I entered, could see there was room in the moving traffic so I wouldn't block it. Then, as I entered the junction and the space opened up, said muppet was doing a high speed undertake and swerved in front of me, taking my "space" ahead, so I was blocked. This is clear in the video evidence. What's worse, is that the muppet had space in their lane across that junction, so didn't need to take my space at all. That's also clear in the video. I couldn't manoeuvre into the empty space, as had to hit the brakes pretty hard, and just not enough room left in the front. As the traffic moved again, I did do this.
Does that sound like enough for an appeal?
Raj
Had a penalty come through yesterday and wondering whether it's worth appealing it.
For those who know North London, the junction is the A5 Cricklewood Broadway and A407, where I was driving down the Cricklewood Broadway towards central London.
Fortunately, I remember events quite clearly, as the other guy (see below) was driving like a muppet.
There are 2 lanes entering that junction. No road markings on either lane to limit direction. I was on the right lane, and when I entered, could see there was room in the moving traffic so I wouldn't block it. Then, as I entered the junction and the space opened up, said muppet was doing a high speed undertake and swerved in front of me, taking my "space" ahead, so I was blocked. This is clear in the video evidence. What's worse, is that the muppet had space in their lane across that junction, so didn't need to take my space at all. That's also clear in the video. I couldn't manoeuvre into the empty space, as had to hit the brakes pretty hard, and just not enough room left in the front. As the traffic moved again, I did do this.
Does that sound like enough for an appeal?
Raj
As far as I know, the law says you cannot enter the box unless your way out is clear (ex when turning tight blah blah).
When you entered the box, if your way out was clear, you aren't guilty. But if you predicted it would be clear, based on traffic flow, and for whatever reason your prediction was wrong, then you've had it.
When you entered the box, if your way out was clear, you aren't guilty. But if you predicted it would be clear, based on traffic flow, and for whatever reason your prediction was wrong, then you've had it.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
As far as I know, the law says you cannot enter the box unless your way out is clear (ex when turning tight blah blah).
When you entered the box, if your way out was clear, you aren't guilty. But if you predicted it would be clear, based on traffic flow, and for whatever reason your prediction was wrong, then you've had it.
In a nutshell. You can’t anticipate it being clear, it must actually be clear, hopefully from the car originally in front having moved off.When you entered the box, if your way out was clear, you aren't guilty. But if you predicted it would be clear, based on traffic flow, and for whatever reason your prediction was wrong, then you've had it.
rix said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
As far as I know, the law says you cannot enter the box unless your way out is clear (ex when turning tight blah blah).
When you entered the box, if your way out was clear, you aren't guilty. But if you predicted it would be clear, based on traffic flow, and for whatever reason your prediction was wrong, then you've had it.
In a nutshell. You can’t anticipate it being clear, it must actually be clear, hopefully from the car originally in front having moved off.When you entered the box, if your way out was clear, you aren't guilty. But if you predicted it would be clear, based on traffic flow, and for whatever reason your prediction was wrong, then you've had it.
Providing you do not stop in the junction then there is no offence.
As far as the OP's scenario is concerned I'm pretty sure it has been discussed on here previously and there were links posted to adjudications made on the same/similar circumstances. A search should turn them up.
Cat
I think you have good grounds for a challenge.
The actual law is written differently to the highway code, here's the relevant part:
"...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.".
By my reading, if the exit wasn't blocked at the point you entered the box junction, then you haven't committed the offence.
The actual law is written differently to the highway code, here's the relevant part:
"...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.".
By my reading, if the exit wasn't blocked at the point you entered the box junction, then you haven't committed the offence.
LeoSayer said:
I think you have good grounds for a challenge.
The actual law is written differently to the highway code, here's the relevant part:
"...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.".
By my reading, if the exit wasn't blocked at the point you entered the box junction, then you haven't committed the offence.
I think it is arguable..The law as written can be interpreted. The key sentence being that in quotes above.The actual law is written differently to the highway code, here's the relevant part:
"...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.".
By my reading, if the exit wasn't blocked at the point you entered the box junction, then you haven't committed the offence.
enter ... so that it has to stop due to the presence of stationary vehicles
On one hand, you haven't entered. under those conditions.
On the other, you have entered the box, and later stopped...
The sentence doesn't really imply any timeframe.
Much as I would like it to be option1, I think I can only read it as option 2.
Legislation (this is what actually matters - ignore the Highway Code which is effectively 'comment' on the legislation)
Schedule 9 Part 7 Section 11 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedu...
TSRG 2016 said:
Box junctions
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.
(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (4) the marking when placed as a box junction within sub-paragraph (6)(c) of the definition of that expression 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 oncoming vehicles or other stationary vehicles beyond the box junction.
(3) The prohibition in sub-paragraph (1) does not, in respect of a box junction within sub-paragraph (6)(a) of the definition of that expression, apply to a person who—
(a)causes a vehicle to enter the box junction for the purpose of turning right; and
(b)stops the vehicle within the box junction for so long as the vehicle is prevented from completing the right turn by an oncoming vehicle or other vehicle which is stationary whilst waiting to complete a right turn.
<other rules snipped>
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.
(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (4) the marking when placed as a box junction within sub-paragraph (6)(c) of the definition of that expression 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 oncoming vehicles or other stationary vehicles beyond the box junction.
(3) The prohibition in sub-paragraph (1) does not, in respect of a box junction within sub-paragraph (6)(a) of the definition of that expression, apply to a person who—
(a)causes a vehicle to enter the box junction for the purpose of turning right; and
(b)stops the vehicle within the box junction for so long as the vehicle is prevented from completing the right turn by an oncoming vehicle or other vehicle which is stationary whilst waiting to complete a right turn.
<other rules snipped>
NikBartlett said:
Nothing more satisfying than stopping just past the end of a box junction and trapping the muppet who was stupid enough to follow me in. Now if only I was able to receive a cut of the fines I generate 
Or, just for devilment... stopping within the yellow box when your exit *IS* clear... which is completely legal!Cat said:
rix said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
As far as I know, the law says you cannot enter the box unless your way out is clear (ex when turning tight blah blah).
When you entered the box, if your way out was clear, you aren't guilty. But if you predicted it would be clear, based on traffic flow, and for whatever reason your prediction was wrong, then you've had it.
In a nutshell. You can’t anticipate it being clear, it must actually be clear, hopefully from the car originally in front having moved off.When you entered the box, if your way out was clear, you aren't guilty. But if you predicted it would be clear, based on traffic flow, and for whatever reason your prediction was wrong, then you've had it.
Providing you do not stop in the junction then there is no offence.
As far as the OP's scenario is concerned I'm pretty sure it has been discussed on here previously and there were links posted to adjudications made on the same/similar circumstances. A search should turn them up.
Cat
See
http://www.appealnow.com/parking-tickets/yellow-bo...
Pica-Pica said:
It does not actually say about entering a box junction. It says something along the lines of ‘causing a vehicle to stop’, in a box junction. So that leaves it open for another agent to ‘cause the vehicle to stop’
See
http://www.appealnow.com/parking-tickets/yellow-bo...
See
http://www.appealnow.com/parking-tickets/yellow-bo...
TSRG 2016 said:
Box junctions
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.
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.
Cat
I had exactly this. Got undertaken by a Puma illegaly using the bus lane who went on to take my space the other side of the box. I gave it a good appeal but folded in the end as the live camera angles didn't obviously show what happened in the run up.
Still angered by it as they were wrong to demand money from me. I if I was still local to Islington I'd have had a better crack at them...do it the people!
Still angered by it as they were wrong to demand money from me. I if I was still local to Islington I'd have had a better crack at them...do it the people!
LeoSayer said:
I think you have good grounds for a challenge.
The actual law is written differently to the highway code, here's the relevant part:
"...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.".
By my reading, if the exit wasn't blocked at the point you entered the box junction, then you haven't committed the offence.
No idea how you reach that conclusion.The actual law is written differently to the highway code, here's the relevant part:
"...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.".
By my reading, if the exit wasn't blocked at the point you entered the box junction, then you haven't committed the offence.
Did they -
1 - "cause a vehicle to enter the box junction" - Yes, without a doubt
2 -"stop within the box junction" - Yes, without a doubt
3 - and was that "due to the presence of stationary vehicles" - Yes, without a doubt
So on what basis did they not commit the offence?
The only way to avoid a fine at a YBJ is not to enter until the exit is absolutely clear, and that also means not entering the YBJ until the car in front of you has actually exited the other side, and also means taking account of all the other traffic around which may take that space.
Now obviously doing that will lead to a lot of honking of horns and will destroy the traffic flow, but so what, you won't get a ticket.
PF62 said:
No idea how you reach that conclusion.
Did they -
1 - "cause a vehicle to enter the box junction" - Yes, without a doubt
2 -"stop within the box junction" - Yes, without a doubt
3 - and was that "due to the presence of stationary vehicles" - Yes, without a doubt
So on what basis did they not commit the offence?
The only way to avoid a fine at a YBJ is not to enter until the exit is absolutely clear, and that also means not entering the YBJ until the car in front of you has actually exited the other side, and also means taking account of all the other traffic around which may take that space.
Now obviously doing that will lead to a lot of honking of horns and will destroy the traffic flow, but so what, you won't get a ticket.
You have separated “cause a vehicle to enter the box junction" and “stop within the box junction”, while ignoring the “so that” which connects the two statements.Did they -
1 - "cause a vehicle to enter the box junction" - Yes, without a doubt
2 -"stop within the box junction" - Yes, without a doubt
3 - and was that "due to the presence of stationary vehicles" - Yes, without a doubt
So on what basis did they not commit the offence?
The only way to avoid a fine at a YBJ is not to enter until the exit is absolutely clear, and that also means not entering the YBJ until the car in front of you has actually exited the other side, and also means taking account of all the other traffic around which may take that space.
Now obviously doing that will lead to a lot of honking of horns and will destroy the traffic flow, but so what, you won't get a ticket.
If, at the time you entered, you are not going to have to stop, then you have not “caused a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop …”; the reason for the stop occurred after you entered, so the requirements for the offence are incomplete.
Anyway, a sound strategy is to slow right down and get your passenger to get out and run round to the front of your car and cause you to stop.
speedking31 said:
PF62 said:
No idea how you reach that conclusion.
Did they -
1 - "cause a vehicle to enter the box junction" - Yes, without a doubt
2 -"stop within the box junction" - Yes, without a doubt
3 - and was that "due to the presence of stationary vehicles" - Yes, without a doubt
So on what basis did they not commit the offence?
The only way to avoid a fine at a YBJ is not to enter until the exit is absolutely clear, and that also means not entering the YBJ until the car in front of you has actually exited the other side, and also means taking account of all the other traffic around which may take that space.
Now obviously doing that will lead to a lot of honking of horns and will destroy the traffic flow, but so what, you won't get a ticket.
You have separated “cause a vehicle to enter the box junction" and “stop within the box junction”, while ignoring the “so that” which connects the two statements.Did they -
1 - "cause a vehicle to enter the box junction" - Yes, without a doubt
2 -"stop within the box junction" - Yes, without a doubt
3 - and was that "due to the presence of stationary vehicles" - Yes, without a doubt
So on what basis did they not commit the offence?
The only way to avoid a fine at a YBJ is not to enter until the exit is absolutely clear, and that also means not entering the YBJ until the car in front of you has actually exited the other side, and also means taking account of all the other traffic around which may take that space.
Now obviously doing that will lead to a lot of honking of horns and will destroy the traffic flow, but so what, you won't get a ticket.
If, at the time you entered, you are not going to have to stop, then you have not “caused a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop …”; the reason for the stop occurred after you entered, so the requirements for the offence are incomplete.
Anyway, a sound strategy is to slow right down and get your passenger to get out and run round to the front of your car and cause you to stop.
The "so that" simply links the fact that you were driving with the car being stopped in the YBJ. It has nothing at all to do with what you thought might happen but didn't.
If you drive into a YBJ and your crystal ball about what might happen is wrong, then tough. You have committed an offence.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff