I’m fucking sick of this shit. Absolutely no harm was done, regardless of whether there was an offence, and the money grabbing council think they can fine someone for this shit? I don’t want to live in a surveillance state. This country has gone to the dogs.
I've thought for a long time that laws are so dumb. The important thing is the principle which led to a particular law. If you break the law but not the principle behind the law, you are innocent !
You are correct, the exit was clear when he entered the box. The problem is, councils are very stubborn and won't change their decision. They will happily waste tax payers money fighting this to the bitter end, rather than admit their mistake.
I'm of a view that the rules should change so that if the council goes to adjudication and lose, they'll have to pay the registered keeper or driver the penalty amount, so it works both ways and hopefully stop the council of behaving badly.
Councils are trying to obtain as much money as possible from motorists, even though this one was in the right;you can almost guarantee it won't be voided, most people just pay up and they know that
it not that easy, you can not go striate to a (proper) court, they have the bent law on there side, you have, go flow all there quango, appeal system first, that mandated by laws set out proper courts, and it have good case agents' them, at final appeal stage, the say "where not taking it furfure" , (and don't even have admit they were wrong or anything? and you can not a none existing case to a proper court can you?), and that before take money, cost on your part, in to account, and no matter, you have you side your case stitched up and water tight, and invested £100's pound in you side expert witnesses, etc. etc. I they need to say before even get them in a court say where not taking any furfure, on this occasions" still leave looking and feeling guilty of what ever the trump up as what accused you of doing, nothing you can do about it?
Funny how you clearly give no credence towards the Highway Code and will point your finger at 'The Council'. Well . . . I say it's funny but in reality it is very sad. You even think that PCN's should not be given by councils. Well I say think, but it isn't "thinking" you're more "ugh, me Thag" as you bang your chest with your club and quote that it's the job of "the police" then "the law" which are entirely different entities. For your info "the law" (Traffic Management Act 2004) actually says the Councils CAN issue PCNs! Make your mind up Thag.
I was fined by Enfield Council for entering a Box Junction by a cm or 2. In the video sent to me as proof, a double decker bus turned right into the road they said I was blocking. I appealed and the appeal was refused. 🙄 It is clearly abused by councils to generate profits.
Councils have had the powers before you were born,They were in the right on this matter,poor driving from driver who could have driven to the right of black car,Justice seved in my case BBB would loose this case,council would say driver never used right lane to exit=simple FINE was served correctly.
@@DM-ur8vc Parking is of a vehicle is futher away on the left,the black car stops behind that parked vehicle leaving room to the right which any vehicle could use and would not be an offence overtaking maneuver because the lane on the right is NOT for parking but for passing stationary traffic ie that black car stopped short on the left just before the parked cars on the left so anyone in their right mind would use the road on the right to pass stationary traffic meaning you have 1 not commited an offence because you are using the righthand lane passing parked vehicles(Please watch the video again) that gray car driver was not reading the situation,had they took a sharper turn the situation would not arise getting a PCN and would be setup to be on the right anyway,that black car that turned left stopped short of the parking area and was not classed as a dual lane.I believe that the black car was caught out after turning left and saw a vehicle parked within the white line parking but that should not stop the grey car from making progress to the right,I still blame the grey car driver was a fault here.The council would make their decision with use of CCTV and would be aware of any appeal for it too.
@@lesjones471 Grey car would get away with this if they challenged it hard enough. If you can enter the box to turn right, which IS allowed by the highway code, then there must be a reasonable accommodation that while waiting to turn right the exit road you would take fills up. Unless you expect drivers to see into the future. You should honestly work for a council for coming up with what you did, unless you already do lol.
@@thunderbug8640 No matter if the case went to the highest court of our land it would fail,the council took the MUST NOT RULE in the highwaycode which as clear in the video clip.The exit was not blocked either even the black stationary car was not blocking the road.The bad driver did not read the road,had the driver read the road the space to the right should have been used but it wasn't this then Enforces the council to issue a PCN=MUST NOT RULE,any appeal would fail on the evidence in that video that if a good driver would have already read the road situation take a thighter right turn missing the staionary black car and leave the junction correctly.Remember the chequered area has a MUST NOT RULE in place so anyone blocking any exit would interfear with the next wave of traffic hence a traffic jam on that junction were that grey car stopped then that would lead to more traffic jams should anyone try to exit where that grey car stopped.The chequered area has a point for it to keep the junction in operation by making all exits clear that's the purpose not councils penny pinching.Takeaway that chequered area then you revert back to the junction comming to a halt which was the problem in the first place.Councils have actually improved that junction making it move while using it thats why PCN's are issued for the wrong doers and sends a message to other drivers it will not tolerate bad driving.
it's usually automated if the cameras detect a stop in the box, not sure if they have the staff to be reviewing hundreds of thousands of fines being sent out
@@Jamie_D Making an appeal would involve humans somewhere along the line. The box painting seems elongated at that section...but that's by-the-by. A.I. will take over the system and appealing will be useless
This can happen following lorries that obscure speed restriction signs. That's why they paint the new speed limit on the ground as well. What an officious martinet working at the local Council. I'd write to my Councillor or Mayor before appealing this formally. The political embarrassment this would cause the elected officials would be sure to result in the miscreant sending out charge notices receiving some curt advice in his shell like.
Yeah that’s unfair to the grey car,personally I would have full locked to the right of the black car just to get out of the box,you can see that the black car was hidden from the grey cars perspective
if you look at 4:08 theres 2 lanes, the black car want the right hand lane, the grey car the left. if the grey car puts themselves to the right of the black car, that create issues when the grey car wants to move over.
I saw the space on the right of the black car. The driver of the grey car didn't apply more steering. Actually the grey car driver should have waited a little longer, then it would have not broken any rules!
@@benholroyd5221they only create an issue if they move forward. It's simple you let the black car move forward as you are borrowing the space plus the black car was thier first so they have priority.
The black car turning left straddled two lanes instead of just taking up one due to the laxity of their turn, they should have gone further into the box and turned tighter if they wanted to be in the right hand lane. If the black car had turned properly it would have been in the lane it wanted to be in and the left hand lane the grey car wanted all along (which was clear according to the rules) to turn into would still have been clear. Whilst the black car didn't break any rules it was still inconsiderate driving.
@AndyPandy33 That's irrelevant to the offence. I agree he could have squeezed in the gap and perhaps that would have avoided the challenge. However, he did not contravene the regulation regardless of where he stopped. His exit was clear at the moment he entered the box.
If driver bothered to maintained a 2 sec gap driver would've seen the other car turning. Deserved, especially for not attempting to move into the spare space
ok I am pausing the video at 1:10 to give my initial thoughts. Straight away I am saying that's not a valid PCN. The rules are quite clear "You must not enter the box if your exit is not clear. If turning right at the junction, you may enter the box (behind other right-turning vehicles, if any) to wait for a gap in the oncoming traffic, but only if the right-turn exit is clear." Therefore, the grey car was perfectly correct in entering the box as they were turning right and the exit was, at the time of entry, clear. Case dismissed.... and now I shall click play and see how this unfolds....
Here I am, arrived at the end of the video. Not much controversy from me. I agree with my learned friend. The driver of the grey vehicle entered the box junction at a time when the exit was clear and there was no reasonable indication that the black vehicle would move to block the exit. I'd love to find out the outcome of this. Is it being challenged? I shall hope for a followup!
@@CerberusVelvet I disagree, and disagree with Daniel's analysis of the LAW (not the highway code). 11-(1): ".... 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 a stationary vehicle." The grey vehicle had to stop prior to exiting the box junction due to the stationary black vehicle in front of it (which can hardly be called "oncoming" when the grey car is up its rear). Clearly then it IS a contravention of the wording in regulation 11-1. THe driver of the grey vehicle caused it to enter the box junction, and the result was that it stopped due to the presence of a stationary vehicle (at the exit point). It's only in rule 174 that the wording is "MUST NOT enter until your exit road or lane is clear", but that is different to the wording in the law. I presume the actual law is what a judge would base his/her ruling upon, not the highway code.
I thought the purpose of the box junction was to keep lanes clear and enable traffic to move freely. Although the grey car was left in the junction they weren’t exactly blocking the traffic and surely common sense should prevail and not “computer says no”.
Got it in one. The box junction was invented for a perfectly sound reason, but it has become a means of councils raising revenue therefore they don't care about whether traffic flow is impeded, or indeed whether the law is actually broken. This was exposed a number of years ago when a certain London borough was caught with leaked emails urging and celebrating the income raised. Also I remember a report recently where the RAC(?) went around checking various box junctions and demonstrated that the box areas tended to be much larger than they needed to be to do the job of maintaining a clear traffic path. On top of that I have quite often encountered yellow boxes (especially on roundabouts) that are so long you can't easily see where the other end of the box is, plus ones that are so worn away and/or invisible when the road is wet and shiny.
=:oo Woah, that's a point. How's anyone in the left-right through-traffic supposed to leave one of those boxes without immediately crossing into the other? It should all be a single box, or else there should be a clear waiting area in between them.
Read my comment above,councils try to help the public but in this case they had to take action,they cannot just leave it because it will give other drivers the green light to do the same.The PCN was broken this tells everyone you cannot get away with the rules in place for a good reason,a MUST NOT was commited and you cannot start to let the public get away with the rules of the higway code in anyway.The council followed the rules of the highway code if broken(NOT penny pinching either oldbaldguy6151).It was bad driving by that grey car.
@@lesjones471 You can clearly see from the footage that when the car entered the box junction the exit was clear How was the driver supposed to prevent other vehicles travelling in the opposite direction from blocking the exit while he waited to turn right This is absurd nonsense and a clear case of a council trying it on
@@liveloud9894 Are you blind? The exit the grey car driver took had no blockage,yes a black car off the junction had stopped BUT a space to the right was clear but was not taken.THIS was bad driving and not reading the road.The PCN was justifed and any appeal would fail based of CCTV footage.BBB would loose this case based on the free passage to the right of that black car on the left which was not blocking the road.The MUST NOT RULE WAS BROKEN and justified.A sensible good driver would have used the spare space to the right and even the next wave of traffic would still be able to exit that junction.
@@lesjones471 I’m not blind but I can see common sense unlike yourself The driver shouldn’t need to try and squeeze into a narrow space next to the other car on a single lane road What nonsense
That's a very telling point, because most of the people employed to vet these videos are not British and do not understand the tradition of law we have. They would see that the car is in the box and issue the PCN, which is incorrect. Where the proper thing to do is follow the law, which states the grey car is in in the right.
I would have gone in that space on the right of the small black car. But no, his exit was clear when he enters the box so its clear its not an infringement .
Northampton Council lost a case where drivers briefly entered a bus lane to pass traffic waiting to turn right. The judge deemed the infringement "de minimis". There is a similar case here where the car in the box is not fouling the flow of traffic.
And if the car blocking the exit (while still partially in the gridded area) has been fined how can the motorist behind him be fined? It's indefensible.
Councils are abiding by the highway code rules,it was a MUST NOT that attracted the PCN charge,as a few people do say the driver could have parked to the right of the black car but should have been watching what was happening and turn a tighter right turn to make it easier to get out of the chequered box area.
@@lesjones471highway code says MUST NOT. Highway code doesn't mention fines, council debts, cctv, letters etc.. councils are there to collect rubbish and that should be END OF.
@@simonleeofficial So you ignor speeding,bad parking etc,the councils has the authority to charge on multiple offences if found.Evidence proves that grey car had stopped in the chequered for no reason and could have taken that space to the right of the stationary car.Thats the view the council takes = poor driving. A good driver would have used the space to the right of that stationary car=reading the situation but todays bad drivers do not do that and think they can get away with it.Space to the right was evident and if taken was going to be correct because further infront the left is for parking.The councils are not deperate to take action,they consider what has created an offence,as in this case the driver is caughtout not even taking the righthand space available to leave the chequered area.
@lesjones471 authority and obligation are two different things. That councils choose to ignore their obligations to residents and instead spend time imposing authority for money 💰 and no other reason is the problem.
This is one that needs to go the the adjudicator, and should the motorist win, the local authority ought to be made to pay TEN TIMES the fine to the motorist. It is because THEY face no sanctions for "trying it on" that they "try it on" and take the piss out of ordinary people. Just like the blood scandal - when we mess up, they fine us until the pips squeak. When they mess up, They LIE and LIE and face no sanctions whatsoever - they should be made to pay compensation
I worked in a Council, in this situation a quiet word with the mayor would soon put a stop to this. Politicians love earning merit badges and the council officers are supposed to only be there to advise the politicians, not to rule them.
It's clear that the grey car DID stop behind the black car leaving the grey car's rear end still on the chequered area this created the PCN charge and the highway code" MUST NOT RULE " was broken stopping in the chequered area.The grey car did not attemp to pass the stationary black car to the right which was an empty space,a good driver would be reading the road junction and taken the road space to the right of that stationary black car.The PCN then was justified.If BBB took this for an appeal he would loose based on the free space to the right of that stationary black car.The bad driver of that grey car proves they do not follow the rules of the highway code MUST NOT RULE.It's not a law either but a rule to follow and the council is NOT money pinching but issuing the correct rule for the PCN.Any adjudicator or Lawyer or the driver would loose the case.It would have been investigated already.Rules for the highway code should not be broken,I believe the council have been having problems at this junction and done the best to implement a better way to keep traffic moving and to have it clear when the traffic lights change for the next wave of traffic.
Need to identify the particular said jobsworth , catch up with him and 'educate' him on this matter !! ;-) ..... Might prevent him being a jobsworth tyrant in future , huh ?
I would certainly request a hearing. TSRGD 2016 p7p11s2 condition 2 is not met, as there was no stationary vehicle impeding exit. There was a converging vehicle that could eventually block the exit, but not an oncoming one, so the offense is not made out IMO
Surely, the council should also consider the principle of the regulation, which is to keep the junction flowing. The grey car did not impede traffic flow and so they should have waived it. Councils should consider themselves as servants of the public.
Apart from the incident, which I believe you are correct about. I find it astounding, the local authority are entitled to issue Penalty notices for a traffic offence. They don't know and probably have not been trained in law, which is why you have these money making schemes.
@@therealpbristow The police should only really be dealing with matters of road safety and not worrying about the flow of traffic. Something like this wouldn't really be a road safety issue. Did the Government give Council's the job or did Council's just see an opportunity to take it on for their own benefit?
The presence of two box junctions where it is impossible to turn right without entering the ‘2nd’ box junction, and the non compliance with the road markings handbook is sufficient grounds for any PCN to be quashed.
Ask Enfield council it is a trap to make money two boxes on same junction exit the first cross a gap into second get done in second box but you could have stopped in gap blocking the whole junction something you won’t do with passengers on board
Is there further grounds for confusion in that the 'Box' is actually TWO adjacent 'boxes? i.e. there appears to be a dividing double line at the actual right turn point? SHOULD the grey car have passed THAT point when the exit was in danger of being blocked? Just asking. As you say 20/20 hindsight is fine and I would have increased my turning lock to go alongside the black vehicle temporarily. I would certainly challenge the Notice as it is manifestly unfair.
I am very, very tired of harmless, honest mistakes being punished. When I drive in London these days I am confronted by an endless stream of yellow boxes, low traffic neighbourhoods, bus lanes with opening times that are impossible to read and 20 limits. Sooner or later you make a mistake and every mistake earns a fine. There's no deterrence value, since these are nearly always mistakes, and no attempt to apply discretion and common sense.
Theres also 2 lanes at the top. the black car is poorly positioned for the right hand lane, the grey car is wanting the clear left hand lane, you can see that around 4:08. so even if the grey car had seen the black car, they still may not have expected them to block both lanes
My sister once got a charge from the same council several years ago, and the picture was of her back wheel on the outside line. Councils are so desperate for money it's actually funny.
That fact the council can issues fines from which they finance their own coffers should never have been allowed in the 1st place, it is a recipe for mismanagement and abuse of authority.
just one thing, one has entered the box when the bumper enters, not the wheels. i received a fine when my wheels where outside the box and my rear bumper was still inside. i was in a Citroen Berlingo van, there is approx. 3 inches of bodywork after the rear wheels.
Just a thought. Do the same rules apply to box Junction markings as to double yellow lines ie must be complete and not worn out? That box junction has missing lines.
Is that yellow box junction enforceable? Looking at it there appears to be gaps in the paint work. In the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, Schedule 9, Part 6, item 25, diagram 1043 does not show any gaps in the paintwork.
As a former parking attendant, this analysis is spot on in my opinion. I would definitely challenge this on the same grounds. There's a good chance that if these arguments were used in this instance, enforcement would become cost prohibitive and it'd be cheaper for them to drop the charge.
TfL told me I should wait for the junction to be clear and it was until someone pressed to cross and I had to stop. However because my vehicle is 13.5m long I was in the box because not enough distance between the box and stop line. Should I train to be clairvoyant or drive through the red light.🤷
Agree with you fully. I’ll add to this that the pcn’d driver is not a mind reader and the small car blocking his exit does NOT appear to have a left turn signal on. The pcn’d driver committed to the manoeuvre at the point where the small car APPEARED to be driving straight ahead. PCN cancelled. ❌
People not indicating has absolutely zero relevance. Indicators are a courtesy and not a legal requirement. There is no law stipulating anyone uses an indicator. It's a completely irrelevant point when arguing whether this PCN is valid.
The camera shouldn’t be allowed if mistakes like this are made, as it will lead to miscarriages of justice. And isn’t much different to what happened with the post office scandal, wrongfully prosecuting people for something that they didn’t do.
I want to add some clarification on roundabouts, yellow box sections are ONLY permitted on roundabouts under full time traffic lights, they are prohibited on roundabouts that are not controlled by full time traffic lights but many councils ignore this and place them on roundabouts without lights anyway, the box is nothing more than road decoration in that case and legally does not exist and is unenforceable.
Agreed, no offence here. Council need to train their staff and refrain from wasting our money. It's another example of poor decision making by people who time and time again demonstrate they are not fit to do the jobs they are given and don't have the mental capacity or ability to simply look at the facts and work things out. This is aimed at council staff and civil servants generally. Broken system.
I watched the cars a few times & paused it as the grey car entered. I came to the conclusion that the exit was clear when he entered. Then I carried on watching the video & you did exactly the same. I was going to ask whether he should have pulled alongside the dark car, but you already answered it. You're great at these videos, Triple B.
I used to travel all over the country and have racket up more tickets than i can remember.....the problem is that appealing against the ticket can be more costly than the actual ticket itself and I believe if you lose there can be a substantial increase in the fine. The one that annoyed me the most is when I got blocked in by two cars so couldn't move and got a ticket.....the two cars? No they didn't but they were on foreign number plates. I've long stopped allowing them to stress me out...just isn't worth it
If you appeal then the fine is held at the discounted rate until a decision has been made. Unfortunately it's the same idiots doing the appeal as handing out the tickets.
If I knew I was getting a fine, I'd reverse slightly and block the entire junction, since it's the exact same fine I'll be getting. The yellow box needs to be made smaller as the car clearly isn't obstructing anyone.
I got a pcn for driving through Bradford’s Caz zone in my car that qualifies for every ulez/caz zone in the whole of England, all because it’s a registered taxi (from hull) and it was my day off. Anyone explain to me how the exact same car is exempt if it’s a normal non taxi? Cause it’s clear it has nothing to do with clean air as the requirements are the same as London ultra low emmissions zone (which my car is fine to drive in)
Additionally, the painted markings are worn out, which if they were double yellow parking lines, would make them invalid..... The lines have to be complete and unbroken.....
The whole box junction rules and design needs to be revisited. The fact that 2 or more competing vehicles are allowed to enter the box and leave at the same exit will inevitably lead to such a condition where the last vehicle will not be able to complete its manoeuvre. Since this is the case where one cannot make a straight forward decision and the rules are ambiguous, the pcn should be rejected on the grounds of an impossible situation to avoid.
There used to be a box junction in Henley that I will bet was around 70+ metres long. There was no way you could see the exit road when you entered if you were following trucks. You couldn't wait to see that it was clear because then you'd create a tailback for a few hundred metres yourself and Henley would become log-jammed. Box junctions were designed for when traffic flowed nice and freely as it used to back in the 80s and before then. Now we probably have 50% more traffic on the road and road works to contend with and they no longer work as intended. As someone has already said though, the Councils see them as cash-cows.
What is the rule/law regarding grace periods. I've just received a PCN for entering and exiting a car park within 6 mins as I wanted to find an alternative car park instead of the one I pulled in. The BPA guide in section 13.1 states a grace period must be a minimum of 5 min given. Do I have good grounds of an appeal here?
All designed to make folk concerned and apprehensive in going out in their vehicle. If I have driven somewhere unfamiliar, I’m paranoid that a white envelope will drop through the letterbox a week later.
The fundamental reason for the existence of the yellow painted lines is to reinforce the message, ‘keep the junction clear’. Of course ALL junctions should be kept clear regardless of the presence or absence of yellow lines. So, ok the car spent a few moments on the yellow lines, but It’s not as if the car was causing an obstruction. You might actually argue that the yellow lines probably, and unnecessarily, extend a little too far anyway, but I’m not road marking expert. Of course the situation is easily exacerbated - what happens if another oncoming vehicle comes through - that’ll then put the grey car in even deeper trouble. I bet this junction catches many people out! I mean, once you have assessed the situation and then become committed based on what you see, that’s it. Given the particular example and prevailing circumstances, I’m amazed that it resulted in the issuing of a PCN. It’s either ANPR automated in some dumb black and white manner (that’s the problem with automated systems), or an over-zealous, probably non-car driving person, has made the decision without applying common sense by applying the ‘has the junction been kept clear’ principle. It’s obvious that the car driver was uncomfortable about the developing situation, but there wasn’t much that could be done once committed. I ask how many of us would have been unwittingly caught out by the same circumstances. Wouldn’t it be hilarious if they’d have reversed all the way back? It makes you feel like doing something bonkers like that though doesn’t it. I now find myself wondering what, ‘oncoming vehicles’ means. I’ve never really thought about it before, other than being in a box junction waiting to turn right but being prevented from doing so by oncoming traffic going straight on. I’ve never really thought that it could be expanded to cover vehicles not going straight on before. What about others queuing in front, also waiting to turn right? The yellow lineage should be arranged in a manner that limits the number of vehicles queuing so that the entire queue can clear the junction before the lights change. It all feels like Russian Roulette. Also, what happens if ‘ongoing traffic’ going straight on, jumps their lights and then go on to block up the junction? Are all parties then up for PCNs or just the ones that jumped the lights? Of course if common sense isn’t going to prevail, then the grey car driver will then have to rely upon what the definition of ‘oncoming vehicle’. I’m amazed just how nasty authorities can be and this is yet another example. No wonder people feel that there’s a war on motorists. I mean sitting in a yellow line for a few seconds, especially when it wasn’t your intention, isn’t exactly the crime of the century for goodness sake.
I was in a very similar situation a few years ago. My exit was completely clear when I entered the box, but as soon as I had passed the light, another car joined from the left, cutting across lanes to get in front of me and block my exit. I knew in my heart that I didn't deserve the penalty, but at the time I just wasn't up for the fight.
That looks like two distinct boxes in the junction, not one ? So the car does clear the first one without issue but the second box, on entering, the exit was not clear and wasn't blocked by an oncoming vehicle. The highway code picture is a _single bounded box_ . This one is equally odd 52°12'06.1"N 2°12'35.7"W
Totally agree with you, should the lights be changed to not let this happen? I have junction like this near me on the A12 and it can get very congested as it is so large you can go over the light into the box and if the traffic suddenly halts there can be a few cars 5 or 6 min that will get caught in the junction
100% agree with your summary. However - how much stress, time and finacial cost would the driver of the grey car incur defending themselves? It will be cheaper and easier to pay the PCN. And I bet the councils know it.
Question: does the exit need to be clear when entering the yellow box if you are blocked from turning right due to oncoming vehicles? The Highway Code suggests it does. Regulation 11(3) seems to suggest not as 11(3) entirely disapplies 11(1) and contains no requirement that the exit must be clear, only that you are blocked by oncoming vehicles.
Well argued. I would have turned to be beside the black car. The driver of the grey car did not contravene the purpose of the box junction. There was not obstruction to the alternative flow when the lights changed.
It's about time we started interpreting law, as opposed to just reading it What are yellow junctions for? To prevent blockages. Was this tiny car blocking anything?
this is one of those situations where if the law is followed to the letter the whole city will stop. imagine if the silver car was an artic or a bendybus. How many light changes would you wait before having enough space to clear the box with your large vehicle. This did become a problem in london. with T.F.L. issueing fines to T.F.L. bus drivers. Fines were never suposed to punish people for a genuine mistake. Fine were put in place to punnish diliberate infractions of the law. Is this imoral, should be the question asked. Because law should be based on morality.
We are in such a horrible state in the uk now. 20 limits everywhere that most of us do not want, while boy racers fly thorugh town with exploding exhausts completely unchallenged but if you are slightly over the speed limit, they throw the book at you. The police are not interested in dealing with the boy racers. Then you have all the arbitary rules for lines on roads that are often illogical, irrational and just plain wrong such as double yellow lines where parking causes no traffic flow issues...and single lines where parking often causes chaos and in one case here, i can park on a single yellow line but because of the over sized busses they struggle to get through and i got threated with obstruction...even though the sign says i can park there after 6 pm. I really hate how we have ended up with punative punishments for minor transgressions and no punishment for those that are literally driving through town at 70mph, that isn't an exaggeration. If anyone knows how i get the insurance details for cars i film driving like this please let me know as i figure they'd cancel the insurance if they saw what they were doing.
Also at the point when the grey car enters the box the white vehicle turning right may have been obscuring there view to the small black car turning left, they could have however placed their car to the right of the black car so fully off the box but with so much going on at that junction I think a PCN is not justifiable, I would appeal that.
The same happened to me back in 2018 in London. I paid the fine. I didn't even argued despite multiple people said it was not my fault. A colleague of mine, living in London was arguing with them for months, because he has to stop inside a box because of an ambulance, then got blocked and couldn't leave. He received a fine. In the end he gave up and paid, by the time over £100 fine.
I agree with you now. Although I didn't at the beginning. Can you give a point of clarification please. I have always interpreted the box junction law/code as being you should not follow another right turning car into the junction in order to turn right unless the exit is clear. When the law/code says unless obstructed by another car turning right I have always assumed that it was an oncoming car wanting to turn right not a car in front of me turning right.
I'm not sure this is relevant, but it looks like there are 'two' box junctions...? Separated by a set of lines going vertically that follow the lanes (north to south). As the grey car enters the second box, the exit is indeed blocked. That is incredibly confusing and should not be the case - I do not know the regulations when it comes to marking out box junctions, but that's the only possible explanation I can see where they would receive a PCN. In spirit, I would absolutely agree they should not have been in receipt of the PCN and should indeed challenge it.
This was raised in the original thread, not sure if the road markings are supposed to denote two boxes or if the Council just did a cheap expansion to a smaller one. Not sure two individual boxes would be compliant with the regulations or looked on favourably by the adjudicator at appeal.
A few questions here ... What makes the car that closes the junction 'oncoming'? It's turned away from the grey car before it stops to turn. In defence of the grey car, the black car's indicators would have been hidden by the oncoming traffic before it, so the driver, assuming the black car was at all visible to him/her, could not predict its movement. It's difficult to see from the picture, but the black car looks like it is across a pedestrian crossing. To pull to the right would place the grey car across the crossing too, would it not? Is that a legal place to stop? What about the incomplete markings? Many yellow boxes are damn hard to spot until you are in them because they are so worn away. This one is quite clear, but it is not complete. There are numerous parts where the lines are broken. Sometime ago a colleague of mine made a point of parking on some double yellow lines near our work as they were very badly worn. He successfully claimed against a number of tickets received. Is the yellow box a valid yellow box, then? Does this only apply to parking restrictions? Either way, as you say, when the grey car enters the box, the exit is clear.
Problem is as someone else higlighted above, the actual law says differently... it says the driver must not cause their vehicle to stop inside a yellow box. Which the driver did, albeit not really their fault. Legally it's probably valid, morally definitely not.... but when have councils ever been moral? See my comment about how I got done by a car flying down the high street at twice the limit, causing me to slam on and not pull out as I was about to, meaning the cars behind me (about 15 of them bumper to bumper) all bunched up and I couldn't reverse. Stuck in the box and the camera nabbed me. Appealed and lost.
Grossly unfair given the letter of the law - their exit was clear when they entered the junction. Even in the end position, they are not unreasonably impeding anyone - which is the whole point of a yellow box in the first place. There must be historic issues with that crossroads for the yellow lines to have been put there, people jumping lights, pushing through even when there's no space etc, so I guess there is a reason the council are being anally retentive on this one.
Also when there is two lanes and the vehicle next to you then moves across from their lane and cuts in front, Taking the space you was aiming for, leaving you in the box!! i feel yellow boxes are nothing more than a money spinner!!!!
Not related here, but in my location Norwich virtually all box sections have faded due to constant traffic and the council do not have any yellow paint to improve them.
Unless the split between the two boxes is relevant, the PCN is not valid. However, the Council will probably ensure that there will be a lot of form filling required to get it withdrawn. It all depends upon the level of the fine and how much you value your time.
I've just had one from Fulham Council for exactly the same reason, the cause was two bus not correctly in there bays before just stopping with there backend sticking out so 3 cars including myself had to stop urgently or hit them. £65. The whole of driving in London is pure crap
Why is this law there in the first place? For safety? If so at the point the driver entered the box it would be unsafe to have positioned alongside the other car simply to avoid a fine. Another reason why this is not a charge
I would of slotted in the right side of the black car, but agree the pcn is wrong. I suspect there is some jobsworth in the council seat swiping these through whilst dreaming if a 4pm finish not even looking at it properly. £££££ follow the money 😊
There doesn't seem to be a differentiation in the wording of what is classed as an oncoming vehicle. Ignoring for now whether the black car is indicating their intent to turn is difficult to define, but doesn't appear to show their intent for a direction change. If the vehicle has actually indicated their intentions to turn at the junction then is this still classed as oncoming? It could also be argued that the small grey car turning right when entering the box junction made a judgement at the time of entering the box that the exit was clear. I would say that the Grey car turning right had their vision obstructed momentarily by the oncoming white car passing the Grey car traveling straight on wi5h the potential that the driver of the Grey car did not see the smaller black car indicate to turn left, if they indeed indicate their intentions to turn. Certainly the Grey car has plausible argument to challenge the PCN.
It looks like there are two box junctions side by side. The exit was not clear when he entered the second one. Having said that, I think it unfair that he receive a PC N in this case.
I agree that there are two distinct boxes and an argument for the prosecution could be that the second box was enter after the exit was no longer clear. However, we need to have some common sense. Life is not perfect and there is reasonable doubt if malicious intent was deliberate or could have been foreseen. If we take it back to why we have box junctions and the rules thereon, it is to stop people from blocking the junction and causing gridlock. The grey car hasn't stopped the progress of any vehicle that might have crossed the junction had that grey car not been there. I know that is not what the law says, but if you are going to paint boxes so a vehicle can't get across it without entering another, you have to accept that you are making hard for people to remain within the law, and leniency is required.
Even if the grey car driver did know the dark car was turning there, it looks like they were going for different lanes. If the dark car's turn hadn't been so tight, they may have gotten past it into the left lane.
The code does not consider a vehicle which appears to be oncoming, then turns without being visible until too late to adjust your manoeuvre. The camera angle does not show the view from driver perspective. From the drivers viewpoint, the oncoming vehicle deviated from oncoming, and did not appear to be visible at the point it indicated a turn (if it did at all). The camera angle does not show the view from driver perspective. There seems little to be done from this point except to clear the junction as well as can be, perhaps a tighter turn might have allowed the driver to come to rest alongside the blocking vehicle, thus nullifying the stop inside the junction.
I would argue that the junction is not clear, because the black car in front has to stopped on a pedestrian crossing, which also can not be stopped on. So the black car did a totally different offence. I think the penalty is very cruel and unwarranted.
It breaks rule 192 of the Highway Code. In slow-moving and queuing traffic you should keep crossings completely clear, as blocking these makes it difficult and dangerous for pedestrians to cross. You should not enter a pedestrian crossing if you are unable to completely clear the crossing.
I got a yellow box junction ticket a few years back because as we all know, councils give these tickets out like hot cakes. I left work (emergency services) - approached a junction with a yellow box, not traffic light controlled my side. Waited for a gap, went to pull forward into the box and turn left to proceed straight ahead, as I was pulling forward, and had partially inched forward into the box, a car came flying down the high street (from my right) well in excess of the speed limit, causing me to have to slam on the brakes to avoid pulling out directly in front of it. By this point I was probably half in and half out of the junction, with probably the front 1/3 of my car in the box junction. The speeding car saw me sticking out and drove around me, and joined the back of the queue of vehicles to my left, on the other side of the box junction. I couldn't reverse as there was a queue of about 15 cars behind me bumper to bumper, and a pedestrian crossing point (not a designated one but one where people cross constantly due to the train station being on the other side of that crossing point). I had no choice but to either go forward or sit where I was. Given I was already in the box I pulled forward and turned to the left, there would have been room for me to tuck into the gap behind the traffic lights but before the yellow box after completing the left turn, if it wasn't for a motorcyclist insisting on leaving a 10+ metre gap to the bus in front, and the car behind the motorbike being there too. This extra distance meant that my car was 10m further back than it should have been, so despite trying to get clear of the box junction, the rear 1/2 of my car was still in it. I had nowhere to go and the lane to my right also behind the traffic lights was just as gridlocked. Low and behold the council sent me a PCN. I appealed it but ultimately as expected they did their usual and rejected it. I did not hold anyone up. I Did not obstruct ANY traffic whilst I was stopped in the yellow box junction, since the traffic lights were on red to my left and right (set of lights either side of the yellow box for traffic travelling the same direction), yet the council still insisted. A colleague of mine, in a marked police vehicle drove into a yellow box junction, a tiny part of the rear of his vehicle was within the box, he didn't obstruct anything. He appealed it, and lost. He had to pay the PCN out of his own funds. I jokingly said to a colleague that next time I was on shift, I would sit outside the council's offices (which by chance were literally across the road), and park up in a police vehicle. If I saw any council employee moving off without their seatbelt on, or using the phone, or not being in proper control of their vehicle, i'd report them for consideration of prosecution. Oh and before anyone says "You are police you give out hundreds of tickets".... I can count the number of tickets I have given out on one hand, with fingers to spare, and i've been doing the job for 7 years. You do the maths. Most people I stop get words of advice or a bollocking at worst. Only people that talk themselves into a ticket or do something really stupid (driving way in excess of the posted limit) get reported. Out of the four tickets i've given out, only 1 was for speeding. 3 were for no insurance.
Surely for box junction rules to apply, there has to be a box junction. Box junctions do not consist of two separate boxes. No box junction therefore no offence. Tell me I'm wrong by telling me where a two-box box junction is defined.
@@alextaxi2593 If the individual boxes don't comply with the regulations defining a box junction (which they don''t in this case - a single box should cover the entire intersection) there are no box junctions (1 or 2) and therefore there is no offence.
Looking at it. It looks to be 2 lanes in that turning. Junction. The grey cars lane was blocked by the other vehicle. The grey car wanted to go in the inside lane. The other vehicle wanted the outside lane. And that would be a explanation why the grey car didn't tuck in on the right hand side. As he wanted the left hand lane.
I’m fucking sick of this shit. Absolutely no harm was done, regardless of whether there was an offence, and the money grabbing council think they can fine someone for this shit? I don’t want to live in a surveillance state. This country has gone to the dogs.
And what harm is done if some people sat in their cars have to wait a couple of minutes ? making money out of nothing.
Harm was done. The council is harassing and causing distress to regular citizens going about their day.
We all must abide by the rules.if not then be prepared to the outcome.
I've thought for a long time that laws are so dumb. The important thing is the principle which led to a particular law. If you break the law but not the principle behind the law, you are innocent !
@@lesjones471 many laws demand perfection of humans and have no forgiveness baked in.
Err humans ...perfect? Insane expectation.
You are correct, the exit was clear when he entered the box. The problem is, councils are very stubborn and won't change their decision. They will happily waste tax payers money fighting this to the bitter end, rather than admit their mistake.
It's a cash cow for them.
I'm of a view that the rules should change so that if the council goes to adjudication and lose, they'll have to pay the registered keeper or driver the penalty amount, so it works both ways and hopefully stop the council of behaving badly.
@@AppleOranges12likewise, take it out of next year's budget, and therefore out of their annual wage increases
Councils are trying to obtain as much money as possible from motorists, even though this one was in the right;you can almost guarantee it won't be voided, most people just pay up and they know that
@@SpareSomeChange8080 They'd rather cut back services or do less work than forego their pay rises.
Councils are scummy. They will fine the birds for flying if they could.
I'd take that PCN to court and let the judge sort it out.
FFS...don't give them ideas.
You are quite correct but I have as low opinion of our judges as our councils so actual justice ( as opposed to "law") may still not prevail!
Schala - you mean Lodge
@SchalaZeal1 Oy Vey!
it not that easy, you can not go striate to a (proper) court, they have the bent law on there side, you have, go flow all there quango, appeal system first, that mandated by laws set out proper courts, and it have good case agents' them, at final appeal stage, the say "where not taking it furfure" , (and don't even have admit they were wrong or anything? and you can not a none existing case to a proper court can you?), and that before take money, cost on your part, in to account, and no matter, you have you side your case stitched up and water tight, and invested £100's pound in you side expert witnesses, etc. etc. I they need to say before even get them in a court say where not taking any furfure, on this occasions" still leave looking and feeling guilty of what ever the trump up as what accused you of doing, nothing you can do about it?
No Council in this land should be given any Driving infringements fines.That’s the job of the police and the law.
You're joking? The police are far too busy finding and arresting people who misgender others lol
The police already have enough mean words to deal with.
It's all in the wording, PCN as in Penalty Charge Notice rather than a motoring/traffic offence.
Funny how you clearly give no credence towards the Highway Code and will point your finger at 'The Council'. Well . . . I say it's funny but in reality it is very sad. You even think that PCN's should not be given by councils. Well I say think, but it isn't "thinking" you're more "ugh, me Thag" as you bang your chest with your club and quote that it's the job of "the police" then "the law" which are entirely different entities. For your info "the law" (Traffic Management Act 2004) actually says the Councils CAN issue PCNs! Make your mind up Thag.
Except this contravention has been de-criminalised so is a civil offence.
There's a good reason why the box is there with a 24hr CCTV pointing right at it and that's..... £££s
There’s a yellow box near me so long you can barely see whether cars have cleared the end of it
Box junction aka cash box.
Don’t stop on it, no pennies paid, so simple but we’re all pretty dumb.
Agree! See my comment.
Been caught. HOWEVER, MAXIMUS WILL HAVE HIS VENGEANCE. When the opportunity presents itself.😉
I was fined by Enfield Council for entering a Box Junction by a cm or 2. In the video sent to me as proof, a double decker bus turned right into the road they said I was blocking. I appealed and the appeal was refused. 🙄 It is clearly abused by councils to generate profits.
Those people are sociopaths.
Labour!
Disgraceful.
@@clewis4744 Labour councils yes, the Tory government keeps them short of money.
@@JoeBlogs720 By the way the councils waste the money, they don't need more. They need less, much less
If a PCN is overurned at Tribunal, the council should be forced to pay back at least twice the PCN value.
The individual issuing the pcn should be forced to pay.
And pay court fees.
@@TheLiamis Thats the best idea ever!
Yes, agree. Out of their own pocket.
Not a bad idea!
Justice and fairness went out of the window the day councils were given the power to fine motorists.
Wait to see how many cameras they will have for motorists in a few years…
Councils have had the powers before you were born,They were in the right on this matter,poor driving from driver who could have driven to the right of black car,Justice seved in my case BBB would loose this case,council would say driver never used right lane to exit=simple FINE was served correctly.
@@DM-ur8vc Parking is of a vehicle is futher away on the left,the black car stops behind that parked vehicle leaving room to the right which any vehicle could use and would not be an offence overtaking maneuver because the lane on the right is NOT for parking but for passing stationary traffic ie that black car stopped short on the left just before the parked cars on the left so anyone in their right mind would use the road on the right to pass stationary traffic meaning you have 1 not commited an offence because you are using the righthand lane passing parked vehicles(Please watch the video again) that gray car driver was not reading the situation,had they took a sharper turn the situation would not arise getting a PCN and would be setup to be on the right anyway,that black car that turned left stopped short of the parking area and was not classed as a dual lane.I believe that the black car was caught out after turning left and saw a vehicle parked within the white line parking but that should not stop the grey car from making progress to the right,I still blame the grey car driver was a fault here.The council would make their decision with use of CCTV and would be aware of any appeal for it too.
@@lesjones471 Grey car would get away with this if they challenged it hard enough. If you can enter the box to turn right, which IS allowed by the highway code, then there must be a reasonable accommodation that while waiting to turn right the exit road you would take fills up. Unless you expect drivers to see into the future. You should honestly work for a council for coming up with what you did, unless you already do lol.
@@thunderbug8640 No matter if the case went to the highest court of our land it would fail,the council took the MUST NOT RULE in the highwaycode which as clear in the video clip.The exit was not blocked either even the black stationary car was not blocking the road.The bad driver did not read the road,had the driver read the road the space to the right should have been used but it wasn't this then Enforces the council to issue a PCN=MUST NOT RULE,any appeal would fail on the evidence in that video that if a good driver would have already read the road situation take a thighter right turn missing the staionary black car and leave the junction correctly.Remember the chequered area has a MUST NOT RULE in place so anyone blocking any exit would interfear with the next wave of traffic hence a traffic jam on that junction were that grey car stopped then that would lead to more
traffic jams should anyone try to exit where that grey car stopped.The chequered area has a point for it to keep the junction in operation by making all exits clear that's the purpose not councils penny pinching.Takeaway that chequered area then you revert back to the junction comming to a halt which was the problem in the first place.Councils have actually improved that junction making it move while using it thats why PCN's are issued for the wrong doers and sends a message to other drivers it will not tolerate bad driving.
This is exactly what is wrong with this country. It's disgusting that this can happen
So who's fault is it that the country is wrong? How did we get to this point? (100% agree with you by the way.)
@@fburton8weak leaders and no alternative choice
The person who decided to punish the driver needs psychiatric help.
it's usually automated if the cameras detect a stop in the box, not sure if they have the staff to be reviewing hundreds of thousands of fines being sent out
@@Jamie_D
Making an appeal would involve humans somewhere along the line.
The box painting seems elongated at that section...but that's by-the-by.
A.I. will take over the system and appealing will be useless
@@patricka.crawley6572 yes obviously an appeal will, but that always comes after notices sent out,you can't appeal b4 it happens
"The humans" that work there is a generous term. They do not know anything about driving or the rules.
@@Jamie_Din that case the AI should have known the principle of the rule. So why didn't it?
They are not even following there own law when they don't want to. That is the definition of unjust society.
Also, given the size of the grey and black cars, the black car would be obscured by the white car as the grey car entered the box
And by the larger grey car stopped in front of it, also turning left.
This can happen following lorries that obscure speed restriction signs.
That's why they paint the new speed limit on the ground as well.
What an officious martinet working at the local Council.
I'd write to my Councillor or Mayor before appealing this formally.
The political embarrassment this would cause the elected officials would be sure to result in the miscreant sending out charge notices receiving some curt advice in his shell like.
Yeah that’s unfair to the grey car,personally I would have full locked to the right of the black car just to get out of the box,you can see that the black car was hidden from the grey cars perspective
I saw that space too and though the same thing, swing hard right and take that space just to clear the box.
if you look at 4:08 theres 2 lanes, the black car want the right hand lane, the grey car the left.
if the grey car puts themselves to the right of the black car, that create issues when the grey car wants to move over.
I saw the space on the right of the black car. The driver of the grey car didn't apply more steering. Actually the grey car driver should have waited a little longer, then it would have not broken any rules!
@@benholroyd5221they only create an issue if they move forward. It's simple you let the black car move forward as you are borrowing the space plus the black car was thier first so they have priority.
The black car turning left straddled two lanes instead of just taking up one due to the laxity of their turn, they should have gone further into the box and turned tighter if they wanted to be in the right hand lane. If the black car had turned properly it would have been in the lane it wanted to be in and the left hand lane the grey car wanted all along (which was clear according to the rules) to turn into would still have been clear. Whilst the black car didn't break any rules it was still inconsiderate driving.
Council is wrong. Driver did nothing wrong.
That's not exactly true. He could stop next to the black car, instead of behind him, a decision I can not understand.
@AndyPandy33 That's irrelevant to the offence. I agree he could have squeezed in the gap and perhaps that would have avoided the challenge. However, he did not contravene the regulation regardless of where he stopped. His exit was clear at the moment he entered the box.
@@AndyPandy33 20/20 hindsight
Giving greedy councils the ability to fine drivers was the worst move - but done on purpose to make driving a nightmare
If driver bothered to maintained a 2 sec gap driver would've seen the other car turning.
Deserved, especially for not attempting to move into the spare space
ok I am pausing the video at 1:10 to give my initial thoughts. Straight away I am saying that's not a valid PCN. The rules are quite clear "You must not enter the box if your exit is not clear. If turning right at the junction, you may enter the box (behind other right-turning vehicles, if any) to wait for a gap in the oncoming traffic, but only if the right-turn exit is clear." Therefore, the grey car was perfectly correct in entering the box as they were turning right and the exit was, at the time of entry, clear. Case dismissed.... and now I shall click play and see how this unfolds....
Here I am, arrived at the end of the video. Not much controversy from me. I agree with my learned friend. The driver of the grey vehicle entered the box junction at a time when the exit was clear and there was no reasonable indication that the black vehicle would move to block the exit. I'd love to find out the outcome of this. Is it being challenged? I shall hope for a followup!
@@CerberusVelvet I'd not pay it, & LET it go to court!
@@TheGreatoutdoorsAndGourmetVic you dont go to court,you can appeal it , if that fails you can ask for a Traffic Tribunal to get involved
@@CerberusVelvet Agree.
@@CerberusVelvet I disagree, and disagree with Daniel's analysis of the LAW (not the highway code).
11-(1): ".... 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 a stationary vehicle."
The grey vehicle had to stop prior to exiting the box junction due to the stationary black vehicle in front of it (which can hardly be called "oncoming" when the grey car is up its rear).
Clearly then it IS a contravention of the wording in regulation 11-1. THe driver of the grey vehicle caused it to enter the box junction, and the result was that it stopped due to the presence of a stationary vehicle (at the exit point).
It's only in rule 174 that the wording is "MUST NOT enter until your exit road or lane is clear", but that is different to the wording in the law.
I presume the actual law is what a judge would base his/her ruling upon, not the highway code.
Local authorities issue these PCNs at no risk to themselves. Even if challenged, the taxpayer not the officials always pays for poor administration
Exactly.
It should come out of the mayor's pay.
I thought the purpose of the box junction was to keep lanes clear and enable traffic to move freely. Although the grey car was left in the junction they weren’t exactly blocking the traffic and surely common sense should prevail and not “computer says no”.
Seems logical.
Common sense got replaced by greed!
There’s you’re mistake. The words ‘council’ ‘common’ and ‘sense’ are incompatible
Got it in one. The box junction was invented for a perfectly sound reason, but it has become a means of councils raising revenue therefore they don't care about whether traffic flow is impeded, or indeed whether the law is actually broken. This was exposed a number of years ago when a certain London borough was caught with leaked emails urging and celebrating the income raised. Also I remember a report recently where the RAC(?) went around checking various box junctions and demonstrated that the box areas tended to be much larger than they needed to be to do the job of maintaining a clear traffic path. On top of that I have quite often encountered yellow boxes (especially on roundabouts) that are so long you can't easily see where the other end of the box is, plus ones that are so worn away and/or invisible when the road is wet and shiny.
The markings do not conform to the relevant TDRDG markings. There are two sets which makes them unenforceable.
=:oo
Woah, that's a point. How's anyone in the left-right through-traffic supposed to leave one of those boxes without immediately crossing into the other? It should all be a single box, or else there should be a clear waiting area in between them.
I agree - this looks like two yellow boxes next to each other. What a mess!
Agreed.
If councils wern't desperate for money then common sense would prevail!!
Yes desperate to scam taxpayers out of more of their cash to waste
Read my comment above,councils try to help the public but in this case they had to take action,they cannot just leave it because it will give other drivers the green light to do the same.The PCN was broken this tells everyone you cannot get away with the rules in place for a good reason,a MUST NOT was commited and you cannot start to let the public get away with the rules of the higway code in anyway.The council followed the rules of the highway code if broken(NOT penny pinching either oldbaldguy6151).It was bad driving by that grey car.
@@lesjones471 You can clearly see from the footage that when the car entered the box junction the exit was clear
How was the driver supposed to prevent other vehicles travelling in the opposite direction from blocking the exit while he waited to turn right
This is absurd nonsense and a clear case of a council trying it on
@@liveloud9894 Are you blind? The exit the grey car driver took had no blockage,yes a black car off the junction had stopped BUT a space to the right was clear but was not taken.THIS was bad driving and not reading the road.The PCN was justifed and any appeal would fail based of CCTV footage.BBB would loose this case based on the free passage to the right of that black car on the left which was not blocking the road.The MUST NOT RULE WAS BROKEN and justified.A sensible good driver would have used the spare space to the right and even the next wave of traffic would still be able to exit that junction.
@@lesjones471 I’m not blind but I can see common sense unlike yourself
The driver shouldn’t need to try and squeeze into a narrow space next to the other car on a single lane road
What nonsense
Councils shouldnt be traffic enforcement of any kind. Ever.
He probably didn't see the small black car because the bigger white one was in the way.
Precisely what i thought, and it looked like the small black car wasn't indicating either.
Box junctions can be very difficult to navigate. Better design of junctions make traffic flow better and safer.
I agree.
Having lived in the area this is just the sort of thing I'd expect from Barnet Council. Fight it in court.
It’s a shame the operator thought it deserved a ticket. This sort of thing just feels very unbritish!
Wash your mouth out as this comment is so racist 😂😂😂😂
That's a very telling point, because most of the people employed to vet these videos are not British and do not understand the tradition of law we have. They would see that the car is in the box and issue the PCN, which is incorrect. Where the proper thing to do is follow the law, which states the grey car is in in the right.
@SchalaZeal1not British as in a piece of software yes, not a human
I would have gone in that space on the right of the small black car. But no, his exit was clear when he enters the box so its clear its not an infringement .
Exactly what I would of done. 😊
He wanted the left lane and not to get stuck in the right lane maybe.
👍 About to make the same comment
Presuming the black car wanted the right hand lane it’s a pity he or she didn’t position themselves better, it would have prevented the incident.
Northampton Council lost a case where drivers briefly entered a bus lane to pass traffic waiting to turn right. The judge deemed the infringement "de minimis". There is a similar case here where the car in the box is not fouling the flow of traffic.
And if the car blocking the exit (while still partially in the gridded area) has been fined how can the motorist behind him be fined? It's indefensible.
How desperate are the council to even consider this is suitable for a PCN. Pathetic individuals.
It's just revenue collection to keep the council financially afloat... it's endemic in local government due to funding cuts/
Councils are abiding by the highway code rules,it was a MUST NOT that attracted the PCN charge,as a few people do say the driver could have parked to the right of the black car but should have been watching what was happening and turn a tighter right turn to make it easier to get out of the chequered box area.
@@lesjones471highway code says MUST NOT. Highway code doesn't mention fines, council debts, cctv, letters etc.. councils are there to collect rubbish and that should be END OF.
@@simonleeofficial So you ignor speeding,bad parking etc,the councils has the authority to charge on multiple offences if found.Evidence proves that grey car had stopped in the chequered for no reason and could have taken that space to the right of the stationary car.Thats the view the council takes = poor driving. A good driver would have used the space to the right of that stationary car=reading the situation but todays bad drivers do not do that and think they can get away with it.Space to the right was evident and if taken was going to be correct because further infront the left is for parking.The councils are not deperate to take action,they consider what has created an offence,as in this case the driver is caughtout not even taking the righthand space available to leave the chequered area.
@lesjones471 authority and obligation are two different things. That councils choose to ignore their obligations to residents and instead spend time imposing authority for money 💰 and no other reason is the problem.
This is one that needs to go the the adjudicator, and should the motorist win, the local authority ought to be made to pay TEN TIMES the fine to the motorist. It is because THEY face no sanctions for "trying it on" that they "try it on" and take the piss out of ordinary people. Just like the blood scandal - when we mess up, they fine us until the pips squeak. When they mess up, They LIE and LIE and face no sanctions whatsoever - they should be made to pay compensation
I worked in a Council, in this situation a quiet word with the mayor would soon put a stop to this. Politicians love earning merit badges and the council officers are supposed to only be there to advise the politicians, not to rule them.
It's clear that the grey car DID stop behind the black car leaving the grey car's rear end still on the chequered area this created the PCN charge and the highway code" MUST NOT RULE " was broken stopping in the chequered area.The grey car did not attemp to pass the stationary black car to the right which was an empty space,a good driver would be reading the road junction and taken the road space to the right of that stationary black car.The PCN then was justified.If BBB took this for an appeal he would loose based on the free space to the right of that stationary black car.The bad driver of that grey car proves they do not follow the rules of the highway code MUST NOT RULE.It's not a law either but a rule to follow and the council is NOT money pinching but issuing the correct rule for the PCN.Any adjudicator or Lawyer or the driver would loose the case.It would have been investigated already.Rules for the highway code should not be broken,I believe the council have been having problems at this junction and done the best to implement a better way to keep traffic moving and to have it clear when the traffic lights change for the next wave of traffic.
@@lesjones471 nonsense.
@@LiveFromLondon2 Yes I can take the crap,tipical word to use as a nut case.
Someone in the council is a jobsworth of the council is just trying to milk the motorist one again.
Need to identify the particular said jobsworth , catch up with him and 'educate' him on this matter !! ;-) ..... Might prevent him being a jobsworth tyrant in future , huh ?
I would certainly request a hearing. TSRGD 2016 p7p11s2 condition 2 is not met, as there was no stationary vehicle impeding exit. There was a converging vehicle that could eventually block the exit, but not an oncoming one, so the offense is not made out IMO
Surely, the council should also consider the principle of the regulation, which is to keep the junction flowing. The grey car did not impede traffic flow and so they should have waived it. Councils should consider themselves as servants of the public.
Just to add to the confusion; there are two separate boxed areas here (impossible to navigate safely).
Apart from the incident, which I believe you are correct about. I find it astounding, the local authority are entitled to issue Penalty notices for a traffic offence. They don't know and probably have not been trained in law, which is why you have these money making schemes.
Ah, but you see they're a lot cheaper than the Police (and come out of a local rather than national budget), so the govt gave them the job. =:o/
@@therealpbristow The police should only really be dealing with matters of road safety and not worrying about the flow of traffic. Something like this wouldn't really be a road safety issue. Did the Government give Council's the job or did Council's just see an opportunity to take it on for their own benefit?
The presence of two box junctions where it is impossible to turn right without entering the ‘2nd’ box junction, and the non compliance with the road markings handbook is sufficient grounds for any PCN to be quashed.
This is an interesting take on it, as this is a double box junction is it even valid? Are there any cases where a double box junction is valid?
Ask Enfield council it is a trap to make money two boxes on same junction exit the first cross a gap into second get done in second box but you could have stopped in gap blocking the whole junction something you won’t do with passengers on board
Is there further grounds for confusion in that the 'Box' is actually TWO adjacent 'boxes? i.e. there appears to be a dividing double line at the actual right turn point? SHOULD the grey car have passed THAT point when the exit was in danger of being blocked? Just asking. As you say 20/20 hindsight is fine and I would have increased my turning lock to go alongside the black vehicle temporarily.
I would certainly challenge the Notice as it is manifestly unfair.
I am very, very tired of harmless, honest mistakes being punished. When I drive in London these days I am confronted by an endless stream of yellow boxes, low traffic neighbourhoods, bus lanes with opening times that are impossible to read and 20 limits. Sooner or later you make a mistake and every mistake earns a fine. There's no deterrence value, since these are nearly always mistakes, and no attempt to apply discretion and common sense.
The worst thing is it wasn't even a mistake. The exit is clear when they enter the junction and the council are violating the rule for a cash grab.
Theres also 2 lanes at the top. the black car is poorly positioned for the right hand lane, the grey car is wanting the clear left hand lane, you can see that around 4:08. so even if the grey car had seen the black car, they still may not have expected them to block both lanes
Exactly the black car turned left way too early, wonder if the driver's being paid by the council to drive around there all day.
My sister once got a charge from the same council several years ago, and the picture was of her back wheel on the outside line. Councils are so desperate for money it's actually funny.
Are those markings with the split box even legal? Do they count as 2 box junctions?
That fact the council can issues fines from which they finance their own coffers should never have been allowed in the 1st place, it is a recipe for mismanagement and abuse of authority.
just one thing, one has entered the box when the bumper enters, not the wheels. i received a fine when my wheels where outside the box and my rear bumper was still inside. i was in a Citroen Berlingo van, there is approx. 3 inches of bodywork after the rear wheels.
Just a thought. Do the same rules apply to box Junction markings as to double yellow lines ie must be complete and not worn out? That box junction has missing lines.
Is that yellow box junction enforceable?
Looking at it there appears to be gaps in the paint work.
In the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, Schedule 9, Part 6, item 25, diagram 1043 does not show any gaps in the paintwork.
As a former parking attendant, this analysis is spot on in my opinion. I would definitely challenge this on the same grounds. There's a good chance that if these arguments were used in this instance, enforcement would become cost prohibitive and it'd be cheaper for them to drop the charge.
TfL told me I should wait for the junction to be clear and it was until someone pressed to cross and I had to stop. However because my vehicle is 13.5m long I was in the box because not enough distance between the box and stop line. Should I train to be clairvoyant or drive through the red light.🤷
Agree with you fully.
I’ll add to this that the pcn’d driver is not a mind reader and the small car blocking his exit does NOT appear to have a left turn signal on.
The pcn’d driver committed to the manoeuvre at the point where the small car APPEARED to be driving straight ahead.
PCN cancelled. ❌
People not indicating has absolutely zero relevance. Indicators are a courtesy and not a legal requirement. There is no law stipulating anyone uses an indicator.
It's a completely irrelevant point when arguing whether this PCN is valid.
Money to fit cameras and fine people, no money to paint the lines properly.
The camera shouldn’t be allowed if mistakes like this are made, as it will lead to miscarriages of justice. And isn’t much different to what happened with the post office scandal, wrongfully prosecuting people for something that they didn’t do.
I want to add some clarification on roundabouts, yellow box sections are ONLY permitted on roundabouts under full time traffic lights, they are prohibited on roundabouts that are not controlled by full time traffic lights but many councils ignore this and place them on roundabouts without lights anyway, the box is nothing more than road decoration in that case and legally does not exist and is unenforceable.
Agreed, no offence here. Council need to train their staff and refrain from wasting our money. It's another example of poor decision making by people who time and time again demonstrate they are not fit to do the jobs they are given and don't have the mental capacity or ability to simply look at the facts and work things out. This is aimed at council staff and civil servants generally. Broken system.
I watched the cars a few times & paused it as the grey car entered. I came to the conclusion that the exit was clear when he entered. Then I carried on watching the video & you did exactly the same. I was going to ask whether he should have pulled alongside the dark car, but you already answered it. You're great at these videos, Triple B.
I used to travel all over the country and have racket up more tickets than i can remember.....the problem is that appealing against the ticket can be more costly than the actual ticket itself and I believe if you lose there can be a substantial increase in the fine.
The one that annoyed me the most is when I got blocked in by two cars so couldn't move and got a ticket.....the two cars? No they didn't but they were on foreign number plates.
I've long stopped allowing them to stress me out...just isn't worth it
If you appeal then the fine is held at the discounted rate until a decision has been made. Unfortunately it's the same idiots doing the appeal as handing out the tickets.
Absolutely agree! Love how you scrutinised the legal information to confirm your judgment ❤
If I knew I was getting a fine, I'd reverse slightly and block the entire junction, since it's the exact same fine I'll be getting.
The yellow box needs to be made smaller as the car clearly isn't obstructing anyone.
I got a pcn for driving through Bradford’s Caz zone in my car that qualifies for every ulez/caz zone in the whole of England, all because it’s a registered taxi (from hull) and it was my day off. Anyone explain to me how the exact same car is exempt if it’s a normal non taxi? Cause it’s clear it has nothing to do with clean air as the requirements are the same as London ultra low emmissions zone (which my car is fine to drive in)
Additionally, the painted markings are worn out, which if they were double yellow parking lines, would make them invalid..... The lines have to be complete and unbroken.....
The whole box junction rules and design needs to be revisited. The fact that 2 or more competing vehicles are allowed to enter the box and leave at the same exit will inevitably lead to such a condition where the last vehicle will not be able to complete its manoeuvre. Since this is the case where one cannot make a straight forward decision and the rules are ambiguous, the pcn should be rejected on the grounds of an impossible situation to avoid.
There used to be a box junction in Henley that I will bet was around 70+ metres long. There was no way you could see the exit road when you entered if you were following trucks. You couldn't wait to see that it was clear because then you'd create a tailback for a few hundred metres yourself and Henley would become log-jammed. Box junctions were designed for when traffic flowed nice and freely as it used to back in the 80s and before then. Now we probably have 50% more traffic on the road and road works to contend with and they no longer work as intended. As someone has already said though, the Councils see them as cash-cows.
What is the rule/law regarding grace periods. I've just received a PCN for entering and exiting a car park within 6 mins as I wanted to find an alternative car park instead of the one I pulled in. The BPA guide in section 13.1 states a grace period must be a minimum of 5 min given. Do I have good grounds of an appeal here?
Its this kind of pettiness that makes us further believe that vehicles are used as a councils secondary cash cow.
They don’t want private vehicle use in the near future
All designed to make folk concerned and apprehensive in going out in their vehicle. If I have driven somewhere unfamiliar, I’m paranoid that a white envelope will drop through the letterbox a week later.
The fundamental reason for the existence of the yellow painted lines is to reinforce the message, ‘keep the junction clear’. Of course ALL junctions should be kept clear regardless of the presence or absence of yellow lines. So, ok the car spent a few moments on the yellow lines, but It’s not as if the car was causing an obstruction. You might actually argue that the yellow lines probably, and unnecessarily, extend a little too far anyway, but I’m not road marking expert.
Of course the situation is easily exacerbated - what happens if another oncoming vehicle comes through - that’ll then put the grey car in even deeper trouble.
I bet this junction catches many people out! I mean, once you have assessed the situation and then become committed based on what you see, that’s it.
Given the particular example and prevailing circumstances, I’m amazed that it resulted in the issuing of a PCN. It’s either ANPR automated in some dumb black and white manner (that’s the problem with automated systems), or an over-zealous, probably non-car driving person, has made the decision without applying common sense by applying the ‘has the junction been kept clear’ principle. It’s obvious that the car driver was uncomfortable about the developing situation, but there wasn’t much that could be done once committed. I ask how many of us would have been unwittingly caught out by the same circumstances. Wouldn’t it be hilarious if they’d have reversed all the way back? It makes you feel like doing something bonkers like that though doesn’t it.
I now find myself wondering what, ‘oncoming vehicles’ means. I’ve never really thought about it before, other than being in a box junction waiting to turn right but being prevented from doing so by oncoming traffic going straight on. I’ve never really thought that it could be expanded to cover vehicles not going straight on before.
What about others queuing in front, also waiting to turn right? The yellow lineage should be arranged in a manner that limits the number of vehicles queuing so that the entire queue can clear the junction before the lights change.
It all feels like Russian Roulette. Also, what happens if ‘ongoing traffic’ going straight on, jumps their lights and then go on to block up the junction? Are all parties then up for PCNs or just the ones that jumped the lights? Of course if common sense isn’t going to prevail, then the grey car driver will then have to rely upon what the definition of ‘oncoming vehicle’.
I’m amazed just how nasty authorities can be and this is yet another example. No wonder people feel that there’s a war on motorists. I mean sitting in a yellow line for a few seconds, especially when it wasn’t your intention, isn’t exactly the crime of the century for goodness sake.
I was in a very similar situation a few years ago. My exit was completely clear when I entered the box, but as soon as I had passed the light, another car joined from the left, cutting across lanes to get in front of me and block my exit. I knew in my heart that I didn't deserve the penalty, but at the time I just wasn't up for the fight.
That looks like two distinct boxes in the junction, not one ? So the car does clear the first one without issue but the second box, on entering, the exit was not clear and wasn't blocked by an oncoming vehicle. The highway code picture is a _single bounded box_ .
This one is equally odd 52°12'06.1"N 2°12'35.7"W
1 junction and 2 yellow boxes ? That's new :) Hope the driver win over the jobsworths
Totally agree with you, should the lights be changed to not let this happen?
I have junction like this near me on the A12 and it can get very congested as it is so large you can go over the light into the box and if the traffic suddenly halts there can be a few cars 5 or 6 min that will get caught in the junction
100% agree with your summary.
However - how much stress, time and finacial cost would the driver of the grey car incur defending themselves?
It will be cheaper and easier to pay the PCN. And I bet the councils know it.
Well they charge you full fee and threaten you with added charge for spurious appeals
Question: does the exit need to be clear when entering the yellow box if you are blocked from turning right due to oncoming vehicles? The Highway Code suggests it does. Regulation 11(3) seems to suggest not as 11(3) entirely disapplies 11(1) and contains no requirement that the exit must be clear, only that you are blocked by oncoming vehicles.
Well argued. I would have turned to be beside the black car. The driver of the grey car did not contravene the purpose of the box junction. There was not obstruction to the alternative flow when the lights changed.
It's about time we started interpreting law, as opposed to just reading it
What are yellow junctions for? To prevent blockages.
Was this tiny car blocking anything?
this is one of those situations where if the law is followed to the letter the whole city will stop. imagine if the silver car was an artic or a bendybus. How many light changes would you wait before having enough space to clear the box with your large vehicle. This did become a problem in london. with T.F.L. issueing fines to T.F.L. bus drivers. Fines were never suposed to punish people for a genuine mistake. Fine were put in place to punnish diliberate infractions of the law. Is this imoral, should be the question asked. Because law should be based on morality.
We are in such a horrible state in the uk now. 20 limits everywhere that most of us do not want, while boy racers fly thorugh town with exploding exhausts completely unchallenged but if you are slightly over the speed limit, they throw the book at you. The police are not interested in dealing with the boy racers. Then you have all the arbitary rules for lines on roads that are often illogical, irrational and just plain wrong such as double yellow lines where parking causes no traffic flow issues...and single lines where parking often causes chaos and in one case here, i can park on a single yellow line but because of the over sized busses they struggle to get through and i got threated with obstruction...even though the sign says i can park there after 6 pm. I really hate how we have ended up with punative punishments for minor transgressions and no punishment for those that are literally driving through town at 70mph, that isn't an exaggeration. If anyone knows how i get the insurance details for cars i film driving like this please let me know as i figure they'd cancel the insurance if they saw what they were doing.
As a lorry driver I came across this problem many times, thankfully never received a pcn.
Lorry drivers need special skills!
Had it before with truck car from offside cut infront of me so got ticket
@@jameskeen8331that’s two of us
Also at the point when the grey car enters the box the white vehicle turning right may have been obscuring there view to the small black car turning left, they could have however placed their car to the right of the black car so fully off the box but with so much going on at that junction I think a PCN is not justifiable, I would appeal that.
The same happened to me back in 2018 in London.
I paid the fine.
I didn't even argued despite multiple people said it was not my fault.
A colleague of mine, living in London was arguing with them for months, because he has to stop inside a box because of an ambulance, then got blocked and couldn't leave.
He received a fine. In the end he gave up and paid, by the time over £100 fine.
I agree with you now. Although I didn't at the beginning.
Can you give a point of clarification please. I have always interpreted the box junction law/code as being you should not follow another right turning car into the junction in order to turn right unless the exit is clear. When the law/code says unless obstructed by another car turning right I have always assumed that it was an oncoming car wanting to turn right not a car in front of me turning right.
I'm not sure this is relevant, but it looks like there are 'two' box junctions...? Separated by a set of lines going vertically that follow the lanes (north to south). As the grey car enters the second box, the exit is indeed blocked. That is incredibly confusing and should not be the case - I do not know the regulations when it comes to marking out box junctions, but that's the only possible explanation I can see where they would receive a PCN. In spirit, I would absolutely agree they should not have been in receipt of the PCN and should indeed challenge it.
This was raised in the original thread, not sure if the road markings are supposed to denote two boxes or if the Council just did a cheap expansion to a smaller one. Not sure two individual boxes would be compliant with the regulations or looked on favourably by the adjudicator at appeal.
Correct. unclear signage has never been so profitable.
Two boxes are approved you don’t even need to paint the whole junction anymore apparently according to my appeal rejected
A few questions here ...
What makes the car that closes the junction 'oncoming'? It's turned away from the grey car before it stops to turn. In defence of the grey car, the black car's indicators would have been hidden by the oncoming traffic before it, so the driver, assuming the black car was at all visible to him/her, could not predict its movement.
It's difficult to see from the picture, but the black car looks like it is across a pedestrian crossing. To pull to the right would place the grey car across the crossing too, would it not? Is that a legal place to stop?
What about the incomplete markings? Many yellow boxes are damn hard to spot until you are in them because they are so worn away. This one is quite clear, but it is not complete. There are numerous parts where the lines are broken. Sometime ago a colleague of mine made a point of parking on some double yellow lines near our work as they were very badly worn. He successfully claimed against a number of tickets received. Is the yellow box a valid yellow box, then? Does this only apply to parking restrictions?
Either way, as you say, when the grey car enters the box, the exit is clear.
The exit WAS clear when he entered the box junction. The End.
Problem is as someone else higlighted above, the actual law says differently... it says the driver must not cause their vehicle to stop inside a yellow box. Which the driver did, albeit not really their fault. Legally it's probably valid, morally definitely not.... but when have councils ever been moral?
See my comment about how I got done by a car flying down the high street at twice the limit, causing me to slam on and not pull out as I was about to, meaning the cars behind me (about 15 of them bumper to bumper) all bunched up and I couldn't reverse. Stuck in the box and the camera nabbed me. Appealed and lost.
The drivers line of sight was also blocked by the white car and he likely didn't see the black car while entering the junction.
Grossly unfair given the letter of the law - their exit was clear when they entered the junction. Even in the end position, they are not unreasonably impeding anyone - which is the whole point of a yellow box in the first place. There must be historic issues with that crossroads for the yellow lines to have been put there, people jumping lights, pushing through even when there's no space etc, so I guess there is a reason the council are being anally retentive on this one.
The problem is the councils see this and other road offences purely as a money making exercise.
Also when there is two lanes and the vehicle next to you then moves across from their lane and cuts in front, Taking the space you was aiming for, leaving you in the box!! i feel yellow boxes are nothing more than a money spinner!!!!
Not related here, but in my location Norwich virtually all box sections have faded due to constant traffic and the council do not have any yellow paint to improve them.
Unless the split between the two boxes is relevant, the PCN is not valid. However, the Council will probably ensure that there will be a lot of form filling required to get it withdrawn. It all depends upon the level of the fine and how much you value your time.
I've just had one from Fulham Council for exactly the same reason, the cause was two bus not correctly in there bays before just stopping with there backend sticking out so 3 cars including myself had to stop urgently or hit them. £65. The whole of driving in London is pure crap
Why is this law there in the first place? For safety? If so at the point the driver entered the box it would be unsafe to have positioned alongside the other car simply to avoid a fine. Another reason why this is not a charge
It's to keep traffic flowing.
Does the fact that the paintwork suggests that a second box was added to the first - assuming I am right in my thoughts - affect the position or not?
I would of slotted in the right side of the black car, but agree the pcn is wrong. I suspect there is some jobsworth in the council seat swiping these through whilst dreaming if a 4pm finish not even looking at it properly. £££££ follow the money 😊
Can somebody tell me where to find the traffic orders that give the legal authority for these and speed limits etc. ?
There doesn't seem to be a differentiation in the wording of what is classed as an oncoming vehicle. Ignoring for now whether the black car is indicating their intent to turn is difficult to define, but doesn't appear to show their intent for a direction change. If the vehicle has actually indicated their intentions to turn at the junction then is this still classed as oncoming? It could also be argued that the small grey car turning right when entering the box junction made a judgement at the time of entering the box that the exit was clear. I would say that the Grey car turning right had their vision obstructed momentarily by the oncoming white car passing the Grey car traveling straight on wi5h the potential that the driver of the Grey car did not see the smaller black car indicate to turn left, if they indeed indicate their intentions to turn. Certainly the Grey car has plausible argument to challenge the PCN.
This is what is called a 'money box' the councils know this and know they will not be challenged.
Christ, that is petty.
Excellent summation. 10000%
Hi but there are two boxes meeting each other - surely when they entered the second box the lane was blocked ? Am I going nuts.
It looks like there are two box junctions side by side. The exit was not clear when he entered the second one. Having said that, I think it unfair that he receive a PC N in this case.
I noticed that. I don't know if that is even legal.
I agree that there are two distinct boxes and an argument for the prosecution could be that the second box was enter after the exit was no longer clear. However, we need to have some common sense. Life is not perfect and there is reasonable doubt if malicious intent was deliberate or could have been foreseen. If we take it back to why we have box junctions and the rules thereon, it is to stop people from blocking the junction and causing gridlock. The grey car hasn't stopped the progress of any vehicle that might have crossed the junction had that grey car not been there. I know that is not what the law says, but if you are going to paint boxes so a vehicle can't get across it without entering another, you have to accept that you are making hard for people to remain within the law, and leniency is required.
Even if the grey car driver did know the dark car was turning there, it looks like they were going for different lanes. If the dark car's turn hadn't been so tight, they may have gotten past it into the left lane.
The code does not consider a vehicle which appears to be oncoming, then turns without being visible until too late to adjust your manoeuvre. The camera angle does not show the view from driver perspective.
From the drivers viewpoint, the oncoming vehicle deviated from oncoming, and did not appear to be visible at the point it indicated a turn (if it did at all). The camera angle does not show the view from driver perspective.
There seems little to be done from this point except to clear the junction as well as can be, perhaps a tighter turn might have allowed the driver to come to rest alongside the blocking vehicle, thus nullifying the stop inside the junction.
I would argue that the junction is not clear, because the black car in front has to stopped on a pedestrian crossing, which also can not be stopped on. So the black car did a totally different offence. I think the penalty is very cruel and unwarranted.
It's an offence to stop in the middle of a pedestrian crossing? Really?
It breaks rule 192 of the Highway Code. In slow-moving and queuing traffic you should keep crossings completely clear, as blocking these makes it difficult and dangerous for pedestrians to cross. You should not enter a pedestrian crossing if you are unable to completely clear the crossing.
@qtmatt OK thanks. 192 is guidance not backed up by law though so I don't think that's an offence?
@@ChrisLee-yr7tz Backed up by common sense though.
@peterkinner1678 well this is a channel about the law...so we tend to focus on legality.
I got a yellow box junction ticket a few years back because as we all know, councils give these tickets out like hot cakes.
I left work (emergency services) - approached a junction with a yellow box, not traffic light controlled my side. Waited for a gap, went to pull forward into the box and turn left to proceed straight ahead, as I was pulling forward, and had partially inched forward into the box, a car came flying down the high street (from my right) well in excess of the speed limit, causing me to have to slam on the brakes to avoid pulling out directly in front of it. By this point I was probably half in and half out of the junction, with probably the front 1/3 of my car in the box junction. The speeding car saw me sticking out and drove around me, and joined the back of the queue of vehicles to my left, on the other side of the box junction. I couldn't reverse as there was a queue of about 15 cars behind me bumper to bumper, and a pedestrian crossing point (not a designated one but one where people cross constantly due to the train station being on the other side of that crossing point). I had no choice but to either go forward or sit where I was. Given I was already in the box I pulled forward and turned to the left, there would have been room for me to tuck into the gap behind the traffic lights but before the yellow box after completing the left turn, if it wasn't for a motorcyclist insisting on leaving a 10+ metre gap to the bus in front, and the car behind the motorbike being there too. This extra distance meant that my car was 10m further back than it should have been, so despite trying to get clear of the box junction, the rear 1/2 of my car was still in it. I had nowhere to go and the lane to my right also behind the traffic lights was just as gridlocked.
Low and behold the council sent me a PCN. I appealed it but ultimately as expected they did their usual and rejected it.
I did not hold anyone up. I Did not obstruct ANY traffic whilst I was stopped in the yellow box junction, since the traffic lights were on red to my left and right (set of lights either side of the yellow box for traffic travelling the same direction), yet the council still insisted.
A colleague of mine, in a marked police vehicle drove into a yellow box junction, a tiny part of the rear of his vehicle was within the box, he didn't obstruct anything. He appealed it, and lost. He had to pay the PCN out of his own funds.
I jokingly said to a colleague that next time I was on shift, I would sit outside the council's offices (which by chance were literally across the road), and park up in a police vehicle. If I saw any council employee moving off without their seatbelt on, or using the phone, or not being in proper control of their vehicle, i'd report them for consideration of prosecution.
Oh and before anyone says "You are police you give out hundreds of tickets".... I can count the number of tickets I have given out on one hand, with fingers to spare, and i've been doing the job for 7 years. You do the maths.
Most people I stop get words of advice or a bollocking at worst. Only people that talk themselves into a ticket or do something really stupid (driving way in excess of the posted limit) get reported. Out of the four tickets i've given out, only 1 was for speeding. 3 were for no insurance.
Surely for box junction rules to apply, there has to be a box junction. Box junctions do not consist of two separate boxes. No box junction therefore no offence. Tell me I'm wrong by telling me where a two-box box junction is defined.
Tried that seperate boxes give two separate offences they charge you for one
@@alextaxi2593 If the individual boxes don't comply with the regulations defining a box junction (which they don''t in this case - a single box should cover the entire intersection) there are no box junctions (1 or 2) and therefore there is no offence.
@@Rich_6681 except if you are Enfield bc
Apprently they don’t have to be joined up or cover whole of the junction they can be just randomly painted on the road at any point
Looking at it. It looks to be 2 lanes in that turning. Junction. The grey cars lane was blocked by the other vehicle. The grey car wanted to go in the inside lane. The other vehicle wanted the outside lane. And that would be a explanation why the grey car didn't tuck in on the right hand side. As he wanted the left hand lane.