We’ve just had this penalty charge notice sent in from a Member.
She stands accused of stopping in a Box Junction.
But..
Wait until you see the pictures:
As you can clearly(ish) see, she has not actually stopped in the Box Junction at all!
It just goes to show that you should ALWAYS challenge these penalty notices because often they are simply wrong.
Happy motoring,
Adam
In the second pic it does look like she is guilty, but the first, and the one they seem to be basing the charge on, she is not…
It has to be proved that you were actually stationary – photos prove nothing just that you were there – all the traffic could be moving. Unless there are more than one photo taken at intervals. Fight it all the way !
Just appeal. They wont prosecute. I did and they did’nt.
well if you look at the times she was in it at 09:01 and 12 seconds but by 09:01 and 53 seconds she was clear of it
Surely, taking the time to respond to such an obviously incorrect notice should be chargeable? Send them a bill!
Clearly the 2 photos are timed at 40seconds apart to allow sufficent time for slow moving traffic to exit the box junction without actually being stationary in the junction. Therefore as the second the photo shows her outside the junction then clearly she was slow moving and not stationary.
She’s obviously not holding up any other driver so what’s the point. These are just lines on the road, surely just for guidance where to drive. In any case the criss cross lines do not go all the way up to the stop line so they are wrong on that count as well. It should not be classed as an offence anyway, they are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, or more precisely using it as an excuse to make money from an already ‘cash robbed’ public. Disgusting.
Another good clue would be some brake lights,which as we all know people apply rather than the handbrake ! As it appears there are no signs of any car with them on one has to assume the cars are moving forward?
where was the white stick or the dog of the person who said she was in the box. it makes you laugh doesn’t it?
i will in future deffo challenge any thing.
This is a bit of a tough one. The second picture shows a car which could be in the box but it is unclear, but is it the accused car? The second picture was also taken first. Times are in top right. The first picture was taken 34 seconds later. Why have they been put in this order?
Photos are shown in wrong order. Left enlarged photo is date/time 03/02/2012 09:01 53.7 Right small photo is date/time 03/03/2012 09:01 12.9 Right photo clearly shows alleged offence & left photo is just a close up of offending vehicle escaping!Anyway, always argue….
Also, the second picture it looks like the car wheel is on the line if the box. To me, that’s not in the box. I would argue that you are not in the box and not causing an obstruction which I believe box junctions are supposed to stop
I pay around 10 – 15 of these box junction offences each week for our fleet. I agree that still photos show vehicles stopping in these boxes but the fines are actually issued from the video footage that is available for viewing, but who actually has the time to go and view the footage? Also, who is being obstructed in the 39 seconds between the photos? Surely someone can use some common sense. This has nothing to do with safety or traffic offences, it is just a cash-cow for the companies / boroughs issuing the fines.
Hi Adam.
Looks to me that a map is required to be able to negotiate this absurd piece of road. Was it designed by the institute for the blind like many junctions we have in Derby?
For instance I dont know this particular junction but firstly, why is there a clear section at all? and why, to the left of the clear box ,are double yellow lines situated? Its this sort of inclarity that makes motoring unnecessarily complicated and not worth the hassle. If the traffic lights in this picture work on a rotational sequence there should be no need for the junction to be boxed. Nothing to do with road safety but just another strategic method of raking yet more money in. I wish the lady in question all the luck in the world. Don.
If these cameras actually made a difference to the way people drive they would quickly bankrupt themselves. Offenders would stop driving badly and eventually the cameras would cost more to run than they make… and be removed. Fact is that people still break the law and the cameras keep on making money. They aren’t making a difference, but they ARE cost effective. Fact. Quit pretending they’re anything more than a revenue stream. It’s just a scam under the guise of providing safety. Ban the lot and tell us the truth.
The first thing would be to ask for a Certificate of Calibration, before & after the alledged `offence`. On refusal, say that you intend to submit there is no case to answer. Chances are you`ll hear no more of it.
Also, I wrote to you some time ago that a uniformed police officer must warn you at the time of the `offence` that proceedings may be taken. This also a now applies to `civil` offences, such as traffic ones.
Believe that it is a bye law in London only not the highway code that states you cannot stop in the cross hatch area EVEN if turning right and the exit is blocked by on coming traffic. Think was instigated by Ken Livingston as revenue raiser.
If the offence is to be stationary in the box, then both photos taken with a certain amount of time lapsed between them would have to show that the vehicle had not changed its position. Even if both photos showed the vehicle in the box but in different positions then the vehicle still cannot be deemed as stationary.
AJ, yes we all know they are just lines on the road but, like all the others, are there and should be obeyed, that’s the law. They are not “just for guidance” as you say. But going back to the pics. There is no evidence in the pictures that she actually stopped in the box. It’s simply someone “trying it on”. If I were her solicitor I would fight that tooth and nail if a simple appeal from her denying that she stopped in the box fails. They have no case at all for prosecution and I would lay any odds that they know that.
The purpose of the box junction is to avoid the junction being blocked. She is neither blocking the junction, nor in the shaded area of the box junction, and (had she continued forewards over the stop line),she would doubtless have comitted a red light offence. However is she guilty of parking on a double yellow line?
Very harsh indeed but a word of caution,the offence is entering a box junction when your exit is not clear, (not stopping) in other words you should not enter it if at the time your exit is not clear and there is a likelyhood of the traffic stopping making you stop in the box junction. Technically, it is not necessary for the vehicle to be stationery for the offence to be complete,but like I said,very harsh!
The lined boxes are put in place to maintain traffic flow not as some drivers think for mere decoration thus not to be complied with as is often seen to be the case. This lady took a risk as seen in the second photo which puts her in the wrong. The first photo shows her in an unlined area but governed by the traffic lights so which rule did she break the lined box or the traffic light.
definitely worth challenging it and fighting it all the way. Absolutely no obstruction.
look forward to knowing teh result
The problem is I suspect these are stills from video footage that will indicate whether or not the car stopped. The image that shows the car clear of the box is offered to show the plate which is partially obscured by a lamppost in the other. Is the traffic held at a red light as on the approach to the junction? Can I see brake lights on the offending car? She has available space to exit to the O/S of the car in front but elects not to. Once a wheel becomes stationary in the box the offence is committed. The box appears not to reach to the kerb which I believe to be a requirement.
I hate to tell you this, but these photos are just stills from a video recording, and are included on the PCN to show they have got the right registration number and have therefore posted the PCN to the right person. The driver should ask to see the recording itself, which would show whether or not she actually stopped on the latticework.
Very difficult to say from 2 photo’s. The whole of the video image should be seen to clarify the reason for the ticket(apart from the obvious one). Define stopped in the box, was the traffic moving slowly?
1. Does a box junction apply when ‘turning’ rather than driving straight across it. I know you can enter a box junction when turning right. Im not sure if this applies when turning left, which, in effect, at this junction she seems to be doing?
2. This is a ‘non standard’ box junction, in that it is very long and narrow and as you can see from picture 2 the bottom right corner of the box junction curls round the kerb. There are very strict rules laid down for road markings including Box Junctions as to shape, size etc (check out Road Traffic Act regulation 29(2) and part 2 of schedule 19) and the local authority or TFL have to apply for and obtain permission to vary from these rules, I believe from the DFT or whoever is responsible for roads now. All the relevant info is is on the web. I’ve disputed two such fines on the validity of Box junctions and won twice.
3. TFL make 10’s of millions of pounds from this lark every year. Although you have to go through the process of appealing to TFL, it is a waste of time. This is to much of a revenue earner for them and they rely on you just rolling over and coughing up. Once TFL turn down your appeal get all the evidence you can, ordenace survey maps, Google maps etc and appeal to the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS)
The traffic lights in her direction are green and the timing shows the traffic is moving slowly. The traffic light on the main road is red so she is not holding up traffic. If it was me accused I would be sending them a bill for costs with a letter of complaint.
I am a professional stills photographer, and that leads me to the conclusion that box junction offences should not be based on still images, which, as one of your other correspondents states, they are not. I am also of the opinion that black and white images should not be used to prosecute such allegations because colour images clearly show whether a car is braking by the clear appearance of brake lights.
The bad news is that my gut feeling is that she is possibly guilty of the offence for two reasons. The gap between the two images throughout the period of time (39 seconds) is too great to allow for the continuous movement of the rearmost vehicle. This driver has travelled (at most) 30′ in 39 seconds, which is barely half a mile per hour, physically almost impossible. The proof in this case is, “at what point(s) was she stationary?”
If the video shows she maintained the slightest movement at all whilst any part of the vehicle is in the box junction then she is not guilty. Otherwise she is guilty.
We all know that both the police and local councils will do anything to gain funds,this appears to be some jumped up jobsworth trying to hit his preset monthly target by any means possible.Don’t give them the opportunity to relieve another motorist of their hard earned money.fight it all the way.The instigator probably doesn’t drive anyway.all the very best.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the box junction rule is that you must not ENTER the box until your EXIT is CLEAR. In this case the exit is not CLEAR on the first photo, even if the traffic is moving! Most people ignore box junctions, but they are there to speed up traffic flow, which works as has been proven in London when they enforced the rule vigorously. Sorry to be a killjoy but when people abuse this rule it slows everyone else down.
I’m amazed at what Charlie Fletcher says about viewing video footage. He says who’s got the time to go and see it, so he just coughs up the fine 10-15 times a week. Enforcement authorities must love people like him, he’s their bread and butter! I ALWAYS view the video in these cases, even if it means travelling somewhere to do so. In any case, these videos should be viewable on ALL authorities’ websites. Some are and some aren’t, and because of the increasing use of CCTV the ones that don’t have them on their websites should be forced to do so by the government.
If the way AHEAD is NOT CLEAR then STAY OUT of the box junction! The only exception is if you are turning right and there is no-one in front of you turning right as well – no queue.
Common sense should prevail and perhaps offenders should be made to re-sit the driving test. Then perhaps the appalling standards of a significant number of drivers might improve. Fines are a waste of time – so is Naughty Driver School. Suspend people’s licence until they are capable of proving themselves competent
Well, very clear the car not inside or even touching the box,,,another way for collecting money ???
I was also taught that you should not enter a box junction until your exit is clear, although I suspect most of us go anyway if the lights are green & hope no-one breaks down in front before you’ve cleared! However, I am held up regularly by inconsiderate drivers entering a local box junction even when the lights are red to prevent drivers waiting to emerge from a side road on the right from doing so when the lights are red, as they see it as queue jumping – despite the fact those drivers may well have been waiting several minutes to emerge, which is why they put the box in in the first place. personally, i would challenge this not on the basis of not being stationary but on the box being improperly laid out.
If i’m honest this is one of my pet hates, drivers stopping within the box at a junction then its blocked when your light goes green, but in this case the driver was NOT in the yellow box, she gets my vote, i beleive the law says you must not enter the box unless your exit of the box is clear, the deffence rests me ludd,
The first picture on the right clearly shows the offence, that of having entered the box before the exit was clear. This will be clear on the video. As another poster said the 2nd pic would be taken to get a clear shot of the registration number as in the 1st pic it is partially obscured by the lamp column. I would see little point in appealing unless the box does not meet the required rules – which it most likely will.
JB. DSA ADI RoSPA Gold. LGV C+E
It’s a no-brainer isn’t it?At 09:01:12, the first picture taken, clearly shows her stopping in the box.Guilty as charged.
This seems to be a line of slow moving traffic. Pictures are in wrong order. Pic 2 shows car in box but if the car is moving, how does this cause an obstruction. It’s a box which has clearly been placed where it is with the express purpose of collecting revenue. Appeal is the obvious thing to do.
Clearly the photo on the left is the second photo and her car is clear of the box. The first photo shows just one wheel on the line of the box and with no brake lights presumably moving slowly. She also appears to be turning left accross the corner of the box and at no time would she have been blocking anyones’ progress. The lady is NOT GUILTY good luck with your appeal.
And, what about an artic or long vehicle going into the box? I have waited for ages before entering a box until I can see that my exit is clear, only to be abused by people behind; I have been scared to move because my 40 feet HGV artic trailer might remain in the box because the anticipated movement of the traffic ahead never happened and I then get blocked.
It needs somebody with common sense to deal with this.
The second picture shows that she entered the box before her exit was clear, so she is guilty. There are two traffic offences relating to yellow box junctions:
1. Entering the box if your exit isn’t clear.
2. Stopping in the box, unless you are turning right and your exit is clear.
As someone else pointed out , the law on box junctions states, you must NOT enter the box unless your exit is clear. When she entered the box her exit was NOT clear The fact that the traffic was moving is neither here nor there. Your exit MUST be clear. Therefor she has committed an offence.
she is guilty as sin, doesnt matter what picture is where the are clearly time dated the car took 40 seconds to travel the length of it self. this couldnt be done without stopping. in this case the junction was not blocked and would have caused little disruption. These boxes are here for a reason anyone who has had to drive an emergncy vehicle through heavy traffic will tell you how annoying it is when idiots block these boxes. lets hope were not rushing to her the next time.
Well I would say the back of the car appears to be just within the box junction in the 1st clip, but the later clip shows the car having moved when traffic has moved on. Technically the driver has committed an offence, BUT its petty in my mind the driver should appeal. Does the rest of the video show the car actually stationary or creeping along ?
How can you tell? If these are two stills from a video how do you know she was not in the earlier position for most of the time and only moved to the stop line in the last couple of seconds.
There is insufficient data presented to make a valued judgement.
Refer back to the issuing authority and ask for the evidence needed.
The writers rushing for judgement may be wrong, more evidence is needed.
Definitely guilty. The law states “Do not enter box junction unless your exit is clear except when turning right and oncoming traffic is preventing your turn”.
Its inconclusive in these stills. 1st photo shows her clear of the box after 39 seconds but maybe several stills would show how long she stopped for, if at all. How long was she parked after the box? 2nd photo show her in the box but may have been moving. Is this type of box even enforceable if the corners cut of. There is a gap in front of the van so could have been moving as we cannot tell if the light were red or green. I would like to see the video to decide. Think the powers to be are being overzealous as the box has no need to stretch that far into her filter, which clearly she is doing. Her filter was clearly green in order for her to move off. If traffic builds up in this area you can never see the box or if the road ahead is clear, you just follow the vehicles moving ahead, Bad planning, whoever did it should be made to pay the fine,.
The photo on the right was the first one taken at 09:01 12.9 seconds the cars were moving, I say that because non of the cars or vans are showing break lights lit up most of them would if they were not moving most drivers keep their foot on the brakes when they stop in traffic unless they put their hand brake on, i cannot believe that every single person in the vehicles in the right hand photo put their hand brake on..
In the left hand photo it does not matter if the car was moving or stationary the car is well out of the box junction
fight this.
Highway code advice about not entering box junctions etc. is only advice, not the law. Failure to comply with the highway code may be used as evidence to support a case of careless/dangerous driving but is not in itself an offence. I dont live in London, thank God, but unless there is some local by-law creating the alleged offence, no offence has been committed anyway.
The box junction rules are clear enough. You CAN stop in a box junction if you are turning and waiting for the through traffic to pass. You cannot STOP in a box junction if you are part of that through traffic. However, in a moving column of vehicles, you can cross the box as slowly as you like concomitant with actually progressing. This driver was clearly progressing and her progress was only arrested AFTER she had left the box. Sorry, but this is just another piece of thuggery and attempted theft. None of is should ever give in to this. The evidence is clear, and although the filth WILL try to bully the magistrates, the Plaintiff, as a litigant in person, has every right to demonstrate to the bench that the police are lying. As I said, the law is clear. No offence has been committed.
You want to try and drive a 60foot LGV, you have to wait till at least half a dozen cars are clear, then you try to clear the box before several cars try to get there before you and then you are left with a trailer 45 foot in the box. Car and Van drivers don’t give a damb about any one but them selfs
As I understand the law the offence is stopping in the box and has nothing to do with the exit being clear.
The reason you are told not to enter the box unless the exit is clear is to make sure you do not get inadvertently stopped within the box. Waiting until the exit is actually clear is in fact a ridiculous idea as you get a stop start traffic flow which is why virtually nobody does it.
Being perhaps more mature, in other words old, I can remember when these boxes were first introduced and it was stated that if you got stopped in the box due to the traffic suddenly stopping for no apparent reason or because the driver in front left an unreasonably large gap between himself and the car he was following you would not be prosecuted. This was of course assuming the prosecution would be instigated by a police officer who could use his discretion. Cameras came later and have no discretion.
In this instance without the video it is impossible to tell if an offence has been committed.
Sa she appears to be coming from the left hand junction, if so she wouldn’t come across the box until she was in the middle of the junction as the box does not cover the junction even up to the kerb, so she could not stop there as she would be causing a greater obstruction. Anyway as far as I understand you can enter a box when turning left but she might not know that her exit was blocked until she got there as she is in a low vehicle and her view might be obstructed. She’s got to appeal.
Well having looked at the second photo, I would say it is not 100% clear dur to the angle.
A larger photo would nedd to be seen, howeve following the line I would say she was just clear
When I get snagged in one of these junctions, usually due to daft driver in front not moving up a bit, I always allow my car to “rock” forwards and backwards, thus its never stationary!
you are missing the point the box junction is not legal.
a box means box with straight edges not curved as these are only on roundabouts.look below for help in fighting yellow box i have got off loads through them be not legal.
The Offence…
The yellow box regulation only applies to a vehicle which is stopped. A vehicle which is moving slowly cannot be ticketed. Ensure the authority has evidence that your vehicle was stopped. A single still photo does not prove the vehicle was stopped.
The offence is committed when you enter the box. Therefore if circumstances afterwards change, such as a vehicle changing lanes and blocking your exit, you can appeal. The authority must have video evidence of your vehicle when it enters the box (as show in this case) and stopped and this evidence must show also that the exit was not clear when you entered.
As detailed in the regulations below, the offence is stopping in the box due to the presence of stationary vehicles. Therefore stopping for another reason such as a red light is not an offence. The authority must prove there were stationary vehicles in front of the box. See below for two cases won on this point.
The Box…
A yellow box must have four sides.
A yellow box must be at the junction of at least two roads. Thus for example a yellow box at a bus garage exit and a road would not be valid.
The yellow lines must go into at least two corners of the box, as shown in the diagrams below.
The diagrams below show at least one side of the box should go up to the kerb. There have been several cases won at adjudicator against TfL on this point. Case references 2110069641, 2110138201 and 2110166604 (search for the case number on the PATAS site). The latter included a request for a review which TfL lost. Also the bottom of this page shows a press article for one. However another adjudicator recently contradicted this decision, case reference 2110096757. As is always the case, adjudicators are a law unto themselves. They can decide what they like and there is no guarantee of victory. However I think the lesson is it should come close to the kerb and a small gap would not be worth appealing on as it would come under “de minimis”.
There should be only one yellow box at a junction.
A yellow box at a T junction should cover only half of the junction (the half next to the side road), as shown in the second picture below. Go to the PATAS site and search case reference 2070406174 for a case in Haringey and 207049423A for a case in Ealing won on this point.
A box which deviates from the standards requires approval from the Department for Transport (DfT). You may request evidence of this approval when appealing your ticket. If the authority doesn’t have DfT approval then the box is invalid. Even if they have approval, get a copy of the drawing and check it matches what is on site. When roads get resurfaced the contractors sometimes put the markings back wrong.
Yellow boxes do not require a traffic order.
As for all markings, they must be clearly visible and not worn. Case 211055173A was won at Archway Road / Jacksons Lane against TfL on this basis.
The Legislation…
Click here for the law on what information a yellow box junction ticket must contain. All of Islington and TfLs tickets were recently deemed invalid for failing to comply with the law. Thousands of people paying up when they need not.
The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2002 governs the format that a yellow box junction must take and the information below summarises this legislation. All adjudicator decisions are interpretations of this. However please note that on 30th January 2012 an amendment to the TSRGD came into force which has added new diagrams and changed part of the regulations. However if you received your ticket before 30th January then the amendments do not apply. Annoyingly the 2 documents are not combined online and you have to switch between them, but Ticketfighter has been nice to you and combined them below J
Original 2002 Regulation 29(2) and Part II of schedule 19 here and 2012 amendment here. I have combined them below.
PART II of Schedule 19
SIGNIFICANCE OF BOX JUNCTION MARKINGS
Interpretation of Part II of Schedule
6. In this Part of this Schedule –
(a) “box junction” means the area of carriageway marked with yellow cross-hatching—
(i) at a junction between two or more roads;
(ii) at a gyratory system or roundabout;
(iii) where that area of carriageway is not greater than 4.5 metres wide at its narrowest point; or
(iv) on the length of road adjacent to the vehicular entrance to the premises of a fire, police or ambulance station,
on which there has been placed the road marking shown in diagram 1043, 1044, 1044.1 or 1044.2; and
(b) a reference (however expressed) to a vehicle which is stationary or stops within a box junction includes a vehicle which is stationary whilst part of it is within the box junction.
Prohibition conveyed by markings in diagram 1043 or 1044
7. – (1) Subject to paragraph 9, the road markings shown in diagrams 1043, 1044 and 1044.1 shall each convey the prohibition that no person shall cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles.
(2) The prohibition in sub-paragraph (1) does not apply to any person where the box junction is at a junction between two or more roads (but not at a gyratory system or roundabout) and the person—
(a) causes a vehicle to enter the box junction for the purpose of turning right; and
(b) stops the vehicle within the box junction for so long as the vehicle is prevented from completing the right turn—
(i) by oncoming vehicles; or
(ii) by vehicles which are stationary whilst waiting to complete a right turn
8. Subject to paragraph 9, the road marking shown in diagram 1044.2 shall convey the prohibition that no person shall cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of oncoming vehicles or other stationary vehicles beyond the box junction.
9. When a vehicle is being used for relevant authority (as defined in section 6 of the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 (asp 5)) or, in England and Wales, fire and rescue authority, ambulance, bomb or explosive disposal, national blood service or police purposes and the observance of the prohibition in paragraph 7(1) or 8 would be likely to hinder the use of that vehicle for the purpose for which it is being used, then that prohibition shall not apply to the driver of the vehicle
20 years ago i recall from the highway code something like
‘never enter a box junction unless your entry and exit are clear’
looks to me like bang to rights for this one