Penalty for three second stop

I can think of many; the exit is clear when you enter the box, and some pratt changes lanes or reverses or pulls out from the side of the road and prevents you exiting the box.

I would want to look very closely at the photographic evidence; remember, the offence is entering the box junction when the exit is not clear. In order to convict they will have to prove that the exit was NOT clear when the accused entered the box; can they do that? Or can they only prove that he stopped in the box? If the latter, that's not enough to prove an offence.

I don't think this kind of offence is suitable for this kind of automated photographic enforcement; unlike speeding there are far too many variables in what can happen in traffic flow.

Mike

--

No, it is causing 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.

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

The specific offence listed is: 'Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited'. He was definitly not jumping the lights, but took off from a standing start; when the lights changed, behind one vehicle that was in front of him. But he only ended up getting as far as the front edge of his car on the far edge of the box.

He was however able to drive forward *before* the traffic lights changed to allow cars from the adjacent road to come forward.

He is a careful driver, he could not see clearly how the traffic was suddenly bunching up ahead, being behind the people carrier.

This seems a natural event that could happen to anyone, but it looks like he is being taken advantage of somewhat; by a revenue making camera scheme.

Thanks to all, and for any suggestion that might enable him to reasonably contest this charge.

Duncan Wood wrote: || On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 11:33:06 -0000, john bently || wrote: || ||| My son is driving north in highgate road and is waiting at the ||| traffic lights and is behind only one vehicle, a people carrier. ||| ||| The lights change and the vehicle carrier takes off, and so does ||| he. The traffic further ahead is slowed up and then jams due to ||| some obstruction in ||| the road further ahead. This caused the traffic to narrow to one ||| lane and slow down. ||| ||| The people carrier ahead of him takes off when the lights change ||| and just clears the box junction (with the crossed hatch yellow ||| lines), but my son has to wait about twenty seconds or so, before ||| he can also clear the crossed ||| hatched lines. He certainly clears the box junction before the ||| traffic from ||| the side roads are able to move off. The two photos that Transport ||| for London have sent of the offence, are timed at 29min 31 seconds ||| and 29min 34 ||| seconds. That's only three seconds duration. ||| ||| A penalty charge notice has been sent asking for £120 reduced to ||| £60 if paid ||| within 14 days. ||| ||| Now if you are behind *one* vehicle waiting at the traffic lights ||| and the lights change; would it be reasonable and acceptable for ||| everybody to wait ||| until you saw for certain the vehicle ahead had cleared the box ||| junction and ||| left at least one space for you? Imagine how that would slow up the ||| traffic ||| flow. Surely not realistic? ||| || || Why would that slow the traffic up, the car just the other side the || box junction isn't going to travel any slower.

Of course it would slow traffic flow. If EVERYBODY used box junctions in the way that the holier-than-though on here claim they should be used, traffic in most cities would virtually grind to a halt. I have never, ever seen a box junction where only one vehicle at a time crosses, then makes room after the box before the following vehicle sets off - it just doesn't happen. Drivers will always follow each other through unless they think the lights are about to change. It would be impractical not to.

||| I would think that there will always be some circumstances that ||| force one to ||| stop in the box junction, through no fault of ones own? ||| || || Short of the car behind driving into you I can't think of an obvious || one

What like a pedestrian stepping out into your path?

Keep Clear signs on the road are only advisory - although I suppose at a stretch you could be convicted for 'not having consideration for other road users'.

When I visit my daughter, I have to turn right at a set of traffic lights and then, shortly afterwards, turn right again into the estate she lives on. There are 'Keep Clear' markings on the road at this second turning because traffic queueing for the lights constantly block it. Time after time, however, I turn right at the lights, and then cannot turn right into the estate because stupid selfish drivers have stopped nose to tail right across the junction. This means that I end up stuck with my right indicators operating - and a queue building up behind me. It infuriates me.

Kev

Yup, selfishness abounds these days and it appears to be getting worse.

Bod

It is unfortunatly , its become a dog eat dog world where people have realised that crime generally pays and f*ck anyone else

No, because the whole point in the first place was that they wanted the junction kept clear (because a gridlocked junction reduced throughput), but with a heterogenous population of drivers, they obviously found that the risk of a fine meant that some people were absolutely unwilling to move unless the way was already visibly clear, with the effect that the junctions were indeed kept strictly clear, but with such reduced throughput that it offset any gains from keeping the junction clear.

I'm not sure exactly how they dealt with it in the end, but I presume they either refined signal timings, or removed enforcement cameras selectively from certain junctions.

If EVERYBODY used box

No it wouldn't. It makes no difference whether you crawl through the box junction nose to tail with the car in front - or temporarily pause until the junction is clear, and then catch up with the car in front. Either way you end up 100 yards down the road behind the car in front.

I have never, ever seen a box junction where only one vehicle

That's because the majority of drivers break the law and ignore the box junction.

Drivers will always follow

True.

Nonsense.

Kev

Or Doug swerving across one's path?

Ret. wrote: || Rob wrote: ||| Duncan Wood wrote: ||||| On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 11:33:06 -0000, john bently ||||| wrote: ||||| |||||| My son is driving north in highgate road and is waiting at the |||||| traffic lights and is behind only one vehicle, a people carrier. |||||| |||||| The lights change and the vehicle carrier takes off, and so does |||||| he. The traffic further ahead is slowed up and then jams due to |||||| some obstruction in |||||| the road further ahead. This caused the traffic to narrow to one |||||| lane and slow down. |||||| |||||| The people carrier ahead of him takes off when the lights change |||||| and just clears the box junction (with the crossed hatch yellow |||||| lines), but my son has to wait about twenty seconds or so, before |||||| he can also clear the crossed |||||| hatched lines. He certainly clears the box junction before the |||||| traffic from |||||| the side roads are able to move off. The two photos that |||||| Transport for London have sent of the offence, are timed at |||||| 29min 31 seconds and 29min 34 |||||| seconds. That's only three seconds duration. |||||| |||||| A penalty charge notice has been sent asking for £120 reduced to |||||| £60 if paid |||||| within 14 days. |||||| |||||| Now if you are behind *one* vehicle waiting at the traffic lights |||||| and the lights change; would it be reasonable and acceptable for |||||| everybody to wait |||||| until you saw for certain the vehicle ahead had cleared the box |||||| junction and |||||| left at least one space for you? Imagine how that would slow up |||||| the traffic |||||| flow. Surely not realistic? |||||| ||||| ||||| Why would that slow the traffic up, the car just the other side ||||| the box junction isn't going to travel any slower. ||| ||| Of course it would slow traffic flow. || If EVERYBODY used box ||| junctions in the way that the holier-than-though on here claim they ||| should be used, traffic in most cities would virtually grind to a ||| halt. || || No it wouldn't. It makes no difference whether you crawl through the || box junction nose to tail with the car in front - or temporarily || pause until the junction is clear, and then catch up with the car in || front. Either way you end up 100 yards down the road behind the car || in front.

How can temporarily stopping and creating what would ordinarily be an abnormal distance between vehicles NOT have an impact on traffic flow? The traffic is bound to build up before the box. Don't forget boxes are not placed exclusively across junctions - there's one near me designed to prevent a premises entrance from being blocked by traffic queueing at the lights 50+ yards further up the road, so according to you (and others) all traffic should queue at the box simply to avoid the off chance that one vehicle might not fully make it to the other side, even when it can be seen that the road beyond the box is completely clear. || || || I have never, ever seen a box junction where only one vehicle ||| at a time crosses, then makes room after the box before the ||| following vehicle sets off - it just doesn't happen. || || That's because the majority of drivers break the law and ignore the || box junction.

I think it's a good job they do - not however when there is a good chance of them blocking the junction.

|| Drivers will always follow ||| each other through unless they think the lights are about to change. || || True. || ||| It would be impractical not to. || || Nonsense.

I note that another poster has already described what happened when strict enforcement caused people to pass through one at a time, and the problems it DID cause to traffic flow.

"Box junctions. These have criss-cross yellow lines painted on the road (see 'Road markings'). You MUST NOT enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear."

The Highway Code is not law, but it can be used in court to establish guilt (or innocence) in regard to an alleged motoring offence.

It's perfectly possible to enter the box junction when your exit lane is clear, and have it become blocked before you can exit the box, thus forcing you to stop in the box through no fault of your own. If the camera only monitors the box, and not the movement of traffic in the exit lanes, it's not possible to determine whether Rule 174 has been broken or not.

Mike

--

As for instance when someone in an adjacent lane moves over into yours.

Precisely one of the circumstances I had envisioned.

Mike.

--

It's like every where on the roads now now, if you are sure there is no camera then any thing goes.. If he didn't see the camera then it's a valuable lesson for next time ? admittedly they can be well hidden though.

Trouble is, this is not just selfishness. It's also plain stupidity.

Rob Graham

The HC may agree with other posters, the law agrees with me.

According to the OP the charge, taken directly from the wording on the summons, is:

'Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited'.

My point stands; it's perfectly possible to enter a box junction lawfully, when it's NOT prohibited - i.e. when the exit is clear - but still have to stop within the junction for any number of reasons. That can't be an offence, as the wording of the charge makes clear - to complete the offence it's necessary to both enter when prohibited AND stop when prohibited.

If you enter when the exit is NOT clear, but you're lucky enough that traffic clears as you traverse the box, and you don't have to stop, no offence is completed.

If you enter when the exit IS clear, but other unforseeable circumstances cause you to have to stop within the box, again you don't complete the offence - which is common sense, most cars don't come with crystal balls as standard equipment!

If you enter when the exit is NOT clear, AND you end up having to stop, then the offence is complete; the charge is 'enter AND stop' not 'enter OR stop' when prohibited.

This interpretation agrees with the HC, which as has been established can be used as evidence in court. Your interpretation would leave it possible to obey the HC most carefully, and still be convicted - which makes no sense.

Mike

--

Like if a stupid person steps on to the road but is hesitant and can't make their mind up whether to continue to cross or go back and just stands there or there is traffic in the other lane that prevents them going across any further . .