Penalty for three second stop

Don't forget that half the population has below-average intelligence.

Then your first step must be to improve your spelling :)

When the box is at traffic lights it might make a difference as the lights could change while you were paused and traffic from another 'entrance' to the junction take the space created. I have seen instances, at a 'Y-junction' where there is another traffic light controlled junction 150-200 yds further on[1], where because of the box junction and the light sequencing that no traffic (on the main road) can move when their lights go green because the lights at the next junction are red and the space between the junctions has been filled by cars entering from the side road.

"behind one vehicle that was in front of him."

What do you actually mean by this sentence? Why this emphasis when cars are normally following in a queue?

I suspect that you mean that he was following so close behind the vehicle in front to effectively make it look like one (long) vehicle passing the junction. A trick I often notice when I cross a traffic light, and when it changes to yellow too late for me to stop. Nevertheless, one, two or even three cars are still following me closely behind in my rear view mirror!

Do the photos show clearly that the exit was blocked when your son *entered* the box? If so then he's guilty. If not then ask to see the full sequence of pictures - IME the cameras are video cameras, and they've just sent you a couple of frames.

DAS

"David A Stocks" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Ummm, did the traffic in front of the vehicle directly in front of him suddenly materialise from nowhere?

Or are you another one who doesn't think it's necessary to look any further than the back bumper of the car directly in front?

Correct, the law makes it clear that almost all reasons for stopping are legal, whether or not the exit is or was clear. The HC does not.

That is what the law says, the HC says it would be an offence.

It depends why you have to stop, as the law makes clear, but the HC does not.

No, it doesn't, it agrees with the law.

I don't know, and neither do you. That's why the question needs to be asked.

I'm as keen as anyone that people who unecessarily block junctions get what they deserve. However, it's not (IMHO) 100% clear from the OP whether an offence was commited or not, especially as the OP was not a witness. Since the photographs are the only evidence available it's important that they

DAS

Presumably, you can deduct from the two photos that the car was stationary.

"David A Stocks" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

OK, let's put it another way... Has traffic _ever_ just suddenly materialised from nowhere in your experience? No, nor mine.

No, but have had morons who for no apparent reason suddenly change lanes right in front of me necessitating rather more braking than I would like. I suppose that could lead to a stoppage on the hashed area

Yes, right. So you're claiming that in average traffic conditions on Highgate Road that it's possible to swerve as you describe? I take it that you've never been on that road at any time of day or night?

I thought the main difference was that box junctions constrain people moving in all directions, whereas "Keep Clear" signs are only supposed to affect people moving in one direction, i.e. it is perfectly legal and proper to pull out of the side road and sit sideways on "Keep Clear" while waiting for a gap in traffic coming from the left.

Yes, good point. "Keep Clear" is directional such that cars can leave e.g. from an estate. But then the penalty ought to be the same.

You cut the part I was responding to

"OK, let's put it another way... Has traffic _ever_ just suddenly materialised from nowhere in your experience? No, nor mine."

No, you would still be contravening the give way lines, which is a more straight forward offence than the main road traffic failing to keep clear.

The "Keep Clear" signs are often outside entrances to premises, where there are no give way signs or markings.

Chris

So what? It makes no difference to the statement that you made about traffic suddenly swerving.

Yes, now perhaps you can answer the question instead of avoiding it?

Yes. You probably can't deduce from two photos WHY the car was stationary; it may have been for a very good reason, and no fault of the driver.

Also the resolution of the photos may or may not be good enough to show whether the car was *completely* stationary, or just creeping very slowly.

Mike

--