Thread: Help please! Contravening yellow box junction at traffic lights

I have just received a notice for the above offence. It states that I 'stopped in a box junction (on the yellow crosses) when prohibited'. It was apparently observed by a real time camera.
The actual circumstances were that I was 4/5 cars back from red traffic lights when they changed green. The cars ahead of me proceeded across the box with me following. I was about to leave the box on the other side when the cars ahead of me suddenly came to a halt and I was stuck on the edge of the box for 12 seconds (according to the notice) until the lights turned from green to red.
The accompanying photo shows my car stopped clearly behind a white car which has just left the box with a blue car, being half way into the box, stuck behind me; we are all abotu a metre apart from each other.
Do I have a chance of contesting this as the exit to the box was apparently clear when the queue of cars I was in proceeded into it? The live operator must have seen the circumstances but has decided to take pictures for apparently an easy way of collecting money.
Any ideas are welcome. Many thanks.

Similar Threads:

• Contravening Red Traffic Light (camera) -
• Box junction fine - Help please
• No lights working !!!!!

I don't believe so, as the recommended action for anyone crossing these is to make sure they can safely cross it and be clear of the XXX. It's not enough to say that as the traffic was moving you 'thought' there would be a space - the picture shows that the exit wasn't clear, so an offence was committed. FWIW I know in practice that if everyone waited for this to hapopen, the time taken to traverse the junction would be considerably longer (as each verify a space is available before crossing), so it is unfair if you didn't really block crossing traffic. Bad luck!

Thanks guys. I guess that technically I'm in the wrong but if everyone waited till there was a definite space then traffic would hardly move across traffic lights.
In fact a Times article on camera detected box junctions from June last year says.'TfL studied traffic flow at the junctions before and after the cameras were installed and found that up to 150 fewer vehicles an hour passed through yellow box junctions once camera enforcement began.....Jeroen Weimar, TfL’s director of transport enforcement, said: “We are concerned by the results because the justification for the cameras was that they would improve traffic flow.” .Cameras at yellow box junctions cause longer traffic jams-News-UK-TimesOnline

Don't give up hope just yet - ask around in this forum: http://forums.pepipoo.com/ which specializes more in motoring problems, and someone may be able to help you.

have to agree with glenn uk i'm afraid, it does sound like it's a fair cop. the rule still applies about not entering yellow box junctions with no clear exit. you may find a loophole but it's very very doubtful.

Thanks for the Pepipoo site. Checking on it I found that the law actually states...
Statutory Instrument 2002 No. 3113 The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002
Prohibition conveyed by markings in diagram 1043 or 1044 7. - (1) Except when placed in the circumstances described in paragraph 8, the road markings shown in diagrams 1043 and 1044 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.

As I did not enter the box when there was a presence of any stationary vehicles I am thinking of appealing against this pcn

Just for information to others. I found a similar case on the same site. There's a great contribution by Teufel stating a PATAS appeal ...http://www.parkingandtrafficappe als.gov.uk...aders%20Ltd. doc

Teufel then goes on to say......
Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, Schedule 19 Part 2 paragraph 7. This provides as follows.

7 (1) Except when placed in the circumstances described in paragraph 8, [box junctions] 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
(a) who causes a vehicle to enter the box junction (other than a box junction at a roundabout) for the purpose of turning right: and
(b) (b) stops it within the box junction for so long as it is prevented from completing the right turn by oncoming vehicles or other vehicles which are stationary whilst waiting to complete a right turn.

the offence is entering the box when a stationary car
just beyod the box means you would stop in the box

if that car and your car were both moving through the box and then it stopped leaving you in the box you would not commit an offence - possibly the car in front has commited one if he has no reason to stop
other than to block you in the box !!!

the picture shown is thus inconclusive - it needs to show the car in front
stationary when you enter the box not later.

yep, this is a good find. it seems to basically be saying that because the vehicle in front of you was moving and you followed you havent committed an offence, unlike the situation where you have intentionally entered the box KNOWING that the exit was blocked. go for it. it seems like you have the written law on your side.

The law is somewhat ambiguous. It doesn't make clear whether the vehicle ahead can't be stationary when you enter the box, or when you stop; this makes a huge difference. Presumbaly it needs a test case

There is also a user on Pepipoo who is an expert on what the specs of the box markings must be: I think he has founds several that are invalid.

If you plead not guilty thereby forcing a trial I think I'm right in saying you can then request the video evidence which must be served 7 days before the trial. (The photograph you received is usually just to identify the vehicle, it's not actually the evidence). This may help prove your innocence, but if it doesn't this route can still help.

In a lot of the speeding cases I've read about the police seem pretty reluctant to give out these videos to the accused, giving reasons of data protection and suchlike (which are not actually true). And when this 'failure to disclose evidence' occurs, the evidence cannot then be used in court, and so the case falls apart in the courtroom.

You need your wits about you in the courtroom though. From what I've read on PePiPoo it makes claiming back bank charges look like a walk in the park!

You need your wits about you in the courtroom though. From what I've read on PePiPoo it makes claiming back bank charges look like a walk in the park!

No sh*t Sherlock LOL

Criminal courts have a MUCH higher burden of proof ("beyond reasonable doubt" as opposed to "on the balance of probabilities"). This makes the atmosphere and attitude of the court far, FAR more formal, and NO lenience is given for an inexperienced litigant. In a criminal case, if you're the Accused, GET A BLOODY LAWYER - lol.

I've decided to appeal and have sent this letter:

Dear Sir/Madam

I have just received a notice for a pcn offence. It states that I 'stopped in a box when prohibited'. It was apparently observed by a real time camera.


The actual circumstances were:-
- I was stopped at the red traffic lights when they changed green.
- The cars ahead of me proceeded across the box with me following the car in front into the box as the exit was clear.
- I was about to leave the box on the other side when the cars ahead of me suddenly came to a halt and I was stuck on the edge of the box.

The accompanying photo shows my car stopped behind a white car which was proceeding out of the box when it suddenly stopped forcing me to stop in the box.

I believe that for this fine and enforcement notice to be legal there needs to be a photo showing my vehicle entering the box whilst a stationary vehicle was blocking my exit from the box. As you have not provided this evidence to me I am contesting this fine.

1. The quote below supports my argument as it states that a vehicle shouldn’t enter a box junction if that box junction has stationary vehicles in it, this wasn’t the case with me as I believe the exit had no stationary vehicles when I entered the box.

Statutory Instrument 2002 No. 3113 The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002
Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, Schedule 19 Part 2 paragraph 7. This provides as follows.

7 (1) Except when placed in the circumstances described in paragraph 8, [box junctions] 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. I have also enclosed a PATAS ruling referring to the case of TFL v Place Invaders ltd. In this appeal, the defendant won their case against TFL, the ruling clearly states that ‘the prohibition refers to causing the vehicle to enter the box’. With evidence needed to show that (quote)..’the entry of the vehicle into the box….will lead to there being a contravention.’

I hope that while this is being investigated the period for paying the £50 fine will be placed on hold. If you are able to provide evidence of me entering the box while at the same time it had a stationary vehicle in it that would have caused me to stop then I will be happy to pay the £50 fine.


To summarise:
As you have not provided evidence that I entered the box when there was a presence of any stationary vehicles I am appealing against this PCN.

Thanks Glenn.

Will let you all know what happens.

There may in fact be additional pictures of the event taken either side of the one provided which may additionally be used to support their case that as the exit was NOT clear, you should not have proceeded - anyway, I'm on your side, good luck!

Anyone know how Tsilver's appeal turned out? I'm in the middle of appealing a penalty charge from TfL in almost identical circumstances, except that in our case we have the additional defence that the car in front stopped well short of the car in front of him/her, forcing my wife to stop with roughly 50% of our car still in the box. She signalled the driver in front to move further forward, but by the time she got a response, the photographic 'evidence' of the infringement was obtained. Naturally.

I don't know what ice it would cut with the adjudicator, but at no point during the 'infringement' was there any obstruction of traffic either. So this has absolutely nothing to do with traffic management or safety. It is patently no more than a revenue raising exercise, and that ripped-off feeling is enough to put me in the mood for a fight to the .....well, just short of death perhaps.

I note that despite his promise to let us know the result of his appeal, we are once again left hanging to guess the outcome. Shame, because Tsilver could have rendered such sterling service to others caught in a similar predicament. And in the meantime, my guess is that TfL is not just raking it in, but laughing all the way to the bank as well. Yep, I feel a fight coming on, and any advice/tips would be appreciated.