Want to appeal a Yellow Box PCN

Freefaller · 4 Aug 2017 at 14:49

Dr Who said:
Looks clearly blocked to me, can see the car in front leaving insufficient space.

It's a still picture how can you tell the car isn't moving? What super powers are you using?

Definitely worth contesting - it's a pathetic attempt at extortion.

Firestar_3x · 4 Aug 2017 at 14:52

Freefaller said:
It's a still picture how can you tell the car isn't moving? What super powers are you using?

Exactly, a single frame of a video shows nothing.

Kenai · 4 Aug 2017 at 16:37

Freefaller said:
It's a still picture how can you tell the car isn't moving? What super powers are you using?

Definitely worth contesting - it's a pathetic attempt at extortion.

The exit should be clear enough for your whole car to be able to exit before you enter. It clearly isn't.

It's completely petty but I don't really think this is the avenue to try and wriggle out of it with.

Freefaller · 5 Aug 2017 at 08:28

Yes in the still frame. The car could be moving out of the way. It is not a smoking gun piece of evidence.

kaiowas · 5 Aug 2017 at 08:45

Whilst whether you stopped or not may generally be irrelevant as to whether or not an offence was committed, in this case I'd say it's highly relevant as the contravention code on the PCN states "Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited". ie they are specifically claiming that the car stopped. If they can't prove that it did then you could probably still get it thrown out.

tom_e · 5 Aug 2017 at 08:56

Basically you need the video. Without that it's pointless even debating it.

Freefaller · 5 Aug 2017 at 09:00

Kenai · 5 Aug 2017 at 09:32

Freefaller said:
Yes in the still frame. The car could be moving out of the way. It is not a smoking gun piece of evidence.

It's irrelevant, the car had to be out of the way before he entered the box. It clearly isn't, he won't get far appealing on that basis.

The only chance I see is if you could argue they've effectively stuffed themselves by mentioning stopping even though stopping wasn't necessary to commit the offence and they're also incompetent enough to have binned the video on top of that. I wouldn't hold my breath though.

Freefaller · 5 Aug 2017 at 11:05

Speculation on all of our parts is not going to get us anywhere.

It is impossible to tell from that still.

Ultimately, it's a worthwhile case to take with the council cretins. I've done it before and have yet to pay a PCN that has not been fairly issued. I have paid 2 that have been completely fair where I ****** up. The other half a dozen where not.

There's no point in rolling over if there's a case for reversal. Well to me at least, I'm just not wired that way.

Nasher · 5 Aug 2017 at 11:09

But between both images, both cars are moving. To me these 2 images show 2 cars moving across a junction, not stopped.

andybird123 · 5 Aug 2017 at 11:16

Freefaller said:
Yes in the still frame. The car could be moving out of the way. It is not a smoking gun piece of evidence.

The same car is visibly blocking the exit in 2 stills 7 seconds apart. I find it hard to imagine that same car somehow wasnt there when the focus entered the box.

Nasher said:
But between both images, both cars are moving. To me these 2 images show 2 cars moving across a junction, not stopped.

The same car moved half a car length in 7 seconds... that doesnt sound like flowing traffic, it sounds like something is blocking the exit.

Freefaller · 5 Aug 2017 at 11:26

We'll all have to agree to disagree. Pointless circular argument now.

Kenai · 5 Aug 2017 at 11:56

Freefaller said:
It is impossible to tell from that still.

It's easily possible to see from that still that the exit wasn't clear

"You may enter a yellow box junction when your exit is clear and there is enough space on the other side of the junction for your vehicle to clear the box completely without stopping."

MagicBoy · 5 Aug 2017 at 12:04

Kenai said:
It's easily possible to see from that still that the exit wasn't clear

"You may enter a yellow box junction when your exit is clear and there is enough space on the other side of the junction for your vehicle to clear the box completely without stopping."

This. Suck it up and pay the fine.

Bet your old man won't make that mistake again...

Freefaller · 5 Aug 2017 at 12:40

Costs him nothing to contest. So no.

Nasher · 5 Aug 2017 at 13:12

Yea always contest it when they want that kind of money, which is ridiculous. It costs THEM money to fight it and if there is any doubt at all (like there is here), they will just cancel it rather than invest the time.

Janesy B · 5 Aug 2017 at 15:33

I still didn't get the video but managed to see more pics on the council website and he was stopped at the end of the box for at least 9 seconds. He was expecting traffic to move as the cars further ahead were moving, it didn't and he got caught. Bang to rights really, bit pathetic but there you go.

Freefaller · 5 Aug 2017 at 19:48

Well that's resolved then. I'd probably still appeal. But I like winning.

Nasher · 6 Aug 2017 at 12:11

TBH If it was me I'd probably have hoped in to the other lane and then just cut back in behind the other car once it got moving again

Dr Who · 6 Aug 2017 at 13:15

Freefaller said:
It's a still picture how can you tell the car isn't moving? What super powers are you using?

Definitely worth contesting - it's a pathetic attempt at extortion.

Because the law doesn't care if the car is moving, a common mistake. The exit isn't clear and the following car has clearly entered the box. My superpower is knowing the actual law.