In article , Roland Perry
writes
There isn't a contradiction here. You can arrive at a box junction whose
exit [ahead] is clear, but there's a car already in the box, travelling
forwards. As long as you can predict that the car ahead doesn't stop in
the box (that would be an offence committed by him, but it would also
cause you to commit an offence) then the SI is satisfied.

What if he stops with his rear bumper just clear of the box?

[This has happened many times at the Castle Hill traffic lights. There's
about a car-length between the stop line on Victoria Road and the box,
and another two between the box and the next stop line.]

--
Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address

Conor wrote:
In article ,
says...
In article , Conor
writes
But what if your exit road is clear when you go into the box, but
gets blocked by oncoming cars turning left and then witing in a
queue? :-)

The law makes clear that this is allowed (if you are turning
right), even though the highway code does not.

Except you'll still get fined. That situatuion was what caused me to
get my one and only fine.

Sounds like a miscarriage of justice. Take it to the Appeal Court !!

It was on a roundabout at the top of the Tyne Tunnel. I was in an
artic and the coppers were stood on the island just taking down
numbers. Cars pulled out infront of me and I was forced to stop with
2ft overhanging.

If it was on a roundabout then the exception about waiting to turn right
wouldn't apply. (I assume you weren't waiting to go round the roundabout the
wrong way!)
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

In article , Clive D. W. Feather
writes
There isn't a contradiction here. You can arrive at a box junction whose
exit [ahead] is clear, but there's a car already in the box, travelling
forwards. As long as you can predict that the car ahead doesn't stop in
the box (that would be an offence committed by him, but it would also
cause you to commit an offence) then the SI is satisfied.

What if he stops with his rear bumper just clear of the box?

If he does that with clear space ahead of him, it fits the intended
scenario above. But yes, I suppose there is another case where he
vexatiously stops just past the box with clear road in front of him.

If he stops there because there's stationary traffic in front of him,
you are at fault because in the SI prohibits entering if your:

"vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the
presence of stationary vehicles.

But doesn't actually say *where* those stationary vehicles are. In this
case they are one ahead of the car in front of you.

[This has happened many times at the Castle Hill traffic lights. There's about a
car-length between the stop line on Victoria Road and the box, and another two
between the box and the next stop line.]

That's a generally very difficult junction.
--
"It used to be that what a writer did was type a bit and then stare out of the
window a bit, type a bit, stare out of the window a bit. Networked computers
make these two activities converge, because now the thing you type on and the
window you stare out of are the same thing" - Douglas Adams 28/1/99.

As I said, I do intend to pay the fine (which will double if I do not
do so soon), but what with all these loop holes associated with bus
lane cameras and speed cameras, I was genuinely interested in knowing
whether there were similar loop holes associated with box junctions.

Since the penalty notice my awareness of box junctions has increased,
and my driving improved, so good will come of this. I am not the type
of person to challenge the law when I know I have done wrong.

And next time you can't get through a junction because some
self-centred idiot who doesn't give a **** about anyone else apart from
him (or her) self and getting where they want to go is blocking the
junction. You just keep your fingers crossed and pray to God that the
idiot blocking all the traffic manages to find a loop-hole and get out
of paying that fine.

And on a slightly different note, can I just mention that bloody idiot
pedestrians who casually walk across crossings a good 4-5 seconds after
their light has gone red, are equally, if not more so, to blame for
congestion in cities. But do they get fined? Do they ****. I've not heard
of a single prosecution for anything like the offence known as jaywalking in
the states.

Peter

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 18:06:18 +0100, Robert Woolley
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 17:45:20 +0100, "AstraVanMan"
wrote:


And on a slightly different note, can I just mention that bloody idiot
pedestrians who casually walk across crossings a good 4-5 seconds after
their light has gone red, are equally, if not more so, to blame for
congestion in cities. But do they get fined? Do they ****. I've not heard
of a single prosecution for anything like the offence known as jaywalking in
the states.

There's no equivalent offence in the uk.

Though I'm sure there are some offences that can be used.

--
Bob.

The facts expressed here belong to everybody, the opinions to me. The
distinction is yours to draw...

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 17:45:20 +0100, "AstraVanMan"
wrote:


And on a slightly different note, can I just mention that bloody idiot
pedestrians who casually walk across crossings a good 4-5 seconds after
their light has gone red, are equally, if not more so, to blame for
congestion in cities. But do they get fined? Do they ****. I've not heard
of a single prosecution for anything like the offence known as jaywalking in
the states.

There's no equivalent offence in the uk.


Rob.
--
rob at robertwoolley dot co dot uk

And on a slightly different note, can I just mention that bloody idiot
pedestrians who casually walk across crossings a good 4-5 seconds after
their light has gone red, are equally, if not more so, to blame for
congestion in cities. But do they get fined? Do they ****. I've not
heard
of a single prosecution for anything like the offence known as jaywalking
in
the states.

There's no equivalent offence in the uk.

There bloody should be. Pedestrians crossing when the green man is no
longer green (so off-colour that in fact he's red) cause just as much
congestion problems as cars blocking up box junctions. Especially when it's
not just the odd one or two, but twenty or thirty of them - as it is more
often than not. Half the time they don't even ****ing look when they cross.

Peter

And on a slightly different note, can I just mention that bloody idiot
pedestrians who casually walk across crossings a good 4-5 seconds
after their light has gone red, are equally, if not more so, to blame
for congestion in cities. But do they get fined? Do they ****. I've
not heard of a single prosecution for anything like the offence known
as jaywalking in the states.

Charing X road (outside Leicester Sq tube) is a favourite for that one.
Almost cycled into one (pdestiran) there today, they were not even looking
if any traffic was coming (me on my bike + big Mercedes).

It's that exact area that I was thinking about actually. Particularly the
Cambridge Circus junction approaching from Holborn on Shaftesbury Avenue,
and crossing Picadilly Circus (well, right next to it anyway) from Great
Windmill Street, going over to Haymarket. The timing of the traffic lights
is designed to let approximately x cars through, and it is a right royal
pain in the neck when ignorant pedestrians reduce this on many occasions to
less than half what it should be.

Peter

"Michael R N Dolbear" wrote in message
news:01c363fb$3db94900$3a0de150@default...

Robert Woolley wrote in article
...
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 09:51:15 +0100, "Peter Crosland"
wrote:

They have the same status as a STOP sign and there does not need to
be any
other for them to take effect.

STOP signs have to be authorised by the Department for Transport.

And if a moronist is prosecuted for not stopping, does the
authorisation order have to be produced to the court ?

Nope. Its for the defendant to prove that the order doesn't exist.
Most people will stop at a STOP sign - the sign + thick white line
plus other clues like, restricted visibility usually give the game away.

/john

"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message,

The wording appears to have changed. It *was* something like "...
oncoming traffic going ahead or also turning right". In other words,
*one* car can wait on the box to turn right from each direction, but
that's all; the second car in each queue must wait to enter the box,
just as when going straight ahead.

--
Rule 99 of the 1978 HC says '....you may enter the box when you want to
turn right and are prevented from doing so only by oncoming traffic or by
vehicles waiting to make a right turn.' Which is very similar to the 1999 HC
except for the word 'stopped' being used instead of 'prevented', and a
couple of commas thrown in. So I think you are wrong. More than one car
can queue in the box to turn right, but only if the exit to the right is
clear for them all once the oncoming traffic has ceased blocking the way.

Ian