Got some further support from theyellowboxguru, and here is the new AI generated text
Having meticulously reviewed the video evidence provided, and considering the circumstances, I contend that no contravention occurred, or alternatively, that any alleged contravention was unavoidable and therefore should be cancelled. My grounds for appeal are as follows:
Safety and Unavoidable Circumstances due to Severe Tailgating:
As is clearly visible in the provided video evidence, my vehicle was being severely tailgated by a motorbike as I approached the yellow box junction. This dangerous proximity left me with no safe option to stop prior to entering the yellow box. Had I attempted an abrupt stop to avoid the box, a rear-end collision with the tailgating motorbike would have been highly probable, posing a significant risk to myself, the motorcyclist, and other road users. My primary concern was road safety, and my action to proceed was a direct response to avoiding an immediate accident. As soon as it was safe to do so, I brought my vehicle to a halt. The Highway Code implicitly encourages drivers to avoid creating hazards, and my actions were a direct consequence of an unsafe situation created by another road user.
Disproportionate Box Junction Length and Irrelevant Stop Location:
The yellow box marking at [Exact Location] is excessively long and extends significantly beyond what would typically be considered the functional area of a box junction. As demonstrated in your video evidence, my vehicle came to a stop at the near end of this extended box, specifically in the segment that extends beyond the visible fire station access. This particular portion of the yellow box is not in an area that facilitates any cross-traffic or directly impacts the flow of vehicles exiting or entering a primary junction. My brief stop in this specific segment did not, in fact, cause any obstruction to cross-traffic or impede the normal flow of vehicles in any meaningful way, which is the sole purpose of box junction markings. The presence of markings in this extended area raises questions about the box junction's compliance with regulatory guidelines, where markings should only cover the area necessary to prevent obstruction at a genuine junction.
Nature of the Contravention and Implied Movement:
The contravention code 31J specifies "entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited." My argument is that the evidence provided does not definitively prove a 'prohibited stop' within the meaning of the regulations. Given the significant distance between my vehicle and the stationary car at the exit, it is entirely plausible that, instead of a complete stop, I was merely "crawling" through the box junction at an extremely slow, walking pace. Such slow movement is often visually indistinguishable from a brief stop in video footage, and is permissible if one is still actively intending to clear the box. Crucially, the video's conclusion does not demonstrate that my vehicle would have remained stationary, nor does it prove that I would have reached the stationary vehicle before moving clear of the box. The fundamental purpose of a box junction is to prevent obstruction; in my position, no actual obstruction to any clear traffic flow or entry/exit movements occurred.
Procedural Impropriety – Misleading Payment Instructions:
I also wish to highlight a procedural impropriety in the Penalty Charge Notice itself. The PCN states that I have "28 days from the date of service" to pay the penalty charge before it increases. However, in other sections, it refers to timeframes in relation to the "date of notice." This inconsistency is confusing and misleading. A PCN must be clear and unambiguous regarding payment terms and deadlines. The discrepancy between "date of service" and "date of notice" introduces an unacceptable level of uncertainty regarding the precise deadline for payment at the discounted rate and when the full charge becomes payable. This ambiguity prejudices my ability to understand my rights and obligations fully, and therefore constitutes a procedural impropriety, rendering the PCN invalid.
In conclusion, I respectfully request that you consider the compelling safety reasons for my unavoidable entry into the box, the irrelevant and disproportionate location of my stop within an excessively long box junction, the lack of definitive proof of a prohibited stop given the context of slow movement, and the procedural error present on the PCN itself.
I trust that a thorough and fair review of the evidence and these points will lead to the cancellation of Penalty Charge Notice [Your PCN Number].
I look forward to your prompt response.
