Been caught speeding on the M42?

Where's the ... "Sensational reporting from the Daily Fail" brigade?
 
I have always felt the font was a poor choice for readability! Also they are too darn bright!
 
gramps said:
Where's the ... "Sensational reporting from the Daily Fail" brigade?
Click to expand...

Probably with speeding tickets and frightened to admit the DM's story means they can get their money back.:lol:
 
nilagin said:
Probably with speeding tickets and frightened to admit the DM's story means they can get their money back.:lol:
Click to expand...

Or perhaps they were prosecuted for speeds over 70mph. I'd suggest that it might be difficult to claim that a sign indicating a speed limit of 60mph in the wrong font means that the national limit of 70mph no longer applies either.
 
I think that if the intent is not ambiguous, the prosecution should stand.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
I think that if the intent is not ambiguous, the prosecution should stand.
Click to expand...

Doesn't work like that, the state has to obey the law just as much as the public. The government makes laws which specify what speed limits are and how they must be signed. If they are not correctly signed, they are not valid and therefore not enforceable.

Just so everyone understands, I have never been prosecuted for speeding on the M42, or indeed anywhere, ever. I mention this because it seems that certain forum members think anyone disagreeing must have a vested interest :cuckoo:.
 
hmmm.. should fines be overturned etc.. will then go to insurers to repay the difference for the loading for having convictions.... and if have changed insurers over the years as many have.. is going to get really messy!!!
 
The real issue should be how the Highways Agency failed to get this right in the first place either by using the correct font or by getting the use of these signs incorporated into legislation by the Dept. of Transport (as has subsequently been done). It's not rocket surgery!

And what about people out there that have been banned under totting up rules as a result of this - maybe even lost their job. I wonder if there's any comeback for consequential losses?

onomatopoeia said:
Just so everyone understands, I have never been prosecuted for speeding on the M42, or indeed anywhere, ever. I mention this because it seems that certain forum members think anyone disagreeing must have a vested interest :cuckoo:.
Click to expand...

I bet you're somehow associated with the sign manufacturer :D
 
onomatopoeia said:
Doesn't work like that, the state has to obey the law just as much as the public. The government makes laws which specify what speed limits are and how they must be signed. If they are not correctly signed, they are not valid and therefore not enforceable.
Click to expand...

Same reason you can be fined for having a registration plate on your car using typeface that does not conform to legal standards, whether it is legible or not.
 
Spuff said:
The real issue should be how the Highways Agency failed to get this right in the first place either by using the correct font or by getting the use of these signs incorporated into legislation by the Dept. of Transport (as has subsequently been done). It's not rocket surgery!
Click to expand...

They couldn't enact legislation to retrospectively make the signs legal, though.

Failure of the DoT to ensure the signage was legal is a fair point, though.
 
The premise of "innocent until proven guilty" is a tenet of the British judiciary. However, the automated speeding fine is a breach of due process in that you're presumed guilty unless and until you prove your innocence in court.

To address this contradiction, the CPS has to err on the side of the public and to rage against the machine.
 
i'm just wondering what excuse they will look for, when all those that use this as a get out clause are caught speeding next time
 
SimonH said:
The premise of "innocent until proven guilty" is a tenet of the British judiciary. However, the automated speeding fine is a breach of due process in that you're presumed guilty unless and until you prove your innocence in court.
Click to expand...

Well.... no. I dislike automated enforcement as I feel it weakens respect for the system of justice, but it doesn't change the presumption of innocence. If you go to court rather than pleading by post, the prosecution still has to present evidence and the magistrate still has to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that you committed the offence.

It it's your car and there is photographic evidence and you have admitted that you were driving, then the case is made. If you claim you weren't driving then you need to present evidence that introduces an element of doubt in the mind of the magistrate.
 
donutagain said:
i'm just wondering what excuse they will look for, when all those that use this as a get out clause are caught speeding next time
Click to expand...

Yup, anyone who seriously says they couldn't read the fonts shouldn't be driving/riding anyway. I wonder if all those who appeal will then put their hands up to all the times they've gone over the limit on properly signposted roads lol.

Do agree that the letter of the law should apply though, the points need to be revoked
 
How on earth do you get caught speeding on the M42, the signs aren't hard to miss, legal or not.
The variable speed limit really works, I used to spend a lot of time stuck in traffic around the M42, now it's a rarity :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top