Heard something on a Radio5L news bulletin in the night about a court having ruled some aspect of the M42 variable limit scheme illegal/unlawful. I think signage but possibly the cameras.
Only on once and I cannot find anything on Google except puffery for Solicitors practice offering to 'get you off' over an issue with the limit signs.
Anybody seen/know more?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 9 Mar 13 at 10:26
|
Thanks ON.
That is consistent with the lawyers advert Google turned up. I ceertainly did not get anything from mainstream media. OTOH it's last year so odd that it turned up on early hours news on 09/03.
Obviously, my Google search string was wrong.
|
|
I was just lucky, it helps with my lack of computer skills. :-)
|
|
I heard it on R4 this morning, IIRC.
Last edited by: bathtub tom on Sat 9 Mar 13 at 11:50
|
|
de minimis non curat lex. Much ado about nothing:)
|
>> de minimis non curat lex. Much ado about nothing:)
The law is not concerned with trifles.
Great minds think alike, I was about to post the same bit of legal latin.
It seems that there was a 'precautionary' suspension of prosecutions while this issue was resolved. I think (hope) anybody trying to get a FPN or conviction set aside will get thrown on on principle NIL quotes.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 9 Mar 13 at 12:44
|
|
You need the correct font and dimensions on a numberplate, they are anal about those so they should use the correct dimensions and fonts on signs which are far more important.
|
Purely hypothetically of course, I mean, one wouldn't in any way condone the deliberate application of such subterfuge under any reasonable circumstances, naturally, but...
If, theoretically of course, one allowed one's numberplates to become so dirty as to be illegible to speed cameras one might reasonably expect to have this oversight occasionally pointed out by a police type person. In that event one might, as charmingly as possible, express dismay at said oversight and offer to clean them immediately with one's handily available window duster and apologise profusely for any inconvenience caused.
Not that I know anyone who would do this intentionally, that would be quite wrong...
|
|
Dirty sods those GLEC drivers.....
|
Not all of them ! Mine will be washed almost certainly without fail on Easter weekend in plenty of time for the Summer. Not that it has been a neglected task over the Winter either, it was definitely rinsed off at Christmas...
Oh and the dealer washed it at it's service in early Feb so...
Last edited by: Humph D'Bout on Sat 9 Mar 13 at 14:51
|
Quite long piece about this on today's Five Live Investigates from 11:00. Presumably available a listen again or podcast.
Ex Copper turned road signs expert was trying to make case that as signs were non-compliant conviction was unlawful. Could see that if authority invented signs of its own and tried to fine but for a sign with an unequivocal meaning one hopes a court would say signage was substantially compliant.
Seems the convicted can apply to the Mags Ct to have cases re-opened but that beaks will only do so in 'interests of justice'.
Would be interesting to know how wrong font got into system. Given the approved version looks like it came from an eighties video game I'd hazard a guess a techy thought 'we can do better than that'!!
|
>> a sign with an unequivocal meaning one hopes a court would say signage was substantially compliant
This is what I would have thought. Even if the signs' font was outside legally recognised parameters, their meaning couldn't possibly have been in question.
|
|
Technicalities do matter, though Dave. I mean, OJ Simpson's meaning was never in question, was it?
|
"This is what I would have thought. Even if the signs' font was outside legally recognised parameters, their meaning couldn't possibly have been in question."
That's like saying it's obvious he only meant to drive below the speed limit.
|
>> "This is what I would have thought. Even if the signs' font was outside legally
>> recognised parameters, their meaning couldn't possibly have been in question."
>>
>> That's like saying it's obvious he only meant to drive below the speed limit.
Eh?
You can disagree all you like with speed limits in general or their application at a particular place and time.
The meaning of the signs at this site/time was, notwithstanding a few misplaced pixels, obvious to anybody with a brain.
If you think it should be different campaign via officials, MP or whatever. But while a signed limit is there you disregard it at your own risk.
|
>The meaning of the signs at this site/time was, notwithstanding a few misplaced pixels,
>obvious to anybody with a brain.
Surely anybody with a brain would have checked that the signs complied with regulations before spending millions of taxpayers cash?
How far do you let those misplaced pixels deviate from the regulations before they become un-enforceable and who decides where that point is?
Isn't that the whole point of having standards and regulations?
|
The old variable limit signs on the M25, closely resemble the look of the static speed limit signs seen everywhere.
The ones on the M42, and the new ones on the M1, are noticeably different. I would have thought someone would have questioned and checked the legitimacy earlier.
However, at the end of the day, standards or consistency aside, you could hardly mistake them for anything other than they display, that being a valid speed limit.
|
>However, at the end of the day, standards or consistency aside, you could hardly mistake
>them for anything other than they display, that being a valid speed limit.
I'll repeat:
"How far do you let those misplaced pixels deviate from the regulations before they become un-enforceable and who decides where that point is?"
|
>> >However, at the end of the day, standards or consistency aside, you could hardly mistake
>> >them for anything other than they display, that being a valid speed limit.
>>
>> I'll repeat:
>>
>> "How far do you let those misplaced pixels deviate from the regulations before they become
>> un-enforceable and who decides where that point is?"
I'll clarify for you, the point where they could be mistaken for something they are not. In this case, it is clearly nowhere near that point.
|
>I'll clarify for you, the point where they could be mistaken for something they are not.
Who decides where that point is? You? Me? The local Safety Camera Partnership?
>In this case, it is clearly nowhere near that point.
I agree the signs are pretty obvious, I travel that route fairly frequently.
The point I am trying to make is that if the regulations go as far as to stipulate in minute detail the permitted dimensions, tolerances and the "Proportions and form of letters, numerals and other characters" then those dimensions must be adhered to. They are not open to a subjective assessment of "Nah, that's close enough."
Any convictions based on those signs should be quashed and the signs replaced or the regulations ammended to allow them.
|
|
Point of detail only, and the convictions can hardly be challenged on a trivial detail. A substantial failure to sign OK. Let it be put to the courts to decide as a test case. Association of Bwitish Drivers territory perhaps.:)
|
>> Who decides where that point is? You? Me? The local Safety Camera Partnership?
>>
A court. Simple test, was the signage substantially complaint so that a motorist would be in no doubt as to its meaning. The Parking Adjudicators have certainly gone that way with yellow lines and I think there's also authority from the Appeal Court in other motoring cases.
|
>A court. Simple test, was the signage substantially complaint so that a motorist would be in
>no doubt as to its meaning.
Yes, Simple test. Was the signage in compliance with the regulations in force at the time?
>The Parking Adjudicators have certainly gone that way with yellow lines..
The only case I can find on the Parking Adjudicators website is where an appellant's appeal was dismissed when they complained that the yellow lines were "not at all distinct".
"The Adjudicator said that the Regulations provided that a council's lines shall be of the size, colour and type shown on [the] diagram. In his opinion, it was not the law that the lines should be in a perfect condition all of the time; councils could not be expected to repaint them at regular intervals or every time road repairs may have created minor diversions. What was important was whether or not the state and quality of the lines at any one time made it clear to motorists that there were in fact double yellow lines there."
My interpretation of that statement is that fair wear and tear is acceptable but they must have originally complied with "the size, colour and type shown."
>and I think there's also authority from the Appeal Court in other motoring cases.
The first few pages of a google search doesn't help there. Do you have a URL?
|
Kevin,
I've no URL for the superior court authority, just recollection. Probably they'd decided that a sixties case, referred form Magistrates in Wales, to do with badly painted continuous white lines between lanes was no longer good law.
So far as Parking Adjudicators were concerned I think the issue was about people fixating on T bars at the end of restrictions and looking hundreds of yards round a corner to prove clear and obvious double yellow lines were "invalid".
|
The camera on the Insignia reads the signs which suggests that they broadly conform to the specifications.
Personally, I find the taller numbers on these signs and better (high resolution) fonts on the new gantries much easier to read.
Waiting for the day they switch the cameras to "ticket mode" on the M25 since the fines will roll in nicely for a couple of weeks (probably including me...).
|
M42 Variable Limit - Illegal Signage? - Old Navy
