DavidBrown wrote:I'm sorry, but if anyone seriously thinks that this road is a 50 or a 60 limit, they deserve to lose their licence for good.
But the point is not that he genuinely believed the speed limit was different to what it actually was, but that he had a valid defence because the signs were incorrect and therefore the limit was unenforceable.
It is fundamental to the administration of justice that:
(a) accused people should not be required to incriminate themselves, and
(b) the authorities must follow correct procedures
If, for example, the police break into your house without a warrant and ransack it, any evidence of criminal activity they find would be inadmissible in court.
There are lots of potential grey areas in speed limit signing and many locations where a missing 30 sign would be far more ambiguous than the one referred to. As I said in an earlier post, if the law was changed to introduce a concept of "reasonable interpretation" it would be a field day for lawyers.
In your driving career so far, have you ever exceeded a speed limit, even by 1 mph? And if so, did you immediately drive to the nearest police station to turn yourself in? If not, why not?