Shock News: Judge makes common sense rulling

[threaded]

Like I said, common sense is what's needed on both sides. If the sign is placed in good faith and anyone with an ounce of sense can understand it, then that should be good enough.

No, first off the law is the law, and the judge should of applied the law.

Secondly who says the sign was placed in good faith? It doesn't take a genious to see it doesn't look like an offical sign. So common-sense might say it's some home made crap placed there by a nutter.

[The Lone Gunman]

Like I said, common sense is what's needed on both sides. If the sign is placed in good faith and anyone with an ounce of sense can understand it, then that should be good enough.

That is the point Bob. Law is not based on common sense, good faith and good enough. The law has to be exact. Otherwise we get into arguments about what costitutes "good enough".

[Sockpuppet]

That is the point Bob. Law is not based on common sense, good faith and good enough. The law has to be exact. Otherwise we get into arguments about what costitutes "good enough".

The law exact? I suppose you've never heard the accounting experssion "a true and fair view". Thats technically law.

[Sockpuppet]

No, first off the law is the law, and the judge should of applied the law.

Secondly who says the sign was placed in good faith? It doesn't take a genious to see it doesn't look like an offical sign. So common-sense might say it's some home made crap placed there by a nutter.

Anyone got a photo of said offending sign.

[Spacecadet]

Anyone got a photo of said offending sign.

there's only the quotes from the case:
The lawyers for six motorists argued the signs were "not prescribed signs" as the thin border on them affected the drivers' visibility.

Sir Igor said the thin black border on the sign did not affect the visibility of the sign and therefore no regulation was breached.

So going from this; the numbering size, colour, red border, sign size and shape were not called in to doubt by either the defence of the prosecution. The only issue was a "thin black border" on the outside of the sign.

It is impossible to pass personal judgement without seeing an actual photo of the sign

[Spacecadet]

bit more here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1386908.ece

Richard Sharpe, counsel for the six motorists, who brought the challenge with the backing of the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association, said that they all accepted that they had been driving faster than 20mph when caught on camera between June and August 2005. But, he said, there was effectively no enforceable speed restriction in place on the bridge because of the casing around the illuminated signs at the entrance to the 20mph zone. Mr Sharpe said that this casing, a thin black lip or border, was not prescribed by the regulations, which rendered the whole sign unlawful.

But Sir Igor Judge, President of the High Court’s Queen’s Bench Division, said that the overall visibility of the sign was not obstructed by the border and there was no question of a motorist being misled.

He said the trim was virtually invisible to drivers, meaning that there was no breach of the 1984 Act, adding: “This is somewhat of a relief as the appeal was based entirely on a technicality that was utterly devoid of merit and should be dismissed.”

His colleague Mr Justice Lloyd Jones said that even if the signs did not comply with the regulations, the complaint was misconceived and was “so minor that it may be disregarded”.

[Cowboy Bob]

That is the point Bob. Law is not based on common sense, good faith and good enough. The law has to be exact. Otherwise we get into arguments about what costitutes "good enough".

As a motorist you have to ask yourself whether fit either of these two statements:-

"I saw the sign, I knew what it meant, but I also knew it was an illegal sign so I ignored it knowing I would get away with it"

or

"I saw the sign, but genuinely had no idea as to what it meant"

The judgement in this case was to successfully allow the prosecution of the people who were claiming that they fell under the first statement, which is entirely correct in my opinion.

[Ardesco]

We have laws for a reason, if there are ways to get around them they are obviously ill conceived laws and need to be changed accordingly.

In this case the council broke the law which says you must not have black borders around your signs, making the signs invalid, ergo the motorist did not have to obey said sign. The motorist could quite easily argue that they new the sign was invalid so they ignored it and they would be on the right side of the law.

This is a farce, much like the government and thier backdating tax changes rubbish.

[Spacecadet]

In this case the council broke the law which says you must not have black borders around your signs,

If you read my previous post.. The border was not part of the sign, it was part of the casing (from what i read this implies the casing needed to provide back lighting illumination to improve visibility at night)
The judge ruled that the casing did not obstruct drivers view of the sign and so no regulation had been breached.

So the council had not broken any law.

[The Lone Gunman]

As a motorist you have to ask yourself whether fit either of these two statements:-

"I saw the sign, I knew what it meant, but I also knew it was an illegal sign <TLG emphasis> so I ignored it knowing I would get away with it"

or

"I saw the sign, but genuinely had no idea as to what it meant"

The judgement in this case was to successfully allow the prosecution of the people who were claiming that they fell under the first statement, which is entirely correct in my opinion.

If the sign is illegal then there should be no case to answer. It appears that this case depends on whether the signs are illegal or not. Judge says no and from what spacecadet has posted the judge was right.

I stand by my previous statement. Roadsigns have to conform to be regarded as road signs.

As I asked you before, when do they become unrecognisable so I do not have to obey them? If it is a judgement call then it is no good to motorists.
I have to be able to recognise a road sign without any doubt whatsoever.