M42 Fonts on signs / Conviction

Chopper_Read

Tilt wrote: »

Well if you want my honest opinion, you're not going to like it.

I'm a regular user of that stretch of road myself and it is quite clear to me what the signs mean. I think it's just some clever lawyer who has found out that the font isn't quite right and isn't consitant with the traffic signs manual and want's to make a few quid out of it. But lets remember that these are electronic signs so they are going to be slightly different to that you normally see mounted on a post. But I for one know what they are telling me.

From a good driver pint of view, do they really need to be fully compliant to get you to drive at a safe speed? But then again, I believe that the motorway speed limit should be increased but this being a motorway interchange, then a drop by 10 mph is pretty sensible to me.

As for whether your conviction should be quashed... well that would depend on what speed you were clocked at doing. If it was no more than 70mph, then I would say yes. If it was no more than 75mph then I would say maybe. More than say 80mph, then it would be a no.

It matters not what speed he was doing. If the signs are not complaint they can't be enforced.

HPJ888

Chopper_Read wrote: »

It matters not what speed he was doing. If the signs are not complaint they can't be enforced.

Exactly....I hope.

Tilt

So you were exceeding the normal limit anyway. Although that still dosn't warrant 6 points IMHO, I can't see you getting it quashed. I think even with duff signs, the 70 mph limit will still apply. Unless there was anything else, maybe you could get it reduced by 3 points and a lower fine.

Chopper_Read

HPJ888 wrote: »

I was doing 81 in a 50. Totally my mistake. I thought it was 70 and I was only doing a little over the limit.

But, the British legal system, used all over the world, is built on the premise that a conviction must be lawful. Whether I was over the limit or not, if the conviction is unlawful for whatever reason, it has to be quashed. I know it's a loophole but we all have to take the rough with the smooth.

Quite right you were convicted for exceeding the 50-mph limit not for doing 81. As the 50 limit was not lawful your conviction is unsafe.

As for exceeding the nsl where tilt appears to be going, well the limitation of proceedings is up for that.

HPJ888

Tilt wrote: »

So you were exceeding the normal limit anyway. Although that still dosn't warrant 6 points IMHO, I can't see you getting it quashed. I think even with duff signs, the 70 mph limit will still apply. Unless there was anything else, maybe you could get it reduced by 3 points and a lower fine.

I love it if it was quashed, but recognise it might not be. Still lower points and a rebate on the fine would be welcomed.

Tilt

Chopper_Read wrote: »

It matters not what speed he was doing. If the signs are not complaint they can't be enforced.

So 100mph through there would be ok then with no recourse at all? I think you will find that the 70 mph signs at the start of the motorway would still be compliant.

Tilt

HPJ888 wrote: »

I love it if it was quashed, but recognise it might not be. Still lower points and a rebate on the fine would be welcomed.

I think that would be a good outcome.

Chopper_Read

Tilt wrote: »

So you were exceeding the normal limit anyway. Although that still dosn't warrant 6 points IMHO, I can't see you getting it quashed. I think even with duff signs, the 70 mph limit will still apply. Unless there was anything else, maybe you could get it reduced by 3 points and a lower fine.

He'll get the conviction over turned.

He hasn't been prosecuted for exceeding the nsl and time was up for that at the end of October.


Another tilt fail.

Chopper_Read

Tilt wrote: »

So 100mph through there would be ok then with no recourse at all? I think you will find that the 70 mph signs at the start of the motorway would still be compliant.

It was 12 months ago and speeding is a summary offence.

HPJ888

Chopper_Read wrote: »

Another tilt fail.

Now now this is about the M42 & me, let's not resort to boring internet forum antics.

Question is, should I write a letter to the court / police myself, or go through a solicitor? Has anyone on here done this and if so what route did you take?