Full story here, dated this past Friday. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21719322)
QuoteThousands of motorway speeding convictions could be overturned because the font used to display the numbers on some variable speed limit signs may not have complied with traffic regulations.
The Crown Prosecution Service said the signs showed mph numbers taller and narrower than they should have been.
The signs are used to reduce congestion on busy stretches of motorway.
The CPS alerted Warwickshire Police last November to the irregularity of the signs on the M42 west of Coventry.
Some lawyers and traffic consultants now want any penalties that were handed out over the course of the six years the signs were in place to be quashed, arguing they are not legally enforceable.
The Highways Agency, which installed the signs, said it believed they were the right size and were clearly visible to motorists.
The signs were on two stretches of the M42, between junctions 3a and seven and junctions seven to nine.
....
The end of the story notes that the signs are still in place because a waiver was granted.
Although I'm against speeding fines and tickets, on this occasion even though the font isn't that which is prescribed on UK signs it is still clear what the speed limit is when they are illuminated. The cost of replacing all the LED's is surely not worth it just to make the numbers a slightly different shape.
If only this argument worked in the US. Then we could ignore all those Arial speed limit signs!
Quote from: Duke87 on March 14, 2013, 09:09:26 PM
If only this argument worked in the US. Then we could ignore all those Arial speed limit signs!
What if I only agree to Arial, LeHay, and Clarendon typefaces? I mean, besides requiring a really good insanity plea?
Quote from: Duke87 on March 14, 2013, 09:09:26 PM
If only this argument worked in the US. Then we could ignore all those Arial speed limit signs!
Plus almost everything in clearview, given how many agencies violate the FHWA guidelines.
FHWA or bust!
Kill the Clearview!
(Why'd the visibility suddenly drop?)
On the general topic of traffic citations overturned because of defects in the signage legally required to effectuate the underlying restriction, there is the (possibly apocryphal) story of a "No stopping" ticket dismissed because the sign actually said "No stoping" (stoping is actually a word and refers to underground excavation) and the prosecution did not produce evidence that the offender had, in fact, stoped:
http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?p=945900
I would not have any qualms about mounting a technical defense to a traffic ticket on the basis of failure to use approved typefaces. The MUTCD requires that signs use the FHWA alphabet series or some other typeface that is covered by an interim approval. Most traffic offenses are based on the doctrine of strict liability, which has to cut both ways in order to be administered fairly.