QUOTE (spartacus @ Sep 21 2014, 08:34 PM)
For the record I think it was people who drove over the bridge after passing large bright yellow signs (on BOTH sides of the road) who were using the 'technicality' of them not being lit to get off the offence. In a street lit area, with 3M Diamond Grade reflective film making up the sign and a yellow backing board, they can't exactly be said to blend in with the background. They stand out like a dog's... ermm.... Well they just stand out that's all.....
Thanks for the update re the signage of zones.
As for the bridge, no-one was risking overloading the bridge by driving a car over it, and it is traffic-light controlled. No-one was at risk, no-one died. The only alleged harm was a supposed breach of a law, that law being a purely technical piece of legislation. 'Do not pass this road sign'.
The law is binary; something is either illegal or it isn't. When someone is penalised for breaking a regulation, it is only fair and reasonable that the regulation, and its enforcement, should be clear and unambiguous. Ideas about 'substantive compliance' is nonsense that some people bandy about; grey areas in law should not be introduced when regulations such as road sign specifications are printed black and white.
The road signs supposedly enforcing a technical regulation did not themselves technically comply with the law. It is unjust to allow the council a technical breach in order to create a supposed technical crime by a driver when one was not committed.
When councillors and state apparachniks think otherwise, it is time to stand up to them.