Hypothetical question on speeding

Spook_ie

After driving the wife's Yaris Hybrid earlier, had this thought.

Given all the technology now being introduced to cars such as traffic sign recognition, Yaris has speed sign recognition, if a car computer camera system fails to "see" a speed sign, maybe overgrown or misaligned, would there be a defence available in that the sign wasn't readable by the technology so likely wouldn't have been visible to the driver.

Conversely, if the car "sees" a sign and the driver ignores the warnings and subsequently has a serious crash could the evidence of the car "seeing" the limit sign and any warnings being ignored by the driver constitute a case for dangerous driving?

GM228

Spook_ie wrote: »

After driving the wife's Yaris Hybrid earlier, had this thought.

Given all the technology now being introduced to cars such as traffic sign recognition, Yaris has speed sign recognition, if a car computer camera system fails to "see" a speed sign, maybe overgrown or misaligned, would there be a defence available in that the sign wasn't readable by the technology so likely wouldn't have been visible to the driver.

Conversely, if the car "sees" a sign and the driver ignores the warnings and subsequently has a serious crash could the evidence of the car "seeing" the limit sign and any warnings being ignored by the driver constitute a case for dangerous driving?

Failure of a driver to see a speed sign is no defence and so failure of the car to see a speed sign is irrelevant. It's a strict liability offence, and, also to note speed signs don't actually set speed limits.

With regards to the other query all you are showing is the car read a sign, nothing more, that does not prove in any way the person did see any sign.

hullaballoo

There's no defence to speeding in effect. Unless you can show an equipment fault, once you're shown to have been moving above the limit, you're guilty.

Certainly, though, technology and logs from in-car technology could very well be used in evidence provided it is admissible, subject to the normal rules of evidence. I'm not sure what weight would be given by Courts at the moment if this was seriously tested, though, as this tech is in its infancy and quite unreliable.

GM228

hullaballoo wrote: »

There's no defence to speeding in effect. Unless you can show an equipment fault, once you're shown to have been moving above the limit, you're guilty.

Certainly, though, technology and logs from in-car technology could very well be used in evidence provided it is admissible, subject to the normal rules of evidence. I'm not sure what weight would be given by Courts at the moment if this was seriously tested, though, as this tech is in its infancy and quite unreliable.

Indeed and I'd say there would be all sorts of legal issues such as lawful access to the data in the first instance, reliability of the data, calibration of the equipment, ministerial approval of the equipment for the purpose of proof of speed etc.

Spook_ie

I know in the UK that speed limit signs and if required repeater signs if they are missing give reason for prosecutions to fail, is there nothing like that in Irish law at all?

GM228

Spook_ie wrote: »

I know in the UK that speed limit signs and if required repeater signs if they are missing give reason for prosecutions to fail, is there nothing like that in Irish law at all?

Actually the situation in the UK is limited to very specific circumstances (which also involves street lighting provisions) involving what are known as "restricted roads" and the provisions of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 which provides a defence to speeding offences where speed signs on such roads (which are required to be erected and maintained by an authority) are not so erected or maintained.

It is often incorrectly reported that the defence applies to any missing speed sign in the UK due to the Coombes vs DPP [2006] EWHC 3263 case which allowed an appeal to a speeding conviction where the sign was obscured, however what those reporting often forget is that the case specifically dealt with the defence I outlined above and the judge gave a specific answer to a question specifically relating to that defence within the Act, not an answer on a general defence.

There is no such defence here, in fact the High Court has previously confirmed there are no requirements for speed signs, see this thread.

Victor

Spook_ie wrote: »

I know in the UK that speed limit signs and if required repeater signs if they are missing give reason for prosecutions to fail, is there nothing like that in Irish law at all?

These is no requirement for repeater signs in Ireland, they are a mere matter of convenience. In the UK, the speed limit is 30 mph if there are street lights at a greater frequency than X (I think about 150 yards) unless there is a sign saying otherwise. The speed limit is 60 mph if the frequency is less than X. We don't have such a provision.

Mr. Incognito

As part of the driving test and theory test you are required to know the speed limit on all national roads.

You should not need a sign to know the speed limit.

Spook_ie

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

As part of the driving test and theory test you are required to know the speed limit on all national roads.

You should not need a sign to know the speed limit.

But if there's a special speed limit and you come to an unsignposted end of it, you just aren't going to know that you are back to a national limit.

GM228

Spook_ie wrote: »

But if there's a special speed limit and you come to an unsignposted end of it, you just aren't going to know that you are back to a national limit.

Indeed, but as speed limits are set by legislation as opposed to speed limit signs the principles of ignorantia legis neminem excusat (ignorance is not an excuse) applies in law, speeding is a strict liability offence and so the defence of mistake of fact can't even apply.

Now if speed limits were set by speed limit signs it would be a different matter, but unfortunately they are not.

Spook_ie

GM228 wrote: »

Indeed, but as speed limits are set by legislation as opposed to speed limit signs the principles of ignorantia legis neminem excusat (ignorance is not an excuse) applies in law, speeding is a strict liability offence and so the defence of mistake of fact can't even apply.

Now if speed limits were set by speed limit signs it would be a different matter, but unfortunately they are not.

It was more a reply to someone saying you should know the speed limits without signs, which of course is an absurdity.

It looks like a huge error in natural law to expect people to know the speed limits and not need to signpost the limits, especially where a non national limit drops to a national limit

Credit Checker Moose

I am surprised that a case has not went to Strasbourg on this.

GM228

Credit Checker Moose wrote: »

I am surprised that a case has not went to Strasbourg on this.

For violation of which part of the Convention? Let me guess Articles 6 (1) and (2)?

Strict liability offences are not in contention with the Convention and the ECHR has held numerous times that presumptions of law or fact are compatible with the Conventions right to fair trial and presumption of innocence.

FishOnABike

Fortunately some of our judiciary exercise some common sense. I have seen speeding prosecutions thrown out of court where the defendant has shown that the speed limit sign was obscured by an overgrown hedgerow and could not reasonably have been seen.



Whatever about exceeding national spped limits for a particular road type, exceeding a special speed limit where a mororist is not given any indication that they are entering a special speed limit zone should not be a strict liability offense.

Victor

FishOnABike wrote: »

Whatever about exceeding national spped limits for a particular road type, exceeding a special speed limit where a mororist is not given any indication that they are entering a special speed limit zone should not be a strict liability offense.

This would just lead to the usual types vandalising signs.