Has the defence of &#39;speed is relative&#39; ever been used in court?
<p>On the road we may often see signs on how fast we can go on that road, but there is an ambiguity in all signs, in what frame is the sign saying? Hence, in a way, all road signs could be argued to be utter non sense unless the frame of reference in which the speed is taken is limited.</p>
<p>Has this defence ever been used in course? Does there exist provisions in any legal system to fix this legal loophole?</p>

<p>I do not know whether anyone has ever tried it, but it would not take much for a judge to conclude that the only reasonable interpretation of a speed limit sign is that the speed is to be measured relative to the surface of the road or to any other object that is stationary in that frame of reference.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Does there exist provisions in any legal system to fix this legal loophole?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Most rules for interpreting legal texts fix &quot;loopholes&quot; of this sort by providing for the consideration only of interpretations that are reasonably likely to have been intended, or that a reasonable person might arrive at.  The interpretation that the speed limit could be measured against any frame of reference (or indeed any one other than that of the Earth's surface) is not reasonable.</p>

speeding