Don't any of you morons realise the implications of removing or changing signs? The signs are there for a reason i.e. to warn people or to guide people. No matter wether these signs are in imperial or SI units, they are tput there for a reason. Removing them is theft - which coule lead to a prison sentence. Altering them is criminal damage - which could also lead to prison.

There are other ways of getting your message across if you wish - DO NOT PUT OTHERS LIVES AT RISK.

BWMA does not support unlawful activity.

The issue with signage arises because traffic signs in metric/SI have no lawful authority in Britain.

British law only recognises distance in yards. Signs giving height and width restrictions must display feet and inches in every instance. Metric may be offered as a supplement to ft/in, but not as an alternative.

Danger to road users occurs when local authorities fail to comply with the 1994 Traffic Regulations, leading to a mish-mash of incomparable units on the roads. Particular danger arises with bridges and narrow roads for which some local authorities provide no indication of height or width in legally recognised units.

As to whether the removal or alteration of such signs is illegal is currently the subject of court case, details of which may be viewed at:
http://www.bwmaonline.com/Transport%20-%20Trial%20of%20Mr%20Bennett.htm

The defence argue that, since metric signs are not recognised in law, their correction or removal cannot itself be regarded as unlawful. The case is expected to be heard in March or April.

If you are in favour of metrication on our roads, I hope that you have thought it through. Much more dangerous than removing signs is this: if our speed limits get metricated. Since a kilometre is approximately five eights of a mile, metric speed limits would be larger numbers, making the risk of road accidents much higher, costing people's lives.

Recent reports from the DTLR do not deny plans of metricating our road traffic signs - evidence of it include signs giving distances of 110 yards and multiples of that distance (often distances like 328 yards), not only do you get dual marked signs for height restrictions putting metric (a) first and (b) bigger.

Basically, Mr. Barker, we are doing what we can to stop metrication on our road traffic signs, given that it would stop such a pointless waste of lives.

Now do you understand one of the points in removing those signs when local councils refuse to change them?

The risk to lives as a result of metric distance signs would be greatest among the younger drivers who tend to drive faster. I have been keeping a tally on young people between the ages of 15 and 21 as to how they express distance from their home to work. Overwhelmingly they answer in Imperial. More answer in time than in metric. In fact metric answers have not hit double figures while imperial is in three figures The Dept of Transport is backing on young people knowing about metric as a reason for converting.
Its a recipe for disaster.

In answer to the points made:

1. The BWMA does not support unlawful activity

I see no message from the BWMA on this website disassociating itself from those people who have taken distance signs away from signs marking road humps for example. The removal of ANY roadsign is unlawful - it is theft. A local authority in South Wales successfully prosecuted a number of people for removing roadsigns for their scrap metal content - what the signs say on them is irrelevant in this instance.

2. 1994 Traffic Regulations

Don't exist. Try "Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994". You will find the text in there relating to signs with both Imperial and SI figures.

3. A number of countries have successfully switched from mph to kmh. New Zealand did it as long ago as 1975. Australia in 1974. Both countries had been working in miles feet and inches and in pounds shillings and pence. Both changed with little incident and little obvious change in road accident figures.

4. I really think people have more intelligence than you credit them with. It really isnt difficult to drive at 110 kmh rather than 70 mph. You watch the needle on the dial, same as before. It is also not difficult to convert yards to metres. Indeed if you are told something is 100 metres away and convert at 1:1 you are actually safer as you are underestimating rather than overestimating. (I am sure you have tried this on holidays in the rest of Europe.)

Best Regards

In answer to the points made:

1. The BWMA does not support unlawful activity

I see no message from the BWMA on this website disassociating itself from those people who have taken distance signs away from signs marking road humps for example. The removal of ANY roadsign is unlawful - it is theft. A local authority in South Wales successfully prosecuted a number of people for removing roadsigns for their scrap metal content - what the signs say on them is irrelevant in this instance.

2. 1994 Traffic Regulations

Don't exist. Try "Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994". You will find the text in there relating to signs with both Imperial and SI figures.

3. A number of countries have successfully switched from mph to kmh. New Zealand did it as long ago as 1975. Australia in 1974. Both countries had been working in miles feet and inches and in pounds shillings and pence. Both changed with little incident and little obvious change in road accident figures.

4. I really think people have more intelligence than you credit them with. It really isnt difficult to drive at 110 kmh rather than 70 mph. You watch the needle on the dial, same as before. It is also not difficult to convert yards to metres. Indeed if you are told something is 100 metres away and convert at 1:1 you are actually safer as you are underestimating rather than overestimating. (I am sure you have tried this on holidays in the rest of Europe.)

Best Regards

And how fast could cars go in the 1970s? Not very, so I imagine. These days, cars can accelerate very rapidly, allowing you to break the speed limit even further before you realise that you are reading the wrong dial. Plus, when removing hump signs, they always leave the triangular signs in place to indicate that there are humps.

You should not be that against the confiscation of the offending signs - we offer them back. And, were those signs taken for scrap metal collection in South Wales metric, and if so, did that get mentioned?

BWMA does not support theft or any other unlawful activity. As stated previously in this forum, any individual or group that engages in direct action does so at their own risk.

The issue is whether the removal of metric signs amounts to theft in the first place. Theft is defined as removing an article with the intention of depriving the owner of it. As far as we are aware, no metric sign has been taken down without being returned to its rightful owners.

We therefore await the judgement in the current Court case.

Frankly if that's your attitude the sooner you lot get banged up the better.

We feel our view is a reasonable one. Since local councils have no legal authority to install signs in metric units, the question is: do members of the public have a lawful right to move or cover over a sign that they know to be illegal?

This can be resolved only in a Court.

The use of metric signs is similar to the lb/oz issue, whereby the kilogram has been made compulsory in shops WITHOUT a repeal of the 1985 Weights and Measures Act that permits the use of the pound. With both kilograms and metres, public bodies act without Parliamentary approval.

In the seventies, there was not the traffic on the roads and there was not the same amount of artics and the artics were not as big as some are today. This all goes to make our roads more dangerous.

For the sake of Jon Barker's ignorance:
There are 60million + people in this country, most of them drive a car. The amount of road mileage in the UK is huge. The M25 is the busiest road in the world.

How many people drove in NZ/OZ in the early seventies? How much of Australia is outback and how much tarmac?

Please, Mr Barker, give yourself the decency to think about what your saying before you just come out with such twaddle!

THIS MESSAGE BY JON BARKER HAS BEEN DELETED DUE TO VERBAL ABUSE.

MODERATOR

Thanks to moderator for removing anything offensive and thus make your website appropriate to a full audience, however if you (or Jon Barker) wishes to email me the abusive posting then please feel free to do so (the email address is under the "SteveH" link on the left column - or go straight to barkatfish@hotmail.com)

I relish any childinsh rantings and I welcome any intimidation by the fool as I have my own way of handling those who cannot engage in good old fashioned heated debates without resorting to losing it with foul language.

It's a shame that some people simply cannot argue without resorting to the bottom of the barrel.

And he lost it over an argument about roads?? Jeesh, imagine if he were to engage in a really serious hot potato debate?