Reports are flooding in of the Forestry Commission erecting illegal metric distance signs to their forests along public roads and highways and using still more illegal distance signs within 'their' forests (any road, route or path along which the public has the right of access is 'public highway' and must therefore use Imperial units only for distance signs along it).

A recent letter (16 July 2002) from Mr Mike Talbot, Head of the Traffic Signs Policy Branch at the Department for Transport, confirms this.

The latest reports come from:

Cannock Chase, and
New Forest (Matchams, near Bournemouth (Hurn) Airport).


Tony Bennett

BWMA recent received photographic evidence of Forestry Commission metric signs at Galloway Forest Park.

I have just been to the Matchams car park in the forest and noticed a finger board sign "Car Park 100m". Another sign indicates that the forest and car park are managed by "Forestry Enterprise", but I have been unable to find an address in the phone book.

A S tallett

Further to my report of an illegal car-park distance sign at Matchams Lane, I spoke to the Forestry Commission and have received a letter from Christchurch Borough Council, Operations Unit, which states : "This sign is a private sign on private land and therefore does not need to comply with the Traffic Signs Regulations and Generl Directions 1994". The letter is signed by K M Latham, Senior Assistant, Operations Unit.

Yet another authority that is unaware of the law. Do you have the text of the recent Dept for Transport memo to send them? I think Tony Bennett has put it on another thread.

This is the relevant extract from the letter from Mike Talbot, Head of the Traffic Management Division of the Department for Transport, 16 July 2002:

"Section 142 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 defines 'road' as any length of highway or or any other road to which the public has access - *the Act therefore covers privately owned roads to which the public has access as well as highways maintained at public expense*".

Whether or not a sign is on private land is utterly irrelevant and the Forestry Commission need to be told that in no uncertain terms. It would be good to send them a copy of the Mike Talbot letter.

Tony Bennett

I have written to both Christchurch Borough Council (who wrote to me) and Dorset County Council (the highways authority), enclosing copies of the Mike Walton letter.

Last week an ARM supporter placed a neat 4" square brown-and-white plate saying 'YDS' over the letter 'm' on the Matchams Forestry Commission sign. So the sign now reads: 'Car Park 100 YDS'.

An ARM supporter from Staffordshire has written direct to the Head of the Forestry Commission about their metric signs on the highway and understands that they are taking legal advice before replying. At Cannock Chase a number of cycle routes are prominently advertised on Forestry Commission-style noticeboards, all in kilometres.

Thetford Forests's Forestry Commission Car Park is signed (on the A11 in Suffolk) by two of the FC's familiar green-and-white notices, each saying '500 yards ahead'.

But until this week, Moel Famau, the Forestry Commission site which includes the 1,820-feet high peak of the same name in the Clwydian range in Denbighshire, north Wales, was signed with two green-and-white signs saying '200m'. These have now been overplated by ARM supporters with brown-and-white metallic signs saying '200 YDS'.

It is now clear beyond doubt that at some date in the recent past, the Forestry Commission decided to convert to metres for its roadside signs - despite the fact that they're breaking the law

I wonder what ARM supporters would have said if the Government had taken the power to impose metric only distance signs on all highways, including those on private land to which the public have access.

I imagine this would have been seen as the nanny state interfering in our lives in a most undesirable manner.

Except you've fogotton what the public actually prefers

I can certainly tell you - though I can't type the words on this bulletin board - what ARM supporters said when the government took power to impose metric-only measures on ordinary traders selling in pounds to customers who wanted (and still want) to buy in pounds.

In fact, the British government *does* want to impose metric-only measures on road and pedestrian signs, at massive cost which could be far better spent elsewhere, just as the Irish government kak-handedly introduced this in Ireland.

The real question you might care to answer, is: "Why?"

Why then does ARM consider the pro-imperial rules in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions are worthy of being enforced and applied to all roads, even those owned by private organisations, and that militant action and coordination is justified in order to prevent their infringement; but the rules eminating from the Weights and Measures Act are unfair and wrong, and deserved to be ignored, vilified and tested at every level of the legal system until eventually invalidated or repealed (which isn't going to happen)?

Hardly consistent is it?

It depends on whether or not your objective is to prevent the obliteration from the minds of British people of an excellent, human, natural and traditional system of customary weights ad measures. ARM's actions are I hope entirely consistent with that objective

The rules do not originate from the Weights & Measure Act. They were passed under the earlier 1972 Act.

So this isn't about the law, it's about dogmatic pro-imperialism? I understood ARM's defence to be that they were simply ensuring that the law was obeyed.

The legal basis is the Weights and Measures Act, although it is true that it was never agreed by Parliament.

Dogmatically pro-what-the-public-want eh?

Shame on them!

In time-honoured tradition, the bad news first.

This concerns signage by the Forestry Commission at Cannock Chase (Staffordshire). A local ARM supporter has tackled the Commission about its metric-only signs (a) along the highway and (b) inside the park.

The bad news is: "...we do not agree that other signs in the forest for the help and convenience of users of the forest should be changed and we have no plans to do so".

But the good news is: "We agree that road traffic signs adjacent to the public highway should be in Imperial measurement and any signs in Cannock that do not conform to this will either be removed or be changed".

Well, it's a start...

Our supporter has written a lengthy reply which includes this: "I would like you to just clarify that this includes ALL your roadside signs in the U.K."

This is a belated response to:

"Last week an ARM supporter placed a neat 4" square brown-and-white plate saying 'YDS' over the letter 'm' on the Matchams Forestry Commission sign. So the sign now reads: 'Car Park 100 YDS'."

and:

"But until this week, Moel Famau, the Forestry Commission site which includes the 1,820-feet high peak of the same name in the Clwydian range in Denbighshire, north Wales, was signed with two green-and-white signs saying '200m'. These have now been overplated by ARM supporters with brown-and-white metallic signs saying '200 YDS'."

Is it now the practice of ARM to simply replace metres with yards?

No.

Our policy is to change distances to the nearest understandable equivalent in British units of measurement.

For distances up to 1 mile, these would typically be:

50 yards
100 yards
150 yards
200 yards
300 yards
1/4 mile
1/2 mile
3/4 mile
1 mile.

We sometimes use 500 yards or 600 yards.

Thus, to give some examples:

Metric: 270 metres - Convert to 300 yards
Metric: 300 metres - Convert to 300 yards
Metric: 330 to 600 metres - Convert to 1/4 mile
Metric 600 to 1000 metres - Convert to 1/2 mile
Metric: Over 1km and up to 1.4km - Convert to 3/4 mile
Over 1.4km to 1.85km - Convert to 1 mile
Over 1.85km to 2.25km - Convert to 1 1/4 miles...

etc.


People require approximations. That's why the sign, for example, at the Burns Museum, Ayrshire, giving a distance to a tourist site of '767 metres', is so stupid. To all intents and purposes, that's half-a-mile. That's all people need to know.

We also take our own measurements where possible and we have an Imperial pedometer for that purpose (measuring in feet and inches)

Has anyone received any recent letters from the Forestry commission clarifying whether they accept the Dept of Transport definition of Public Highway?

Mark - re your question on the Forestry Commission...

The answer is 'Yes'.

A Mr P.H. from Knypersley, Stoke-on-Trent, has, not without considerable persistence, extracted a written agreement by the Forestry Commission Head Office in Edinburgh to replace all their roadside metric signs with signs in Imperial. They accept that metric distance signs on the highway are illegal.

For more details, please e-mail me