Tuesday 25 Feb 6pm - ARM spotter reports six metric distance signs warning of road works, three each side of the roadworks, two each reading '600 metres','400 metres' and '200 metres, on the A 414 about one mile west of Ongar, Essex

Tuesday 25 Feb 9pm - ARM supporter removes the six distance plates (leaving triangular warning signs in place)

Wednesday 26 Feb 9am - ARM 'phones Epping Forest Council and establishes that the contractor is May Gurney, asks Epping Forest Council to ensure the signs are changed without delay. They agree to contact may Gurney

Wednesday 26 Feb 10am - ARM faxes written complaint to Epping Forest Council and May Gurney

Wednesday 26 Feb 12noon - Telephone call to ARM from Steve Dale of May Gurney, Harlow Depot, sincerely apologising for breaking the law, and stating he is personally taking six replacement signs, all in yards, out on site on the A414 to fill the gaps where the signs have been removed. He states that the sign company has clearly supplied illegal metric signs which they should have known about (we agree entirely) and states that he is thinking of asking for his money back - quite right too

Wednesday 26 Feb 2pm - BWMA bulletin board notified
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total number of known demetricated signs in the U.K.:

Tuesday 25 February 2003 - 1,943

Wednesday 26 February 2003 - 1,949

You know what?
I haven't seen a metric road sign (on a public road, I'm ignoring Beaconsfield railway station for the moment) for absolutely *ages* now!

I got quite worried about 5 yrs ago!

I am sick and tired of all the signs on motorways etc. giving distances of thirds of a mile and interals of 110 yards. Given that the possible K-day is coming closer, I'm more worried now than I was five years ago (I too haven't seen a metric sign for ages).

How about writing to your local MP, the Department of Transport (and Tim Collins for that matter) to influence them, not only would a walk-over win for anyone next election be a disaster. It may be worth trying to raise the electability of the conservatives through letters etc. to make competition greater next election and maybe there'll be less chance of metrication (you only need to look at some good aspects of the past).

<<
I am sick and tired of all the signs on motorways etc. giving distances of thirds of a mile and interals of 110 yards. Given that the possible K-day is coming closer, I'm more worried now than I was five years ago (I too haven't seen a metric sign for ages).
>>

Frederick,

Prepare yourself for a long illness. The 100m posts on the motorways are not going to disappear. The 1/3 mile signs might well disappear and be replaced by metric signs - all that it wil take is soem incident that forces the Government's hand (such as extracting some concession from Brussels).

BTW, the sign "1/3m" is ILLEGAL!!!!! - The weights and measures order of 1994 requires the "miles" be spelt out in full, otherwise it means 0.333 metres

Sorry mate "m" is used all over the place for miles - try again!!!!

BTW - I've hardly noticed and third mile and 110 yard signs! 90% say 1m and 1/2m.

There's a 1/3mile sign on the M4 after junction 11 westbound for the "newish" service station but on enquiry this is because there's meant to be a clear mile between a junction and the next one, inregards to the slip of the junction passed - or something technical.

Heck if they were really planning that don't you think that all the mulitudes of brand new "Congestion charge" signs were equivalent of rounded metric values?

I'm sure there's a touch of conspiracy there - I don't buy it.


For every metric sign that is removed, the more costly it gets for the government to change those signs to a system no-one wants (in general terms)

Martin wrote: "The 100m posts on the motorways are not going to disappear".

New item: Some of them already *have* disappeared

Tony Bennett wrote

<<
Martin wrote: "The 100m posts on the motorways are not going to disappear".

New item: Some of them already *have* disappeared
>>

Where - tell me more.

If they have been deliberately removed, then peoples lives are bing put at risk as each such pillar has a red reflective strip that marks the extremes of teh motorway.

Wrong - the cats eyes do that.

The reflective strips are there so they can be located - that's all.

Already "molehill" springs to mind

There's a metric road sign very near me. I'm *not* telling you where it is!

Is it on your driveway?

No, although maybe there should be one there.

Quick rush out and put one there - it'll look cool!

Your neighbours'll be sooo jealous!

Maybe something like:

My House
2 metres

Seems a bit pointless though!

But you could get your point across and lose the respect of your neighbours!

Surely that's worth it?

SteveH wrote

<<
Heck if they were really planning
>>


Why then do Junctions 4a and 4b exist while Junction 8 and 9 are merged into one junction?

NO-ONE CARES !!!!!


Aaaaaargh!

BWAAAAAAGHHH !!

(Onlooker: Now you've done it!)

On 4 March, Epping Forest District Council's Complaints Officer replied to ARM's Information Officer Polly Peck as follows:

"I am sorry to hear May Gurney inadvertently used metric signs...I would hope to be able to send you a full response by Friday 14 March"


On 10 March came a follow-up letter from EFDC's Complaints Officer which, inter alia, said:

"I have investigated the circumstanbces which led to metric rather than Imperial distance signs being installed on the A 414 west of Ongar. The signs were ordered by May Gurney, the County Council's contractor.

"Clearly the workmen on site, taking delivery of the signs, should have realised that they did not comply with the current legislation and asked for replacements to be issued. I am sorry that did not happen and would therefore add our apologies to those of May Gurney's that the incorrect signs were installed.

"We have obviously asked May Gurney to check their procedures and remind their staff of the relevant legislation to make sure such an error does not happen again. There consequently should not be a repeat of illegal signs being used.

"I recognise you had a legal right to remove the signs..."