Last year, the following notice was clearly visible on Tower Bridge: "TOWER BRIDGE. Raise your expectations with a function inside Tower Bridge experience. 43 metres above the River Thames".

Mr R.C. ro east london saw this notice. He had previously purchased some of ARM's postcards. He promptly sent one to the Manager of the Tower Bridge. On it was a short message, as follows:

"The footwalk at Tower Bridge is 142 English feet above the river, not X Froggie metres".

Whether you approve of the style of this message or not, the fact is that the last six words of the notice have recently been changed *by the Tower Bridge Experience* to read: "140 feet above the River Thames".

I have a photo on which you can just distinguish the slightly different colour of the new label they have affixed over part of their notice.

As Steve H and Chiltern Railways might say: 'More user-friendly'!

Do minor victories like these alleviate the anxiety, clearly felt by ARM, about the eventual and inevitable change to British legislation in favour of metric signs?

Why are metric signs "inevitable"? Do you know something we don't?

The DoT say they have no plans to metricate our roads.

We all know what the phrase "we have no plans" means don't we.

They are a bit like Palace denials of pregnancies among the Royal family.

I ask again.
Even if the gov't had their way, how do you force us to use your fabulous minority system?

<<
The DoT say they have no plans to metricate our roads.
>>

<<
Even if the gov't had their way, how do you force us to use your fabulous minority system?
>>

I assume that Steve is speaking about the metric system when he says "minority system" (even though the metric system is used by over 90% of the world's population).

Assume that the Gov't decided to metricate the roads tomorrow and km and km/h signs started springing up all over the place and all new cars had km/h speedometers and km odometers only. It would then be a little difficult not to use the metric system.

The statement: "We have no plans to metricate Britain's roads" was given in the Governmentspeak language.

The English translation is: "We have definite plans to metricate Britain's roads, but we haven't published them yet".

The Department of Transport has repeatedly said that they intend to switch Britain's road signs to metric as soon as the majority of road users have been 'metric educated'. They have hinted that their target date is 2011. It had been 2006

re (Metre Man): "Do minor victories like this alleviate anxiety...?"

No, but just like a minor victory when to date you have been losing the war, they are an occasion for minor celebration and a spur to greater victories in the future (which there will be)

"They have hinted that their target date is 2011. It had been 2006"

Why? 2006 is an appropriate choice in that case.

I'd wager a cash sum that we'll be arguing the point over "when the brits roads go metric" when we log into our internet P.C.'s in heaven!

Oh hold on, I'll only see my "pro-choice" chums in there!

The government will be very reluctant to switch to metric road signs when there is the potential of organised resistance.

Come on, this isn't occupied France!

BWMA: "The government will be very reluctant to switch to metric road signs when there is the potential of organised resistance."

I'm happy that even the BWMA can still come up with a tongue-in-cheek remark from time to time !

<<
I ask again.
Even if the gov't had their way, how do you force us to use your fabulous minority system?
>>

The same way that the likes of you force the old measures on others who want to move on and only use metric.

It's very difficult for true pro-metrics to use it exclusively, in the way it is meant to be used, when they are confronted by bastard units like feet inches pounds and stone etc.

re: "...the likes of you who want to force your old measures on those who want to move on..."

Er,

'Your currency will be decimal'
'You must sell petrol by the litre now'
'You must sell your goods by the kilo'
'You must draw up your architects plans in metric'
'All government and local authority reports must use metric measurements'
'You must answer your exam questions in metric'
'You must change all your hospital scales to metric'
'You'll get a £2,000 fine if you don't go metric'

Question: Who's forcing what on whom?

There are more subtle ways of forcing things than by regulation and law.

Encouraging the use of and deliberately keeping alive units of measure that are incompatible with metric forces people to engage them whether they want to or not.

There is no such thing as freedom to choose when it comes to weights and measures. The units used are not a matter of taste like you might choose what colour shoes to wear.

They serve a practical purpose that requires a common understanding, good definitions and technical standards. They should server a commmon purpose not the whim of individuals.

>>> "Encouraging the use of and deliberately keeping alive units of measure that are incompatible with metric forces people to engage them whether they want to or not".

You make it sound like a crime - oh, I forgot, it is - except that Parliament never legilsated for it.

>> "There is no such thing as freedom to choose when it comes to weights and measures. The units used are not a matter of taste like you might choose what colour shoes to wear".

Why not? If two private parties decide that the pound is too light and kilo too heavy, and devise a new unit, the zod, equivalent to 20 oz or 567g, why shouldn't they use it?

<<
Why not? If two private parties decide that the pound is too light and kilo too heavy, and devise a new unit, the zod, equivalent to 20 oz or 567g, why shouldn't they use it?
>>

If a dispute arises which goes to court, then the parties must be agreed as what a zod is, otherwise the courts will rule that there is "no contract".

"Why not? If two private parties decide that the pound is too light and kilo too heavy, and devise a new unit, the zod, equivalent to 20 oz or 567g, why shouldn't they use it?"

That is completely contrary to the legal position in the UK as it has stood for centuries. If the BWMA now supports such a move (which it has not done in the past) then it has ceased to have a retentionist policy and has become in favour of radical change to the law.

Correctly understood, the purpose of government is to serve and the purpose of law is to protect.

If a trade wishes to use its own unit, then the state should define that unit in law so that buyers and sellers can get on with it. Compulsory metrication represents an abuse of power, since the state is preventing citizens from using units of their choice, and instead compelling its own preference, metric.

"Encouraging the use of and deliberately keeping alive units of measure that are incompatible with metric forces people to engage them whether they want to or not."

Someone has a very dim view of the intelligence of the average human being.

And what a sad thing to come up with, how can someone feel so superior that they are able to think this way?

<<
"Encouraging the use of and deliberately keeping alive units of measure that are incompatible with metric forces people to engage them whether they want to or not."

Someone has a very dim view of the intelligence of the average human being.

And what a sad thing to come up with, how can someone feel so superior that they are able to think this way?
>>

Your logic, or rather the lack of it astounds me.

If you are pro-metric and don't want to think in any other units then there are times you will be forced to if non-metric still prevails. You will encounter situations where you have to convert or visualise in non-metric.

Its a perfectly straight-forward point surely. What is so superior about it?

Others...?