Deptford High Street hardly ranks with Hastings Promenade, Ely Town Centre or the Buckingham Riverside Walk as a venue for restoring illegal metric signs to Imperial measures.

But even on a hot, sticky Friday night in July in downtown Deptford, with the strong smells of still-open Halal butchers' shops and kebaberies lying heavy in the air, the job had to be done.

Numerous police cars, fire engines and ambulances whizzed past our yellow-jacketed sign-amenders, but were more interested in the sounds of gunshots and fights which are a regular feature of Deptford night-life these days.

Four large double-sided road traffic signs to disabled toilets, with distances of 225m, 380m, 400m and 500m on them, were converted to Imperial using metal plates and white adhesive lettering. For the record, the distances now read, respectively, 250 yds, 1/4m, 1/4m, 1/4m.

Another 8 distances put back into English. The Council has been informed

<<
For the record, the distances now read, respectively, 250 yds, 1/4m, 1/4m, 1/4m.
>>

If it is assumed that by "1/4m" you meant "Quarter of a mile", you have falled foul of The Units of Measurement Regulations 1995 (SI 1995:1804). Those regulations require that "miles" be spelt out in full.

Martin,

If you are concerned about the breach of the Units of Measurement Regulations, may I suggest that you immediately take up this matter with the Highways Agency, who have erected hundreds of signs along our motorways such as: "Services 21m" - and possibly thousands which give the distance to the next motorways exits as '1m', '1/2m' or '1/3m'. Have a look next time you're on a motorway.

On occasions ARM retains the 'm' used on illegal metric signs; thus '500m' becomes '1/4m'. It saves on paint and metal plates if we leave their illegal 'm's in place and make constructive use of them

Tony Bennett,

We all know that the only concern you have for regulations of any kind is when it says Imperial indications must prevail.

You are manifestly reckless about any other related issues including safety.

You are evil, you are sick.

<<
You are evil, you are sick.
>>

That's a bit harsh isn't it Metre Man! I assume you are joking.

Take a look at other posts that are ultra personal to see if he could be joking.

Luckily the BWMA have not censored his posts - thank God - but it's up to non-extremist metric fans to distance themselves from this "man".

However - as an olive branch - I'm happy to accept that he may have had "one too many" when he posted that entry - makes me hope I never bump into him in a pub after he's had too many pints of the "good stuff" ; )

Richard,

I am not joking, I only wish I were.

Tony Bennett and his misguided followers are going around the country interfering with any sign that have metric indications, if they can reach them.

They will do this regardless of any public safety implications. They vandalise hazard warning signs of any description if it has metres on it.

Tony Bennett does this to further his political ambitions. Anyone who puts this above more humane considerations is evil.

Claiming him to be sick is a kindness that gives him the benefit of the doubt.

re (Metre man): "They will do this regardless of any public safety implications..."

REPLY: That reminds me - we haven't heard from young 'pip' for some time. Mind you, he did say that to unravel the mystery of "The Case of the Imperial Road Sign and the Fatal Accident" he would be gone for 'some time'.

I was wondering, pip, if you could perhaps let us have some kind of interim report on your researches. Maybe you have discoverd either the location of the accident, the date of it, the newspaper reports of it, the inquest reports, or something along those lines?

What next - Mr Meter Man? A vendetta lead stalking session?

I loved the manner in which Tony brushed you off as if to remove a pesky fly from the sleeve of a shirt - excellent stuff Tony - keep up that dry wit!

Possibly only Conrad will understand this but I'll give it a go: One wonders if we have stumbled across Euric's long lost Brother? Maybe we can reunite them in Euric's flat?

Metre Man. You have posted some decent comments in the past and you know full well that I am on your side when it comes the metric and imperial argument. I also do not agree with what Tony and the ARM do. However, by calling Tony "evil" and "sick", you are not helping your argument at all. Let's save calling people such as terrorists sick and evil and have sensible arguments from both sides.

Maybe Meter-man sees Tony as some sort of "urban terrorist"?

I note the Bennett defence above.

Logically it amounts to a habitual drunk driver claiming he is safe because so far he hasn't hurt anyone.

re (Metre Man): "Logically it amounts to a habitual drunk driver claiming he is safe because so far he hasn't hurt anyone".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Metre Man: Do you remember the tale of metric-educated Mr Adam Doggett, whose car jammed under a low bridge at Dobbs Weir on the Hertfordshire/Essex border because he had no idea what 1.4m meant?

Drive there today, and the sole sign as you approach says '4' 7". I'm not aware of any further jammed cars under the bridge.

Who's risking safety, eh?

Question:

Are you aware of anyone else besides Doggitt who got jammed under the bridge while it was still posted as 1.4 m?

Answer to your question:

Mr Doggitt risked his own safety when he failed to exercise the necessary precaution given, as he claims, he wasn't sure if his car would pass safely underneath.

I will however conceed that in present circumstances it would be better if the bridge was signed in both Imperial and metric (two separate signs).

However I note that ARM object to this.

There can only be one conclusion. ARM insist on Imperial only signs at the expense of public safety.

"ARM insist on Imperial only signs at the expense of public safety"

How can that be when everyone knows imperial but only "some" are totally familar with metric? Surely you should put your bigotness aside and cater for all when it comes to safety? Come on "meter man" even you (anguishly) know what a foot (12") looks like?!?!

<<
You are evil, you are sick.
>>

I think it's worse when we have swimming pool depth indications and height restrictions for rides and apparatus being given onl in metres when 71% of the UK population don't even know their height in metres.

I agree with imperial-only signage. The Transport Minister even said that there is a four second rule and that dual-unit signage runs a danger of motorists paying too much attention to the signs compromising with that they pay to the roads: I can't help but notice that he must be forgetting that these height restrictions are flouting that law (which is serious as vehicles concerned i.e. big lorries take longer to stop). Metres should in my view be on seperate signs only.

<<How can that be when everyone knows imperial but only "some" are totally familar with metric? >>

evryone does not know imperial. Yes, everyone knows peoples heights in imperial, but that is through getting used to the numbers NOT actually using the units involved. i.e. if someone says they are 5'8 you know how tall they are, you do not visualise the length of 5 feet, 8 inches, do you?

When it comes to say, a sign saying something like 13ft 5in, I find it very difficult to visualise that distance, whereas in metres it would be easy. I'm not saying I can't work it out, but on a roadsign you need to understand it instantly.

You can say that I am biased because I favour the metric system, but there are obviously loads more people of my generation out there who would have the same difficulties.

So the situation actually is:

Some understand imperial, some understand metric

Exactly the reason why we should be working towards ONE system that EVERYONE understands

Andy - do you *HONESTLY* believe that? Come on - *HONESTLY*?

I think you are way off the mark.

Even on Radio1 they talk about "40ft" drops rather then "13metre" drops.

I know that I won't be able to convince you but take it from someone from "your generation" *ALL* people know imperial (common) measures. Just listen to people and you will hear it.

I knew of someone else who thought like this (my girlfriend) simply because metric was the main measure in science. It was only when I pointed out that she would say somehing like:

"The crash happened literally 20ft from me"
or
"I measured how much I ran today - it was 7 miles exactly"
or
"Do you realise there's a pound of cheese in that cauliflour cheese you're eating"
or
"I chose 4 inch heels this time"
or
"You'll need more than a 6inch knife to cut that"
or
"The shop was a further 300yds on the left"

that she realised that she was using imperial ALL THE TIME without even realising.

You see, what happens is, you use it all the time automatically and without even realising. Take someone your age to a tall tree and ask how tall it is and you'll see what I mean. Try it this weekend. I'm sure I can "persuade" you!

<<
How can that be when everyone knows imperial but only "some" are totally familar with metric? Surely you should put your bigotness aside and cater for all when it comes to safety? Come on "meter man" even you (anguishly) know what a foot (12") looks like?!?!
>>

ARM are the bigots. It is they who object to both Imperial and Metric signs.

I thought I made it clear above that I accept the need for Imperial signs as well as Metric in tne interest of public safety.

No one can guarantee that "everyone knows Imperial" among the population of road users.

re (Metre Man): "No one can guarantee that 'everyone knows Imperial' among the population of road users"

Point 1: Before one is allowed to drive on British roads, one has to pass a driving test. One has to be familiar with road signs, as set out in the Highway Code. These include the heights of bridges and 'Give Way 100 yds' signs etc. No-one is given a licence to drive on British roads unless one can understand Imperial road signs. Putting additional metric information on signs adds confusion and expense, which is why so few authorities bother to use the legal powers they have to erect dual road height or dual road width signs.

Point 2: In the most recent survey on weights and measures - covering how people normally think of their height - only 2% of those surveyed did not know their height in feet and inches, while 71% did not know their height in metric. Thus there are 35.5 times as many people unfamiliar with metric heights as are unfamiliar with Imperial heights.

Point 3: If every road height sign must be in Imperial and normally is, it is irresponsible as well as illegal to sign a bridge in metric only as happened in the Doggett case

Point 4: Yes, there was another case of metric heights causing an accident. A company decided to convert all its height signs on its premises to metric. On doing so, they wrongly converted an Imperial sign by making its metric equivalent height 9" higher than its actual height. The result was that a lorry which thought it had clearance crashed into the structure causing considerable damage. If the sign had remained in Imperial, there would have been no accident

Point 5: The best way to guarantee that 'everyone knows Imperial' is to make sure they're taught in Imperial. Unlike the teacher of the school party I overheard on the end of Southend pier explaining to her class; "Right, look at the shore. You'll see if you look at your maps that it's just two kilometres away"

Tony Bennet wrote

<<
Point 1: Before one is allowed to drive on British roads, one has to pass a driving test. One has to be familiar with road signs, as set out in the Highway Code. These include the heights of bridges and 'Give Way 100 yds' signs etc. No-one is given a licence to drive on British roads unless one can understand Imperial road signs. Putting additional metric information on signs adds confusion and expense, which is why so few authorities bother to use the legal powers they have to erect dual road height or dual road width signs.
>>

Yesterday afternoon, when driving home, I spotted a Dutch, a Spanish, an Italian, a French and a German lorry on the M25 (all within a 3km stretch). THere were also a few British lorries. Apart from the British drivers, I doubt that any had done a British driving test. Moreover, lorries are far more likely to hit bridges than are cars.

Tony Bennett wrote

<<
Point 5: The best way to guarantee that 'everyone knows Imperial' is to make sure they're taught in Imperial. Unlike the teacher of the school party I overheard on the end of Southend pier explaining to her class; "Right, look at the shore. You'll see if you look at your maps that it's just two kilometres away"
>>

Tony, if you have ever looked at an Ordinance Survey map, youmight have noticed that they have a 1 km grid. If the end of the pier was two squares from the shore on the map, it it two kilometres away.

re (Martin): "Yesterday afternoon, when driving home, I spotted a Dutch, a Spanish, an Italian, a French and a German lorry on the M25 (all within a 3km stretch). There were also a few British lorries. Apart from the British drivers, I doubt that any had done a British driving test. Moreover, lorries are far more likely to hit bridges than are cars".

Martin, if you walk into W H Smiths, John Menzies or any other retailer selling road atlases, you'll almost certainly come across a road atlas called: "The Truckers' Road Atlas". I've no doubt that most foreign lorry drivers have a copy of such with them in their cabs - if not, they ought to have.

It gives the height of every single low bridge (below about 16 feet, I think) on every single 'A' and 'B' road in the United Kingdom.

All in Imperial only

re (Martin): "Tony, if you have ever looked at an Ordnance Survey map, you might have noticed that they have a 1 km grid. If the end of the pier was two squares from the shore on the map, it it two kilometres away".

Martin - Ordnance, not 'Ordinance', by the way, I've corrected it above.

With a degree in Geography and being a regular walker of England's footpaths, yes, I have looked at an O.S. map; in fact, I've probably looked at more O.S. maps than you've had hot dinners.

One of the tasks involved in planning a day's outing on England's footpaths, including incorporating a variety of scenery, and a place for lunch etc., is to work out the distance. The O.S. maps are a considerable handicap.

However, a straight road, lane or path going directly north, south, east or west equals one kilometre. A straight line diagonally acoss a grid square is, according to Pythagoras, 1.4km.

Using these figures, it's usually possible to estimate the length of a path over a one-kilometre square to within 0.1km.

After totalling the length of a path one intends to walk, all one then has to do is multiply the end result by 5, divide by 8, and then you have the approximate distance in miles.

Similarly, with heights, 10 metres is roughly 33 feet, and it's a reasonable approximation to reckon on 30.5 metres equalling 100 feet. Thus it's possible to calculate the height of any position on an O.S. map in one's head as one's walking. It does get quite difficult in somewhere like the Lake District where you come acoss peaks with heights like '873 metres'.

Well, 800 x 33 = say 2640
Add on 70 x 3.3 = say 230
Add on 3 x 3.3 = say 10

The height is 2880.

I then take off 1/2%, i.e. 14, and arrive at 2866 - 14 = 2866.

In actual fact, it's 2,864, but near enough; after all, what's two feet to a six-footer. It all helps to keep the mind as well as the body in trim

"I think it's worse when we have swimming pool depth indications and height restrictions for rides and apparatus being given onl in metres when 71% of the UK population don't even know their height in metres."

Learn metres maybe?

What is even more amusing is when the height restriction signs are in inches only, and then the assembled mass murmur amongst themselves to find out:

1. How many inches are there in a foot?
2. How exactly do you multiply by 12?

Tony Bennett wrote:
<<
Point 3: If every road height sign must be in Imperial and normally is, it is irresponsible as well as illegal to sign a bridge in metric only as happened in the Doggett case
>>

You have evaded my point about signing in both Imperial and Metric.

<<
Point 4: Yes, there was another case of metric heights causing an accident. A company decided to convert all its height signs on its premises to metric. On doing so, they wrongly converted an Imperial sign by making its metric equivalent height 9" higher than its actual height. The result was that a lorry which thought it had clearance crashed into the structure causing considerable damage. If the sign had remained in Imperial, there would have been no accident
>>

I was referring to the bridge that Doggett crashed into. In any case the conversion error you referred to does not make the case that metric signs are hazardous because of a lack of understanding by drivers.

re (Metre Man): "You have evaded my point about signing in both Imperial and metric"


REPLY. No I haven't. If you re-read my post, you'll see that I wrote: "Putting additional metric information on signs adds confusion and expense, which is why so few authorities bother to use the legal powers they have to erect dual road height or dual road width signs".

To repeat:

Dual signs

* add confusion,

* are more expensive,

* are more difficult to read as the lettering on them has to be smaller in most cases, and*

* unnecessary because virtually everybody is familiar with heights in feet and inches (except asylum seekers, maybe, which perhaps accounts for the 2% of respondents in the recent opinion poll survey who didn't know their height in feet and inches)

<<<Andy - do you *HONESTLY* believe that? Come on - *HONESTLY*?

I think you are way off the mark.

Even on Radio1 they talk about "40ft" drops rather then "13metre" drops.

I know that I won't be able to convince you but take it from someone from "your generation" *ALL* people know imperial (common) measures. Just listen to people and you will hear it.>>>

Do I honestly believe what exactly? My statement that "only some know metric and only some know imperial"

Surely that is a fact that no-one can dispute.

Come on - do you honestly believe that EVERYONE in Britain understands imperial measures?

I would say well over 90% of them do.

Consider this - 100% of kids are taught metric at school yet in "real life" they converse in imperial.

Why would that be? (and do NOT mention granny or old people, it won't work - especially with 18" alloys on a Nova with a 6" bore exhaust that STILL can't hit 100mph regardless of how much plastic the 17yr old can stick on it - but it will get him 55mpg!)

"To repeat:

Dual signs

* add confusion,

* are more expensive,

* are more difficult to read as the lettering on them has to be smaller in most cases"

Maybe we shouldn't retain supplementary indications then.

<<<I would say well over 90% of them do.

Consider this - 100% of kids are taught metric at school yet in "real life" they converse in imperial.

Why would that be? (and do NOT mention granny or old people, it won't work - especially with 18" alloys on a Nova with a 6" bore exhaust that STILL can't hit 100mph regardless of how much plastic the 17yr old can stick on it - but it will get him 55mpg!)>>>

Yes, kids converse in imperial where that is what everyone uses. I am not disputing this. Your example is a pretty bad one, considering:

- car wheels are measured in inches even in metric countries

- of course kids use mph. Understanding of speed isn't learnt at school, but in real life. How is anyone supposed to be familiar with kmh in Britain?

- mpg figures for cars are essentially meaningless as a measurement since we don't buy fuel in gallons. It is simply a figure that we become familiar with - i.e. we know 55 is good, 20 is bad. It has nothing to do with the units.

The only way you can compare knowledge of the 2 systems by kids is by asking them to estimate the size of something - I guarantee you if you asked 10 yr olds to estimate the length or height of something, most would use metric

....but wait till he's 16 and he will be on "our side"

That "our side" comment was intended "tongue in cheek" by the way - but you get what I mean!.


BTW Rover tried to introduce metric tyres in the 80's for all of the range of it's car (except the mini). In garages they wouldn't talk about sizes as only Rover required metric tyres - so you'd get something like "get us two 175/60X14 for this Orion and grab a set of metrics for the Montego".

I know, I helped out in my Dad's garage! (And the metric tyres were a real b***er to get on as they decided to make them all 'run flats').

Most metro/maestro/montego owners would buy new imperial wheels and tyres as replacement because the metric ones were so expensive. Later Rover ditched metric on those models as an expensive mistake.

There you go, Britain "leading" France in metric!! (considering peugeot, renault and citroen wouldn't touch metric tyres with a 6 pied pole-de-barge!)

actually only the wheel size is measureed in inches. Everything else is metric. eg for the 175/60X14 that you mention, only the 14 is imperial, the rest is metric.

No idea why the wheel size remains in inches, just the way it is

re (Andy): "The only way you can compare knowledge of the 2 systems by kids is by asking them to estimate the size of something - I *guarantee* you if you asked 10 yr olds to estimate the length or height of something, most would use metric"


REPLY: As for your 'guarantee', Andy, just this scenario came up during BBC TV London's filming of ARM for a 5-minute documentary on ARM's sign-changing activities (*).

Durign a lunch break by the canal, an entirely unscripted moment arose when the lady journalist with the microphone discovered four young boys fishing by the side of the canal - and, yes, all about 10 years old.

The conversation went like this:

(To 1st boy) "What's the biggest fish you've caught today?"

1st boy: "Just over 2 lbs"

(To 1st boy again) "What's the biggest fish you have ever caught?"

1st boy: "4 1/4 lbs"

(To 2nd boy): "How deep would you say the canal is here?"

2nd boy: "About 6 to 8 feet"

(To 3rd boy): "How tall are you?"

3rd boy: "4' 11""

(To 4th boy): "How much do you weigh?"

4th boy: "About 5 stone".

Just to confirm what was happening, the journalist asked each boy:

"What's that in metric?"

Two of the answers were:

"Dunno" and "No idea".

From memory, the other two shrugged their shoulders.

To add icing on the cake from an Imperial-lover's point of view, the journalist said to one of the boys: "But don't you learn metric at school?".

Came the answer from one of them: "Yeah, but we don't understand it"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(*) The film, used by the BBC as part of a training programme for the making of short documentaries, was broadcast nationally on the regional programmes and can be viewed by arrangement with ARM

Sounds like another Bennett fairy tale.

That piece of film was on the BBC's "London News" Programme and was shown in each bullitin throughout the day.

I recorded it on my Sky+ but I've deleted it now.

It was really quite good!

Andy (tyres)- the first figure is mm, the next is the aspect ratio followed by the rim width in inches. Wheels are sold as inch/inch (eg 6X13 - they're the size on my mini!). Don't ask me why mm popped up for the 1st figure on the tyre cos I don't know!

Haven't we heard this story about four times already? Sounds very fishy to me.

"Came the answer from one of them: "Yeah, but we don't understand it""

Once again, nothing to do with the system itself but simply its usage.

re (Ross): "Once again, nothing to do with the system itself but simply its usage"


QUESTION TO ROSS: The metric system was made perfectly legal for most trade purposes and as far as I know many other purposes during, I think, the 1890s (the Forum Owner will doubtless correct me if I'm wrong). It may even have been earlier.

So why didn't the allegedly superior metric system 'catch on' and become adopted by the British? And why is it needing extraordinarily unpopular legislation to enforce it now?

I would argue that the inherent inferiority of metric - and the unsuitability of the unnatural, unfriendly metric system for everyday purposes - are the real reasons why Imperial has prevailed for so long

No, there was a recommendation of the 1890s but it was not adopted in any real way until the 1950s/60s.

I was addressing the situation from a slightly different angle. The fact that metric is not widely used, for whatever reason, means that people don't need to understand it, whereas those who might prefer to use it are often forced to comply with the majority view.

<<
re (Metre Man): "You have evaded my point about signing in both Imperial and metric"


REPLY. No I haven't. If you re-read my post, you'll see that I wrote: "Putting additional metric information on signs adds confusion and expense, which is why so few authorities bother to use the legal powers they have to erect dual road height or dual road width signs".
>>

(a) Triangular warning signs do not have dual measures on one sign. The regs specify two, one above the other in such cases.

(b) Circular prohibition signs are larger when dual measures are included.

Personally I think that separate signs would be better in both cases.

You still cannot guarantee that all road users know Imperial. The population of drivers from abroad is increasing especially with the Channel tunnel. Their safety counts just the same. A confused driver from the Continent is a danger to everyone as well as him/herself.

If ARM persists in its claim that dual signs are unnecessary and expensive they only re-inforce the charge of being reckless and irresponsible.

Anyone got any stats about how many foreign drivers are on British roads at any one time?

And does anyone have any stats of accidents due to not knowing what a nile, yard or foot is?

(apart from that white van of course!)

re (Metre Man): "If ARM persists in its claim that dual signs are unnecessary and expensive they only re-inforce the charge of being reckless and irresponsible"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DEAR METRE MAN,

There are approximately 475 highways authorities in this country, if you include the many District Councils to which County highways authorities have delegated their highways and associated road signing powers, as many do.

From our observations, which suggest that well over 95% of signs advising of road widths and bridge heights are in Imperial only, you would presumably argue that the vast majority of authorities who are erecting only Imperial height and width signs are "reckless and irresponsible".

Your time would be much better employed writing a letter to each of those authorities who continue to save money and cause less confusion to motorists by signing only in Imperial, telling them how 'reckless and irresponsible' they are, than taking up time criticising ARM for what we say on the issue.

By the way, on the way home from work tonight I passed a pizza shop which had the following notice outside:

7" pizzas - £2.00
9" pizzas - £3.49
12" pizzas - £4.99
15" pizzas - £5.99.

Should this notice be in dual measures to help the 0.01% of people in this country who don't know the difference between a 7" and a 15" pizza?


P.S. re: "...re-inforce the charge of being reckless and irresponsible"

Thank goodness that in the United Kingdom we are still innocent until proven guilty

Tony Bennett wrote

<<
From our observations, which suggest that well over 95% of signs advising of road widths and bridge heights are in Imperial only, you would presumably argue that the vast majority of authorities who are erecting only Imperial height and width signs are "reckless and irresponsible".
>>

Yesteday I noticed that all the signposts warning of a low railway bridge not too far from where I live were in Imperial units only apart from the signs that were attched to the bridge itself.

I atrtribute this approach to the fact that there are "reckless and irresponsible" people out there who paint out the metric reading, leaving the local council with either a bill for repairing the vandalism or having defaced road signs in the area. Of course the vandals cannot get to the signs on the brigde itself as they are difficult to get to. (It is not very clever to try climbing up a 5m ladder that is placed in the middle of the road).

"It is not very clever to try climbing up a 5m ladder that is placed in the middle of the road."

Since when did concerns such as 'being clever' stop ARM?

re (Martin): "the vandals cannot get to the signs on the brigde itself as they are difficult to get to. (It is not very clever to try climbing up a 5m ladder that is placed in the middle of the road)".

REPLY:

ARM already has a technical solution to this problem, namely 'Ollie the Obliterator'.

This is a device made out of a 10-foot long piece of 2 by 2 hardwood, on which there is a black aerosol can at the top, and a trigger mechanism at the bottom. Pulling the trigger activates a taut length of wire which then sprays the aerosol on to the illegal sign. It incorporates an additional device at the top - a long protruding screw which enables the aerosol can on Ollie to rest at 3" away from the sign to be demetricated, the ideal distance for aerosol spray.

We have another similar implement for obliterating metric dimensions on signs from *above* the sign i.e. lying down on a bridge.

Ollie has already been successfully tested on low bridges up to 14 feet in height, which covers the vast majority of low bridges.

Ollie was designed by Q.

One of our other technical advisers has devised 'Henry, the Height Enhancer'. This is a block of wood about 20" x 15", with four separate legs that can be screwed on to create a small table about 18" high. It can be carried in a polythene bag and assembled in 2 minutes. It's useful for getting to footpath signs about 8 - 10 feet above the ground. It was of great assistance in Hyde Park where the ARM stepladder would have attracted undue attention

a five mile ladder?

blimey!

"ARM already has a technical solution to this problem, namely 'Ollie the Obliterator'.

This is a device made out of a 10-foot long piece of 2 by 2 hardwood, on which there is a black aerosol can at the top, and a trigger mechanism at the bottom. Pulling the trigger activates a taut length of wire which then sprays the aerosol on to the illegal sign. It incorporates an additional device at the top - a long protruding screw which enables the aerosol can on Ollie to rest at 3" away from the sign to be demetricated, the ideal distance for aerosol spray."

LOL, I've heard it all now!

This whole ARM thing really is quite entertaining.

as you see - there's no ARM really!

er.....

Tony Bennett,

I am replying your to your suggestion about me and others concentrate on more obvious and immediate threats to road safety.

You are suggesting that the condemnation of ARM activities are unjustified on the grounds of proportion.

Firstly two wrongs, or rather one wrong among many others do not make a right.

There is no excuse for ARM or anyone taking action that could conceivably endanger others just to make a political point.

I am unmoved and unimpressed by your attempt to quell criticism by such fallacious diversionary tactics.

<<This whole ARM thing really is quite entertaining.>>

It sure is.

I'll be thinking of these poor guys, when our road signs are finally changed to metric!

re: "I'll be thinking of these poor guys, when our road signs are finally changed to metric!"

REPLY:

When I get older, losing my hair

Many years from now

Will you still be changing all those metric signs

Then celebrating with a bottle of wine?