ARM supporter Mr N Webber from South Oxhey had a problem for seven months in trying to get Watford Council to change a sign at Little Oxhey Lane, Bushey, which said: 'Road Humps Ahead: 200 metres'.

He then wrote a letter saying: "Your sign is illegal; I have now got in touch with A.R.M., who will amend your signs for you without notice and then send you an invoice".

Five days later the sign was replaced by the Council with one saying: '200 yards'.

Just one slight problem. The sign is a few yards in front of an *old* sign which says: 'Road Humps Ahead 220 yards'.


TOTAL NUMBER OF METRIC DISTANCES ON U.K. ROADS AND FOOTPATHS KNOWN TO HAVE BEEN CONVERTED TO IMPERIAL: 2,101

Congratulations, you've succeeded in getting the council to replace an accurate distance sign with one that is in error.

<<
Just one slight problem. The sign is a few yards in front of an *old* sign which says: 'Road Humps Ahead 220 yards'.
>>

This demonstrates the incompetence of the signage authorities. No wonder the situation is such a mess.

re (Stan): "Congratulations, you've succeeded in getting the Council to replace an accurate distance sign with one that is in error".

REPLY: Er, the previous sign, giving a distance of 200 metres to the road humps, was also very much in error. 200 metres is 218 yards approximately.

So the previous sign was:

(a) inaccurate

(b) illegal

(c) confusing, because it was in a different measurement from the one in front of it and of course different from 99.99% of other road signs.

Mr Webber did not ask the Council to just stick the label 'yards' over the 'metres'.

The Council's amendment removes the illegality, but does little to remove the confusion or inaccuracy. If you are concerned about the continuing inaccuracy, maybe you would like to 'phone Watford Council and tell them to reconsider their signage at this location

Bud wrote

<<
This demonstrates the incompetence of the signage authorities. No wonder the situation is such a mess.
>>

The REAL problem for the local authorities is that all their plans are in metric - in fact everything apart form the words on the sign that they are erecting is metric.

If you visit
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm
you will findthe regulations regarding British road signs. You will notice that although the wording on th esigns might be in Imerial units, all the regulations regarding the size of the sins, their locations etc are in metric units. In my view, this is a good reason to compelte the job.

It would be much less costly to simply change the regulations. This way, the only changes necessary would be on paper, not on all the signs.

Bud - that would be "sensible" and cost very little tax payers money. It'll also makes us slightly more different from our european neighbours.

How on *earth* are you going to get that idea passed?

After all - that's simply pandering to the wants of the people.

You are assuming that this Government enjoys democracy.

Martin, here is something from that link of yours that I hope you'll enjoy:

"Where a sign includes distances expressed in both miles and yards, the abbreviation "m" shall be used to indicate those distances expressed in miles"

Well spotted Steve. The Department for Transport has a cavalier attitude towards their legal obligations under the Units of Measure Regulaitons 1986. That is one of their mistakes. Others include the use of single and double appostrophes to denote feet and inches and the use of upper case "T" to denotre tonnes (though they do of course "permit" the use of lower case "t" which is of course the only legal symbol for "tonnes").

Of course, the real howler is the use of "mph". Under the 1986 regulations, "miles per hour" should be denoted by "mile/h". My understanding is that if you get a summons for speeding and the letters "mph" are used, then those letters are of no legal consequence and if you argue your case properly (or pay a good solicitor to do so for you), you should get off. However in so doing, you will also become Public Enemy No 1 in the eys of Alistair Darling.

<<<My understanding is that if you get a summons for speeding and the letters "mph" are used, then those letters are of no legal consequence and if you argue your case properly (or pay a good solicitor to do so for you), you should get off>>

I'll give it a go on the way home!

Actually don't you think some journo will have tried that before?

Imagine if they enforced that rule overnight though?
Everyone will have to hand in their speedos to be changed to miles/h !

BTW - I just sent off my insurance details and the schedule quotes "mileometer reading".

I thought you might like that one too!

SteveH wrote

<<
Actually don't you think some journo will have tried that before?
>>

Only if they had been tipped off. Anyway, if they want to have fun with this one, they do not actually have to get caught speeding themselves - they merely write about it and then let a solicitor go to a magistrates court the following day where he can solicit for trade amongst those who have been caught and who are trying to defend themselves.

re (martin): "The Department for Transport has a cavalier attitude towards their legal obligations under the Units of Measures Regulaitons 1986. That is one of their mistakes. Others include the use of single and double apostrophes to denote feet and inches and the use of upper case "T" to denote tonnes (though they do of course)..."

REPLY: Very fortunately for us, they don't have a cavalier attitude to road safety, which is why they use the single and double apostrophe, since 100% of the British people are familiar with them.

Hey, guess what, I've disovered something. Daft European Union Regulations/Directives are not compatible with our safety!

Tony Bennett wrote

<<
Very fortunately for us, they don't have a cavalier attitude to road safety, which is why they use the single and double apostrophe, since 100% of the British people are familiar with them.
>>

Although most British drivers might be familiar with single and double apostrophes, many Continental drivers are not. In recent years I have seen an increased number of East European lorries on our roads and with ten more counties joining the EU shortly the number is likely to increase.

If we look at things from say a Polish lorry driver's point of view. If he takes his lorry to Germany, he only has to familiarise himself with a different languge. If he takes his lorry to the UK he has to fanmiliarise himself with a different language, a different set of units and with driving on the other side of the road.

If he consults the EU directive (which is law in the UK) he should in theory have a definitve statement of which units are permitted in the UK and how they are represented. If an accident occurs due to the Polish driver ignoring a UK road sign that does not follow the EU directive, he would probably avoid prosecution. If, (Heavan forbid!), it were a serious accident, the Minister for Transport would certainly have to answer for the road signs.

May I repeat the story that I have told many times. The Italian for "kilometres per hour" is "chillometri alla ora", but their road signs always show "km/h".

<<
If we look at things from say a Polish lorry driver's point of view. If he takes his lorry to Germany, he only has to familiarise himself with a different languge. If he takes his lorry to the UK he has to fanmiliarise himself with a different language, a different set of units and with driving on the other side of the road.
>>

A new system of measurement can be learned in a matter of minutes. Learning a new language takes months or even years.
If you are going to learn a new language, the effort in learning a new system of measurement is negligible.

<<<Although most British drivers might be familiar with single and double apostrophes, many Continental drivers are not. In recent years I have seen an increased number of East European lorries on our roads and with ten more counties joining the EU shortly the number is likely to increase. >>>

Are you honestly trying to hint that non-EU vehicles are not allowed into the UK?

Who on earth are those drivers that have a blue shoulder on the left of their car numberplates with the polish flag above the letters "PL" then?

BTW - you didn't mention that the UK has the best road safety figures in Europe.

Which reminds me - where *is* Pip and his white van?

re (SteveH): "Which reminds me - where *is* Pip and his white van?"

ANS: Last seen stuck under a bridge marked only with single and double apostrophes!

From Tony Bennett
<<
REPLY: Very fortunately for us, they don't have a cavalier attitude to road safety, which is why they use the single and double apostrophe, since 100% of the British people are familiar with them.
>>

What about percentage of road users?

re (Stan): "What about percentage of road users?"

ANSWER: 100% of British car drivers pass their driving tests on roads with signs giving distances and heights in miles, yards, feet and inches

As usual you duck the issue.

I said "road users". They're not all British.

Furthermore I'm becoming tired of your brash conceited 100% sloganism.

No such thing mate and you know it!

Tony Bennett wrote

<<
100% of British car drivers pass their driving tests on roads with signs giving distances and heights in miles, yards, feet and inches
>>

Not true - many people who settle in Britain having taken their driving tests abroad exchange their foreign driving licences for British driving licences -my sister, brother-in-law and niece all changed their South African driving licences for a British driving licences.

Does anyone know anyone who experienced problems on the road due to the lack of a metric sign?

[[ a ghostly silence ]]

re (Martin): "...many people who settle in Britain having taken their driving tests abroad exchange their foreign driving licences for British driving licences -my sister, brother-in-law and niece all changed their South African driving licences for a British driving licence..."

REPLY: Yes, on the assumption that they will understand what it means if a sign says:
' Road Width: 6'6" '
or 'Road Narrows 200 yds ahead'
or ' Speed Limit 30 mph '

re (Martin): "...many people who settle in Britain having taken their driving tests abroad exchange their foreign driving licences for British driving licences -my sister, brother-in-law and niece all changed their South African driving licences for a British driving licence..."

REPLY: Yes, on the assumption that they will understand what it means if a sign says:
' Road Width: 6'6" '
or ' Road Narrows 200 yds ahead '
or ' Speed Limit 30 mph '

Tony Bennett wrote

<<
REPLY: Yes, on the assumption that they will understand what it means if a sign says:
' Road Width: 6'6" '
or ' Road Narrows 200 yds ahead '
or ' Speed Limit 30 mph '
>>

If you consult the EU directive 181/80/EEC you will find:

<<6'6">> means a very small angle (6 minutes and 6 seconds). It is illegal for the Government to use these symbols to mean feet and inches.

"200 yds" should not be used - it should be "200 yd". The EU directive references the SI standards in its preamble. The SI standards say that the symbols for units of measure should be the same for both singlular and plural. The reason is tht different languages use differnet ending for denoting the plural.

"30 mph" should not be used. The EU directive states implicitly that it should be "30 mile/h". Again, if one refers to the SI standard for combining units, the SI standard is quite clear when it states that units should be combined using the mathematical sumbols for division or multiplication. In fact, Steve Thoburn propbably priced his infamous bunch of banana as "25p/lb" proving that the use of the "/" is not a foreign concept in the UK.

So Tony, the three example that you gave are all example of the DfT breaking the fine points of the law.

I can just see that scene in Fawlty towers where Basil fawlty slaps himself shouting "naughty man naughty man"!

Best go for a trip round europe where you'll see "mts" all over the place and "kgm"s galore.

Oh dear oh dear, no-one will know what that means.

And all those french people who stamp on their brake because the services sign on one of our roads read "Services 8m".

Hang on a moment?

Is this "deja vu" I'm witnessing?

The paper says that over 4m Germans are unemployed.

You know what, Fritz? Have height reduction surgery !then!!

SteveH wrote

<<
Best go for a trip round europe where you'll see "mts" all over the place and "kgm"s galore.
>>

Steve, I have never seen "mts" anywhere in Europe apart from the UK. The continental European countries use the correct symbol - "m". Similarly, I do not recall having seen "kgm" anywhere - the correct symbol is "km".

I have seen mts in France(!), Spain and Portugal

I have see kgs in those countries too (relating to kg)

Mind you, I saw "yds" in Portugal once (although I admit that it was in the Brit infested Algarve!)

re (martin): "If you consult the EU directive 181/80/EEC..."

REPLY: Something I've done before breakfast every day for the past 24 years

<<
Similarly, I do not recall having seen "kgm" anywhere - the correct symbol is "km".
>>

You saw "kgm" for kilometres?





Regarding UK breaking the fine points of the law by using yds instead of yd, mph instead of mi/h, etc, just tell me how reasonable it is to change these signs to comply with the law? UK motorists already understand them, foreign motorists understand them just as well as they would understand the legal versions, changing them will not standardize UK signs with signs anywhere else, and will cost a lot of money.
Just proves how little the EU people think before producing regulations.

Bud wrote

<<
Just proves how little the EU people think before producing regulations.
>>

The bulk of the EU directive was a cup-and-paste job from the offical definition of SI.

You can view both by follwoing links from www.ukma.org.uk

Ah yes!
BWMA's arch nemesis (who don't have a discussion forum)

Martin,
Are you a member of UKMA? It's time to spill the beans.

<<
The bulk of the EU directive was a cup-and-paste job from the offical definition of SI.
>>

That's exactly my point. They cut and paste regulations without thinking.

Bud wrote

<<
That's exactly my point. They cut and paste regulations without thinking.
>>



On the contrary. Although the SI recomendations were used to a greater or lesser extent in all EU countries (lesser extent in teh case of the UK), the implications of using SI without modification was carefully considered and areas where SI was not used and where it was deemed undesireable to force the use of SI wer listed as areas where SI need not be used.

Such areas included the use of mmHg for the pressure of blood and other body fluids (mmHg was in universal use in the medical industry), the use of feet for flying heights in the aviaition industry (Feet were used universally and were the subject of international agreements). There are a number of other instances and finally a few were bolted on regarding the use of miles, pints etc when Mrs Thatcher threatened to disrupt everything.

When I said that they cut and paste regulations without thinking, I wasn't referring to SI. I was talking about the regulation allowing the UK to keep imperial on the road signs (supposedly indefinitely) but then requiring "yd" instead of "yds", "mi/h" instead of "mph", etc., because these are the SI conventions. I went through the reasons earlier why this makes no sense, and I am quite sure that the people who wrote the laws themselves didn't realize they would be applied this way.

Before the EU Commission can issue a directive, it must be approved by both the Council of Ministers and the EU Parliament. For the record, these bodies are made up as follows:

EU Commission - The EU executive body. Currently the larger EU member states appoint two commissioners and the smaller states one commissioner. (The exact figure change in May when the new members are admitted). The commissioners are supported by a secretariat.


The Council of Ministers - There are actually councils of minsiters - one for each subject matter. For example the council of ministers that deals with financial matters consists of the Finance ministers from all member nations, the council that deals with transport matters consists of the transport ministers form all member nations etc.

The EU Parliament is elected by direct sufferage.


Coming back to the directive itself. The various people who drafted the directive drew upon their own experiences. The UK had ample opportunity to check that British interests were properly addressed, both in the Council of Minsiters and in the EU Parliament. However, Mrs Thatcher was determined to score some cheap political points by doing the bare minimum neccessary regarding the directive hence the mess that we have today.

Mess? LOL! Ask any man on the street about how "messy" British roads are!!

<<The EU Parliament is elected by direct sufferage>>

I would prefer to say "The EU Parliament is enacted by direct suffering"

Have you looked at the stats for UK voting in EU elections?

Do me a favour, tap the shoulder of the man or woman beside you - then ask them what their MEP's name is!!!

SteveH wrote

<<
Do me a favour, tap the shoulder of the man or woman beside you - then ask them what their MEP's name is!!!
>>


Do you know the name of your MEP. If you say yes, you are a liar because you have a number of MEP's. In the UK MEP's are elected via a list system, so SE England (where I live) (Electorate 5.97 million) has 11 MEP's (5 Cons, 2 Lab, 2 Lib Dem, 1 Green , 1 UKIP) and Wales (where SteveH admits to having roots) (Electorate 2.21 million) has 5 MEP's (2 Lab, 2 Plaid Cymru, 1 Con).

I don't have a clue who my local MEP is.

I moved house in between elections.

Where I used to live I voted for UKIP as there was no-one to represent my views except for them at the time.

I also liked the idea of UKIP "irritants" occupying seats in that big EU building and getting on all of those blue flag waving idiots' nerves!

re (martin): "Do you know the name of your MEP? If you say yes, you are a liar because you have a number of MEPs. In the U.K., MEPs are elected via a list system, so SE England (where I live) (Electorate 5.97 million) has 11 MEPs (5 Cons, 2 Lab, 2 Lib Dem, 1 Green, 1 UKIP) and Wales (where SteveH admits to having roots) (Electorate 2.21 million) has 5 MEPs (2 Lab, 2 Plaid Cymru, 1 Con)".

COMMENT: Yes, and tiny Luxembourg, population 385,000, has *SIX!* MEPs.

With all those MEP's flying about it doesn't sound as the the EU is the detached undemocratic institution it's made out to be.

Let's face it democracy only works if people take sufficient notice of public affairs that affect them and participate in elections.

The UK is notorious for poor turn out at local elections for example. But that doesn't mean that local councils are an undemocratic or a faceless bureaucracy.

...but the euro parliament is *soooo* far removed from British life - which is why few people care.

What's the point in voting for people who discuss the decisions of a commision which is wholely unelected?

Like: "I'll vote for you to do what your dad tells you".

You should scour the web for resources on how dangerous the EU is.

Also include Britain in Europe - its like reading the BNP pamphlet that says they're not racist!

Bud wrote

<<
Does anyone know anyone who experienced problems on the road due to the lack of a metric sign?
>>

My son, who is at university, is a member of the Officers Training Corp. We received an invitation to attend his passing out parade next week. I used the London A-Z to plot out the best route to take. My copy of the London A-Z has 500m squares for most of London and 250m squares for central London. Each page covers an area of 5km x 3.5km (10 squares x 7 squares). The actual directions from the Army contained the phrase "... 100m beyond ...".

Why is my odometer in miles and why are the street signs in miles?

re (martin): "Why is my odometer in miles and why are the street signs in miles?"

BECAUSE:

1. Well over 90% of British people want it that way

2. Becasue to introduce metric units on to British roads would be confusing, as the Department for Transport itself concedes

3. Because 100% of drivers on British roads, excluding foreign visitors, are familiar with miles, yards, feet and inches.

In this respect, the A-Z of London and the Army, by using metres, are out of step

Tony Bennet wrote

<<
In this respect, the A-Z of London and the Army, by using metres, are out of step
>>

The London A-Z, in common with most decent maps in the UK is based on the Ordinance Survey which uses a metric grid and has done so since before the War.

Is the Army out of step - NO - apart from the fact that they keep their members "in step" (left - right -left - right), the British Army, like all of our NATO allies uses the metric system.

Is this your latest reasoning for convincing us that British roads should all be in metric, now that you have lost all the other arguments?

Tell us again - what economic or social benefit would be achieved by having km instead of "m" on our roads? Even if they could do it for free?

Or perhaps you'd rather tell us the exact document number from a piece of material held at the EU as reasoning for making the switch.

BTW - I checked all my maps and they have a key showing miles per inch or km per cm. Thus one could make the choice.

As a side issue - martin - would you like that scale key to be changed so that there is no mention of inches and miles? You know - so it looks all "harmonious"?

SteveH wrote

<<
BTW - I checked all my maps and they have a key showing miles per inch or km per cm. Thus one could make the choice.
>>

My maps are the same, but the actual squares themselves are exact multiples or fractions of metric units. Thus, if I am working out a distance, I merely count the squares. FOr example, my wife adn I drove up to Manchester last weekend. AS we were nearing the services where we planned to take a break, my wife asked me "How far to the following services". I conted the squares (2.5 squares) and found that the distance was about 25km which I then had to convert to miles for her benefit. BTW, I did not have a ruler handy - also it is a little awkward ot use a ruler when one is in the passenger seat of a car.

This is well weird!

So you drive around the country in perfect squares?

Does this means that sometimes you have to drive straight across fields and meadows?

What I tend to do is realise the length of a mile (in scale, obviously) and trace the road with my finger.

If I am out by a mile (over a 50 mile journey, say) it really doesn't matter.

Well - to be honest thats what I *used* to do.

now I go here:

www.theaa.com

Check on the journey/route planner,
and put in the 'from' post-code and the 'to' post-code and then click 'go'.

Not only do I get a map but I have worded instructions of when to turn left/right etc.

If I *REALLY* wanted to pretend to be all EU-friendly then I could click "convert to kilometres", but I don't bother - obviously

Don't laugh, but once I put in two letters the wrong way around when putting in the post code for Denham train station and ended up in a quaint little village with a big green with no railway station. Needless to say I missed my train an was late to my meeting.

<<
My copy of the London A-Z has 500m squares for most of London and 250m squares for central London. Each page covers an area of 5km x 3.5km (10 squares x 7 squares). The actual directions from the Army contained the phrase "... 100m beyond ...".

Why is my odometer in miles and why are the street signs in miles?
>>

Yes, you have a problem here. Two systems where you only need one.
Now which would be easier to do - change all the odometers and street signs, or change all the maps and directions?
Think about the costs of each.

Bud wrote

<<
Now which would be easier to do - change all the odometers and street signs, or change all the maps and directions?
>>

The British maps maps use the British National Grid. The National Grid is used by the Military, Road engineers, land registration office, Dept of Agriculture (for tracing disease outbreaks etc), Power industry and gas industry (for locating equipment), aviation etc. I think that it might well be cheaper for the GOvernment to carry the cost of changing everybody's odometer and speedometer than it would be to change the National Grid. (In practice the Government will not pay for either).

If you want to know more about the Mapping Grids, may I suggest that you visit

http://www.colorado.edu/geography/gcraft/notes/coordsys/coordsys.html#ups

There is no need to change the national grid. All that needs to be changed is the maps that are printed for drivers to use.
There is no reason that road engineers and the drivers have to be using the same system. And there is no reason that maps used by drivers have to match the national grid.

It is quite common for directions to countryside tourist atttractions to have a National Grid references. It helps therefore to have the National Grid lines on road maps. Furthermore, some of our road signs (eg Dorset CC "finger type" road signs) have the National Grid reference on teh sign itself.

Point taken about the national grid references on maps and signs. But how much is this convenience worth to toursits (how many times is it used), and does this justify the cost of changing all the signs and odometers in the country to metric?
My instinct is that it is not. But I have no figures to work with, so I can't tell.

There are around 1.5 million to 2 million road signs in the United Kingdom which are signed in Imperial, i.e. miles, miles per hour, yards, feet and inches.

It would cost over £1 billion (one thousand million pounds) to convert them.

A major reason for ARM's campaign to excise, treat and cure the recent rash of metric road and footpath signs is to save the country £1 billion expenditure - so that taxpayers' money can be spent on better uses e.g. health and housing. Metric zealots do not care about such priorities.

That £1 billion cost excludes, of course, the cost of converting speedometers

Tony Bennett wrote

<<
There are around 1.5 million to 2 million road signs in the United Kingdom which are signed in Imperial, i.e. miles, miles per hour, yards, feet and inches.
>>

We have had this converation before. This is a gross overestimate.THere might well be 1.5 million to 2 million road signs in the UK, but only a small portion of them are signed in Imperial units.

2 million signs means one sign for every 25 people in the country. The close where I live has 14 houses with between 3 and 4 occupants per house. This gives between 42 and 56 people. THere are two road signs in our close - the name of the close when approaching from the East and the name of the close when approaching from the West. Neither of these signs have any units on them.

Using the Irish figures (EUR 5,000,000 to change the speed restriction signs) and mutliplying them by 20 to account for the larger population in the UK suggest shtat it would cost £60 million to change the speed limits signs.

The profits from speed cameras is about £40 million per year (assuming 6000 fines of £60 each day and that 50% of the fine is absorbed by expenses). If this "profit" were diverted to paying for metrication, and metrication were staggered over a number of years (replacing worn-out Imperial signs with new metric signs out of the normal road budget) it would cost the taxpayer very little.

re (Martin): "The close where I live has 14 houses with between 3 and 4 occupants per house. This gives between 42 and 56 people. There are two road signs in our close - the name of the close when approaching from the East and the name of the close when approaching from the West. Neither of these signs have any units on them".

REPLY: Martin, you cannot be a scientist. If you were, you would realise that extrapolation of how many signs there are in Imperial units in the whole of the U.K. from how many signs there are in Brookside Close, Blandtown, is not likely to yield accurate results!

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

re (Martin): "The profits from speed cameras are about £40 million per year (assuming 6000 fines of £60 each day and that 50% of the fine is absorbed by expenses). If this "profit" were diverted to paying for metrication, and metrication were staggered over a number of years (replacing worn-out Imperial signs with new metric signs out of the normal road budget) it would cost the taxpayer very little".

REPLY: Now I wonder about your common sense and concern for road safety. Are you seriously suggesting that as we drive along, we shoud encounter, in succession, 'Give Way 200 metres', 'Road Works Ahead 300 yds', 'Blandtown 4', 'Blandtown 5km' etc.?

And would you prefer £40 million a year to be used for staggered metrication - or to build low-cost housing for homeless families or to fund more Doctors and nurses? If you stick to your preference for staggered metrication, I'd be, er, staggered

I'd also like to remind Martin that simply taking the Irish population and scaling it up is absurd. There are probably more miles of road in Greater london than there is in the whole of Eire!

I'm starting to suspect your sanity, Martin. Your recent posts are sounding more and more desperate! Where have the "benefits of metric over imperial" type posts gone? They were hard to argue against as some made common sense, but your recent posts?

SteveH wrote

<<
I'd also like to remind Martin that simply taking the Irish population and scaling it up is absurd. There are probably more miles of road in Greater london than there is in the whole of Eire!
>>

Quite possible - London's population is twice Eire's population.

Martin, I am sure that there are many more signs per person in rural areas than urban areas. Also, since distances are larger in rural areas, it would be more necessary to list distances on signs.
Secondly, changing signs to metric as they wear out is impractical for two reasons. First, it may cause confusion, even if the transitional signs had both units. (Canada changed all the signs from miles to km over one weekend. I believe Ireland used a more gradual approach, though.) Secondly, road signs last longer than you think. They are made of sturdy metal and do not need to be replaced often. If you tried to convert them to metric as they wore out, it would take decades.

btw, is there a law in Britain that profits from traffic fines have to be spent on roads?

Bud wrote

<<
Canada changed all the signs from miles to km over one weekend. I believe Ireland used a more gradual approach, though.
>>

In Ireland, distance signs on main roads were changed over a relatively short period. Distance signs on secondary roads where changed over a much longer period. Distances in miles had no units, distances in km always have "km" attached. It is however planned to change speed restriction signs over in one weekend or a similar short period.


<<
Secondly, road signs last longer than you think. They are made of sturdy metal and do not need to be replaced often. If you tried to convert them to metric as they wore out, it would take decades.
>>
I agree that it would probably take one decade for the process to be completed, but I would advocate that distances signs on main roads (trunk roads and motorways) along with height and width restriction signs be changed over a short period of time, but the remainder be changed as and when they wore out. BTW, yesterday I had reason to drive along a road that was about 15 years old. SOme of the original signs were still there and they looked very badly worn.


<<
btw, is there a law in Britain that profits from traffic fines have to be spent on roads?
>>

No. In fact it was a scandal that until one or two years ago the authorities who levied the traffic fine (eg a City COuncil) were not even permitted to deduct their expenses before handing the fine over to the general Government fund.

Tell you what - why don't we leave the signs as they are?

See, only Martin and a tiny minority want to change them to metric - and that is just to see imperial irradicated rather than a safety or quality issue.

Ask a visiting European if Britain should concentrate on and spend lots of money on making signs say metres and km and you'll get a surprising answer.

Ask them if we should join the euro - and that's another kettle of fish, although I did manage to make one german girl admit that she was jealous that we still had our own currency!

Ok - I'll stop talking about currency in case it acts as a lure to a "certain person" (need I say more?)

Anyway back on-topic, I've never quite understood the drive to make British (or indeed Irish, Canadian, American etc etc) signs look "all metric" when over 90% of the public prefer the signs to stay as-is and also the possible safety issue of changing and that's BEFORE you can start discussing cost!

It seems a bizzare thing to want to do unless the reason is political or based on vendetta.

And how can roadsigns be "political"????

<<
I would advocate that distances signs on main roads (trunk roads and motorways) along with height and width restriction signs be changed over a short period of time, but the remainder be changed as and when they wore out.
>>
The remainder?
All that's left is distance signs on secondary roads and speed limit signs. I wouldn't imagine there to be too many distance signs on secondary roads. And I don't see how speed limit signs can be changed as they wear out, even if people have dual-labeled speedometers, because this would be confusing.
Martin, are you advocating that signs be replaced as they start looking old, or when they actually become inoperable? When a sign is erected, it will lose its fresh, new look in a few years, but will remain useful for many years to come.

OK, I would expect speed restriction signs to be changed over a very short period (as happened in Canada)

<<
All that's left is distance signs on secondary roads and speed limit signs. I wouldn't imagine there to be too many distance signs on secondary roads.
>>

Bud, have you ever been to the UK?

I have, but I was too young to remember much.
I would imagine there wouldn't be many distance signs on secondary roads because these roads, unlike main roads, are usually used by locals who don't need so much signage to find their way around.
Am I wrong about this? I would appreciate if you could clarify the situation.

Bud wrote

<<
Am I wrong about this? I would appreciate if you could clarify the situation.
>>

Yes, you are wrong. Virtually every cross road has a sign post giving the directions to neighbouring towns, villages or suburbs (distances that are seldom over 10 miles). In addition there is a plethora of signs warning of low bridges ahead, humps in the road (the humps are placed there to persuade motorists to use alternative routes).