I live in Bucks which is an area of the country that has no (as far as I have driven) metric road signs. Indeed one was put up in Wycombe and I just sent a quick email to Bucks CC and they replaced it straight away - no fuss.

HOWEVER!

There is a picturesque road that links Loudwater and Bourne End/Marlow which resides in a place called "Flackwell Heath". This road is called Sheepridge lane.

A load of signs have been put up that are illegal - but more than this these signs will even irritate staunch pro-metrics!!!

Why?

Well they're building a by-pass road and there are some contractors working on the road. Anyway there are awhole load of red rectangle signs saying something like "site entrance and turning" and then underneath 800M, 600M, 400M, 200M, 100M which are placed from both sides.

What I want to know is -

1)why have they put illegal (and rather ugly) metric signs all down this wonderful country road ?

and

2) How do I safely approach a works road if it is 800 megas, 600 meagas, 400 megas etc etc away?

My first thought is if they're gonna be politically correct I reckon they should at least learn the freaky units they are forcing on us, my second thought is - do I have permission to light that bat-man style beam that shows a big "ARM" up in the sky? Cos we could do with your help down here, chaps!!

Between 3.30pm and 4.30pm today, the signs in question had the large 'M's blacked out, and 'yds' was substituted in 4" high adhesive reflective white lettering.

The total number of metric distances in the U.K. known to have been demetricated has risen to 2,181.

You wish was our command

My fiancée (dammit, 'girlfriend') actually told me that all those signs had been changed when I met her at home after work last night.

She does that journey every (working) day.

I was more that surprised at how quickly the job had been done!

Good work!

SteveH

You have for some time now been telling this forum how you don't mind Imperial or metric and that it's all a matter of choice.

Well it's about time you admitted to your true prejudice.

With reference to roads it is a safety thing - that's all.

I don't feel sick whenever I use a millimetre, believe me!

Mr H,

Firstly I will concede that the signs in question were incorrect (assuming your reproduction 800M etc is literally accurate) they should be signed 800 m, etc.

Secondly, I have the impression that you are of an age such that your education was in metric.

So why are you so confused by signs indicating distances in metres?

*I* wasn't confused.

I was annoyed that

1) 800M was a poor attempt at being trendy

2) Some road users do not know metric, whereas all *should* know imperial

3) With "m" meaning "mile" on our roads it looks terribly sloppy to suddenly use it for short distances (albeit meaning "mega").

Questions I would pose are:

1) Who, in the UK, makes signs that are clearly illegal on UK roads and why?

2) Who decided that people shoud not see "yards" but they should see (mutated) metres?.

(2) reminds me of the farce of weather - LBC have recently stopped using Fahrenheit, so I laughed when the news bloke said "Tonight should be as mild as last night, and temperatures should fall as low as 10C"

He pronounced "as low as" in a way to convey extreme coldness. 50F/10C is not an extremely cold night (in fact its the temperature that I use to decide to turn off the central heating in readiness for summer).




BTW - whereas as us lot here know more than the avg person does in regards to measures (because it interests us) most people don't want to have confusing signs on the road. Seeing "Bourne End 3m" then "Site entrance 200M" is a stupid state of affairs.

BTW - I have always resisted the want to "hate" metric, even though it's sometimes difficult (when you see the efforts by some people in places of unelected power).

At the end of the day I remind myself that in many circumstances "metric" is a very good measuring system.

SteveH wrote

<<
Questions I would pose are:

1) Who, in the UK, makes signs that are clearly illegal on UK roads and why?
>>

Firstly, the signs that yo are referring to are not "illegal", they are "unlawful".

The difference is that for a sign to be "illegal", the sign was erected in definace of a law that said that the sign may NOT be erected (eg - a private individual erecting a 'speed limit' sign).

A sign that is "unlawful" is one that has not been authorised in law, for example, the road engineers failing to get the ministers approval before erecting the signs on the approach to the "Magic Roundabout". The signs shown in
http://www.swindonweb.com/life/lifemagi0.htm
are unlawful unless the Minister formally gave permission for them to be used.

Now to answer Steve's question as to "Who, in the UK, makes signs that are clearly unlawful [my correction] on UK roads and why?"

Imagine that you are road contractor. You have are told by the local authority that you must place road signs warning of road works ahead at locations of 200 metres, 400 metres and 800 metres from the road works. The local authority cannot use "yards" in their instructions as this would be contrary to the EU directive. You dutifully go away and order some road signs to be place 200m, 400m and 800m from the road works. What is the logical wording to put on those road signs? The most reasonable is "Roadworks Ahead 200m".

Does that answer your question Steve?

Does this also explain why I regard it as stupid to persist in requring motorists using the Imperial system while road builder use the metric system?

"The local authority cannot use "yards" in their instructions as this would be contrary to the EU directive."

The authority is not allowed to instruct the use of LAWFUL signs?

"What is the logical wording to put on those road signs? The most reasonable is "Roadworks Ahead 200m". "

I disagree - the logical wording would be the legal wording.
Also logic dictates that the wording be in tune with what the public expects.

"Does that answer your question Steve?"

I get your point, but it doesn't answer it - the trouble is that there are many layers to the question.

"Does this also explain why I regard it as stupid to persist in requring motorists using the Imperial system while road builder use the metric system?"

Absolutely not - more stupid is that road builders are FORCED to use units on roads that are all imperial! And forced by a collective of people many of which might never set foot on a British road! Now THAT'S stupid! Can't you possibly see it this way round?

Besides, whereas road builder may have been forced to use metric units where imperial ones worked perfectly well british drivers are *NOT* currently forced to use metric units - they can still use units they prefer.

Why do you love State power so much Martin? Do you have something against individuals? Are we not able to look after our selves?

SteveH wrote

<<
"The local authority cannot use "yards" in their instructions as this would be contrary to the EU directive."

The authority is not allowed to instruct the use of LAWFUL signs?

"What is the logical wording to put on those road signs? The most reasonable is "Roadworks Ahead 200m". "

I disagree - the logical wording would be the legal wording.
Also logic dictates that the wording be in tune with what the public expects.
>>

Steve,

There is a considerable difference between the Local Authority saying

"Erect a warning sign 200m from the roadworks"
and
"Erect a warning sign saying 'Roadworks 220yd' from the roadworks".

In the first case the LA duck their responsibility and in the second case they do not. The situation that I was describing was one ion which the LA put the onus onto the road contractor to erect the correct sign.

SteveH wrote

<<
Why do you love State power so much Martin? Do you have something against individuals? Are we not able to look after our selves?
>>

Steve, I do not love State power - I acknowledge that it is there. For example, if a Local Authority erected an unlawful "No Parking" sign, then I would suggest to anybody who had their car towed away when they inadvertedly parked there that they should use to their advantage that fact that the Local Authority ignored the State's power.

SteveH wrote

<<
Why do you love State power so much Martin? Do you have something against individuals? Are we not able to look after our selves?
>>

Both my sister and I had an experiences in Johannesburg some yeas ago of what can happen if road signs are not properly managed.

1. As my sister was approaching a "T" junction in the middle of the city, she saw a green sign which looked as though it was an arrow authorising her to turn right. She did so and was stopped by a police officer and fined. What she thought was an arrow was actually a pedestrian crossing. The sign had been badly sited and in poor visibility conditions could easily be confused with a grteen arrow.


2. When driving close to a hospital in Johannesburg, I saw a road sign that had a line drawing of a policeman with his finger up to his lips. (It was somebody's clever idea of a "Silence" sign). SInce it was a line drawing and noit a silohette, it took me a significant time (over one second) to register that I was looking a line drawing rather than a silohette. Motorists should be able to register what traffic signs mean far quicker than that.


Also, the Italian's seem to have commissioned Michealangelo to have designed many of their road signs. Yes, they are works of art, but they take some getting used to. Driving in Italy has made me appreciate the need for crisp and clear road signs. One positive thing about Italy was that they used the internationally accepted "km/h" and not something stupid like "cao" (chillometri alle ora) which would be the Italian equivalent of "kph".

<<
The difference is that for a sign to be "illegal", the sign was erected in definace of a law that said that the sign may NOT be erected.
A sign that is "unlawful" is one that has not been authorised in law
>>

So there are three categories of signs:
1. Illegal. The law says they cannot be erected.
2. Unlawful. The law is silent. It does not authorize nor does it ban the sign from being erected.
3. Legal

I have a few questions.
1. Is there a law that says that all signs have to be authorized by law?
If so, then any unlawful sign would also be illegal by definition. If not, then any sign that is not banned by law is allowed. Someone please clarify.

2. Has the illegal-unlawful distinction been established in the courts, or is it simply the opinion of ARM/BWMA?

Bud wrote

<<
I have a few questions.
1. Is there a law that says that all signs have to be authorized by law?
If so, then any unlawful sign would also be illegal by definition. If not, then any sign that is not banned by law is allowed. Someone please clarify.

2. Has the illegal-unlawful distinction been established in the courts, or is it simply the opinion of ARM/BWMA?
>>

Point 2 first. THis is my interpretation, not ARM/BWMA's interpreation. I hold that ARM has acted illegally by modifying signs that are only unlawful, but not illegal.


How can a sign be unlawful, but not illegal? Quite simply - an authority who are authorised in law to erect a sign erected a sign that did not comply with the law. For example, they failed to get ministerial approval for a sign that was not explicitly listed in the regulations or they erected a sign whose layout did not meet the regulations (for example, UK law might require that a red circle in a particular class of sign have a particular width - say 100mm, French regulations have a different requiremnent - say 90mm and the authority bought a set of signs from France because they were cheaper.

An illegal sign would be a speed restriction sign that I erected outside my house without authorisation.

I have said this before - it is the perogativeof the Minister to order changes to unlawful signs (he has an alternative - he can authorise them retrospectively - see TRSGD 2002), while a member of the public can remove an illegal sign. However if a member of the public removes or modifies an unlawful sign, he can be prosecuted for criminal damage.

re (martin): "The difference is that for a sign to be "illegal", the sign was erected in defiance of a law that said that the sign may NOT be erected (e.g. - a private individual erecting a 'speed limit' sign)".

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

REPLY: Your answer, Martin, strongly suggests that your purported distinction between 'illegal' and 'unlawful' is a distinction without a difference.

What else are the Traffic Signs Regulations 2002 but a set of government laws stating explicity what signs may or may not be erected by Council officials and construction contractors?

Thus by your own posted definition, a sign saying: "Give Way - 200 metres" is *illegal*.

I have a measure of sympathy with contractors who erect signs like "Site Entrance Ahead - 400 metres". The problem is in the New Road and Street Works Act which requires warning notices to be placed at intervals of 100, 200, 400 and 800 metres *at the discretion of the local authority*, which has the power to stipulate what particular warning signs they require. This is done at the stage when the contractor who may be laying pipes or whatever submits his plans of what roads are going to be affected. It explains why the signs at Flackwell Heath were - illegally - in metric.

Actually, in order to comply strictly with both sets of Regulations (Traffic Signs *and* New Road and Street Works), a construction contractor who was required to place a sign at 100 metres from the site entrance would have to erect a sign that said "Site Entrance - 110 yards".


It all goes to show how daft the metrication process is and how chaotic it becomes when you try and shift a population of 60 million from one measurement system to another

Tony Bennett wrote

<<
It all goes to show how daft the metrication process is and how chaotic it becomes when you try and shift a population of 60 million from one measurement system to another
>>

On the contrary - it goes to show how chaotic things become when a Government stops a program when it is half complete and expects part of the population to work with the completed part of the program and the remainder to work with uncompleted part of the program.


There is a saying in the IT Industry (I don't know if SteveH has seen it, if he hasn't he will learn something which I am sure he will appreciate):

"Bugs breed in the corners and congregate on the boundaries"

If this is translated to the metrication process, then this means that problems arise on the boundaries between the "metricated world" and the "unmetricated world".

re (martin): "Bugs breed in the corners and congregate on the boundaries"

REPLY: This sounds like something out of the 'Wit and Wisdom of Eric Cantona'

re (martin): "On the contrary - it goes to show how chaotic things become when a Government stops a program when it is half complete and expects part of the population to work with the completed part of the program and the remainder to work with uncompleted part of the program".

REPLY:

There are two potential ways to rectify the absurd problem where contractors are expected to erect road warning signs at 100, 200, 400 and 800 metres before a site entrance and then put them up in yards to comply with the Traffic Signs Regulations.

SOLUTION A: The Secretary of State for Transport next week signs an amending regulation substituting the word 'yards' for 'metres' in the appropriate regulations in the New Road and Street Works Act, or

SOLUTION B: The govenrmert embarks on a programme (British spelling) of £1 billion-plus expenditure to convert all Britain's 1 to 2 million road signs to metric (this in a situation where 100% of British motorists are familiar with miles and yards, understand them and prefer them).

I know which solution I'd choose

Tony Bennett wrote

<<
re (martin): "Bugs breed in the corners and congregate on the boundaries"

REPLY: This sounds like something out of the 'Wit and Wisdom of Eric Cantona'
>>

As I said, this come from the IT world. When you have work on many software development teams, you will appreciate the saying. I am sure that many IT people on this forum will back me up on this one whether they be pro-metirc or anti-metric.

I created two sayings -

"If in doubt, assume"

and

"If in doubt, delete files"

both have hilarious consequences.




But as they say - "When in Rome...."

Tony Bennett wrote

<<
to convert all Britain's 1 to 2 million road signs to metric
>>

Britain has 372,000 km of paved roads and 0km of unpaved roads (According to the CIA handbook). If there are between 1 and 2 million road signs, then they will be spaced, on average, at intervals of between 185m and 371m apart. I live in on of the commuter towns that surround London. The cul-de-sac where is live is about 150m long. The road from which the cul-de-sac branches is 1.3km long. There are certainly half a dozen signs or so (mainly road names) on these two roads, but none will need converting should Britain decide to metricate her road signs.

The statements therefore that between 1 million and 2 million signs will need conversion is therefore manifestly untrue. I have said so a number of times on this forum, by Tony keeps on quoting his figures of 1 to 2 million road signs - he quite clearly has either not read my earlier postings or he is ignoring them in order to mislead other readers.

Was that an attempt at getting the most metric words in one post as possible?

BTW - if there are no unpaved roads in the UK according to the CIA) then how come there are miles and miles of unpaved roads in the UK.

My parents live on a road which is unpaved and its about 200 yds long.

They have a 50ft tree in the back yard and my Dad is about 5' 10" tall.




BTW - I'd rather believe T.B.'s figures than you considering he spends much of his time out-and-about checking them!

(and that's my non-biased opinion)

re (martin): "there are no road signs in my cul-de-sac..."

REPLY:

Come on, Martin, not that "I live in a cul-de-sac and there are no road signs in it" argument all over again!

Please consider the posting below, made June last year.

As I've said befoe, you can't extrapolate from your cul-de-sac.

Drive along a main road or in the country and see just how many signs there are e.g. '30 mph', 'Chipping Sodbury 3, 'Road Works 200 yds' 'Road Width 6' 6"' etc. etc.


____________________
PASTED MESSAGE

836 distance and dimension signs in 116 miles
June 25 2003 at 8:02 PM Tony Bennett

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

One subject of discussion on this board has been whether or not the estimate by ARM that metric conversion of road and pedestrian signs would cost £1 billion plus is an exaggeration or not. ARM has also consistently estimated that there may be well be over a million road signs in the country that would need converting.

On a recent journey by road from the outskirts of Salisbury to Stourbridge, a journey of 116 miles, it was decided to count how many distance and dimension signs could be seen along the roads. The roads covered were, respectively, the A 338, A 345, A 417, M 5 and A 491. The journey involved rural, urban and motorway driving.

Signs visible in either direction, or just off the main road and easily visible, were counted. Each distance on signs with more than one distance on them, e.g. a route confirmatory sign giving distances to 2, 3, 4 or 5 places, was counted.

The total number of dimension and distance signs counted was 836. That works out at about one every 244 yards.

The following types of signs were seen along the way (list not complete):

30 mph
40 mph
50 mph
60 mph
Speed limit 50 mph, 3/4 mile ahead
P 1/2 mile, 1/4 mile
Slippery road for 150 yards
Beware deer for 2 miles
Lane closed ahead, 800 yds, 600 yds, 400 yds, 200yds
Road works ahead, various distances
Give way ahead, various distances
Signs to villages off route
Route confirmatory signs
Motorway route confirmatory signs
Distances to motorway junctions, intersections etc., 1m, 1/2m, and 1/3 mile
Traffic lights, 200 yds, 100yds

Out of all the signs seen, 835 were Imperial and one metric (on the A 417: 'Prohibited length 8 metres at Lechlade').

Private signs were not counted. But several dozen were seen e.g. distances to pubs, garages and bed-and-breakfasts, acreages or sq. ft. of agricultural and industrial land respectively. Of several dozen seem, just two were metric.

*Every single one* of the 835 Imperial dimensions and distances seen on the Salisbury to Stourbridge journey would have to be changed if our roads and highways ever went metric - if not by a new sign, then at least by a sticker giving the distance/dimension/speed in metric.

It's an awesome thought.

Do we *really* need it?

Tony,

If expense was the only problem regarding metrication, signs could be changed as follows:

Signs to be changed as follows:

Phase 1 (to be done asap to remove "m" = "mile" symbols)
=======
Distances to motorway junctions, intersections etc., 1m, 1/2m, and 1/3 mile


Phase 2 (to be authorised immediately, but changes only to be done when the sign needs replacing
=======
P 1/2 mile, 1/4 mile
Slippery road for 150 yards
Beware deer for 2 miles
Lane closed ahead, 800 yds, 600 yds, 400 yds, 200yds
Road works ahead, various distances
Give way ahead, various distances
Signs to villages off route
Traffic lights, 200 yds, 100yds

Phase 3 - COnversion of distances on motorways and trunk roads
=======
Route confirmatory signs
Motorway route confirmatory signs


Phase 4 - conversion of speed limit signs
=======
30 mph
40 mph
50 mph
60 mph
Speed limit 50 mph, 3/4 mile ahead


You will notice of course that the classification of signs has been cut and pasted from Tony's last posting. If one looks at signs in Britain, one will notice that numerically, nmost of those that require changing are in Phase 2 - signs which I have identified can be changed only when they need replacing.

If this timetable were followed, the costs would not only be dpread over a number of years, but would also be far less than Tony's estimate. Moreover, since the Chancellor has had a windfall from speed camera's, the cost of the conversion could be financed in total by the proceeds of speeding fines (after allowing LA's to deduct their costs of course).

Erm...

But why?

re (martin): "since the Chancellor has had a windfall from speed cameras, the cost of the conversion could be financed in total by the proceeds of speeding fines (after allowing LA's to deduct their costs of course)".

REPLY:

So could many road safety features.

So could more hospital beds for old people who lie on trolleys for up to 4 days.

So could financial aid for starving Zimbabweans and Sudanese.

So could coastal erosion measures.

So could many things which are much more needed than converting 1-2 million perfectly adequate road signs which everyone understands

...that's a hard one to argue against!

(unless you happen to be "on the fringe" like, for example, "you know who")

Tony, have you ever considered how much time and money you have wasted on your pointless campaign to change signs to imperial?

Enough to fund a fair few hospital beds I reckon

I'm sure that his method is very frugal.

Stickers and paint don't cost much (I would have thought)

re (Andy): "pointless campaign to change signs to imperial..."

REPLY:

1. ARM's activities are wholly funded by generous donors

2. The ultimate purpose of the campaign is to prevent the government from wasting a billion pounds plus on a wholly unnecessary conversion of 1 to 2 million road signs into metric

3. A subsidiary purpose is to prevent 'metric confusion' on our roads and footpaths.

The above two objectives are ones I am very comfortable with. Objective 3 is succeeding as metric signs are progressively removed and Councils get the message that they are (a) illegal and (b) not welcome. We hope that the government will in due course see the logic of spending money on people's real needs rather than pursuing an objective of metric compulsion

<<
2. The ultimate purpose of the campaign is to prevent the government from wasting a billion pounds plus on a wholly unnecessary conversion of 1 to 2 million road signs into metric
>>

This point does not wash with me. Surely if you are converting signs from metric back to imperial, then the government will have to spend more than they would have to changing the ones that the ARM have been onto back to metric! If they had been left metric, then that would be one less sign to convert.

re (Andy): "If they had been left metric, then that would be one less sign to convert"

REPLY: Fortunately, those Councils who have erected metric signs have acknowledged, albeit sometimes through gritted teeth, that their signs were unlawful.

Extraordinary that ARM has had to point out to over 180 British local authorities to date that they have broken the law.

But now they've got the message and are staying within the law; new illegal metric signs are very rare now

sorry, I mistakenly thought it was Andy's quotation

When the UK government finally gets around to meeting its obligation to change road signs to metric, it will no doubt do so in a manner that minimises costs and uses natural wastage as much as possible.

The fairytale cost assessment we keep hearing from ARM is just the sort of rhetoric we hear from opposition parties trying to rubbish government public spending plans at election time.

<<
When the UK government finally gets around to meeting its obligation to change road signs to metric, it will no doubt do so in a manner that minimises costs and uses natural wastage as much as possible.
>>

Minimizing costs is great, but it will still cost a significant amount. By the way, as far as I know the UK is under no obligation to change road signs to metric, please correct me if otherwise. Natural wastage, i.e., replacing signs as they wear out, might help a bit but if they try to take advantage of this it will lengthen the transition period.

When economists are deciding whether or not to do something, they do a cost-benefit analysis. Any action should proceed if Marginal Benefit > Marginal Cost.
In this case, marginal cost is the cost of replacing/modifying all the road signs in the country, which everyone has agreed will be a fair amount of money. For marginal benefit, let's say the sign's lifetime is, generously, fifty years. Let's look at a one-year period. To find out what would be the benefit of having all the signs in the country in metric for one year, look at a past year when the signs were not in metric. Pick any arbitrary year, and calculate the costs that could have been avoided if the signs had been in metric: trucks stuck under bridges, foreign drivers having to go through extra training in order to be able to drive on British roads, whatever. Then multiply the total cost by the lifetime of the signs. No matter how creative you are, you will never find enough benefits to add up to the marginal cost.

Bud wrote

<<
For marginal benefit, let's say the sign's lifetime is, generously, fifty years
>>

In teh United Kingdom, a sign's lifetiem is typically 10 years.

Where do you get figures like that from martin?

Do you know someone "on the inside"?

SteveH wrote

<<
Where do you get figures like that from martin?

Do you know someone "on the inside"?
>>

I get these figures from my own observations. I know that certain roads are about 10 years old and I can see the condition of the signs. Also, on Easter Day, when going ot see my mother, I noticed a "Steep hill" sign that was extermely faded - the red triangle was almost white and the word was almost indecipherable - I could just read that it referred to a hill that had a slope of 12%. MAximum slope sighs in Britian were changed from the form 1:n to m% about 20 years ago and this sign was definitely well past its "sell-by" date.

There's a "CWT" sign near me.

And it looks quite new.

It is, however, right under a motorway bridge and thus doesn't get the full brunt of the elements

Well, if the life of the sign is shorter, that would only further diminish the Marginal Benefit side of the equation.

re (martin): "I noticed a "Steep Hill" sign that was extermely faded - the red triangle was almost white and the word was almost indecipherable - I could just read that it referred to a hill that had a slope of 12%. Maximum slope signs in Britain were changed from the form 1:n to m% about 20 years ago and this sign was definitely well past its 'sell-by' date".

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

REPLY: ARM keeps a watch out on Steep Hill signs though has never interfered with them. Our surveys suggest that even after 20 years, percentage (%) signs only account for 90% to 95% of all Steep Hill signs. It is not unknown for new Steep Hill signs to be erected in the '1 in 6' or '1:6' format and, for example, there are several new such signs around Harlow, a couple just outside the Hertfordshire village of Much Hadham.

Without question, the '1 in 6' style signs are much easier to understand - and that is *not* just a matter of familiarity.

For example, just before the steepest part of the descent down the notorious Porlock Hill into the village of Porlock, a truly huge white-on-red sign announces in big letters: "Warning 1 in 4". It doesn't mess about with continental '25%' or '30%' or whatever.

Incidentally, unless anyone knows better, the steepest hill I have come across in the U.K is in the village of Harlech, north Wales, where there is a sign warning of a 40% slope. I have driven down that hill but not up it

<<<Without question, the '1 in 6' style signs are much easier to understand - and that is *not* just a matter of familiarity.>>>

I assume you have survey results to back this up then?

Even though it's totally not a metric argument I can much easily visualise something making up 1 -in- 4 of something rather than 25% (even though this particular example is not too diffilcult either way).

Surely '%' and 'n -in- n' cuts the metric/imperial divide? They can be used in either without conversion.

re (Andy): "I assume you have survey results to back this up then?" [i.e. preference for 1 in 4 instead of 25%]


REPLY: Speak to the next 10 women drivers you come across. Ask them the meaning of, say, 'Steep Hill 12%' and 'Steep Hill 1 in 8'. The answers will be in line with my proposition that '1 in 4' etc. is much easier to understand.

If not, I'll, well...give up amending road signs for Lent

<<<REPLY: Speak to the next 10 women drivers you come across. Ask them the meaning of, say, 'Steep Hill 12%' and 'Steep Hill 1 in 8'. The answers will be in line with my proposition that '1 in 4' etc. is much easier to understand.

If not, I'll, well...give up amending road signs for Lent>>>

I really have no idea what the preference would be, but I guarantee that not "everyone" would prefer the same. That was all I was disputing.

What if I asked 10 male drivers?

Personally I think I prefer the '1 in 4' style. I tend to go for the system thats easiest, and in this case thats what works for me.

<<What if I asked 10 male drivers?>>

They'll probably see it as "Fast driving opportunity coming up".

By the way, if you *did* ask 10 women, I wonder how many of them would pull over and ask any male in the car to take over "just in case" ?

[oh dear]

Re
<<
Without question, the '1 in 6' style signs are much easier to understand - and that is *not* just a matter of familiarity.

For example, just before the steepest part of the descent down the notorious Porlock Hill into the village of Porlock, a truly huge white-on-red sign announces in big letters: "Warning 1 in 4". It doesn't mess about with continental '25%' or '30%' or whatever.
>>

Case not proven. No one has yet advanced any sensible reason why 1:n is superior to %

I suspect the real reason for this objection to % format is that is regarded as a Continental form so automatically bad!

It is simply easier to visualize a fraction than a percentage. If you see "1:8", you have to think as follows: for each foot (or meter, yard, whatever) you climb, you will have gone 8 feet (or meters or yards) ahead. You can easily visualize a line with the correct slope and get a feel for how steep the road is. If it says "12%", you have to do one of two things. You can imagine that you are climbing 12 feet for every 100 feet ahead you go, which is obviously much more confusing, or you can convert it to a fraction, which shouldn't be too difficult. Either way, the ratio is simpler.

<<<I suspect the real reason for this objection to % format is that is regarded as a Continental form so automatically bad!>>>

I think you've hit the nail on the head there!

re (Stan): "Case not proven. No one has yet advanced any sensible reason why 1:n is superior to %. I suspect the real reason for this objection to % format is that is regarded as a Continental form so automatically bad!"


REPLY: Bud has already answered this point and given a clear reason why '1 in 4' etc. is superior to 25%. It's because much bigger units are used with the 'percentage' system.

Also, percentage signs on British steep hills use conversions from British notation to percentages. As a consequence, they are often inaccurate. So '1 in 6', '1 in 7' and '1 in 8' respectively become 17%, 14% and 12% - all technically inaccurate. They're only accurate to the nearest 1%.

You will find 20% [1 in 5] and 25% [1 in 4] on British roads but not the intermediate percentages of 21%, 22%, 23% and 24%.

As is often but by no means always the case, the British way of doing things is preferable

Of course the Brtish motorist or maybe lorry driver relies on slope tangents being quoted to within an accuracy of 1%.

Otherwise they get their calculations all wrong!