Tony,

Why do you think the Forestry Commission chooses to put up signs in metric? What are their motives?

Good Question, although I doubt it involves motives.

Any idea Tony?

common sense maybe?

It is probably because their maps use the OS grid (which is and always has been a metric grid)

"common" sense would be based on a "common" preference.

This would dicate that yards/miles be used.

Hmmm, perhaps that's why they appear more than happy to change them.

It all seems a bit silly to me..

An organisation thinks ahead and uses metric in order to put up a sign that will not suddenly become outdated, trying to save the taxpayers money.

Then Tony Bennett and his boys come round demanding the sign is changed, which they agree to as the sign is technically illegal.

So then, when the Government finally changes the legislation they can look forward to changing the sign for a third time!

All the Government has to do is amend the law to allow metric units on footpath signs/other non-traffic signs. How long is it prepared to put up with this?

Well its been 4 decades so far "waiting".
How long are *you* prepared to wait?

Or perhaps - just perhaps - it ain't gonna happen?

<<
An organisation thinks ahead and uses metric in order to put up a sign that will not suddenly become outdated, trying to save the taxpayers money.
.......
All the Government has to do is amend the law to allow metric units on footpath signs/other non-traffic signs.
>>

So first you're saying that they are using metric in order to put up a sign that will not suddenly become outdated. The only way it will become outdated is if the government requires metric. Then you say that the government has to amend the law to allow metric units on signs, in order to accommodate these new signs that were placed in anticipation of this law.

So which causes which? Should the government change the law to allow metric signs because there are metric signs, or should metric signs be erected because the government changed the law to allow them?

Answer to last post:

(a) The law should be changed to allow metric signs.

(b) Signs should be changed to comply with the new law.

(c) Demetrication of signs should be punished by the offender writing 10 000 lines saying:

"I love metric signs"
"I love metric signs"
"I love metric signs"
"I love metric signs"
...
...

<<<So which causes which? Should the government change the law to allow metric signs because there are metric signs, or should metric signs be erected because the government changed the law to allow them?>>>

The metric system is the official system of measurement, so it seems fairly ridiculous that it is illegal to use! The government forces traders to use metric units, but doesn't even ALLOW metric in other areas! It is ludicrous.

With traffic signs clearly there is a safety issue, so I can see the logic in sticking with just imperial until a decision is made to change, but for footpath signs and the like there is no reason why the choice to use metric should be denied.

"The metric system is the official system of measurement"

What does "official" mean in this circumstance? I don't hear people talking metric, I don't read people writing metric, I don't see people using metric. Sure, if you look hard enough you can see it exists, but what does it mean to be "official".

If the UK is "officially" metric, then what does that make its people? Do the people "officially" exist?

The metric system is used by most of industry and by all Public services, including Health, Education and the Civil Service etc.

People who work in those organisations do it is true often speak in Imperial when dealing with the public or in other informal circumstances. But the fact is they work in them when they do their jobs.

All specifications and documents used in Highway construction including road signs are also in metric (take a look at the TSRGD and the sizes of signs).

It clearly is daft that metric should be banned from appearing on those same signs.

I think Steve made a superb point.

Stan wrote

<<
It clearly is daft that metric should be banned from appearing on those same signs.
>>

In some cases it is more than daft - it is downright dangerous. The location markers on the side of the road can give a person, be (s)he a road engineer or a motorist, their exact location. In fact, the roadside telephone on teh motorway have the nearest roadside marker number embedded into teh telephoen number. Yet, most motorists, if they need to contact the emergency services using a mobile phone, are unaware of the location markers and in the event of an accident, valuable mintues can be lost.

Could the reason that the Government does not publicise these posts be that they are scared of using the dreaded word "kilometre"?

re (Andy): "as the sign is technically illegal..."

REPLY: A bit like possessing and selling a few ounces of cannabis, I suppose. Or aborting a 28-week-old foetus with a cleft palate on the unlikely grounds that it is 'seriously handicapped'

To martin
=========

"The accident is about a mile after junction 29 of the M4, west bound"

Not that difficult is it?

Especially if it's your girlfriend making the phonecall because you are driving at the time, making reading those little markers near-on impossible.

And I say again - it is more ridiculous for officials to use metric notation on roads that are 100% imperial used by drivers 100% ok with imperial than the other way around.

Do you know what? I'm getting bored of this "metric roads" lark. And considering that no party in the UK has mentioned anything about metricating the roads then I really don't want to be posting how much metrication is going to cost us when even Bryan is drawing his pension.

Lets talk about Margaret Thatcher instead.

;-)