A metric sign indicating a low bridge 4.0m in height* was taken down and removed from view on a B road in Lincolnshire today by an ARM supporter.

A nearby sign giving the height of the bridge as 13' 3", which remains, is pefectly adequate and, moreover, consistent with the Truckers' Atlas and in line with 95%-plus other height signs in the United Kingdom.

On top of all that, the ARM supporter has performed a valuable service to passing motorists by removing a source of confusion, which is in agreement with the stated policy of the Department of Transport. No chance of a pat on the back from them, I suppose...

Anyway, one less on our roads! - the number continues to drop


* on the main London to York line

If you are going to be a self-appointed vigilante regarding metric heights DO THE JOB PROPERLY.

4.0 metres is 13.123 ft which by my reckoning is closer to 13ft 0in than it is to 13ft 3in.

If a lorry just scrapes the bridge you will have willfully caused the accident by imparting incorrect information.

Absolutely shocking. Tampering with (or in this case completely removing) road signs should be a serious offence and dealt with accordingly.

I hope someone has reported this.

Rereading your initial posting, my accusations about doing the job properly were wrong.

However in removing the 4.0m sign the ARM supporter concerend has committed a criminal offence. Under the TRSGD 2002 it is legal to have a metric height restriction sign provided that it is accompanied by one in Imperial units.

Surely even if a sign is technically not legal (in this case it seems it was) it must be an offence for a member of the public to take the law into their hands and alter it!

Andy,

Why don't you visit http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2002118.stm.

The lead paragraph to this story is
<<
A solicitor who stole and defaced road signs because they were in metric has been found guilty of theft and criminal damage.
>>

I understand that the solicitor concerned appealled and won his appeal regarding the theft charge, but the charge of criminal damage stuck - See http://www.bbc.co.uk/kent/news/stories/200210/31/metric.shtml

Yes, I've read about this case and am aware he was charged with criminal damage

However it seems the courts were extremely lenient, and given that Mr Bennetts organisation is continuing to alter signs why is no further action being taken?

I can only assume that the authorities are turning a blind eye, because they know a change in the regulations is immenent.

No doubt about it Andy! ;-)

Glad you've finally seen the light, Steve ;-)

Sure thing, Andy ;-))

About a mile from the 13' 3" bridge is a dual height sign which gives the metric height as '4.1m'. Thus the removal of the 4.0m sign by an ARM supporter cleared up one source of confusion at least.

However, 4.1m is more than 13' 5". This gives rise to the risk, as Martin pointed out, that the 1 in 100 motorists (we're being generous) who take any notice of metric signage would think 'Oh, I'm 4.1 metres, that's O.K.", and then find to their cost that the top two inches had been sliced off their lorry. Nasty!

To avoid such an occurrence, I feel sure that all on this board, irrespective of their views on the metric -v Imperial debate, would support - indeed congratulate - the Council of Active Resistance to Metrication on blotting out the misleading '4.1m', as we intend to do as soon as maybe.

This action will leave all the signs to the bridge just saying 13'3" - clarity at last.


P.S. The only signs on the bridge itself, as opposed to those leading up to it, give its height as 13' 3"

Most motorists do not take notice of height restrictions that are 2.5m or higher - only a minorioty do - lorry drivers and coach drivers.

Foreign lorries cause can also cause damage and most foreign drivers have not been taught what feet adn inches are. In the intrests of safety therefore removing metric signs is very stupid and very dangerous.

<<<1 in 100 motorists (we're being generous) who take any notice of metric signage>>>

As Martin says less than 1 in 100 take any notice of bridge height signs regardless of what measurements they are given in. As many people have said on this board, the feeling for measurements is learnt through experience, and unless you drive a high vehicle you take no notice of bridge heights whatsoever. If you drive a high vehicle you would know its height (in imperial or metric), but would allow a good bit extra for safety. What proportion of lorry drivers use which measurement is debatable. What is not debatable is that by removing one of the measurements you are increasing the risk of an accident.

I take it you accurately measured the height of the bridge Tony to determine that the 4.1m was incorrect?

In practice, the bridge design was almost certainly done using metric units and all associated measurements also done using metric units. After that the signpsots were designed using the appropriate rounding factors.

I suspect that most bridges are imperial.

That's not a "imperial is better" comment - its more to do with the 10s of thousands of miles of windy bridged roads all over the UK and not necessarily those on or within the M25 !

Just in case you missed it.

Did you or did you not accurately measure the bridge to determine that the 4.1m was incorrect?

SteveH wrote

<<
I suspect that most bridges are imperial.
>>

-- a smug statement with absolutely no backing whatsoever.

The plans relating to bridges that have been been built, rebuilt, modified or re-surveyed since 1975 are almost certainly in metric units. One of the big railway projects in the last two decades has been the electrification of the East Coast Mainline - the line where the bridge in question was located. It it therefore probable that the plans for this bridge are in metric units.

In order to back up my statement, I visited www.crossrail.co.uk and found two further links that of interest:

http://billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk/files/Home/Home2/03.Non-technical%20Summary/Non%20Technical%20Summary_pt01.pdf

and

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmbills/062/2005062.htm

Both documents are entirely in metric units.

Martin.

Lets go over my post again, shall we? This time "together".

Ok - here goes:-

"I suspect that most bridges are imperial."

I suspect that your "smugness" post was based on stopping just there.

However,

If we take a sneaky peak at the rest of my post - what do we find? Well lets take a wee look - shall we?

"That's not a "imperial is better" comment - its more to do with the 10s of thousands of miles of windy bridged roads all over the UK and not necessarily those on or within the M25 !"

Note -in particular - the phrase "That's not a "imperial is better" comment" - it's brimming with "non-smugness" don't you agree?

Now - if you really want to you can go and drive around the entire country wincing at your speedo to see how fast you're going in km/h on the tiny type whilst counting the number of bridges that are newer than 1975-built.

As far as I remember many of our roads, espcially celtic ones, are many hundred years old. Some are probably pre-Boer war - if you get my drift.

Personally I wouldn't bother. Stick to the motorway "sticks that are 100 metres apart" argument. That one is easier to substantiate.

SteveH wrote

<<
As far as I remember many of our roads, espcially celtic ones, are many hundred years old. Some are probably pre-Boer war - if you get my drift.
>>

Most bridges that have height restrictions are bridges that go under railway lines. These have been renewed and almost certainly resurveyed in the last 30 years.

<<<almost certainly resurveyed in the last 30 years>>>

and possibly when they resurveyed this bridge they found its clearance to be 4.1m not 4.0 as before - (its very feasible that the road surface has subsided 10cm)

Obviously they should have amended the original sign if this was the case.

But I am sure the supporters of ARM are not concerned with whether the sign is accurate or not - as long as it is in their beloved feet and inches.

Actually - better to be "a bit under" than accurate.


Martin - where are you getting all this bridge/train/post-1975 info from?

SteveH asked

<<
Martin - where are you getting all this bridge/train/post-1975 info from?
>>

By keeping my eyes and ears open. Also, as a student I worked in a survey office and I saw what they did. I have also had various buildign jobs done on my house and I inspected the plans. Also, my father adn my father-in-law wer involved on the periphery of the building trade so again engineering drawings are something that I have become accustomed to seeing.

Have you ever driven around the valleys of the Rhondda?

I have - and I don't have a degree in measuring bridges either.

Tony Bennett: "A metric sign indicating a low bridge 4.0m in height* was taken down and removed from view on a B road in Lincolnshire today by an ARM supporter.

A nearby sign giving the height of the bridge as 13' 3", which remains, is pefectly adequate and, moreover, consistent with the Truckers' Atlas and in line with 95%-plus other height signs in the United Kingdom.

On top of all that, the ARM supporter has performed a valuable service to passing motorists by removing a source of confusion, which is in agreement with the stated policy of the Department of Transport. No chance of a pat on the back from them, I suppose..."

Stan:

(i) The assertion that the remaining sign is adequte is nothing more than the opinion of ARM. It is worthless.

(ii) It is not the stated policy of the Department of Transport that such a metric sign should be removed. The stated policy of the Department of Transport is as shown in The Transport Sign Regulations and General Directions 2002 diagram 530:

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2002/02311311.gif

(iii) The ARM supporter who removed this lawfully placed sign (and whose actions have been condoned by the Council of ARM) committed an offence under Section 131 of the 1980 Highways Act.

The Council of ARM should now relinquish their claim that they are conducting their campaign legally and in defence of the law.

re (martin): "Foreign lorries cause can also cause damage and most foreign drivers have not been taught what feet and inches are. In the interests of safety therefore removing metric signs is very stupid and very dangerous"

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


REPLY: I sometimes wonder if the pro-metric people on this board ever stop to think about what they are saying.

Given that 95%-plus of all height signs in Britain are Imperial only - whatever your impression, that is a fact - you are saying, martin, that Britain is a dangerous country because thousands of road signs are in Imperial only.

Do you still sustain your claim that removing one metric sign, in the circumstances described above, is dangerous?

Then you are saying that 95% of bridges in Britain are 'dangerously signed'. No, I correct myself, you said 'very dangerous' - hype, surely?

Oh, and by the way, on that stretch of road there are two metric signs on one side of the bridge and none on the other.

The Department of Transport have frequently stated that dual signage is 'confusing' - and confusion our roads *is* dangerous. *Very* dangerous.

Remember also that in the 2002 ICM survey, 86% preferred Imperial road signs and only 8% metric

re (Andy): "Did you or did you not accurately measure the bridge to determine that the 4.1m was incorrect?"


REPLY: Well, what do you think? ARM supporters don't normally carry theodolites around with them, nor get ladders up to a bridge in the middle of the road with their tape measures!

They might, however, carry ladders, plates, paint and lettering around with them, plus the odd 12mm/13mm spanner (well, the nuts and bolts are all half-inch, aren't they?).

The ARM supporter did note that one sign said '4.1m' and another '4.0m'. Both can't be right, can they?

The '4.1m' sign is still there.

It needs to be removed to avoid confusion, consistent with stated Department of Transport policy

(Andy): "But I am sure the supporters of ARM are not concerned with whether the sign is accurate or not - as long as it is in their beloved feet and inches"


REPLY: Certainty for Andy here, based on not a shred of evidence. We will have to examine your statements with even more care in future, Andy

Hey Stan.

Call the police, mate!

"REPLY: Certainty for Andy here, based on not a shred of evidence. We will have to examine your statements with even more care in future, Andy"

If the standards of evidence shown in the CMS report are anything to go by, complete fantasy will be more than sufficient.

<<<I sometimes wonder if the pro-metric people on this board ever stop to think about what they are saying.>>>

Why does it matter to you? You are not prepared to listen to anyone elses opinion anyway.

Tony, have you ever considered why the more moderate pro-imperial people like SteveH and Bryan do not support the amending of road signs?

SteveH and Bryan, can you please confirm that - I'm not 100% sure of your opinions on this

Whatever their feelings on what units our road signs should use, you will find very few people who think it is OK for a member of the public to take the law into his own hands.

<<<Both can't be right, can they?>>>

Agreed, but on what basis did you decide which one was wrong?!

I'll stick to my assumption that accuracy wasn't an issue.

<<<It needs to be removed to avoid confusion, consistent with stated Department of Transport policy>>>

Correction: It needs to be removed to get rid of a word which you don't happen to like.

I don't know who you are trying to kid that you are acting out of safety concerns.

<<<(Andy): "But I am sure the supporters of ARM are not concerned with whether the sign is accurate or not - as long as it is in their beloved feet and inches"

REPLY: Certainty for Andy here, based on not a shred of evidence. >>>

I think the evidence is above for all to see, isn't it?!

" SteveH and Bryan, can you please confirm that - I'm not 100% sure of your opinions on this "

My opinion.....

Every effort should be made to get local authorities to be consistent in their signage.
I'm happy for renegade action to be taken on replacing 'm' with 'yds' as I can't see this as being dangerous, plus it's two fingers up to the PC brigade who seem to think that we'd like metres instead of yards.

I'm afraid I can't bring myself to support the removal of height and width signs that show metric measures if there are imperial ones too.

The pro-choice and pro-imperial church is a wide one.

So is, I presume, the pro-choice and pro-metric church.

Maybe the second of those two churches is more like a 'cult' though! Only joking! ;-)

SteveH wrote

<<
Every effort should be made to get local authorities to be consistent in their signage.
>>

I agree Steve, and if we can we can enlarge the area of consistency to include all countries from which drivers on UK roads come, so much the better. Great strides have been made in this respect, thereby improving safety.

The principal areas where inconsistency still applies are:

1. Language - this is overcome to a certain extent by the use of pictorial signs and a minimal number of words. Stadnardising on one language would however be extemely difficult and would require teh wisdom of SOlomon and the patience of Job (neither of which is much in evidence in our political leaders).

2. Driving on the left or the right hand side of the road. Obtaining consistency here would be extremely difficult and there is a real risk that the cost of the changeover in the UK and RoI (both money and human) woudl outweight the benefits.

3. Adoption of a single consistent set of units. Apart from the UK and RoI, all of Europe (including Russia, Switzerland, Iceland, Norway, Albania, Ukraine etc) use the metric system. The conversion to metric units in RoI is almost complete. That leaves the UK. Apart from speed limit conversion, most of the conversion can be done on a replacement basis. In the case of hieght and width limitations (where a small error can be serious), dual hieghts should be used during the convesion phase.

<<<I'm afraid I can't bring myself to support the removal of height and width signs that show metric measures if there are imperial ones too.>>>

Well that fits with your alleged "pro-choice" stance.

However, if you are happy for metres to be replaced by yards, you are denying people the choice of seeing metres. Logically you should only be in favour of this action if 'yards' were added to, not replacing the 'metres'

;-)

I wonder whether anyone here is truly "pro-choice"?

I suspect not.

Unless safety is compromised I fully believe in freedom of choice.

So please explain why you do not think the choice of metres should be allowed?

SteveH wrote

<<
Unless safety is compromised I fully believe in freedom of choice.
>>

Data clutter compromises safety.

What I would like to see durign the changeover phase is a fully metric hieght or width sign with a yellow plate giving the Imperial equivalent below the metric sign. UK reigstered vehicles over 3m in height would be required to display their heigths in both units for the duration of the changeover and thereafter in metric units only. (UK law currently requires them to show their hieght in Imperial units with metric units as an option).

"So please explain why you do not think the choice of metres should be allowed?"

On roads only - because of the safety issue.

you can't have a sign saying "London 38m" and then have another signs after it saying "traffic lights 200m".

If there was a big groundswell of want for metric road signs from industry or people (and there really really really really really really really really really *ISN'T*) I'd still argue for keeping the status quo for safety reasons.

If you want to buy a kilo of apples then fine - it ain't gonna hurt no-one.


=====================
Sorry for not arguing with you for the moment, Martin - I'm not deliberately ignoring you - its just that your argument is going along the line of "what martin wants British people to want". Which does not compute.

<<<On roads only - because of the safety issue.

you can't have a sign saying "London 38m" and then have another signs after it saying "traffic lights 200m".>>>

Fair point. Twas a bit stupid using the international symbol for metres to mean miles.

So if Mr Bennett and his boys were to paint over a footpath sign reading "Information centre 100m" or similar you wouldn't agree with them changing it to yards unless they left the metres as well?

re (Andy): "Whatever their feelings on what units our road signs should use, you will find very few people who think it is OK for a member of the public to take the law into his own hands..."


REPLY: Quite an emotive phrase, that, 'taking the law into his own hands'.

I once chased - and caught - a teenage boy, about 16-18 years old, who had snatched some jewellery from a market stall. I heard the call of 'Stop - Thief!', answered, and caught up with him! (that was admittedly a few years ago now).

And held him until the Police arrived. And gave evidence against him in Court, enabling him to be convicted (and promptly 'let off' with a 'community sentence').

Was pinning him against the car park wall, where I caught him, 'taking the law into my own hands'?

No, because one can legally make a 'citizen's arrest'.

And in precisely the same way, as I've explained before on these boards, Section 131 (2) of the Highways Act 1980 entitles one to 'pull down or obliterate' any sign unlawfully placed on the highway. And virtually all metric signs on the highway are there unlawfully, breaching the Traffic Signs Regulations 2002, except dual metric/Imperial signs which are normally allowed.

Yes, on one occasion, I was found guilty of amending a metric sign into yards. But the sentence of 'absolute discharge' reflected the Court's view - and no doubt the view of all but a handful of metric zealots like Andy - of the lack of seriousness of the 'offence'.

Since, in the most recent survey, 86% of British people wanted us to stay in miles and yards - and a mere 8% wanted to switch to kilometres and metres - I'm in good company

re (SteveH): "Every effort should be made to get local authorities to be consistent in their signage..."


REPLY: No-one on this board would dispute that.

No-one on this board has ever seriously disputed the research evidence of the Council of Active Resistance to Metrication that over 95% of all height signs in Britain are Imperial only and over 99% of road width signs are Imperial only.

Therefore, if the aim is consistency, as Steve H correctly concedes, that would require the removal, without delay, of all dual height signs.

It really is as simple as that.

Add, on top of that, the confusion caused by dual height signs.

Then add the fact that dual height signs and width signs, which combine two measurements on one sign, have to reduce the size of the numbering of both metric and Imperial measurements on the signs to be able to squeeze both on to one sign.

The argument for the wholesale removal of metric heights and widths from our road signs is thus completely justified justified on the following five grounds (however Andy might splutter and protest):

1. consistency

2. avoiding confusion

3. increasing readability

4. familiarity with Imperial by the overwhelming majority of the population (remember the case of 36-year-old Adam Doggett)

5. safety - based on a combination of the above four reasons.

Oh, and there's a sixth. It helps to preserve a tried and trusted, traditional system of weights and measures which is part of our uniquely British heritage - and which the vast majority of us (86% to 8% in the case of road and footpath signs) wish to keep

<<<And virtually all metric signs on the highway are there unlawfully, breaching the Traffic Signs Regulations 2002, except dual metric/Imperial signs which are normally allowed. >>>

What about the ones on footpaths? Signs giving distances to tourist attractions, information centres. These do not breach any regulations. No-one pressured the authorities into using metric. They "choose" to, maybe on the basis of a large proportion of foreign tourists using the signs, or for whatever reason.

<<<Since, in the most recent survey, 86% of British people wanted us to stay in miles and yards - and a mere 8% wanted to switch to kilometres and metres - I'm in good company>>>

And how many of the 86% would actually "object" to signs in metres? You put all your faith in these surveys, conveniently overlooking how notoriously shallow such surveys can be.

Put 100 people in a room, let someone from BWMA and someone from UKMA give a short presentation, and then let them vote. Then we would get a clearer picture, and the results would be very different I suspect.

<<<if the aim is consistency, as Steve H correctly concedes, that would require the removal, without delay, of all dual height signs.>>>

The dual signs are only intended to be there temporarily, until the switchover to metric-only signs ;-)

<<<remember the case of 36-year-old Adam Doggett) >>>

No, but I could do with a laugh. Did he not know what a metre was?

<<<zealot like Andy>>>

A case of the pot calling the kettle black there me thinks!

I have to say that I wouldn't call Andy a zealot. (even though he's on the "wrong side" ;-) )

However the case of Mr Dogget was a valid one. I seem to remember that there was a road with a ridiculously low height restriction.

Even I would have to make a double take at a sign saying "1 point something or other metres". To be honest I would make a guess at the time of driving that there was the usual UK thing of quoting the metric incorrectly. (I have seen so many attempts at the use of metric in the UK when they get the coversion factor wrong or have used the wrong unit all together - eg my last house had a living room 33 metres long). However if the sign had read "4 ft" I would have presumed it to be accurate since the average man (and in this case the average road sign man) would make no mistake about it.

<<<However the case of Mr Dogget was a valid one>>>

95% of drivers of a Jeep type vehicle wouldn't know its height anyway. But given that most car magazines etc give vehicle dimensions in metric, I would wager that of the few who did know, as many would know it in metres as in feet.

Hence the current policy of erecting dual signs - which keep everyone happy (well, almost everyone..)

<<<the usual UK thing of quoting the metric incorrectly. (I have seen so many attempts at the use of metric in the UK when they get the coversion factor wrong or have used the wrong unit all together>>>

I agree some UK use of metric is crazy - I'm surprised bridge heights aren't given in mm

But roads, houses etc are *measured* using metric and *converted* to imperial for the signs/estate agent brochures. If they used the actual measurements taken without converting, then surely there would be less errors?

"95% of drivers of a Jeep type vehicle wouldn't know its height anyway. "

Thay can easily guess.
How?
Stand by it!
Everyone knows their height in feet and inches.
So you stand next to one and say "thats 2 inches shorter than me - so its 5ft 9in".
That is *****SO***** much easier than remembering the official stats or getting a tape out to measure it. Plus its accurate enough for the application.

"But given that most car magazines etc give vehicle dimensions in metric, I would wager that of the few who did know, as many would know it in metres as in feet."

The be-all-and-end-all in car values and comparisons is Parkers guide or (in the motor industry) Glass's guide. Next time you're in a newsagent pick up a parkers guide and look. ;-)



"I agree some UK use of metric is crazy - I'm surprised bridge heights aren't given in mm"

There is a car park in wycombe that has the height shown in ft/in but also metres down to the 3rd decimal place! I kid you not!
There is also a sign on a restriction on a service station thats dual labelled - but the metric says something like:

"4 metres 25 1/2 cm" ! (the figures aren't the same, I can't remember the exactitude).

Do you know what that says to me?
It looks like they're taking the p*ss out of the metric system.

"But roads, houses etc are *measured* using metric and *converted* to imperial for the signs/estate agent brochures."

No - no - and 3 times "no" (on the estate agent bit, that is!).

The beam machines they use are in feet and inches. I've seen it used time and time again.
My living room was incorrectly converted into metres for the bracketed metric version.
And guess what?
Even though the figure was totally ludicrous... NO ONE PICKED IT UP!
What do you reckon that tells you?

Clue - If it said my living room was 100ft long for a house costing less than 110K - do you think prospective buyers would have been a tad impressed?
Hmm?
The irony was, I was the only one who picked that up and told them! But then I would, wouldn't I? ;-)
(I seem to remember them saying something like 'Really? The metric bit is wrong? Ah well, never mind' - as if it never mattered.
Which it didn't.


<< If they used the actual measurements taken without converting, then surely there would be less errors? >>

My example landed me with a 33 metre living room!

""But roads, houses etc are *measured* using metric and *converted* to imperial for the signs/estate agent brochures.""

Bear in mind that I realise that you mean new house plans and new roads.

I was talking about the 99.9% of houses that are sold via estate agents. ie not brand new ones.

SteveH wrote

<<
I was talking about the 99.9% of houses that are sold via estate agents. ie not brand new ones.
>>

Steve, I think that you are exagerating. I was once told that in the UK people move house on average every seven years. You assert that 0.1% of houses that are sold are new. This implies that on average each house is sold 1000 times during its useful life. I don't see many 7000-year old houses around - not even many 700 year old houses. OK, a fair number of 70-year old houses but that still means that you are out by a factor of 100!

Tony Bennett: "Then add the fact that dual height signs and width signs, which combine two measurements on one sign, have to reduce the size of the numbering of both metric and Imperial measurements on the signs to be able to squeeze both on to one sign."

Stan: Rubbish. The circular maximum height/width dual signs are larger than the imperial only signs to accommodate a similar sized font.

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2002/02311344.gif

With triangular maximum height warning signs they are each on separate signs of the same size.

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2002/02311311.gif

<<<Steve, I think that you are exagerating. I was once told that in the UK people move house on average every seven years. You assert that 0.1% of houses that are sold are new. This implies that on average each house is sold 1000 times during its useful life. I don't see many 7000-year old houses around - not even many 700 year old houses. OK, a fair number of 70-year old houses but that still means that you are out by a factor of 100!
>>>

Maertens:- I encourage you to go for a drive. ANYWHERE.
Look out for those houses with no furniture and fresh grass. Look out for one of them being called "Showroom house".
Fill your tank up first.