In the cause of raising a laugh on the face of a pro-metric zealot, one who, moreover, regards opinion polls showing massive preference for Imperial weights and measures as 'shallow' (tell that to Gallup, ICM, MORI etc.), here is the Doggett story all over again, complete with references to bigots, never mind zealots, and not one, not even two, but, yes, *threeo* contributions from 'Little Miss Metric herself - matahari! :

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

News just in.

Mr Adam Doggett, a motorist from Ongar, Essex, has just succeeded in his claim against Broxbourne Borough Council. The Council paid his full claim for repairs to his damaged car roof which amounted to £442.18. The Council accepted, as it had to, that its signing did not comply with the Traffic Signs Regualations and there is now a height sign proclaimin the true height of the bridge in imperial only: 4' 7".

An important precedent.

No legal costs were incured by Mr Doggett. ARM assisted him with the correspondence throughout and drafted all letters sent by him making the claim.

ARM will supply a full report to BWMA.

T Bennett


BWMA
Re: 1.4 metre bridge height sign at Dobbs Weir; possible legal action against Broxbourne Borough Council June 19 2002, 10:22 PM

Thank you for this important news. We look forward to the report.


Stanley
Re: 1.4 metre bridge height sign at Dobbs Weir; possible legal action against Broxbourne Borough Coumcil June 19 2002, 10:32 PM


A 4' 6" (1.4m) bridge is a pretty low bridge by any standards.

Do you really think that the fact that is was signed as 1.4m rather than 4' 6" made any real difference?

This was a clear case of driver error, and since he had been given the benefit of metric education he should have known better had he paid attention at school


T Bennett, UKIP
Mr Doggett June 19 2002, 10:49 PM

Mr Doggett is a tube driver on London Underground with an impeccable record.

He is 37 years old and was therefore metric educated.

Like most people his age, he simply doesn't use metric in ordinary life and conversation and certainly not so far as heights are concerned. Like for 95%-plus of other British people, he understands heights of persons and bridges only in feet and inches.

As he told ARM, if he'd seen ' 4' 6" ' or ' 4' 7" ' as he approached the low bridge, he would have instantly known that the bridge was too low.

The figures '1.4m' meant nothing to him.

Incidentally for all practical purposes London Underground uses Imperial terms all the time e.g. '4-foot track', '6-foot track'.

The sign was to blame and if Mr Doggett had gone to Court he would have won - that's why Broxbourne Council settled his claim in full.

T Bennett


Stanley
Re: 1.4 metre bridge height sign at Dobbs Weir; possible legal action against Broxbourne Borough Cou June 19 2002, 11:09 PM


If Mr Doggett was metric educated he should have known what 1.4m meant. He had no excuse.

If anyone else is to blame it is misguided people who who undo the metric education of children at school by not allowing them to practice it outside the school gate.


T Bennett
Who's 'Misguided'? June 19 2002, 11:23 PM

I wonder perhaps if the tiny elite of metric zealots which has tried to railroad through the obliteration of an enire nation's whole system of weights and measures might be 'misguided'? The amount of upheaval, expense and confusion they've caused might suggest so, to say nothing about having added some new crimes to the statute book.

But then again perhaps all the grannies and grandads who talk to their metric-educated grandchildren and still use Imperial weights and measures when doing so should be put on a programme of metric education themselves - and sent warning letters about the adverse effects of continuing to use their much-preferred systems of weights and measures, with possible sanctions against them if all else fails - metric labour camps, perhaps? - that'd learn them!

It may be a matter of shame that the 'misguided' commentators in the World Cup, being seen by millions of children in Britain over the past few weeks, insist on using such terms as 'free kick from 30 yards', 'the wall must go back two yards', 'six-yard box', 'two feet wide of the post', 'six feet five tall', 'yard faster' etc.

Perhas Stanley you'd like to take this up with the 'relevant authorities'?

T Bennett


Stanley
Misguided people June 19 2002, 11:58 PM

When I mentioned misguided people I was thinking more of people like you Mr Bennett.

As far as grannies and grandads are concerned, what do you expect from people educated two generations before. There are bound to be differences, there always are. That doesn't mean to say they would willingly do anything to confuse or harm the education of their grandchildren. It is only zealots like you who would do that.

As for the world cup commentary, that only proves my point. School children are being forced to think in imperial measures whether they want to or not.

Your points about the policing of which units of measurement people use and the penalties are so ridiculous they are beneath contempt.


Ralf
Re: 1.4 metre bridge height sign at Dobbs Weir; possible legal action against Broxbourne Borough Cou June 20 2002, 2:21 AM

Could anyone enlighten me what measure the 1.4m was referring to ?
Certainly not the height of the hole under the bridge, even SteveH's "mini" would have problems fitting into that one.

Ralf


T Bennett
That Low Bridge June 20 2002, 8:45 AM

Between Dobbs Weir, Essex and Hoddesdon, Hertfordshire, is a level crossing on WAGN's London Liverpool Street to Cambridge line. At the side is a passageway 4' 7" high which cars regularly use to avoid hold-ups at the level crossing, which is on a busy route both for trains and cars. Nearly all saloon and estate cars used on British roads are under 4' 7" high. But there are a lot of scratch marks on the roof of the passageway.

T Bennett


SteveH
Re: 1.4 metre bridge height sign at Dobbs Weir; possible legal action against Broxbourne Borough Cou June 20 2002, 9:34 AM

Ralf first: "even SteveH's "mini" would have ..."
My mini is only about 4ft tall so no problem there.

To Stanley:
Your posts used to be good, and a good argument for the opposition, however you are now turning into a bigot!

Consider your post: "misguided people who who undo the metric education of children at school by not allowing them to practice it outside the school gate"

Allowing them? What sort of talk is that? Should we chastise our kids every time they say "yard" or "foot" because they shouldn't be "allowed" to say such awful words? We are talking issues of word usage and "thought" here - you are treading on dangerous ground. I'm hoping you regard your original post as slightly too agressive

As far as a road being "one point whatever" metres tall, most kids and adults would not be able to visualise that compared to 4ft7 etc. Just get used to it - you're on to a loser here.


Anonymous
Lovely June 20 2002, 9:40 AM

I just love the idea of Steve Humphries calling someone else a bigot!


SteveH
oooooh! June 20 2002, 1:25 PM

You spelled my name wrong!


Ralf
Re: 1.4 metre bridge height sign at Dobbs Weir; possible legal action against Broxbourne Borough Cou June 20 2002, 8:48 PM

Having read this, I somehow have the suspicion that that driver knew damn well how much 1.4m is but rather didn't know how high exactly his car is, thinking "Ah, that's gonna fit!".

Of course it didn't fit and he used his supposed lack of the metric system as a leverage to get the money for his scratched roof.

It's like that old woman who sued McDonald's because she didn't know that coffee is hot, or the woman who sued PopTarts because she left the toaster unattended and the house burned down.

Ralf


T Bennett
Response to Ralf June 20 2002, 9:43 PM

I can understand your suspicion, especially in these days of the compensation culture.

In truth, Mr Doggett had no idea he could make a claim until he met up with a BWMA member (not myself) in his local. When the incident happened, he was taking his daughter to a party in north London and he genuinely had no idea what height ' 1.4m ' was. One of the reasons the Council took some time to pay out on this claim was because he didn't submit a claim until 9 months after the incident.

T Bennett


Ralf
Re: 1.4 metre bridge height sign at Dobbs Weir; possible legal action against Broxbourne Borough Council June 21 2002, 4:04 AM

So you're saying you persuaded/convinced him into sueing the city, right ?

If he waited 9 months, he obviously must have have thought :" Hey, I'm such an idiot trying to drive my car through this, I'll never win my case", until you entered the stage and used him for your cause.

Ralf


Anonymous
The trouble with lawyers June 21 2002, 6:38 AM

WHat DO they contribute to society?


matahari
Moron driving tubes? June 21 2002, 3:02 PM

Am truly agahst, as a regular tube traveller, to know that there is a metric-educated train driver responsible for the lives of thousands speeding beneath the streets of London who cannot judge a simple distance! If he had a NINE year old in the car, he could have asked HER even!! Did he never build anything at school or run a race, errrr, listen to his teachers? I only know metric distances but have never crashed my car squeezing through a narrow way marked in something I do not understand. And reading of any crash involving a bridge, it has always been the likes of a double decker bus or lorry, driven by a Briton going under an imperially marked bridge. How brilliant is that? Australia changed to metric signage literally over night. Never heard of ONE such accident! You are all a shame and disgrace to British intellince. By the way, I note all markings I can see IN the tube are in metres only. Hmmmm

Just dropped in to monitor some more madness - thanks for info.


Ralf
Re: 1.4 metre bridge height sign at Dobbs Weir; possible legal action against Broxbourne Borough Cou June 21 2002, 4:22 PM

I agree, someone living in a country in which the majority of products is sold in metric, but still doesn't "understand" how much 1.4m is shouldn't be allowed to drive.

If you can't grasp the concept of metric, I think you have a serious problem which might need medical attention...

That's of course something different from not liking metric, my impression is that all imperial posters here know and understand the metric system pretty well (except of Mr. Bennett who says it confuses him)

Which again leads to the suspicion that that driver knew exactly how much 1.4m is but was happy to have someone else pay for his scratched roof.

Which means you helped an idiot to sue someone else for his stupidity...

Ralf


SteveH
Re: 1.4 metre bridge height sign at Dobbs Weir; possible legal action against Broxbourne Borough Cou June 25 2002, 11:18 AM

"You are all a shame and disgrace to British intellince"

That says it all!

(and cheered my day up with laughter)


BWMA
Re: 1.4 metre bridge height sign at Dobbs Weir; possible legal action against Broxbourne Borough Cou June 25 2002, 4:35 PM

We have received a full report on this case and will present on bwmaOnline in the near future.


martin
The four mile high bridge! June 28 2002, 6:41 AM

I have followed this string and wish to make the following observations:

Somebody stated that 1.4m = 1.4 miles. This i s not the case -1.4m = 1.4 metres. The Weights and Units Regulations (1994) do not specify any allowable abbreviation for "miles". Furthermore, the preamble to the regulations mention the EU directive 81/180/EEC which endorses the ISO standard that the letter "m" is the abbreviation for "metres", *not* miles.

4'6" is probably also illegal under the Weights and Units Regulations. According to those regulations, the correct abbreviation for feet and inches when used on road signs is "ft" and "in". These abbreviations are in accordance with the aforementioned EU and ISO regulations and standards.

The EU and ISO regulations and standards furhermore state that the single apostophe is an abbreviation for minutes of arc and the double apostrophe is an abbreviation for seconds of arc. Thus, 4'6" denotes a height of about 4 nautical miles!

There is an obvious conflict between the Department of Transport Regulations of the Weights and Units Regulations.


SteveH
Re: 1.4 metre bridge height sign at Dobbs Weir; possible legal action against Broxbourne Borough Cou June 28 2002, 8:41 AM

"EU directive 81/180/EEC which endorses the ISO standard that the letter "m" is the abbreviation for "metres", *not* miles"

Hmmm, I shall have to remember to slam my brakes on next time I need to relieve myself and I go past a sign saying "Services 23m" !!!!


matahari
relief June 28 2002, 3:27 PM

Hey Steve - why hold on? - just let go!! I nearly pee myself laughing at you guys... then I stop and think it's not that funny really, living in land where we effectively now have weights and measures ANARCHY to deal with as well as everthing else.

But, as someone who grew up in a land where metric change was done with natiobnal pride, efficiency and even fun (where Aussies remain Aussies regardless!), when I see the sign Services 23m, I look 23 metres ahead automatically as do other metric-educated drivers.


SteveH
Re: 1.4 metre bridge height sign at Dobbs Weir; possible legal action against Broxbourne Borough Cou June 28 2002, 3:40 PM

"I nearly pee myself laughing at you guys... then I stop and think it's not that funny really"

Eh? Make your mind up!! Anyway, your insults aside - it's Friday, time to get a few pints down my neck!

"But, as someone who grew up in a land where metric change was done with natiobnal pride, efficiency and even fun"

"Fun"? No wonder a lot of those young ozzies come over here!

"when I see the sign Services 23m, I look 23 metres ahead automatically as do other metric-educated drivers."

Of course you do! And I guess you drive at 10mph everwhere? Do you realise how daft that sounded? IF you were driving along you would not be able to look 25 yards ahead unless you were going at jogging speed!!!! Next time you post something that you perceive to be "clever" check out the maths first!!!!

That WAS a great funny end to the week (yes you nearly did make me pee myself with that gem!)

Right..... that pint.....

(LOL)


Paul Birch
Abbreviated miles June 28 2002, 4:03 PM

Are there really signs saying things like "Services 23m"? Most distance signs (for miles) just give the figure. No m, mi, ml, mile or miles:

Birmingham 18
Manchester 97
Services(M5) 13


matahari
Matahari - motorway menace June 28 2002, 4:47 PM

Actually Steve - to notice a sign coming up merely involves being an astute driver and looking well ahead with very good eyesight! Therefore I SEE the sign coming up and involves a simple glance foreward as I automatically do ( haven driven for most of my life seeing the letter 'm' refering to metres, internationally accepted as so!). Not that amusing at all really.. A bit like you seeing 5'6" and automatically picturing 5ft 6in, whereas many people on the planet who( for eg use video games would see that as meaning minutes and seconds!) Even the USA uses 'mi' for miles ( I know, I lived there, was married to an American for 3 LONNNNNNNG years!

Might see you in the boozer - I'll be the one sipping the wine served in glasses marked in ml and slamming down the spirits measured in the same :P

Enjoy yourself!


MikeW
Re: 1.4 metre bridge height sign at Dobbs Weir; possible legal action against Broxbourne Borough Cou June 28 2002, 9:21 PM

{Furthermore, the preamble to the regulations mention the EU directive 81/180/EEC which endorses the ISO standard that the letter "m" is the abbreviation for "metres", *not* miles}

The letter "m" has been the abbreviation for mile for several centuries by custom. People do not need permission to use this traditional abbreviation. It is advised that abbreviations on roadsigns be consistant throughout the country, but that's more a matter of common sense than law.

{4'6" is probably also illegal under the Weights and Units Regulations. According to those regulations, the correct abbreviation for feet and inches when used on road signs is "ft" and "in". These abbreviations are in accordance with the aforementioned EU and ISO regulations and standards.}

By long historic usage, the prime (') and double prime (") are symbols of feet and inches. Again, the people do not need permission from the government or the EU (which aspires to be a government) to use these symbols the way they have always been used.


MikeW
Re: 1.4 metre bridge height sign at Dobbs Weir; possible legal action against Broxbourne Borough Cou June 28 2002, 9:25 PM

{Even the USA uses 'mi' for miles ( I know, I lived there, was married to an American for 3 LONNNNNNNG years!}

On signs, yes. When working out mile-related problems (like mpg, mph) the letter "m" is often used.


SteveH
Re: 1.4 metre bridge height sign at Dobbs Weir; possible legal action against Broxbourne Borough Cou July 1 2002, 3:55 PM

Are there really signs saying things like "Services 23m"

Yes, some have the miles some don't.

I wonder how matahari's marriage to an (imperial using) American ended? One wonders!

Tony said

"Mr Adam Doggett, a motorist from Ongar, Essex, has just succeeded in his claim against Broxbourne Borough Council. The Council paid his full claim for repairs to his damaged car roof which amounted to £442.18. The Council accepted, as it had to, that its signing did not comply with the Traffic Signs Regualations and there is now a height sign proclaimin the true height of the bridge in imperial only: 4' 7".

An important precedent."

....................................................................................................................................................

Now Tony, we all know how important "precedent" is in the English legal system.

As I understand it (and humour me please, because I am used to Scots Law, which does not place the same importance on "precedent"), a higher English Court binds a lower English Court when the same facts are placed in front of that lower court.

Therefore, the hierarchy of courts is crucial here – a system based on decisions of the House of Lords being ‘supreme’ and so on, right through the English court system.

The system of law reporting is an important feature of the English approach. The modern system (with amendments made over the years) dates from around 1865, although the notion of binding precedent has become much more formalised since that time.

The really binding part of a court decision is the ‘ratio decidendi’ i.e. the ruling by the court on the facts of the particular case. This must be distinguished from the ‘obiter dicta’ i.e. pronouncements ‘by the way’.

In the English system a court which is placed higher in the hierarchy may ‘overrule’ the decision of a court of lower standing.

So tell me please, Tony.

Was Doggett a House of Lords case?

How was it decided in the Court of Appeal?

Did the magistrates find in his favour in the 1st instance?






Or was it purely an opportunistic Small Claim, settled before it went to court, by a council that decided that it would be cheaper not to defend the case?

Hardly an important legal precedent.

Please compare and contrast with Thoburn v Sunderland City Council, Hunt v Hackney London Borough Council, Harman and Dove v Cornwall County Council, and Collins v Sutton London Borough Council [2001] EWHC Admin 195, (2002) 166 JP 257

REPLIES TO BERANGER:


Now Tony, we all know how important "precedent" is in the English legal system.

REPLY: Jolly good
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I understand it (and humour me please, because I am used to Scots law, which does not place the same importance on "precedent")

REPLY: It should do. To ignore precedent means the Courts will lack consistency in their decision-making. I am not sure that in fact Scots law is very different from English law on how it approaches precedent but will take your word for it
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a higher English Court binds a lower English Court when the same facts are placed in front of that lower court.

REPLY: Perhaps slightly better to think in terms of the same principles or criteria being applied rather than 'the same facts', as the facts are never the same in two Court cases
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, the hierarchy of courts is crucial here – a system based on decisions of the House of Lords being ‘supreme’

REPLY: You forgot about the European Court of Justice in the Hague! - 'supreme' over Scots law as well - but just wait and see how supreme the ECJ becomes if and when we get the E.U. Constitution
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and so on, right through the English court system.

REPLY: Yes, subject to the caveat above
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The system of law reporting is an important feature of the English approach. The modern system (with amendments made over the years) dates from around 1865, although the notion of binding precedent has become much more formalised since that time.

REPLY: Noted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The really binding part of a court decision is the ‘ratio decidendi’ i.e. the ruling by the court on the facts of the particular case. This must be distinguished from the ‘obiter dicta’ i.e. pronouncements ‘by the way’.

REPLY: A+, Beranger, for both law and Latin - and an A+ for conciseness as well
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the English system a court which is placed higher in the hierarchy may ‘overrule’ the decision of a court of lower standing.

REPLY: Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So tell me please, Tony. Was Doggett a House of Lords case? How was it decided in the Court of Appeal? Did the magistrates find in his favour in the 1st instance?

REPLY: You know the answers. It is a useful case that, in layman's terms (I never claimed otherwise) sets a useful precedent for anyone else who might have an accident due to an illegal metric sign.

I mean in the sense that you might hear this down the pub one night "Did you hear about that Doggett bloke who got over 400 quid off the local Council because of one of those illegal metric signs?" There is, of course - as you probably know - plenty of more general case law on the effects of illegal, unauthorised or defective signage. The general rule is that highway authorities have a very strict duty to comply with the jot and tittle of every regulation in order to avoid liability - which is no doubt why Broxbourne Council didn't take long to decide on settling the claim
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or was it purely an opportunistic Small Claim

REPLY: What makes a claim 'opportunistic', to use your word?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...settled before it went to court, by a council that decided that it would be cheaper not to defend the case?

REPLY: Possibly. More likely is that they knew they would lose because of all the case law on unauthorised signage, some of which of course I quoted to them when I wrote to them!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hardly an important legal precedent.

REPLY: Noted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please compare and contrast with Thoburn v Sunderland City Council, Hunt v Hackney London Borough Council, Harman and Dove v Cornwall County Council, and Collins v Sutton London Borough Council [2001] EWHC Admin 195, (2002) 166 JP 257

REPLY: I have done. Doggett won his case.

Well thanks for that , Tony

Nice piece of opportunism by Mr Doggett. Some might question his intelligence for getting his car stuck under a low bridge, but you have to hand it to him for managing to convince the courts that he didn't know what 1.4m meant!

Andy, the case did not go to court. The council concerned realised that if they paid up and changed the sign there would be a limit to their losses. On the other hand if they fought the case, the case would have had to go to the Crown Court (and higher) as a point of law would have had to be proved. In so doing they would probably have bankrupted Mr Doggett and so would not have been able to recover costs. It was the accountants who really won the day, not Mr Doggett.

I'm still laughing at the Matahari stuff.

Maybe she had a sex change.

And changed her name to "Erin" !!!!!

LOL!!!!

<<< Andy, the case did not go to court. The council concerned realised that if they paid up and changed the sign there would be a limit to their losses >>>

That doesn't surprise me. Clearly the council didn't have a leg to stand on, since the sign WAS technically illegal.

However, is anyone REALLY naiive enough to think that had the sign been in imperial, he wouldn't have attempted to drive under the bridge?

Pull the other one...

Had Doggett not "bumped into" a BWMA member in the pub, the thought of the measurements on the sign would never have crossed his mind. I bet he didn't even notice it.

Andy wrote

<<
That doesn't surprise me. Clearly the council didn't have a leg to stand on, since the sign WAS technically illegal.
>>

Andy, I am not 100% sure about that. Those sectioons of the TRSGD 2002 that are at variance with the Units of Measuremenet Regulations 1994 are probably unlawful. In particular this means that signs using single and double apostrophe's to signify feet and inches are unlawful. Since this means that the the TRSGD 2002 has not provided a lawful way to display hieght and width limits in feet and inches oen must ask what the status is of the clause that prohibits the use of metric signs unless tehy are accompanied by an Imperial sign. I suspect that in such circumstances the courts would strike out the prohibition clause on grounds that ti is better to have signs in metric untis than no signs at all.

"However, is anyone REALLY naiive enough to think that had the sign been in imperial, he wouldn't have attempted to drive under the bridge?"

I refer the right honorable gentleman to the response I gave some posts ago.

I ask the honorable member for Kilogramme South to point his browser here:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=101360&messageid=1110666115&lp=1111508365

And see my 3rd last post

Regards

SteveH MP

Member for Choiceterton East

OK, lets assume he could estimate the height of his car in feet and lets also assume the unlikely scenario that on seeing a sign saying 1.4m, he had no idea what this meant.

As he approached the bridge, he must have thought
'hmmm that looks a bit tight'

Why if he wasn't sure he would fit under the bridge, did he carry on?!

I can't speak on behalf of him, but usually car drivers don't suspect height restrictions - that's a lorry drivers' daily thoughts. When I go under a bridge in a car on a public road I think I might presume that a car could go under any bridge. Width is better to judge than heights. I'd love to see a picture of said bridge.

It does sound like this is a silly low bridge. I suspect that there may be a few scrapes on its ceiling.

ARM must be short of something fresh to say on the matter if they are having to dig up this old story.

The reality clearly is that the non-compliance to TSRGD was a gift to Mr Doggitt that enabled him to claim compensation on the basis of an inadequate warning and relieving him of the responsibility for lack of caution.

If you look at it logically though, why would a driver take a chance that his vehicle will clear such a low bridge? If he couldn't assess from the information given whether or not he can safely proceed why did he do so?

To take an analogy, if you were a non-swimmer at a pool side where the depth is given in measures you don't understand what do you do? Do you jump in anyway?

Steve said

"I can't speak on behalf of him, but usually car drivers don't suspect height restrictions - that's a lorry drivers' daily thoughts."

Have you ever visited a multi-storey car park? My last car (which was higher than average) only just fitted into some of them (with the aerial taken off before I even considered reversing!)

In addition, I once battered the roof of the old office mini-van against the warning device outside a shopping centre carpark. As far as I recall, no heights were marked in either system - it was a simple piece of wood suspended on chains above the entry to the carpark. It certainally stopped me trying to go further inside!

Maybe thats the wee scots car parks (you know saving money on concrete ;-))

I read a story a while ago where they changed the width and height signs in London to metric. Insurance claims went up straight after and the signs were all replaced with imperial ones again. Can anyone shed any light on this story and whether its true or not?

"ARM must be short of something fresh to say on the matter if they are having to dig up this old story."

Maybe they're getting bored with their 'day to day work'.
Know what I mean? ;-)

ARM: Saab garage! Now! :-D :-D

ARM must be short of something fresh to say on the matter if they are having to dig up this old story.

Right - my lst post was a complete pigs ear.
Discard and replace with this:
=======================================
Maybe thats the wee scots car parks (you know saving money on concrete ;-))

I read a story a while ago where they changed the width and height signs in London to metric. Insurance claims went up straight after and the signs were all replaced with imperial ones again. Can anyone shed any light on this story and whether its true or not?

"ARM must be short of something fresh to say on the matter if they are having to dig up this old story."

Maybe they're getting bored with their 'day to day work'.
Know what I mean? ;-)

To ARM: Saab garage! Now! :-D :-D