Saw a sign on the newly lowered york Way, N1, Middlesex, lowered for the new high speed link from Europe to St Pancras which said (in a triangle) 17'-01 (no ")

Surely this is not needed as I thought 16'6" was the maximum.

S.C.

THere was probably a sign with the previous height limit, but when the road was lowered, the contractor automaticaly ordered a new sign to refelct the new height without checking whther or not it was needed. Pity he didn't order one with dual units.

That means exactly 5.2 m to most of us.

Cor!

Imagine a bridge that's 5 and 1/5ths miles high!

How impressive would that be?

Certainly a tourist attraction.

I say we all club together and get one built.

re (Stimpy): "Cor! Imagine a bridge that's 5 and 1/5ths miles high! How impressive would that be? Certainly a tourist attraction. I say we all club together and get one built"*.

REPLY: Agreed! But first we must draw up a plan and submit it to the local authority. The rules, as enforced by a European Union Directive, require that plans must be submitted in metric. What's 5.2 miles in metric, anyone?


[* Where? From Britain to France?]

<<<But first we must draw up a plan and submit it to the local authority. The rules, as enforced by a European Union Directive, require that plans must be submitted in metric. What's 5.2 miles in metric, anyone? >>>

or you could say that although every stage of designing and planning the bridge is done in metric, the rules as enforced by government directives require that the height be converted in to feet and inches for the road sign.

The only ENFORCED conversion that goes on is when it comes to putting up the sign.

But of course, because that enforcement is of imperial and not metric, its OK.

<<the rules as enforced by government directives require that the height be converted in to feet and inches for the road sign.>>

But all the other signs are imperial.

Are you advocating introducing metric signs whilst the ones already there are imperial?

<<<Are you advocating introducing metric signs whilst the ones already there are imperial?>>>

No, I am advocating a full-scale review of units on road signs.

Andy, what exactly do you mean when you say that you are advocating a "review"? Could you please elaborate?

Bud,

I think the government should take a look at the regulations regarding units on road signs, and consider whether these units are still appropriate.

The answer would be a resounding "No they are no longer appropriate" but the relevant government departments are clearly already aware of this.

What stops it happening is that the benefits of such a move are more long-term than the time a government is in power, so why spend a lot of money on an initially unpopular move, when they could leave it to the next lot?

..and so it goes on!

So the current set-up isn't working?

Its not working as well as it could be

"Best road safety country in the world".

Are you hoping to turn that into "in the universe" or do you see other things as more important than road safety in the "could do better" list

<<<do you see other things as more important than road safety in the "could do better" list>>>

No, road safety is number one priority obviously.

Continuing to use units of measurement on road signs that are gradually becoming obsolete in other areas adds to the general measurement confusion, which has the POTENTIAL to cause safety issues in other areas, as well as being costly.

No-one is likely to crash their car because they don't understand the units on a road sign - be it younger people not understanding the current imperial signs, or older people in the future not understanding metric signs.

The safety issue is not really there - no country which has metricated road signs has ever had an incident where measurement units were blamed.

The safety issue is nothing more than a convenient scare tactic used by the pro-imperials to justify not doing anything.

<<Continuing to use units of measurement on road signs that are gradually becoming obsolete in other areas adds to the general measurement confusion, which has the POTENTIAL to cause safety issues in other areas, as well as being costly.>>

Is this *despite* safety going up?

<<be it younger people not understanding the current imperial signs,>>

Are you honestly saying that the avg teenager doesn't know what 60mph is, or 10 miles, or 100 yds, or etc?
If you mean recently born then I'm prepared to believe you.

<<The safety issue is not really there - no country which has metricated road signs has ever had an incident where measurement units were blamed. >>

Where did you read that from?

<<The safety issue is nothing more than a convenient scare tactic used by the pro-imperials to justify not doing anything.>>

Any safety issue cannot be seen as a scare tactic. Check the recent laws changed in response to the London bombings for proof of that.

I'm all for "if it ain't broke, then try to break it" but not when safety is an issue, and there is absoultely no public want, and it'd cost gazillions and provide no tangible benefit and....etc.

D'you know what? If I were pro-metric/anti-imperial I'd do my best to avoid the "road sign debate"

;-)

<<D'you know what? If I were pro-metric/anti-imperial I'd do my best to avoid the "road sign debate"
>>

I'd first make liters and millitliters legal ( not necessarily compulsary) for beer, cider, milk (in returnabale containers).

On roads, I'd look at where they can be made legal. Certainly dual signage should be acceptable and perhaps recommended for height, width, length restrictions whether physical clearances or legal restrictions.

Distances in meters instead of feet or yards, and possibly kilometers instead of miles, should be allowed at the discretion of the body controlling the sign, and pose a very minor risk. Speeds probably should not be dual or a mix.

It can be divided into several independent issues; they don't all need to be tackled at once. Worrying about "yards" vs "metres" (distance, not height) signs is perfectly silly and no safety implications are really involved. Some of the others deserve careful thought.

<<<D'you know what? If I were pro-metric/anti-imperial I'd do my best to avoid the "road sign debate" >>>

Sounds like you're the one trying to avoid it

;-)

<<<It can be divided into several independent issues; they don't all need to be tackled at once>>>

I would guess that the UK is likely to follow the example of Ireland, which gradually replaced distance signs over many years, then did the speed limits all in one go. An overnight switch like in Australia/NZ etc would be practically impossible for obvious reasons.

Without a doubt, the scale of the operation is going to be huge, but surely the government should minimise the number of NEW signs it erects in imperial. I think the first step has to be to legalise metric units. Then where no confusion would occur, new signs can be metric and a gradual replacement could begin.

There is absolutely no harm in having a Friday afternoon dream!

heh!

We're only joking, Steve

British road signs will stay in imperial for ever and ever..

;-)

<<
Continuing to use units of measurement on road signs that are gradually becoming obsolete in other areas adds to the general measurement confusion, which has the POTENTIAL to cause safety issues in other areas, as well as being costly.
>>
"General measurement confusion".... are you a member of UKMA?
"has the POTENTIAL to cause safety issues in other areas"... like what?
"as well as being costly".... and replacing all the signs won't be costly?



<<
No-one is likely to crash their car because they don't understand the units on a road sign - be it younger people not understanding the current imperial signs, or older people in the future not understanding metric signs.
>>
I agree with that.

<<
The safety issue is nothing more than a convenient scare tactic used by the pro-imperials to justify not doing anything.
>>
Those who advocate change are the ones that have to justify it. That is the way the world works.

If the US is an example, then most people don't pay attention to measurement signs anyway. People drive at the speeds they feel comfortable with even if they chance getting pulled over. People aren't concerned with miles to a destination, but the time it takes. When they get near the exit they want, they look for the name of the street on the sign and not the distance to it.


Maintaining mile signs serves no purpose, safety or other, except as a means to keep imperial units alive. When it is the last to go, it is obvious it will be the most defended.

<<
Maintaining mile signs serves no purpose, safety or other, except as a means to keep imperial units alive. When it is the last to go, it is obvious it will be the most defended.
>>

A few years ago I drove from Rome back to the UK twice within the space of a few months. On the Italian sector of the journey the kilometre markers were very obvious and were very helpful - I was aware of where the next two or three service areas were so as I approached one I could decide whether to stop there or whether to carry on to the next one. I had a similar experience in Spain driving back from the coast to Madrid airport. Even my wife (who is lukewarm towards metrication) commented how useful it was to have loacation markers (and the distance to Madrid) every kilometer. It helped us plan our journey and to plan our stops.

<<If the US is an example, then most people don't pay attention to measurement signs anyway. People drive at the speeds they feel comfortable with even if they chance getting pulled over. People aren't concerned with miles to a destination, but the time it takes. When they get near the exit they want, they look for the name of the street on the sign and not the distance to it.


Maintaining mile signs serves no purpose, safety or other, except as a means to keep imperial units alive. When it is the last to go, it is obvious it will be the most defended.>>

Well, "Your mileage may vary." but I like the signs. Granted, I could deal with kilometer signs just as well and would prefer them.

On speed, I note the sign, then decide what speed I'll drive. Freeways 7-10 over; highways, 5 over; residential, obey strictly. I use the mile markers and mileage-based exit numbers a lot on long drives. and almost always have determined the freeway exit number I need from a map.

Nothing magic about miles or kilometers, I just use the units that the signs make "easy." How many units do I have to go, how many units/hour am I going, problem solved.

I was thinking more along the line of day to day activity. Signs are more useful when we are driving is a strange area for the first time, but more so names of locations and less measurement. A sign telling me something is 1500 feet ahead is useless if my car odometer can't display feet.

A sign telling me something is 500 m ahead and my car instruments are in kilometres, allows me to measure the distance with my gauges. I can read 500 m as 0.5 km. You can't do this if non-metric units are used.

The use of units in yards and feet can be a major problem for safety as for example a person can misjudge the distance and cause an accident trying to change lanes in a hurry if the intersection they are trying to turn at comes up sooner then expected. So, here is a good example of where imperial units on roads is unsafe.

<<<"General measurement confusion".... are you a member of UKMA? >>>

No I am not. Away from this messageboard, whatever peoples views about measurements, you won't find many people who deny that theres a "measurement confusion" in Britain.

(BTW, was flicking through a friends Lonely Planet guide to Britain yesterday - have a look at it. The paragraph on weights and measures tells you all about the "confusion"

<<<"has the POTENTIAL to cause safety issues in other areas"... like what?>>>

Like space shuttles crashing, wrong doses given to patients. Using two systems of measurement increases the risk of mistakes. In some fields mistakes can have serious consequences.

<<<"as well as being costly".... and replacing all the signs won't be costly? >>>

Of course it is costly. No-one denies that. But it is a one-off cost. There will come a point (which I am sure we are well beyond) when the cumulative costs to a country of using dual measurements (as a whole) surpasses the one-off conversion cost.

<<<Those who advocate change are the ones that have to justify it. That is the way the world works. >>>

Metrication began about 40 years ago. Whether you agree with that or not, the British government made a commitment to it by educating subsequent generations in metric.

With that in mind, I think it is those who want to stop the process of metrication half-way, that need to justify it.

<<
If the US is an example, then most people don't pay attention to measurement signs anyway. People drive at the speeds they feel comfortable with even if they chance getting pulled over.
>>
So then the signs serve a very important purpose: they enable police to fine those who drive at unsafe speeds. If the signs weren't there, it would be much more difficult to enforce speed limit laws (it's already difficult enough as it is) and roads would be less safe.


<<
People aren't concerned with miles to a destination, but the time it takes. When they get near the exit they want, they look for the name of the street on the sign and not the distance to it.
>>
Like you said, locals don't need the distances on signs, but those from out of town do. But locals don't really need the street names either. Although the nation's highways could probably function without distance signs, they definitely serve an important purpose.

<<
The use of units in yards and feet can be a major problem for safety as for example a person can misjudge the distance and cause an accident trying to change lanes in a hurry if the intersection they are trying to turn at comes up sooner then expected. So, here is a good example of where imperial units on roads is unsafe.
>>
Most Americans who drive have a "feel" for how long it takes to travel say 100 feet at freeway speed. Besides, looking at your odometer while driving is not very safe either.
Besides, feet are very sparingly used on road signs in the US, and yards never. I have never seen a sign in feet warning about an upcoming intersection, so your example is really not realistic.

<<commented how useful it was to have loacation markers (and the distance to Madrid) every kilometer>>

So in this country the equivalent would be mile markers.
Ask your MP for them.

<<A sign telling me something is 500 m ahead and my car instruments are in kilometres, allows me to measure the distance with my gauges. I can read 500 m as 0.5 km. You can't do this if non-metric units are used. >>

And herein lies the problem when you don't use and aren't used to metric.
A total ignorance of what happens in reality.

I'd explain but I can't be bothered. Those who know both systems should already know.

<<<I have never seen a sign in feet warning about an upcoming intersection, so your example is really not realistic.>>>

I have seen plenty. I have driven in many different countries and this was the only time I have ever seen a distance on a road sign anywhere which I had absolutely no comrehension of. I think most were something like 500 feet. I know what a foot is of course, but having never tried to visualise a distance of that length in feet, I had to consciously convert to have any understanding whatsoever of the distance to the intersection.

That's coz your used to yards ;-)

You had to do that "div by 3 thing", eh? eh? ;-)

Andy wrote

<<
<<<I have never seen a sign in feet warning about an upcoming intersection, so your example is really not realistic.>>>

I have seen plenty. I have driven in many different countries and this was the only time I have ever seen a distance on a road sign anywhere which I had absolutely no comrehension of. I think most were something like 500 feet. I know what a foot is of course, but having never tried to visualise a distance of that length in feet, I had to consciously convert to have any understanding whatsoever of the distance to the intersection.
>>

The UK uses yards and the US uses feet for such distances. This causes the problems concerned.

If one metric country used metres in such a situation and another kilometres, the motorist could easily convert between the two (as I did when visualising what a 4326m tunnel was while driving in Italy).

Re: 17 feet 01 inches August 8 2005, 9:33 AM
Andy
Of course it is costly. No-one denies that. But it is a one-off cost. There will come a point (which I am sure we are well beyond) when the cumulative costs to a country of using dual measurements (as a whole) surpasses the one-off conversion cost.

metre
Amazingly, imperialists are always quick to point out the costs of conversion, but pretend to know nothing about the overall and ongoing cost savings metrication entails. More amazingly still, they consider using 2 measurement systems an advantage and never question the costs, let alone the problems, this madness creates? What's wrong with their reasoning process?

<<<That's coz your used to yards ;-) >>>

Yep thats right.

But when I was a kid and I was first told how far a yard is, I was told it is "just under a metre"

Mentally, I always think like that to this day.

It actually works either way.

Just over three feet is a metre.

<<<It actually works either way.>>>

I agree, it depends mostly on how old you are.

So all those youngsters that *KNOW* that they are - say- 6 foot 2 must *REALLY* know that they are 6/3 = 2, just under so thats 1.8 then add 3 inches which is a quarter of one foot which in turn is one third of just below 1 metre which is....

erm - they probably just know it in feet and inches!

;-)

Well, that, OR they could get out the dual tape measure, stand against the wall and read both answers at once. Kids actually change height; you can't just label them at birth.

Me: How tall are you?

Kid: I'm 6 foot 2

Me: What does that mean?

Kid: It means I'm 6 foot 2

Me: Here is a piece of chalk, now draw me 6 foot 2 on the pavement.

Kid: I can't!

Me: Why?

Kid: I don't know what it is!

Me: So why do you say it?

Kid: Because someone told me to say it if I'm ever asked how tall I am.

Danny: I have some puppies in my car

Kid: MOMMY!!!