After correspondence from myself and one other (name unknown) Bucks County Council have agreed that metric width restrictions signs on Mill Lane were illegal and will be changed within two months.

There are currently 6 signs on or around the road, 5 are in metric only and one is dual metric/imperial. They are still adamant that metric signs will be used and are proposing to correct the existing signs by placing two roundels (one saying 7'6", the other 2.3m) on each of six posts.

Does any one know if this action is allowed by the regulations?. I thought that the metric signs had to be on separate posts. If this is the case I would be grateful if someone could highlight the relevant sections of the regulations so that I can go back to the council on the matter.

Alan,
The signs that currently exist, metric-only and dual metric/imperial, are certainly illegal.

Metric is only legal if supplementing imperial widths and placed on separate signs. As to whether additional metric signs should be on separate posts is a point that we will look into and reply.

The council are now dragging there feet on this one. After waiting the specified 2 months I wrote to ask exactly when the signs will be changed. The reply from BCC Environmental Services, received today, claims that "...resources are stretched at present and other work has had to take priority...", the correnspondent was also "hopeful that the necessary changes will be undertaken within the next two months."

Mill Lane in situated approximately 0 deg 58' West and 52 deg 0' 30" North and runs from Maids Moreton to the A422 about a half mile from Buckingham.

The council are dragging their feet on this one. After waiting the specified two months I wrote to the Environmental Services Department and asked when exactly the signs would be changed. The reply, received today stated that "... our resources are severely stretched at present and other work has had to take priority...". The correspondent was also "...hopeful that the necessary changes will be undertaken within the next two months."

Mill Lane runs from Maids Moreton south easterly to the A422 about a half mile from Buckingham. It is situated approximately 0 deg.58' West, 52 deg. 0'30" North.

It seems that, if councils have financial difficulties in meeting requirements of the law, they give themselves extended deadlines. If traders such as Mr Collins and Mr Hunt have financial difficulties, they get prosecuted.
BWMA

Alan,

1. Ring them up and ask them who their (the Council's)District Auditor is. If they ask why you want to know, say you are reporting Bucks C.C. to him for _ultra vires_ i.e unlawful expenditure on non-permitted road signs.
2. Give them 14 days to make all their signs comply with the law, otherwise say direct action will follow
3. If you post news here on the anti-metric battle board that after 14 days no action has been taken, the details of the Mill Lane signs will be passed to a local team of demetricators

Tony Bennett

The fourteen day notice was duly given in a letter on 10 July. I received a reply from Mr Walton of the councils Environmental Services deptartment stating that they are taking the opportunity to "update" other signs in the area and he anticipated that the work will be completed by the end of August. He also stated that he had spoken at length to Mr Bennett of UKIP. Needless to say the signs have not yet been changed.

There are two width restriction signs at both ends of the road each stating 2.25m. There are two advance warning signs on the A422 nearby, one on either side, a blue one which has the width specified in metric and imperial (in brackets) and a white sign giving the restriction as 2.2m. There is also a blue warning sign on Main Street in Maids Moreton, just off the A413 to Whittlebury which states "width resriction 2.25m (7'6") Mill Lane 1/3 mile".

Just to confirm that I spoke at length to the relevant highways engineer at Buckinghamshire County Council. I wss convinced that he meant what he said, namely that the illegal metric width signs would all be amended by the end of August, so these signs have not been put into our 'amendment' programme.

Tony Bennett, UKIP

When I reported the illegal signs on the A41 leading from J9 of the M40 NW towards Bicester (pedestrian crossings at 200m and 250m), I got a snotty letter from Buckinghamshire County Council saying what a waste of taxpayers' money it would be to change the signs.

Luckily, of course, the A41 is a trunk road and so the Highways Agency's agents replaced them within a matter of weeks.

Maybe Bucks CC is changing its tune - but I certainly won't believe them till the signs actually change. :-)

Austin.

Please read in conjunction with the BWMA message dated 4 May 2001 on the 'Mill Lane' thread on this website.

Road width signs are listed in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994 under Schedule 2: "Regulatory signs (cont.)". They are numbered 629, and are subject to no Regulations but to four General Directions, viz. nos. 7, 8, 19 & 35.

These appear to permit ("Permitted Variants", Schedule 16, items 1 & 2) a _separate_ metric road sign in metric units (Direction 19). But I find no reference in the Directions to separate posts as opposed to separate signs.

Direction 19, headed "Placing of signs varied to show metric units", reads as follows:

35-(1) Where the indication given by a sign shown in diagram 629...is varied in accordance with Regulation 17 and Item 2 of Schedule 16, that sign may be placed only in combination with another sign of the same type whose indication has not been so varied.

35-(2) [Not relevant]

My conclusion therefore is that two road width signs, one in Imperial, and one in metric, on the same post, are _permitted_ (unless anyone knows different).

Permitted variant 2 says: "Metric units to one decimal place of a metre may be substituted for Imperial units".

Tony Bennett, UKIP

The signs on and around Mill Lane were changed by the council this week.

The four width restriction signs on the lane have had stickers placed over them to correct the given width from 2.25m to 2.3m. Each of these signs now has an additional roundel, below and on the same post, giving the width as 7'6".

The two advance warning signs on the A422 have each been replaced with a long rectangular sign with two roundels painted on them. The left roundel states >7'6"< the right >2.3m<.

The blue warning sign in Maids Moreton has yet to be changed.

Excellent results; these signs finally comply with the law. We look forward to the correction of the final signs.

The advance warning sign in Maids Moreton has been altered by sticker to change the metric distance from 2.25m to 2.3m. It now reads "Width limit in Mill Lane 2.3m (7'-6") 1/3 mile ahead".

I wrote to Bucks CC objecting to the use of a dual sign and received the following reply dated 12 November from the area traffic management officer.


Dear Mr Heath

Road Sign - Main Street, Maids Moreton

An acceptable variation to diagram 669 in the Traffic Signs Regulations 1994 has been used at the junction of Main Street and A413 in Maids Moreton. This permits the legend to be varied to accord with the prohibition restriction or requirement. There is no roundel obligation with this sign.

Yours sincerely

Tony Walton
Area Traffic Management Officer


So much for the prohibition on dual width limit signs!

I've just received the latest copy of'Yardstick' and on page 6 was a paragraph from a letter from the Dept. of Transport to John Gardner, dated 29.7.02, stating:

"Diagram 669 is prescribed to give advance information about the nature of restrictions or prohibitions, not to show detailed dimensions".

This is just the information that I wanted to rebut the argument from Mr Walton. I will write again to reopen the case.

I have finally received a reply to my letter.

Mr Walton states that "any appropriate alterations" will be made to the sign at the end of Main Street but this may not be possible until the new financial year.

He also wrote:

"You have probably noticed that the metric width restriction signs have 'disappeared' from each end of Mill Lane. As soon as practicable I shall arrange for newly authorised signs containing both metric and imperial widths to be displayed to replace the remaining imperial only ones."

I think someone upset him by taking away his metric signs. I also wonder which of the above jobs will receive priority?

Note to Alan:

*Why* have new dual metric/Imperial signs been ordered by the Buckinghamsire Highways man? I don't understand:

1. If the metric signs have disappeared, then presumably there are just Imperial ones now in place

2. *Everybody* understands Imperial-only width restiction signs

3. Around 99%-plus of all road width restriction signs in the country are in Imperial only i.e. feet and inches

4. How much will these new signs cost?

5. Will the Imperial numbers be smaller on the new signs than at present? (I think so)

6. Is there a danger of confusion with two sets of information on one sign - *Yes*, according to the Department for Transport

7. Who has authorised him to waste Council taxpayers' money in this way? Have the Members of the local authority been informed - or been given the chance to vote on whether they want to waste money on useless new signs? Perhaps they would prefer to spend the money on something else, like road safety issues or maintaining the road surfaces?

<<
*Everybody* understands Imperial-only width restiction signs
>>

Including French lorry drivers?

If a French lorry driver was stopped after passing an Imperial-only width-restriction sign, he would wave the EU directive 80/181/EEC and the UK Weights and Measures Order 1994 at teh court and point out that both documents state that the only place where feet and inches may be used for legal purposes is on UK and Irish road signs and then only when "Feet" is abbreviated by "ft" and inches by "in". The UK width-restriction signs use the double and single quotes which , according to 80/181/EEC are the symbols for seconds and minutes of arc.

SInce Bucks. CC is powerless to change the TRSGD order to meet the EU requirements, it wseems that they are gaurdign against Government incompetance by erecting dual units signs as quickly as possible.

Re: (Martin) "If a French lorry-driver was stopped using an Imperial-only width road..."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Martin, I know you are an advocate of compulsory metrication tomorrow, with appropriate criminal penalties to enforce it, but has common sense completely taken leave of you?


When French, German or Transylvanian lorry drivers come into this country, there is an expectation that they will be able to:

* understand the 99%-plus of U.K. road width restriction signs in Imperial only

* undertsand the 95%-plus of U.K. height restriction signs in Imperial only

* understand the 100% of U.K. distance signs which have Imperial distances on them

* understand common road traffic notices and signs written in English only.


The fact that an EEC Directive purports to insist that we can *only* use the foot and inch if the letters 'ft' and 'in' come after the numbers, and then only on British roads (but, you say, nowhere else in Britain), serves only to illustrate the Kafkaesque world that the E.U. political elite and its bureaucrats inhabit.


By the way, do you say that this legislation applies to the description of the diameter of pizzas and the size of photo enlargements etc.? - if so, then our ard-pressed Trading Standards Officers will be busier than ever, after they have finished off stamping their size-13 boots on anyone selling by the pound (or, after 2009, anyone *daring to mention* the pound).

If that 1981 EEC Directive were to be implemented so far as British roads are concerned, tens of thousands of width and height restriction signs in the United Kingdom would have to be amended tomorrow to replace the single and double apostrophes (which *everyone* recognises) with new signs saying 'ft' and 'in'.

Perhaps you could tell us if you actually advocate that?

Or do you perhaps advocate the spending of £1 billion-plus to convert every single road distance, dimension and speed sign in the U.K. into metric?

Tony,

I am highlighting what I believe to be a faux pas made by the Thatcher Governement when they negotiated the UK exemptions from 80/181/EEC and teh failure of successive governments to remedy this faus pas.

The Government can save millions of pounds by ensuring that all height and width signs are converted to dual units signs when the signs come up for renewal. It woudl also be prudent for the government to renew earlier rather than later. In this way, the possibility of a French (or even a UK) lorry driver winning a case on this technicality wil be reduced.

ARM (and their unofficial supporters) can help the Government by not painting over any metric width or height restrictions, lest our French lorry driver uses a vandalised sign to force the courts to acknowledge the Government's faux pas.

PS - this faus pas also extends to weight restrictions where either "T" or "t" can be use for tonnes (according to UK legislation), but 80/181/EEC reserves the symbol "T" for Teslas ( a measure of magnetic field) while using the letter "t" for "tonnes".

Is it me or have others detected that martin is becoming a "metric XCole"? - take a moment to re-read his last-but-one post to see what I mean.

BTW: Why hasn't anyone metioned the story of when london replaced all (well most) of their width signs with metric ones and had to switch them back due to a huge increase in insurance claims? It was a while back but worth noting!

"By the way, do you say that this legislation applies to the description of the diameter of pizzas and the size of photo enlargements etc.? - if so, then our ard-pressed Trading Standards Officers will be busier than ever, after they have finished off stamping their size-13 boots on anyone selling by the pound (or, after 2009, anyone *daring to mention* the pound)."

This is a point which the UK Government readily admits to being the case but which they constantly fail to do anything about. We shall have to see what the Commission make of it.

Martin,
----------
A Transylvanian lorry driver who crashed into a bridge saying: "I'd no idea what 12' 0" is" would find his insurers paying up in double quick time, thus avoiding adding the unnecessary and huge legal costs they would incur if they were unwise enough to defend the claim.

His defence of "What about EEC Directive 81/13/666?" (or whatever number it was) would carry about us much weight as, er, a gram



Ross,
--------
Maybe if the Commission isn't 'seeing to it', you could give them a bit of a nudge?

Mind you, they're really quite busy just now ripping apart the constitutions of the various nations of Europe in order to impose their 'European Constitution', so they've got quite a bit on their plate at the moment. I hear over 1,000 amendments have been tabled to the first draft. The European Parliament won't have much say on it, though. Unlike a true Parliament, it can be overruled by the government of the E.U.! - i.e. the Commission.

[It was a dead smart move, by the way, calling it the 'European Parliament' instead of the European Talking Shop].

Then of course they're also working on the utopian dream that will enfold us as we ratify the 'European Charter of Fundamental Human Rights'.

Joys like these - all the result of the 1998 Human Rights Act - will become Europe-wide:

* Awards against the Police for tapping the mobile 'phones of major drug dealers

* Allowing terrorists convicted of murder abroad to remain here without being extradited

* Burglars suing their victims for any injuries suffered on the premises

* Prisoners released early, with thousands of pounds compensation, because it's wrong to punish them for serious crimes committed in prison

* People who build houses totally contravenig planning law being allowed to do so because it would 'breach their right to family life'

"His defence of "What about EEC Directive 81/13/666?" (or whatever number it was) would carry about us much weight as, er, a gram."

LOL

"Maybe if the Commission isn't 'seeing to it', you could give them a bit of a nudge?"

I'm sure they will see sense eventually.

"[It was a dead smart move, by the way, calling it the 'European Parliament' instead of the European Talking Shop]."

The Parliament does have genuine co-legislative powers in an increasing number of areas.

<<
A Transylvanian lorry driver who crashed into a bridge saying: "I'd no idea what 12' 0" is" would find his insurers paying up in double quick time, thus avoiding adding the unnecessary and huge legal costs they would incur if they were unwise enough to defend the claim.
>>

If however (Heavan forbid!) a fatality resulted from him hitting the bridge, he would be up in court and if his barrister got whiff of the relevant EU directive, you may rest assured that he would use if if he thought that it could get is client off.

Furthermore, if the danage was considerable, his insurers might well take the approachh that the cost of defending the claim was worth while.

Can we stop the stupid photo/pizza argument?

We do not buy pizzas "by the inch"
and we do not get enlargements "by the inch"

simple! its out of scope!

"Can we stop the stupid photo/pizza argument?

We do not buy pizzas "by the inch"
and we do not get enlargements "by the inch"

simple! its out of scope!"

It is out of scope of the Weights and Measures Act 1985 and its subordinate legislation, but perhaps not of the Directive itself.

Re: "The European Parliament does have genuine co-legislative powers..."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please specify what these 'genuine co-legisaltive powers' are.

Please state whether the Parliament can initiate legislation and, if you say it can, provide just one example where it has done so, as well as saying where in any of the Treaties the Parliament is given the power to initiate legislation.

Please state which has the last word on any legislative proposal (which as you know, always emanate from the Commission) - the Commission or the Parliament?

If you are unable to give clear answers to each of the above three questions, we are entitled to infer what the answers are.


[Note: The Parliament's alleged powers are often referred to as 'the co-decision procedure' i.e powers of co-decision with the Commission. In practice, the Commission proposes laws, and the Parliament has been given the ability only to *comment*. If it suggests an amendment and the Commission like it, fine. If the Commission doesn't like it, what the Commission says goes, not what the Parliament wants].

In absolutely no sense of the word whatsover is the European Parliament' a 'Parliament'. Its nearest equivalent was the Soviet 'duma', a similar 'talking shop' on which the European Parliament is modelled. Unelected commissars (= 'Commissioners') made all the decisions in Soviet Russia

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

[Today is the 50th anniversary of Stalin's death. He killed around 30 million of the Soviet state's citizens, at least 5 times the number who died in the Holocaust]

Parliament cannot initiate legislation, and I never said it could.

The 'last word' on legislation depends which procedure is being used. For codecision (which will eventually account for just about everything) the Council (not the Commission) and the Parliament are equal, and a proposal cannot proceed without the express agreement of both.

What would happen of the Parliament, which is elected, wanted to change something - could the Council block that change?

Taken from the EU web site:

<<
The Council represents the Member States at European Union level and constitutes the main decision-making body. The government representatives in the Council are politically responsible to their national parliament and to the citizens they represent.
>>

The members of the Council are ministers from the various member states. FOr example, the ministers of transport sit on the transport committee of the EU Council etc.

AS far as I know, the Council cannot overturn national legislation - that is the job of the courts. The council can of course issue EU directive which the member states are obliged to implement in domestic law. Various countries do this in various ways. For example, EU directive 181/80/EEC listed all the units that may be used in legal, commercial and similar documents within the EU. One such unit was the Tesla (a measurement of magnetic field strength). The Tesla itself had no effect on any UK laws as there are no UK laws that explicitly mention magnetic field strength.

If the Parliament wanted to change something then it could not do so unless the Commission proposed a change. If that were the case then the Council could block changes supported by Parliament.

Sorry, please clarify the difference between the Commission and the Council.

I have written to the councillor who represents the ward including Maids Moreton regarding the policy issue.

I'll post his response when received.

Martin: "Taken from the E.U. website..."


Also known as PRAVDA...

<<
Sorry, please clarify the difference between the Commission and the Council
>>

The EU Commission consists of 20 (?) Commissioners, two appointed by each the larger EU members and one by each of the smaller member. Traditionally teh UK appoints one Conservative (Chris Patten) and one Labour (Neil Kinnock) Commissioner. These are full-time appointments.

The Council, or more correctly "The Council of Ministers" is a committee consisting of the ministers of the various EU member states. Thus, the UK representative on the Transport committee of the COuncil of Ministers is Alastair Darling, while Gordon Brown is the UK representative on the Finance committee of the COuncil of Ministers.

The Commission is the executive branch of the Community.
The Council and the Parliament are the joint legislative branch.

The Commission (appointed by Member States) makes proposals which must be agreed by the Parliament (directly elected) and the Council (government ministers) to be of effect. Under to codecision procedure these two bodies have equal power but under other procedures the Parliament has a less powerful role.

The full name of the Council is the "Council of the European Union". This is not to be confused with the "European Council", which is the summit level meeting of heads of state and government, or the "Council of Europe", which has nothing to do with either the Community or the Union.

Ross wrote

<<
If the Parliament wanted to change something then it could not do so unless the Commission proposed a change. If that were the case then the Council could block changes supported by Parliament.
>>

Ross was talking about the European Parliament, not the UK Parliament.

"Ross was talking about the European Parliament, not the UK Parliament."

Indeed, perhaps a momentary slip.

Whaaaa?

The UK still has a parliament?

Ross wrote: "The Commission proposes legislation which the [European] Parliament must then agree..."

1. The European Parliament is asked only to *comment* on the Commission's proposals, but as stated previously has no *power* to change them. Their legislative proposals can be altered only if the Commission deigns to consent

2. The Commission's laws - viz., Regulations and Directives - must then be rubber-stamped by national Parliaments, in a procedure which is designed wholly to deceive the electorate into thinking that their national Parliament can still decide things - when the E.U. Commissioners have already decreed it.

There are only two instances that I am aware of, where our national Parliament has refused to adopt into British law any E.U. Directive or Regulation - though on occasions we have negotiated 'opt-outs' or delays.

Those two exceptions were:

(A) The Weights and Measures Act 1985, which permitted imperial measures, contrary to two E.U. Directives - and we all know what has become of that

(B) The Merchant Shipping Act (I think of 1988) which
purported to give the British navy powers to deal with an excess of Spanish fishermen in what were claimed, by us, to be British waters. A fudged compromise in the Courts saw total victory for the Spanish fishermen and E.U. law. The relevant sections of the Merchant Shipping Act were thus rendered null and void

Apologies to Alan who started this thread; we've gone slightly off-topic. However, much of this information is valuable.

"The European Parliament is asked only to *comment* on the Commission's proposals, but as stated previously has no *power* to change them. Their legislative proposals can be altered only if the Commission deigns to consent"

There is one procedure where if the Parliament makes an amendment which the Commission does not like, it can override the Commission by securing a certain majority. Or maybe that is the Council. One problem of Community procedures is that there are so many with so many different rules, and a single simplified procedure based around codecision would be a good move.

"The Commission's laws - viz., Regulations and Directives - must then be rubber-stamped by national Parliaments, in a procedure which is designed wholly to deceive the electorate into thinking that their national Parliament can still decide things - when the E.U. Commissioners have already decreed it."

Regulations are not rubber stamped, they are law as soon as they are passed by the Community institutions. Parliament does have the right to refuse to implement a Directive. In that case it would be acting illegally under both Community and domestic law, but could still maintain its position.

<<
The European Parliament is asked only to *comment* on the Commission's proposals, but as stated previously has no *power* to change them. Their legislative proposals can be altered only if the Commission deigns to consent
>>

The European Parliament does have the power to summons a COmmissioner to appear before the Parliament. It also has teh power to sack the Commission (as it did in 1999 with the Commission header by Jacques Santer).

Re: "Parliament does have the right to refuse to implement a Directive. In that case it would be breaking both community and domestic law..."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above statement is accurate in theory, and not far short of accurate in practice.

Which raises the question of why we still have a national Parliament at all?

The answer to that is that it is still just about necessary to deal with the ever-reducing number of affairs over which this nation still retains control.

If you look up Hansard, there are countless instances over the past 30 years where MPs have debated unpleasant Euro Dircetives in the Commons, only for some MP who wants to go home early (usually Labour or Liberal Democrat) to pipe up: "Why are we wasting our time debating this? Europe has already decided it". The answer to the MP's question is that we still have debates on Euro Directives to maintain the fiction that we still have a sovereign Parliament.

The implementation of the European Constitution will reduce still further the powers of Parliament. I have for some time advocacted that Westminster MPs be paid according to the percentage of former national powers over which they retain control. But - surprise! surprise! - as they remorselessly give away the power that was entrusted to them by the people, they are paying themselves more and more!

We do still have a sovereign Parliament, and it is free at any time to take the absolute decision to repeal the 1972 Act. Until then, it is by decision of Parliament itself that Parliament has no effective means of blocking directives.

Two words:

"Trade War"

The result of Britain doing *anything* to upset the applecart in ewrop