Yesterday a bridge height sign which read just
' 1.4m ' was converted to read only ' 4' 6" ' using the 'paint-and-card' technique reported elsewhere on this website.

There is an interesting previous history. An Essex resident, AD, failed to understand the 1.4m sign when travelling along Pindar Road, Dobbs Weir (Hoddesdon, Herts), for the first time earlier this year (he is aged 36 and 'metric educated'). He scraped the roof of his car as a consequence and did around £400 worth of damage. Backed by an undertaking by the BWMA Committee to underwrite the first £500 of his legal expenses, AD has written a 'letter before action' to the Council demanding compensation on account of a misleading road traffic sign that did not comply with the Road Traffic Regulations and General Directions 1994. No legal costs have been incurred in relation to the sending of this letter.

The low bridge is a tunnel under a busy level crossing, routinely used by hundreds of cars a day.

Further developments on this story will be reported here.

Tony Bennett, UKIP

Strictly, "1.4 m" must mean "1.4 MILES" - enough clearance for most vehicles !

"Pedant"

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

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

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

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

If Mr Doggit 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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

You spelled my name wrong!

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

I can understand your suspicion, especially in these days of the compsenation 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

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

WHat DO they contribute to society?

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.

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

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

That says it all!

(and cheered my day up with laughter)

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

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.

"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" !!!!

;)

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.

"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)

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

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!

{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.

{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.

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!