Southend seafront has distance signs in furlongs!

So how about it ARM campaigners. Going to have a little word with them?

(Southend council that is, not the signs)

Furlongs? Cool!

Is this an area frequented by horse riders, perchance?

I don't know for sure but I don't think so.

There is another example however in Kirkby Stephen Cumbria. In this case it is on the road visible to motorists and still in use (not supplemented by a more modern sign), so it is technically illegal.

It has probably been preserved as bit of little-old England, and I for one wouldn't want to disturb it.

I just wanted to make the point that when it comes to breaches of the TSRGD it isn't always because of metrication by stealth. There is a more general relaxed attitude on the part of LAs when it seems reasonable.

What - no response?

Come on ARM - defend us!

Are these signs illegal or not?

To be sure whether they were technically illegal one would have to know whether they were (a) on the public highway rather than private land, a public footpath or bridleway, and (b) intended as distance signs under the Act or merely informational signs, whose content is less stringently controlled. I'm going out on a limb a bit here and may be in error (I'm open to correction from anyone who has the text of the Act to hand), but I think a distance sign is defined as a sign giving the distance to a hazard or feature on the carriageway (such as a roadworks, a turning, a hump-backed bridge, etc.) rather than to something off the carriageway like a beauty spot or tourist attraction.

Whatever it is, if it were a touristy sign then I would appreciate it in "friendly units" rather than some politically motivated placement of unpopular measures just because of some jobsworth's opinion of all things "euro". And for that reason I would still support ARMs method on these rather "political" signs.

Paul: You may well be right.

The fact is though that these considerations have not stopped the campaigners who take so called direct action (vandalism as far as I am concerned) on previous occasions.

Didn't Tony Bennett tell us about his "de-metrication" of a distance sign to a toilet in Portsmouth?

Didn't someone recently report a sign to a Hotel?

I rest my case.

How about the minor matter, if worth noticing at all, of a sign to a car dealership in Cambridge with, shock horror, "200 metres" on it? Even worse, "warning, cyclists 8 metres ahead" near a footpath!

"The sky will fall on our heads" as Chief Vitalstatistix said in the Asterix books!

If private persons choose to use metric signs other than in breach of the Highways Act that is their right - their own business - and forcibly removing such signs would of course be vandalism.

If public authorities, like local councils, use metric signs, other than in breach of the Act, but against the wishes of the local people, they may not be breaking the law, but they are acting contrary to their obligations as representatives of the public, and it is entirely appropriate for members of the public to protest such misuse of public property, public funds and public places.

Finally, if anyone posts metric signs in defiance of the provisions of the Act, it is NOT vandalism to remove or deface them, as the Act itself makes clear. As a matter of general law it is not merely the right but the DUTY of members of the public to "take the law into their own hands" when necessary to prevent imminent or continuing crimes, especially when the authorities are negligent in their duties or are themselves the offenders.

This right, along with trial by jury and the right of self-defence, is part of our protection against arrogant and oppressive authorities, and as such is invariably unpopular with those authorities whose arbitrary powers it seeks to check, and with those like the europhiles and compulsory metricators who favour authoritarian government.

It is amazing how those who shout loudest about democracy and equality are so terrified at the idea of people "taking the law into their own hands" or participating in its enforcement. Whose law is it supposed to be anyhow?

Are these signs illegal?

Simple enough to answer.

Are these signs legal or not?

(APP T Bennett - Since I've discovered that we're the same person!)

Ever heard of "perspective"?

Eh?

Ever heard of pots and kettles?

Ok, here is what I mean by perspective.

1) One occurance of a furlong sign (probably very old), many occurances of metric signs (newly cropping up).

2) Public support for all things imperial, public hostility to politically motivated practices.



P.S. I like all the fun banter stuff, it cheers my day, but concentrating all your personal efforts on one "Mr Bennett" makes you out to have some form of personal vendetta. Just thought you'd like to know.

The BWMA / ARM people make a great play of the fact that they do what they do BECAUSE some metric signs are illegal.

So, the question is: are these signs illegal?

It's really simple.

Yes or no?

As for Mr Bennett - I've used exactly his reasoning and come to the conclusion that he and I are one and the same. It was quite a shock to find out!

Vendetta - no. Taking the p out of him - yes.

As fpr perspective - don't worry about the motes - it's the planks that count.

Plus, of course, if BWMA / ARM / UKIP want to put up an Aunt Sally, they must expect sticks (accurate historical reference) to be thrown at it.

I've not seen the signs in question. However, if they were legal when installed, then they would be legal now. This is due to "grandfather rights" which enable signs installed under old legislation to remain in place, even after the enabling legislation has been repealed. Often, in village areas, one sees "old" signs, similarly protected.

Are you sure they're legal?

Will you check?

Will you put in the effort you put in for other signs that MAY be illegal?

APP: When you feel the feelings of defeat then it is sometimes wise to bow out gracefully.

BWMA: Good point about "grandad/history" there. I'm sure those ancient "milestones" you see around the place are not accurate but they don't go around digging them up because of that! Considering that only miles and yards are allowed for distance it is likely that a "new" furlong sign would be illegal, similarly if we used the US method of using feet for distance then that would be illegal too. (I've never worked out why the yanks use feet for short distances, driving along and seeing "construction 2000ft" is a bit overbearing in the "number department", if you get my drift)

Actually there are no "grandfather rights" when it comes to public signs, rendering them legal indefinitely into the future. If this were so new signs would take an awful long time to replace old ones in the event of a change in regulations.

In practice what happens is if a local community wants to keep an old sign or milestone it can be protected with a preservation order.

If there any safety or convenience issues then they have to be supplemented with more modern signs.

....sounds logical, I guess