A sign warning of a road hump '35m' ahead, reported by 'Goodacre', has been removed by ARM supporters. It was placed a few yards down from a sign warning of a new road junction layout '50 yards' ahead! The road hump warning triangle has of course been left in place.

This was erected by the same Council (Broxbourne District, Hertfordshire) that recently had to pay out £400-plus to Adam Doggett when the roof of his car scraped on a low bridge because of illegal metric-only height warning signs before a low bridge


Tony Bennett

Tampering with hazard warning signs is potentially dangerous.

May the Lord forgive you.

Did you READ Tony Bennett's post?! He left the triangular sign with the symbol of a hump in place whilst he did not remove an authorised distance. Do read people's posts before you respond to them. I know you want us to go metric but most people would rather see the (in-an-appalling-state) health service radically improved, not only would they rather keep the mile that they understand so well (you're only a minority).

He's not a minority. However he's only "secretly" in tha majority.

Let me explain.

He will think and use imperial if he is British. He'll
attempt to "mind translate" everything into metric to appear to be well versed in metric. If you live in Britain all your life there is no way that you'd get confused if someone said "The tree was 20ft high", "The book was 4 inches thick", "The pub is only 50 yards down the road".

However if you asked directions to, say, Oxford from a place about 50 miles away and the person responded "Oh, yes that's easy - just get onto the M40 and drive about 90 kilometres West" then you'd question his state of mind. GET THIS FINALLY: NO-ONE WOULD SAY KILOMETRES IN THAT SITUATION UNLESS THEY WERE TRYING TO PROVE SOME PATHETIC POINT AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO WHAT I DID WHICH IS TO CALCULATE KM FROM MILES IN ORDER TO SAY IT!!!

Ok, did everyone hear that loud and clear?

It's called "reality" - Sometimes Pip/Conrad/Ralf need to be reminded of this.

(big smile on face)

Our supporter left the trianglar road hump sign in place, and removed the smaller distance sign underneath.

When challenged about a similar illegal sign in Bexhill, East Sussex County Council replied (verbatim): "...the sign is only giving drivers additional information to that provided by the warning sign, and whilst technically unlawful, should not mislead drivers in any way. It must be considered a low priority with *no safety implications*..."

(Letters to Geoffrey Barker MP and Mr Tony Leeding, 7 and 12 March 2002 respectively)


Tony Bennett

For your information Mr Rodriguez, I did read the post and was well aware of the statement that the triangular sign was left in place.

I still maintain that hazard warning signs should NEVER be tampered with by unauthorised person not qualified to know or judge what the safety implications may be, especially when the said person is only doing it to make a political point.

I think it is far more dangerous for a warning sign to give a measurement which is illegal and not understood by the majority of the poulation. As for scoring a political point that is the pot calling the kettle black!! Metrication is purely a political aim and has no regard for expense or the wishes of the majority as confirmed in several polls.

"I think it is far more dangerous for a warning sign to give a measurement which is illegal and not understood by the majority of the poulation."

Given that the metre has been in common use in Britain for more than 30 years, that amounts to a totally unsupportable assumption.

"As for scoring a political point that is the pot calling the kettle black!! Metrication is purely a political aim and has no regard for expense or the wishes of the majority as confirmed in several polls."

How you see metrication Mark is entirely up to you of course. Speaking for myself I advocate the metric system purely on its merits. I have no political agenda where that is concerned.

Mark, you may think that he is only proving a political point, but the fact is that most people are not in favour of road metrication. If you think that he is unauthorised to remove the sign, then I shall rub it in your face that Section 131(2) of the 1980 Highways Act states it to be a defence for any defendant charged with removing/obliterating signs on/over highways if they are unlawful (that exact adjective is used to describe expressing metric distances in the 1994 Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions.

What hypocritical nonsense! Compulsory metrification - against the express wishes of the majority of the British people - IS a political agenda. And a despicable one at that.

Paul, I would expect the politicians promoting/allowing metrication don't necessarily think they are going against the majority.

Ralf

Not even politicians could be that ignorant!

Well, as we've seen more than once on this board, "majorities", although by definition a completely objective term, is achieved by extrapolation of a subjective impression (eg the majority of the british people being against metrication, the majority of the world's population enjoying the metric system).

Ralf

Is that why all over the Americas (including Canada - I've been there) and probably a total of about half the world is full of unofficial use of imperial and often have prepacked goods on the market in imperial quantities such as 454g?

BRITISH politicians have an obligation to represent the wishes of the BRITISH people - and specifically their own constituents. The majority of the British people are strongly opposed to compulsory metrification in Britain. This fact is obvious to anyone with even half a brain cell.

Secondly, there is no evidence whatsoever that the majority of people around the world ENJOY the metric system - it has simply been imposed upon them by their rulers. To answer this question it would be necessary to give each of them, as individuals, the freedom to choose.

Let me put a hypothetical situation to you.

A village council has managed to get a 30 mph limit approved by the local council. They shop around for the cheapest road signs and end up buying signs from one of our EU neighbours. The regulations for the design of road signs are different in that country to those in force in the UK - in particular the minimum width of the red band used in the circle is 2mm less that the UK regulations. As a result, the road sign is technically illegal.

Would ARM or anybody else approve of the raod sign being uprooted?

Paul,

The fact that noone even expresses the wish to change to another system than metric I think is an indicator that people enjoy metric.
Apart from that, see the quote from the japanese sales people in "A nice evening out", we were certainly enjoying the benefits of metric there.

Ralf

As long as the sign when uprooted was replaced by a correct sign then it would be OK. ARM simply replace illegal signs with correct ones.The only known uprooting of signs have been by Councils who have removed ARM signs but not replaced them.

Not only do people all over the world frequently express a preference for customary units, and complain about metric units, they often use non-metric units in defiance of their governments' edicts and policies. Whether or not those who enjoy metric are or are not in a majority is something nobody is likely to be able to prove unless the people are free to choose for themselves, without state coercion - a liberty you would deny them. It is however quite clear that at least a substantial minority of the world's population does NOT enjoy metric.

Martin

The example you give of a 2mm. variation is quite clearly a 'de minimis' i.e. extremely minor variation from the Regulations which no-one in his right mind would want to change.

By contrast, to erect, either negligently or deliberately, a sign in non-approved metric usits, is:

1. A major variation, not a minor one

2. Confusing to motorists and pedestrians - either because they don't know what the metric distance/dimension is, or because they have to think in yards one minute and metres the next - and

3. Unpopular - you are aware of the overwhelming majority favouring continued use of our weights and measures.


Tony Bennett