The Riverside Walk is a 3 mile pedestrian trail along the Great Ouse in Buckingham which was set up five years ago. The walk has numerous wooden direction signs giving distances to places of interest in metres. The figures are all engraved into the wood and highlighted in white paint.

I wrote to Aylesbury Vale District Council questioning the legality of the signs and received a reply from the Parks and Recreation Manager stating that,

"Checks were made with the County Council, as this is the highway authority and we were advised that as the signs were for a leisure walk and would not be sited on highway land, they would not be governed by the regulations (ie the 1994 Traffic Sign Regs.)."

The legal definition provided by Tony Bennett on the 'Canal Basin,Broad St, Birmingham' posting would contradict the Council's advice that the walk was not on highway land. I will reply accordingly.

AVDC have responded by saying they will investigate my comments and will advise of the outcome once their enquiries are complete.

Watch this space!

ARM has been informed that a start has been made on restoring pedestrian signs in Buckingham to Imperial. Six former metric distances are now Imperial.

On the southern end of a footbridge over the River Great Ouse, about half-a-mile from the centre of Buckingham, are two footpath signs giving distances (these are on the southern side of the 3-mile circular walk). Until yesterday these two signs gave distances in metres. They are now in Imperial.

Similarly a sign on a main road leading out of Buckingham which said: 'Riverside Walk: Boughton Park 1km' now reads: '1/2m'.

These amendments have been carried out by a local spotter who is in touch with ARM. Unless the Council agrees to change the signs to Imperial in the very near future, it is likely that further Imperial amendments will be affixed to the metric pedestrian signs.

The Virtual Biuckingham website (admin@buckingham.org.uk) has an extensive item on the Buckingham Riverside Walk. Though it does not give its length, the same web-page also refers to the longer 'Great Ouse Walk' which it describes simply as 'a beautiful 13-mile path'. No metic equivalent distance is given

Update:

A total of 11 wooden footpath signs with a total of 29 fingers on them with 76 metric distances, mostly along the Riverside Walk, are now in Imperial. The Buckingham Advertiser has been informed.

The method used was the affixing of thin brown-painted metal plates with attractive Times New Roman adhesive reflective lettering on them, giving the correct distance in yards or units of quarter-miles.

Once again there were complicatd figures for walkers to digest on the signs as they were until this week: '960 metres', '630 metres' etc. - showing that whoever erected them lacks common sense as well as lacking the requisite knowledge of the law.

An ARM operative was seen amending signs by a member of The Buckingham Society Committee*. He thought that at long last Aylesbury Vale Council were doing something about the footpath signs. He complained that not only are they all in metric, which no-one understands, but there are not enough of them, and some of them have been vandalised or are in poor condition. He has persistently recommended the Council to erect long-lasting metal direction signs (as provided for in Section 7 of the 1994 Traffic Signs Regulations) but the Council say they can't afford them.

I understand that all of the western and central parts of the Riverside Walk have been checked and dealt with, but there may still be some unamended metric sigs in the eastern sector.

Precise locations would very very helpful to us.

A sign in the town centre on a wall: 'United Reformed Church: 200 m' was left untouched.

* The Buckingham Society is a civic and historical society

"... He complained that not only are they all in metric, which no-one understands, ... "

Poor thing!

Is this the quality of ARM supporters?

....spoken like a true minority!

No Steve, spoken by someone with a grain of common-sense!

Come, come, pip, you can't get away from British weights and measures that easily by avoiding saying: 'an ounce of common sense'. A 'grain' is still an Imperial measure, you know.

You'll have to try 'a gram of common sense'...just as the BBC announced during the tragic search for Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells that the Police were searching the area 'centimetre by centimetre' - and just as the other day a bomb exploded 'just metres' away from a shop front, and we can expect '50 millimetres of rain' tomorrow (though they do sometimes say 'that's 2 inches' to help the poor few dozen folk who still think in Imperial).

The BBC even works politically correct phrases into its plays. A few weeks ago on a mid-afternoon play, one character was trying to say to another that a third chap was not all there. Instead of saying he was 'a few bricks short of a full load', or 'a few sandwiches short of a picnic', etc., the phrase chosen was: 'a few cents short of a euro'. Who are the BBC trying to kid?!

"[T]he BBC announced during the tragic search for Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells that the Police were searching the area 'centimetre by centimetre' - and just as the other day a bomb exploded 'just metres' away from a shop front"

I also noticed that during the Chapman and Wells search, the police provided the media with a measurement of 30 metres for the separation of the two disturbed pieces of earth, and yet many reporters announced this as '30 yards'.

"[W]e can expect '50 millimetres of rain' tomorrow (though they do sometimes say 'that's 2 inches' to help the poor few dozen folk who still think in Imperial)"

More than just sometimes and far too often for my liking.

As far as I can see the BBC so often tries to avoid using the original metric measurements which they have been supplied with, especially Fergus Walsh when he's doing his graphics screen bit on the Six O'Clock News. Thus the 3km deep cloud over Asia becomes 2 miles thick, and the 65m long tunnel in the Great Pyramid suddenly turns into 'about 70 yards' long.

Well then this will really annoy you, Ross!

It's almost entirely in English:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2346157.stm

As far as Green Goddesses go, perhaps that can be conceded as a contemporary measuring system. Some might say it is as old and outdated as the machines themselves! I say some.

In terms of new engines, I fear the BBC have struck again as the fire service is a modern organisation with lots of regulation and scientific aspects, and so I expect they will use mainly the SI. This would especially apply to the quantity of water IMO.

You are correct!

That is your opinion!

Re this from Tony:

"Come, come, pip, you can't get away from British weights and measures that easily by avoiding saying: 'an ounce of common sense'. A 'grain' is still an Imperial measure, you know."

Okay Tony. I concede that I chose my words here to avoid the ounce. I don't normally worry about such things, its only on this forum that I exercise such sensitivity.

I am normally quite happy to use what to me is natural parlance in speech with such phrases as these. I don't deliberatly distort it just because of a religous objection to the old imperial units (which I don't have).

I like the metric system when it comes down to the practical task of measuring, estimating, designing and calculating etc. Thats where it matters. I am not at all offended by such phrases as "give them an inch and they'll take a yard" etc.

It must be recorded, though I think it's clear from the various BWMA position statements and what other pro-Imperial people have said on this board, that none of us have any problem at all with you liking the metric system, just as you may like chalk and I may like cheese or vice versa.

Our objection has always been the compulsory obliteration of the system that most of us prefer, by the use of criminal legislation, when the metric system has been perfectly legal for most purposes over 100 years but has not been chosen by British people for day-to-day use. Another example is the refusal of Planning Departments to entertain building plans in Imperial.

I would venture to suggest that this compulsion by the use of criminal penalties goes against something very deep in the British psyche - the love of freedom, whether it be freedom to sell in pounds and ounces, freedom from foreign rule, or freedom of conscience, religious belief and speech. These freedoms were hard-won by those who came before us and they have bequeathed them to this generation. I'd like to be able to hand them on to my children.

Tony Bennett wrote

<<
Another example is the refusal of Planning Departments to entertain building plans in Imperial.
>>

NASA bent in to pressure to allow soem of its contactors to use "Customary Units" while others used Metric units. The result was a failure of the Mars mission.

Planning Departments have a statutory duty to ensure that certain regulations are met. For example buildings musgt be a certain distance from a boundary fence if they are to meet fire regulations. The fire regulations are published in one set of units so that there is no dispute as to what the regulations are.

If the regulations are in metric units, and your plans are in Imperial units, then some official in the planning department has to convert them into metric units to ensure that the various regulations are met.

Part of the fire regulations include the maximum permitted openings (windows, doors etc) in a building which is close to a boundary. If the the window sizes are given in metric units, it is easy to calculate the area. If however they are in feet and inches, it is a real pain up the **** to do these calculations. That is why the planning departments demand that drawing be in metric units.

Personally I'd include both, just incase the person on the other end understands English.

Steve,

Council official are functionaries who are programmed to understand metric units. After 17:30 (or whenever) they revert to being people who might also understand Imperial Units.

If you use both Imperial and metric units in a plan you will
a) Clutter up the plan
b) Confuse the functionary
c) Introduce a possibility of a contradiction if the metric and Imperial units do not mean the same thing.

Martin -

If you had just said 'council officials are functionnaries who have been programmed' - period (US), stop (UK) - you would be getting very close to the truth.

Why else would two Englishmen accompanied by two English policemen arrest one of their fellow nationals for selling to English people in the units they understand and prefer?

Er, because they were only obeying orders

There was a lively write-up of the action in Buckingham (to convert the Buckingham 'Riverside Walk' signs to Imperial) in today's 'Buckingham Advertiser' and I have been asked to explain our campaign on Three Counties Radio (Bucks, Beds and Herts) early on Monday morning

>"That is why the planning departments demand that drawing be in metric units."

The reason why planning departments require metric is because of EC directive 80/181.

EC directive 80/181 was issued in 1980.

Councils have (I believe) been demanding plans in metric units since the mid 1970's.

The article in the Buckingham Advertiser is reproduced at www.buckinghamonline.co.uk/fullstory.asp?storyid=3

I'd still do both.

Of course I would not submit my "reason for planning permission" in French though

...is:

http://www.buckinghamtoday.co.uk/fullstory.asp?storyid=3

On a walk around the riverside yesterday I counted 11 amended signs and 7 showing their original metric distances.

Nearly all the newly imperial signs were on the western side of the walk although the most easterly sign at Bourton Park had been demetricated.

Of the unaffected signs five were on the eastern side of the river ranging from the footbridge near to Bourton Mill, off Bourton Road, along the walk near to Burleigh Piece and on to Stratford Fields. One was near to the weir by the recycling point in the town centre and another by the old railway bridge on Bath Lane.

Moreover a plate with distances of 1m and 1/4m had fallen off the sign at the corner of Station Road and Hunter Street.

Still no response from the council.

The interview with Three Counties this morning was a breeze.

The interviewer was clearly 100% behind our action and instead of the aggressive challenges we usually get - 'aren't you just human dinosaurs swimming against the metric tide?' etc. - he just lobbed up one question after another, enabling me to make all the points I'd planned to make.

When I finished my last point - stating that it was bizarre or the government to plan to waste a billion pounds of our money converting millions of road signs to metric when there were urgent needs in health, education and housing, he responded with these three splendid words: "Couldn't agree more!"

After the programme, the producer came on and I told her the job in Buckingham remained incomplete (many thanks Alan Heath for the helpful details). They hope to do a live interview when our supporters finish off the job - hopefully during the next few weeks

I received a letter today from AVDC dated 24.10.02. The matter is still under investigation and involves many landowners and partners linked with the management of the Riverside Walk.

It will also be raised at the next meeting of the Buckingham Partnership, which is involved in the management of the walk.

Obviously not a BBC station then.

In a reply to a letter querying the original advice to AVDC, Mr Walton, Area Traffic Management Officer of Bucks County Council, has written:

"The information passed to AVDC Officers was given in good faith. It is still not clear to me whether the 1994 Regulations apply in this particular case as all the land in question appears to be in the ownership of AVDC."

Is ownership relevant? and what are the sections of the Regulations which deal with its scope? I'd be grateful for any advice on this matter.

The ownership of the signs and who owns the land are not entirely irrelevant.

I would refer you in the first instance to the posting I made: 'Definition of 'road' and 'highway'' on this section of the BWMA Bulletin Board, dated 22 May. I'll be happy to supply further details.

As the Department for Transport letter from Mike Talbot of 16 July 2002 makes clear, the Road Trafic Regulation Act 1984 and the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions applies to all roads and highways. The DPP v Jones case establishes that all paths to which the public has access - even on private land - are 'highways'.

Buckingham County Council and Aylesbury Vale District Council should be referred to Lee Valley Park Authority, based in north London. They received a legal opinion stating clearly that even though they owned much of the land in the park, they were not entitled to erect signs in metric units. Consequently they withdrew the statements they had made against me to the Police - and the Police invesigation into ARM's amendment of signs in Lee Valley on 1 December 2001 and subsequent days immediately collapsed. Lee Valley Park has now agreed a programme of replacing metric-only signs with Imperial signs.

The two Councils should also consider taking independent legal advice on the subject, though they will only get the same answer and it will only help to line the pockets of barristers whose advice on the illegality of metric signs is proving quite lucrative at present.

Tony thanks for the info.

It appears to me that access rather than ownership is the relevant factor.

I have already sent Tony Walton copies of the definition of highway and the DTI letter both of which he seems to have ignored. I suspect his intention was to protect the position of Bucks CC in all this given that , as I contend, the orginal advice to AVDC was wrong.

ARM has received the following report.

"Seven more sets of signs, six on the eastern side of the walk, and one close by the tall railway bridge on Bath Road, have now had brown or black metal plates affixed with the true Imperial distances on them. A total of a further 34 metric distances were obliterated as a result.

"A recent inspection of previous work showed that six metal plates (with twelve metric distances on them) had been removed from two signs either side of Station Road, and another sign in Bourton Park had had six more metal plates (showing ten metric distances) removed.

"A forensic examination of these three sets of signposts showed conclusively that they had been removed and cleaned as best as possible by persons unknown - presumably acting in an official capacity.

"The Flexon HX20 used to affix the signs leaves hardened white gunge underneath which is very difficult to remove. A vandal would not have bothered to do so.

"Accordingly all of these twelve removed plates have now been replaced.

"As far as we know, all illegal metric signs along the Riverside Walk have now been removed.

"There were a total of 18 signs found needing attention, with 108 metric distances on them".

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

To which I would add that ARM is not aware of *any* of its signs that have been vandalised; however Council officials at Portsmouth and Hastings have spent Council tax-payers' money removing perfectly clear, professional, legal signs in miles and yards.

ARM will be pleased to receive any updates about the signs in Buckingham.

I spoke to Mr Brearly of AVDC yesterday. He informed me that the Buckingham Partnership have agreed to change the signs. They are also looking into including additional information with the distances.

No date has been fixed to do the work but it will cost c£2,000.

Keep watching this space.

Congratulations.