ARM supporters yesterday obliterated two metric height signs in Gainsborough, Lincolnshire, showing a height for a low bridge of 4.2m.

The remaining height signs, announcing the height of the bridge as 14' 0", will be understood by 100% of road users and the absence of the metric height signs reduces confusion for motorists

Now, hasn't ARM reached the level of "illegal tampering?"

From the various posts about the British traffic sign laws, it was my understanding than metric height, width, and length restrictions are legal IF they are accompanied by a companion sign expressed in Imperial. That appears to be the case from your post, implying that the signs were perfectly legal. I assume therefore that defacing them is perfectly illegal.

Daniel,

Rather than lift this thread and post it to the USMA board in its entirety - why don't you argue about it here?

I'm sure Tony doesn't mind being challenged.

I don't know. My challenge seems to be met with stony silence.
Of course, the prosecutor's challenge will have more weight.

Granted, all I know about UK traffic law is what I've read here, but it seems like vandalism, pure and simple.

Although I don't tend to agree with you, John, I too am waiting for an answer on this one.

On the current postings I don't have enough info to offer my two-pence-worth.

I refer those interested in the obliteration of two more unlawful and unnecessary metric height signs in Gainsboroogh to the thread titled: 'One Less in Lincolnshire', which describes a similar incident to the one in Gainsborough.

The law used to be as follow:

A circular height or circular width sign in metric (a 'roundel') was allowed so long as there was one in Imperial there as well. It was also permitted to have a metric and Imperial height on the same sign.

This was changed in the 2002 Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions so as to also permit both metric ad Imperial widths on the same roundel.

The obliterated metric distances in Gainsborough were unlawful. The nearby Imperial signs which remain are lawful. A metric height sign may not be placed separately, on its own, but *must* be placed in close conjunction with one in Imperial if it is to be erected at all

So, we're down to "how close is close?" How far apart were they?

I assume a roundel is a signpost? At any rate, from your quote, it appears they are allowed, not required, to be a common sign, or share a signpost.

Is there a precise law defining how close the proximity must be? Did you measure? Oh, and is the "proximity law" stated in metric or Imperial?

Can you quote the law that makes them "illegal" (or "unlawful, whichever)?

The law on metric and Imperial signs together is found in Schedule 16, Item 2, Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, S.I. No. 3113 of 2002, page 388, which simply refers to:

"Metric units may be substituted for imperial units where the sign is placed in combination with another sign...which has not been so varied".

The question, then, is what is meant by 'in combination with'.

I can find no definition of the phrase 'in combination with'

So, it may or may not have met a strict definition of "in combination with." But both metric and Imperial signs were there, and close enough to be associated with the same obstruction?

In a case where the sign may or may not have been legal, wouldn't a complaint or letter writing campaign to seek clarification be more prudent than destroying the sign?

The law is just an excuse to perform acts of vandalism and terrorism. Even if the law permitted metric signage, as it does in the US, Tony would still find an excuse to amend them, if only until he is caught and prosecuted.

I wonder if Tony would ever restore the metric to the signs if ordered to by a court.

Surprised at the level of concern expressed by JohnS-MI and Daniel Jackson about ARM supporters obliterating a couple of unlawful metric signs in Gainsborough.

Andy said this the other day: "So, ARM, you have my full backing...I certainly hope you continue your campaign".

Make up your minds, lads!

<<Surprised at the level of concern expressed by JohnS-MI and Daniel Jackson about ARM supporters obliterating a couple of unlawful metric signs in Gainsborough.>>

In one sense, I am much more concerned with what the US does in terms of metrication, and could let the UK decide what is best for the UK. However, I do wonder whether the majority of people in the UK really object to the metric companion signs or support the economic implications of remaining Imperial. I'm sure they are saying it is a nuisance to get familiar with metric, and they'd rather not be bothered, but are they considering the economics

But in the other sense, anti-metric forces in the US and UK encourage and inspire each other, so it would make sense to draw attention to and encourage prosecution of inappropriate actions. The US and the UK have each been struggling to go metric for 150+ years and citing each other as the main reason not to go metric.

I think you lack the cover of these signs being "unlawful" that you have had in some other circumstances, but that is a matter for local courts to decide.

<<<Surprised at the level of concern expressed by JohnS-MI and Daniel Jackson about ARM supporters obliterating a couple of unlawful metric signs in Gainsborough.

Andy said this the other day: "So, ARM, you have my full backing...I certainly hope you continue your campaign".

Make up your minds, lads!>>>

Tony, if theres one thing that this messageboard has taught me, it is that the metric/imperial argument goes beyond a straightforward black or white scenario and most people (even on this messageboard) occupy the middle ground somewhere. What on earth makes you think that everyone on the metric side should agree on every point?

re (Andy):

"Tony, if there's one thing that this messageboard has taught me, it is that the metric/imperial argument goes beyond a straightforward black or white scenario and most people (even on this messageboard) occupy the middle ground somewhere. What on earth makes you think that everyone on the metric side should agree on every point?"

REPLY:

We're very grateful for the written endorsements of support from yourself and others for ARM's work, even though it seems that some on the pro-metric side are not quite as enthusiastic as you about our efforts

Let me clarify my position, just in case anyone is wondering why a pro-metric person is supporting ARM.

I do not of course support ARM. Of all the silly organisations in existence they must surely be one of the silliest. Silly because their whole campaign can be wiped out by one tiny alteration to the law. Yes, they may claim some success in that there may be a few less metric signs now - but as soon as the government says road signs should be metric, their campaign is dead and buried.

The reason I commented that I support the actions of ARM is because I believe their actions may help highlight the bizarre situation that a countries official system of measurement is BANNED from signs, and will accelerate a change in the laws to ALLOW (not require) metric on road signs.

re (Andy): "...the bizarre situation"

REPLY: Andy, is it not rather more bizarre that anyone should spend a penny on a single metric road sign, when 100% of British road drivers understand the existing Imperial ones perfectly well? Bizarre that anyone could even think of spending around £1 billion on converting perfectly undertandable road signs than, for example, using that money as 'seed' money to start off self-help projects in poor African countries

<<<REPLY: Andy, is it not rather more bizarre that anyone should spend a penny on a single metric road sign, when 100% of British road drivers understand the existing Imperial ones perfectly well? Bizarre that anyone could even think of spending around £1 billion on converting perfectly undertandable road signs than, for example, using that money as 'seed' money to start off self-help projects in poor African countries >>>

Your 100% figure is extremely naiive. With the mixture of systems used in Britain there is no 100%. The government will decide that the cost is justified when they consider that more people are more comfortable with metric than are comfortable with imperial.

No-one is suggesting spending money on metricating signs is more important than other issues.

If we had already metricated signs you would be campaigning to spend money to change them back so don't use that as an argument.

re (Andy): "Your 100% figure is extremely naive. With the mixture of systems used in Britain there is no 100%. The government will decide that the cost is justified when they consider that more people are more comfortable with metric than are comfortable with imperial"

REPLY: Next century?

re (Andy):

"If we had already metricated signs, you would be campaigning to spend money to change them back, so don't use that as an argument.

REPLY:

Am I campaigning to change 70cl wine bottles to so many fluid ounces?

Am I campaigning to get car engine capacity measured in cubic inches instead of cubic centimetres?

Am I campaigning to scrap the Olympic distances of 400m, 200m and 100m?

That really is a woeful argument of yours, Andy

<<
However, I do wonder whether the majority of people in the UK really object to the metric companion signs or support the economic implications of remaining Imperial. I'm sure they are saying it is a nuisance to get familiar with metric, and they'd rather not be bothered, but are they considering the economics
>>

Of course they are considering the economics. Converting all the signs to metric will cost upwards of millions of dollars... er... I mean pounds. And the overall benefit will be close to nil, apart for the extra convenience to foreigners visiting and driving in Britain.
John, would you care to explain to me the "economic" benefits of having the same units on your road signs as a neighbouring country?

<<And the overall benefit will be close to nil, apart for the extra convenience to foreigners visiting and driving in Britain>>

Cue Andy...

;-)

<<John, would you care to explain to me the "economic" benefits of having the same units on your road signs as a neighbouring country?>>

I'd be hardpressed to find enough quantifiable hard economic benefits to offset the costs. I think it would be depend on how to count the educational value.

Two hard ones:
*Auto makers wouldn't have to design separate miles and kilos clusters (speedometer and odometer in particular), they would all be kilometer. I can't estimate the savings, but it wouldn't be much. We're master of making "complexity" ( a few parts that differentiate vehicles) fairly cheap.
*We've installed some new dual signage for height on bridges because of the amount of border (truck) traffic with Canada. (There is a LOT of truck traffic associated with cross-border delivery of auto parts.) I assume this exists in Northern states with Canada, and southern with Mexico. Feet and meters seems to reduce bridge oops. Depending on how far we decide we have to go from Customary only to dual, we could have just gone metric for less (smaller signs). However, at the moment, we are nowhere near making everything dual, just key truck routes.

Soft ones:
*There are a lot of low level costs associated with continuous conversion. I think eliminating one system of measurement would be an advantage. But the costs are never large in one place. We are nickeled and dimed to death. It would contribute to the metric education of the public to convert.
*It would be easier for foreign visitors. Would that encourage tourism? Who knows.
*Americans would be more equipped to go overseas and not act like idiots over measurement.

Honesty, I think FPLA, school education, and converting remaining Customary industry are more important. I wouldn't put metric highway signs at the top of my priority list. Although others might rank it higher, I would think mostly for the educational impact, get people thinking metric. The UK is obviously more metric than the US; for them, it is time to "finish up" and the roads are one of the remaining issues. Also the fact that metric is FORBIDDEN on roads is quite silly.

In border states, commonality shouldn't be minimized though. From an adjacent state, it is MUCH cheaper to drive to Canada or Mexico than it is for someone in the UK to take train or car ferry to the Continent, and I would guess is done more often. I probably go to Canada more than I go to Ohio. So I would prefer to see the roads metric. I suspect cost can be driven high or low depending on POV. We changed an awful lot of speed signs when we got rid of "national 55" and 55 MPH was so hated that no one complained about the cost. I saw a lot of "slap on" stickers that probably did the job quite cheaply until new signs were needed anyway.

"The UK is obviously more metric than the US; for them, it is time to "finish up" and the roads are one of the remaining issues. Also the fact that metric is FORBIDDEN on roads is quite silly."

That is exactly what the BWMA does not want. It is the laws that prevent metric road signs and glasses other then 568 mL in the pubs that actually prevents the final gravitation to complete the metric changeover. As long as there is something major, like road signs still in imperial, the imperial believe that imperial remains strong in the public consciousness. As long as the imperials have a foot in the door they also have hope of a complete return to imperial in other areas of economy.

Remove the laws preventing metric in these last to areas and allow metric and metric will happen swiftly. It will also be a sign that imperial can never return.

Just think, despite the laws how many signs have been placed in metric without a real effort to do so. Yes, the group ARM has converted them back, but still they were done in metric to begin with. Take away the law and you will see a change happening anyway.

Tony:
"re (Andy):
If we had already metricated signs, you would be campaigning to spend money to change them back, so don't use that as an argument.

REPLY:
Am I campaigning to change 70cl wine bottles to so many fluid ounces?

Am I campaigning to get car engine capacity measured in cubic inches instead of cubic centimetres?

Am I campaigning to scrap the Olympic distances of 400m, 200m and 100m?

That really is a woeful argument of yours, Andy"

Stan:

Andy didn't mention any of those other things. You on the other hand have proudly boasted numerous times about the number of signs you have "demetricated".

In the absence of a legal definition of the phrase "demetricate" I take it to mean that you have indeed been trying to undo metric signs. I've no idea of the costs involved but I think we can safely say that the money could just have easily been spent on what you seem to think are more worthwhile causes than changing signs.

re (Stan): "...think we can safely say that the money could just have easily been spent on what you seem to think are more worthwhile causes than changing signs".

REPLY: Stan, I see you are having a walk up that favourite place of yours, the moral high ground. It's a great view from the top, isn't it?

It's a great view.

You can see all the way as far as your nose.

I take it that Tony avioded the boys in blue in Gainsborough.

re (Oliver): I take it that Tony avioded the boys in blue in Gainsborough".

REPLY: A cop car with four officers inside whizzed by, blue lights flashing, on its way, presumably, to a crime scene. Our newest supporter was a touch nervous at this point, but that's all part of the training

Fancy that. Tony was involved in creating a Gainsborough painting.

A real tale of derring do - it should be submitted to Boys'Own.

re: "Tony was involved in creating a Gainsborough painting..."

REPLY: Judging by what I saw at the 'Tate Modern' the other day, the recent 'Gainsborough painting' by ARM supporters would probably have pride of place

<<re (Oliver): I take it that Tony avioded the boys in blue in Gainsborough".

REPLY: A cop car with four officers inside whizzed by, blue lights flashing, on its way, presumably, to a crime scene. Our newest supporter was a touch nervous at this point, but that's all part of the training>>

You're mad!

John, thanks for the detailed list.

I don't see any major costs on your list, so I assume that your position is that all the costs are small but they add up. Let me just respond to a few points.

<<
*Auto makers wouldn't have to design separate miles and kilos clusters (speedometer and odometer in particular), they would all be kilometer.
>>
You admit yourself that the costs of this would be almost nothing, so no need to go further.

<<
*We've installed some new dual signage for height on bridges because of the amount of border (truck) traffic with Canada....Depending on how far we decide we have to go from Customary only to dual, we could have just gone metric for less (smaller signs). However, at the moment, we are nowhere near making everything dual, just key truck routes.
>>
Most truck drivers are regulars, so they would be familiar with all units anyway. Besides, to become a truck driver, additional training is necessary anyway, so it would be a simple matter of adding a couple of lines to the appropriate book in order to ensure that all truck drivers know what "feet" and "metres" are. I think the majority of the public knows anyway, but we could make sure we tell all truck drivers just to be safe. I can't imagine this costing any measurable amount of money.



<<
*There are a lot of low level costs associated with continuous conversion. I think eliminating one system of measurement would be an advantage. But the costs are never large in one place.
>>
Most of these continuous conversions are nowadays done by computer. I'm not sure what the cost of a "flop" (computer operation) is, or how many flops are needed to do a conversion, but once again this is extremely negligible in context.

<<
*Americans would be more equipped to go overseas and not act like idiots over measurement.
>>
There are enough metric things in the US (soda bottles, alcohol, etc.) that this would probably not happen.

re (Stan): "You're mad!"

REPLY: But successful...

Yes, Tony.. I very much doubt whether the government will ever change our signs to metric now, because a couple of eccentrics decided they don't like metric signs and started a campaign of removing them!

I truly feel sorry for you.

I think, in the main, he's doing a good job.

You should congratulate him, Andy, he's standing up for those who are less brave!

You've got to admire him for his steadfast and consistant position.

An example for me would be Tony Benn - I think his politics are awful but his steadfast and unstinting lack of hypocracy makes me believe he is one of the finest (if dangerous) politicians this country has ever had. And that's in a very short list (Thatcher, Tebbit, Lord Shore, Lord Steel, Hague spring to mind)

<<<I think, in the main, he's doing a good job.

You should congratulate him, Andy, he's standing up for those who are less brave!

You've got to admire him for his steadfast and consistant position.>>>

I agree, his dedication and determination are to be admired. But as his campaign is ultimately doomed to failure, these attributes could surely be used more constructively.

What I dislike particularly about his actions (aside from the fact that we are on opposing sides) are that they are completely hypocritical and extremely selfish.

<<But as his campaign is ultimately doomed to failure, these attributes could surely be used more constructively>>

Should I stop buying vinyl records too? After all, CD's are going to last forever.

And what's the point in my friend buying a new house? It's doomed to failure as we'll all be living on the moon 20 yrs from now.

<<<Should I stop buying vinyl records too? After all, CD's are going to last forever.>>>

I respect your right to still buy vinyl. But do you think buying CD's should be illegal?

No - but vinyl will outlive CD - despite it being a newer format.