The following civil service letter and 'commentary', now over 16 years old, has been passed to the Council of Active Resistance to Metrication.

Selected verbatim extracts from it follow, without comment at this stage:

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

EXTRACTS FROM A TRAFFIC POLICY DIVISION PAPER 12 January 1989

re: METRICATION – THE MILE

To: Association of County Councils

Thank you for your minutes of 8 December and for the copy of the Association of County Councils’ letter of16 December 1988 to the Department of Trade and Industry. If anything their analysis of costs is much too optimisitic and suggests that they have not thought through the practical issues. I attach a commentary which we have produced…we make no pretence over the accuracy of the figures, since there is virtually no appreciation of the total inventory of road signs in Britain...in the absence of direct benefits to the present generation of British driver and vehicle operators there is no traffic-related case for abandoning the mile.

COMMENTARY (by Department of Transport – Traffic Policy Division)

1. The main concern is with the logistics and cost of converting distance measurement and speed limit signs from miles to kilometres. Any programme of changeover would be messy and organisationally complex. For it to be justifiable other than on grounds of pure harmonisation there would have to be an economic benefit which at present seems completely lacking from a traffic point of view.

2. FEET AND INCHES These units are only used at vehicle height, length and width restriction e.g. low bridges. The present policy is that all height restriction signs should eventually include both imperial and metric dimensions…many existing signs are being converted under normal maintenance/renewal arrangements.

3. YARDS Conversion to metres would not be a technical problem given the effective equivalence of the yard and the metre within the implied accuracy of such signs…rounding to the nearest 50 or 100 yards is the normal practice. Hence metrication of the yard could be accomplished at relatively little cost providing this were done under the normal cycle of sign renewals. Were the mile to be retained there would be a degree of incongruity over the parallel use of metres and miles but this would occur only rarely on a single sign configuration. However it would add some strength to a case for retaining the yard.

4. One point to note here is the current use of the abbreviation ‘m’ for both the mile and metres…The next round of consultation on new traffic sign regulations…proposes to remove this anomaly…

5. Reliable data on the number of directional signs involved is (sic) not available. [There may be] 500,000 directional signs on classified roads and 300,000 on unclassified roads…the proportion of such signs which currently include distances…is reckoned to be of the order of 50%…

Three options would seem possible:

(a) metric distances plated over Imperial distances on existing signs

(b) metric distances replacing Imperial distances as signs’ life renewed over normal 8-10 years

(c) metric distances replacing Imperial distances as signs renewed but plated over with Imperial distances for subsequent unveiling.

9. A combination of strategies is possible. Many rural signs could be let until they were due for replacement.

10. SPEED LIMIT SIGNS As regards speed limit signs the legal position probably dictates a ‘quick’ conversion process but the scope for integrating the two exercises would obviously have to be investigated.

14. CONCLUSIONS. The case for a permanent derogation [of miles, yards, feet and inches] depends on the high cost of the exercise for little or no direct economic benefit in traffic terms.

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

Only speed limits need a "quick" conversion. Dual units can peacefully coexist on the others. You really should change the law, but, if it weren't for "metric terrorists" defacing them, had this really started in 1988 as gradual conversion, and given 8-10 year normal life, you'd be done now. In fact, you'd be done twice over.

I would recommend:
1) Length, width, height restriction: Next update, go dual, following update, go metric only. So it takes 20 years. It will take you forever as you are doing it now (a handful, regularly defaced by ARM)

2) Distances: Begin updating using meters in place of yards, and kilometers instead of miles. No dual signs, but a mix of units (on different signs) is really pretty harmless. No one measures them exactly anyway (unlike height). Wherever "m" is used for miles, I'd paint it over and use a naked number, reserving "m" for meters. (Maybe ARM could do it as community service for a "defacing" conviction.)

3) Speed: Eventually, you bite the bullet and convert all at once, like Ireland. Surely Brits aren't dumber, and many of you have driven on the Continent. The "safety" argument is substantially overblown by ARM, but the change does need to be publicized, and the signs need to be distinctive.

re (John S-MI): "Dual units can peacefully coexist on the others..."

The signs in Wales will be fascinating. Here's a foretaste of John's 'peaceful co-existence' in Wales/Cymru:

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

Slow down 200 yards

Arafach nawr 200 llath

Slow down 180 metres

Arafach nawr 180 metr

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

By the time you've digested that little lot, you'll have crashed!

Or, you could slow down enough to read the whole message.

Yards and meters are so close that the difference is immaterial for such uses. Use one or the other. No need to change the whole island on one day (like speed). Some signs would be yards, some would be meters during the conversion. The sign you mentioned is only a simple warning to watch for a new speed limit sign ahead. We wouldn't even bother with a distance, we'd just use a "Reduce Speed Ahead" sign, and put it a reasonable distance before the new speed limit. If you take your foot off the gas, you should coast down. More complex versions warn of the new speed limit ahead, but rarely give the distance.

I think precise dual information is required on height and width limits, during changeover. Length is more of a legal than physical restriction. That could go either way.

Nice bit o'Welsh there, Mr B!

I keep waiting for it to "become obsolete" but year-on-year it keeps getting the "fastest growing language in europe" award.

;-)

"Slow down
Arafach nawr
180 m"

would work nicely (if the Welsh is correct, as I certainly don't know)

(ARM has to paint over all the m for miles signs as community service, in my proposal (and buy the paint). :)

One could of course follow the Irish approach:

In normal script: Slow down 180 m
In italics: Arafach nawr 180 m

This will make it very readable and will give Welsh the prominence that the people of the principality would like while not compromising safety. SInce most visitors from abroad can at least read a little English and also understand metric units, no confusion will arise there.

I do love this speculating on something that isn't even mentioned to be considered to happen any time in the distant future!!

Marvellous

"Gwasaethanau 23m"

Guess that one.