Are BWMA/ARM aware of signs on motorways saying:

"No hard shoulder 4000 YDS"?

Mean anything?

Yes 3600m or 3.6km

4000 yards is daft! Cool! someone applying metric ideas to imperial measures (ie not bothering with the "step up" to miles)

I've seen a sign before saying "traffic lights, 9 yards" - I kid you not!
It looked totally rediculous because as you look at the traffic lights from a road point of view the sign appeared almost directly in front of the traffic light!

<<
4000 yards is daft! Cool! someone applying metric ideas to imperial measures
>>

which goes to prove that the metric system is more robust ot misuse. In Italy I saw signs "Services 10000m" (I do not remember the Italian word for Services). It is unusual to use metres for any distance above 2km, but the Italians always use metres (not kilometres) to infirm you of the lenght of their road tunnels - there are about 2000 road tunnels in Italy and a hqandful are over the 2000m mark.

Since they use the metric system, a quoted distance of 3425m converts to 3.4km (aprox) very easily. The same cannot be said about the Imperial System.

Because we don't do it that way (ie you've missed the point of how imperial works - which it does - very well)

Hey perhaps they put so many noughts on the Italian sign to remind them of their liras (from when they were a free nation)

The point is that both versions of the metric sign can be easily understood.

Incidentally, Italy was the most pro-euro of the euozone members.

The original measurement was undoubtedly 4000 m or 4 km.

But because highways authorities have been told to put yards on everything they did just that.

If it had been measured as 4,000m and translated directly, it would have been 4,400 yards.

Maybe, but I'll bet it wasn't.

The old 3 foot yard is now obsolete.

The new yard is 39.6 ins long.

Hehehe...

As a matter of law, the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 require that signs above 1/2 mile or 880 yards should be given to the nearest quarter of a mile - up to a given number of miles, after which they must be given to the nearest 1/2 mile - then after that to the nearest mile.

These regulations are common sense.

'4,000 yards' is both illegal and contrary to common sense

Quite right Mr B.

Distances beyond 880 yards lack common sense.

But then what do expect from a crap system like yards and miles?

Please do not lower the tone. Thank you.

<<
'4,000 yards' is both illegal and contrary to common sense
>>

Will we be seeing ARIIS (Active Resistance To Illegal Imperial Signs) out on the case to change it.

No

Actually, this 4000 yard sign doesn't seem like such a bad idea...for the following reason.
If most "no hard shoulder" signs state small distances under 880 yds and are therefore given in yards, having them all in the same unit, for easy comparison, would make sense. Someone who has driven past a "no hard shoulder 400 yards" before and knows how much 400 yards is will have a pretty good idea of the 4000 yard distance. On the other hand, if people aren't used to seeing "no hard shoulder" signs in miles, the sign may not make as much sense.

This is similar to the case with the height of mountains, which are given in feet rather than miles. "Mt. Everest 29,028 feet" is easy to understand because people measure smaller mountains in feet. 5.5 miles would be harder to understand.

Bud,

The argument is about how familiar people are about ways of measuring certain things.

4,000 yards is around 2 1/2 miles. It's customary to use miles for that sort of distance e.g. a common sign on a British road would be 'Bends for 1 1/2 miles' (not 'Bends for 2,500 yards').

If you asked for distances for example in a town centre to a shop or a local landmark, it would be given by 99.9% of people in yards, e.g. 20 yards, 50 yards, 'couple of hundred yards', etc.

The length of a garden in Britain is given in feet. Thus everyone knows that a 50-foot garden is quite small, 100-foot is medium, and anything above that is a nice long garden.

Similarly, it's customary to give mountain heights in feet.

The Regulations which specify that miles, not yards, are used above 1/2 mile are sensible and reflect the way we communicate and understand distances.

Using the metric system on British roads doesn't work because our normal method of communication is in feet, yards and miles.

The United States clearly have slightly different systems e.g. measuring more distances in feet, so any traffic regulations over there would no doubt reflect this

<<
This is similar to the case with the height of mountains, which are given in feet rather than miles. "Mt. Everest 29,028 feet" is easy to understand because people measure smaller mountains in feet. 5.5 miles would be harder to understand.
>>

In metric people would say Everest is 8847m high. Why is it that in the imperial system, mountains are measured in feet and road distances are in yards? Same on a golf course - a golf hole is say 350 yards long but when you get on the green you are 15 feet from the hole? Why not 5 yards from the hole?

Because, when you are closer, you need a smaller unit of measure.

The greater the number of units, the greater the potential for confusion.

I am amused that so few posters have have alluded to the real point here.

In feet, yards and miles you have to adhere to all those conventions/rules because it is so awkward to switch between measures on different scales. 4000 yds is not very helpful because motorists have odometers in miles.

Now!

If we were metric on the roads and were used to km for distance and speed etc, (odometers, speedos metric as well of course) it wouldn't matter so much. 4000 m, 4 km, it would be so much easier!

And just think how nicesly road atlases would tie in with OS!

Same with mountains, 8848 m, 8.8 km take your pick. (See, all that freedom to choose?)

But people are not supposed to switch between units in that way. That is not how the system works. The 4,000 yard sign arises (probably) because of the botched policy of metric conversion - botched because the government has not owned up to it, or been honest in where it will lead. The sign maker was probably thinking "4,000 metres" - not in terms of the distance, but in how the measurement should be expressed. He grafted a metric expression of distance onto a non-metric measurement system.

This 4000 yard sign is ILLEGAL! Tony has said it himself! ARM make a big point that metric signs are ILLEGAL and that is why they alter them. Let's have ARM taking action and at least changing this sign to miles.

I know this action would not fit in with the name Active Resistance To Metrication but it would prove that this group are against all road signs against the law.

To paraphrase George Orwell:

" Some illegal road signs are more illegal than others"

"Incidentally, Italy was the most pro-euro of the euozone members"

Not entirely true - Luxembourg was, but then again luxembourg is small enough to be ignored! (Very boring place, btw, spent a few boring hours there)

Metre Man/BWMA: re: lowering the tone: It always delights me to keep seeing the likes of "meter man" being on the pro-metric/anti-imperial side. However, rather than try to temper him (/them) I think they should be free to argue in the way only they know how to! Talk about losing the argument before getting to the points! (LOL)

Richard: "This 4000 yard sign is ILLEGAL! Tony has said it himself! ARM make "

You're missing a substantial point - guess what THE PEOPLE prefer?

<<
Richard: "This 4000 yard sign is ILLEGAL! Tony has said it himself! ARM make "
>>


I think that the correct term is unlawful

<<
Richard: "This 4000 yard sign is ILLEGAL! Tony has said it himself! ARM make "

You're missing a substantial point - guess what THE PEOPLE prefer?
>>

The people would prefer one saying 2.5 miles over a 4000 yard sign.

...but they'd be even happier if it said:

' 2 1/2 miles '

Actually 4000m is 2 1/2 miles.
4000 yds is 2 1/4 miles

Thus you realise the real difference betwixt yds and m's (re: "why don't they just replace yd signs directly with m signs")

<<
...but they'd be even happier if it said:

' 2 1/2 miles '
>>

Ok whatever. What I am saying is your group ought to go and change this unlawful sign Tony if you want to keep your word on unlawful road signs.

<<
What I am saying is your group ought to go and change this unlawful sign Tony if you want to keep your word on unlawful road signs.
>>

If I were a member of ARM I wouldn't change this sign ARM is Active Resistance to Metrication, not Active Resistance to All Unlawful Road Signs. If a sign was an illegal color, of illegally large dimensions, or written with letters and numbers illegally small, that has nothing to do with ARM.

However it will be interesting to see if this sign is actually changed

ARM's rationale is to remove illegal signs, yet they only do so for certain illegalities.

Signs that should be removed should come under the heading: "Illegal and unpopular"!!

<<
...If a sign was an illegal color, of illegally large dimensions, or written with letters and numbers illegally small, that has nothing to do with ARM.
>>

ARM have no authority to alter any signs. There are no signs that have anything to do with them.

ARM invoke arguments about the legality of signs when it suites them. To them the law is a matter of convenience not a matter of principle.

Did anyone read ^^that^^ like it was being spoken in a "Dalek" voice?

True, ARM follow a dogmatic reasoning which takes illegality as a convenience.

They don't like metric signs so vandalise them and use some spurious defence *which was found to be without base in court*.

When it comes to 'Metric Martyrs', the law is apparently wrong, or something!

DAMN that silent majority!

The correct term for ARM's action is TAKING THE LAW INTO YOUR OWN HANDS. Obviously on a much larger scale is the following example:

If you know someone is the key suspect for a murder, it would be completely against the law to capture that person yourself and keep them captive (as if you were holding them in jail yourself). If you think (or know) it is them, you call the police who then sort it out instead and justice is eventually done.

On a smaller scale but the same principle, if ARM are unhappy with an illegal sign, then why don't they call the police! After all, the police are there to withold the law.

A member of the public may make a citizen's arrest.

sniff sniff ...

SteveH

detection alarm. alarm, alarm, ...

reactionary idiot, ...

exterminate, extTERMINATE, EXTERMINATE, ...

Amending or removing illegal metric signs in the U.K. is *authorised by law*:


"It shall be an offence to remove any sign from the highway, [except that] it shall be a defence to pull down or obliterate any sign unlawfully placed on the highway" (Sections 131 (1) and (2), Highways Act, 1980).


Metric signs (other than optional metric height and width signs) are not permitted by British law, i.e. they are unlawful, illegal, illicit, banned, forbidden, stengstens verboten, non permis or whatever other similar words you can find in Roget's Thesaurus.

Hence members of the public are authorised to amend or remove metric signs on British roads.

The only reason I was found guilty of the offence of criminal damage was because a few specks of black paint had dripped below the area covered by the '600 yards' label - which was affixed over the illegal sign saying '600 metres'. The fact that the damage was so minor led to the Judge and his two fellow lay Magistrates giving me an Absolute Discharge - in view of what they said on the record was the 'minimal gravity' of the offence.

We shall be even more careful next time

"After all, the police are there to withold the law."

Indeed.

Tony Bennett wrote

<<
Amending or removing illegal metric signs in the U.K. is *authorised by law*:


"It shall be an offence to remove any sign from the highway, [except that] it shall be a defence to pull down or obliterate any sign unlawfully placed on the highway" (Sections 131 (1) and (2), Highways Act, 1980).

>>

I beg to differ. The law states "... any sign unlawfully placed ..." not "... any unlawful sign placed ...".

This tells me that you may remove a sign which somebody else put in place if that person has no authority to put the sign in place.

It does not give you authority to remove a sign (even f the sign is unlawful) if the person who put it in place has the authority to put signs in place.

"If you know someone is the key suspect for a murder, it would be completely against the law to capture that person yourself "

What constitutes a citizen's arrest?

Personally though, I wouldn't try and detain someone capable of murder! Too scary and I'd probably do it all wrong and end up dead! (with cheers from the likes of "Meter Man" !!!).

BTW, apparently "Yard man" is very embarrased about his older brother!

I have performed a citizens arrest. About 8 years ago, I saw a couple of people giving chase to a young teenager and shouting 'Stop, thief!' (Yes, really). I gave chase myself, to my surprise outpaced the others, and eventually cornered him in a dingy corner of an underground car park. He had a mate with him and I thought I would get knifed - but somewhat amazingly they were more frightened of me. Maybe my 6' 2" height and 13-stone bulk helped.

The Police came by a few minutes later and arrested him. I gave evidence in Court and he was convicted of nicking items of jewellery off a market stall (which he threw into a skip on his way into the car park).

It would take real guts to intervene in a violent attack on someone, though

Of course, you are allowed to help stop a shoplifter. But you wouldn't be able to then kidnap him and hold him prisoner yourself. You call the police. If you are so determined to have metric signs removed, THEORETICALLY, you should call the police and let them take charge.

Richard, in general terms, you are right, you don't take the law into your own hands.

But Parliament made an exception in the case of 'signs unlawfully placed on the highway' when they passed Section 131 of the Highways Act 1980.

An unlawful sign simply cannot lawfully be placed on the highway.

Incidentally, the British Courts of late have actually started supporting certain cases of folk taking the law into their own hands.

Lord Melchett and his merry crew of GM crop-scythers were acquitted of criminal damage because they were held to be protecting the public's health. Similarly I think some of the 'Greenham Common' peace campaigners (often quite a violent lot, as it goes) did criminal damage to an aircraft inside a military base and were similarly acquitted

Let me clarify my original point. From the way this discussion has gone, some people seem to have misunderstood.
When I said ARM shouldn't remove the 4000 yds sign, I meant that just because citizens CAN enforce the law doesn't mean that there is any requirement for them to enforce it equally (like no citizen is obligated to make a citizen's arrest). ARM is not required by any law to remove illegal signs, but they are permitted to do so (from what I have read.) Therefore there is absolutely nothing wrong with them picking and choosing which illegal signs they want to remove.

Oh and by the way, about this "lawfully placed" issue...
my logic tells me that placing an illegal sign is an illegal act even if one has authority to place signs, therefore a sign that is illegal is placed illegally. If there was a 70 mph speed limit, and someone who had the authority to post signs posted 80 mph, that sign would be illegally placed because the person did not have the authority to post THAT PARTICULAR sign, even though he may have the authority to post signs in general.

<<
Oh and by the way, about this "lawfully placed" issue...
my logic tells me that placing an illegal sign is an illegal act even if one has authority to place signs, therefore a sign that is illegal is placed illegally. If there was a 70 mph speed limit, and someone who had the authority to post signs posted 80 mph, that sign would be illegally placed because the person did not have the authority to post THAT PARTICULAR sign, even though he may have the authority to post signs in general.
>>

A sign can be unlawful for many reasons. For example, if a particular spped limit sign had been manufactured abroad and the red circle was 1mm too thin, the sign would be unlawful. However, to remove it without having first complained to the authorities ... well. Moreover, the minister has the power under the act to retrospectively declare the sign lawful which, in such a case, I beleive he would do.

<<
But Parliament made an exception in the case of 'signs unlawfully placed on the highway' when they passed Section 131 of the Highways Act 1980.
>>

Parliament didn't make an exception they made a mistake.

Who'd have thought that over 20 years later that this tiny clause would have been drawn upon in such a perverse manner. Especially when it comes to things like pedestrian footpath signs.

Any claim that the this section of the Highways act was designed to give carte blanche to vigilanteism is a blatant abuse of the British legal and democratic system.

And yet they accuse pro-metrics of being undemocratic.

re: "...blatant abuse of the British legal and democratic system...Parliament made a mistake"

What other 'mistakes' has Parliament made please?

For an up-to-date incident of how to abuse the British legal system, how about the frantic efforts made by New Labour's Police and the secret services last week to hound a journalist who had brought to light the tape recording which revealed that former Northern Ireland Minister Mo Mowlam was coarse and foul-mouthed, using swear words evey other word, and was on such familiar terms with multiple murderer Martin McGuinesss that she called him 'babe'

To Metre Man,

Whom, in the United Kindom, do you purport to represent?

Best Regards
Me

Richard:

You measure mountain height in ft, because we measure our own height (sensibly) in ft. We measure golf courses in yds as they are long, not high- get it?