Hi all, i'm a new poster here and I am strongly against metrification and support all that you are doing. I'm just posting regarding The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions Act 2002, that has no mention of metric in whatsoever. The year of royal assent was 2002 so one can assume the government has no immediate intentions to convert to metric on roads.

a copy of the act is over on the HM Stationary Office Website.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/cgi-bin/htm_hl.pl?DB=opsi&STEMMER=en&WORDS=highways+act+&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&URL=http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm#muscat_highlighter_first_match

Perhaps you should search for the word "metric" in it, or metres. :)

Metric signs for height, width, length restrictions are allowed provided there is also a companion Imperial sign; examples are even shown in the drawings. Perhaps a small step, but a step.

You are correct that there is no mention of metric being permitted for distances or speeds.

So why are you STRONGLY opposed to metric? What else are you STRONGLY opposed to?

Ian

Was the reference to the "Stationary" Office meant to be a comment as to the state of the UK's roads, or can you just not spell?

And do you have problems with names too? Where does the word "Act" appear in the title of the regulations?

I'm amazed that you found no mention of metric whatsoever. You must have skipped large chunks of the regulations - in addition to the examples pointed out above by John, tonnes (not imperial tons) are used to indicate weight restrictions

See regulation 17(10)
"Where an upright sign indicates a weight in tonnes using the symbol "T", that symbol may be varied to "t"."

I believe that the weight markings are exclusively metric - but I'm willing to be corrected!

The dimensions of all signs are also specified in metric. Look at regulation 12 for examples of permitted variations of dimensions.

You'll be claiming that Tesco is exclusively imperial next!

<<I believe that the weight markings are exclusively metric - but I'm willing to be corrected!>>

I believe you are correct. I used the find feature and searched for {space}ton. With no space at the end but one at the beginning, it indiscriminately looks for ton, tons, tonne, tonnes, etc, but ignores button (which was driving me nuts).

The only two occurences are tonnes, so weight limits and signs are purely metric, with Imperial weight disallowed.

By the way, Ian
WELCOME TO THE BOARD.

BWMA and some of the posters are pro-Imperial,
others are pro-metric, as you can see.
Makes for more lively debate!

Weight limits are one of the few areas on road signs that are purely metric. The change occurred in about 1979 when cwt (hundredweights of 112 lbs) were dropped from road sign.

If however you look at the Units of Measurement Regulation 1984 (as amended) you will see that the symbol "T" is reserved for Teslas, while "t" is reserved for tonnes. This menas that there is a conflict between the two sets of laws. Looking at the case Thoburn vs City of Sunderland, you will see that since the Units of Measurement Regulation (UoMR) are derived from an EU directive while TRSGD are not, the UoMR takes precedence over TRSGD. THis in turn means that if a lorry driver is charged with disregarding a weight limit sign which denotes tonnes using a "T" instead of a "t", he has a case that the sign does not comply with UoMR and is therefore unenforceable.

I've seen roads marked with "Tons" on the sign and roads with "Tonnes" on the sign. I've also seen CWT.
We could say that "t" is tonnes and "T" is tonnes.
We could also realise that the difference between a tonne and a ton is so negligible as to be unimportant. Unless someone's going to be so nitpicky as to drive a lorry thats a few pounds heavier lighter than a tonne/ton just to have fun with measures!

BTW - Martin - Did you notice the bit that said :-

"*Distances may be expressed as "yards", "yds", "mile", "miles", "m", "YARDS", "YDS", "MILE", "MILES", or "M"."

I guess that bit doesn't really exist. Or something.

Yes Steve, I am fully aware that unlike most Government Departments the DoT has a cavalier disregard of their obligations vis-a-vis the Units Of Measurement Regulations. It is only a matter of time before they get a considerable amount of egg on their face.

....and how long have you been waiting so far?

;-)

Steve said

"I've seen roads marked with "Tons" on the sign and roads with "Tonnes" on the sign. I've also seen CWT."

I know Steve - we are all getting old. I can remember £/s/d too. I saw an old cash register the other week. It wasn't in use, but , hey, it was there!

But, like the sign, was it "functioning" ?

re (martin): "It is only a matter of time before they get a considerable amount of egg on their face"

REPLY: Ah! At last we discover the precise penalty for disregarding the E.U. Directives on weights and measures

re (Beranger in reply to Ian):

"Ian, Was the reference to the "Stationary" Office meant to be a comment as to the state of the UK's roads, or can you just not spell?
And do you have problems with names too? Where does the word "Act" appear in the title of the regulations? I'm amazed that you found no mention of metric whatsoever. You must have skipped large chunks of the regulations - in addition to the examples pointed out above by John, tonnes (not imperial tons) are used to indicate weight restrictions... You'll be claiming that Tesco is exclusively imperial next!"

REPLY: For some reason, the phrase 'clever dick' sprang to mind

Steve

To be honest, the cash drawer is still in use. Its in a very traditional old pub but they don't use any of the keys except the one that opens the drawer. It would be nice to think that it still worked though.

I've not seen a "ton" or "cwt" sign in ages though - have ARM have been out removing these unlawful indications :-)

I have a "ton" and a "CWT" sign near me. The "ton" sign is before a famous bridge. There are more - but those are the two that spring to mind.

Nice to hear that the till still works - keep a bit of history happening. There is a bit of a difference though (as there always is with money). The bank don't make that money any more, whereas a weight, no matter how old it is, is still a weight. I'd be able to weigh some cheese out in "scruples" if I really wanted to - but I cannot purchase my copy of "Metrication Matters" using pounds, shillings, and pence.

It's a real pain though, having to purchase the Daily Mail just so that I can rap my magazine in it for when I leave the shop ;-)

Steve

What magazine are you wrapping in the Daily Mail? Is it really <<Metrication Matters>> or is it really <<44" Busty Babes>>

Hey - there's a use of imperial no-one has mentioned before!

:-) :-) :-)

Shhhh! Don't tell everyone!





---
Is there really a magazine with that title, Berenger?

Hmmm?

Eh?

[nudge nudge]


---
(God its so much more fun "over here" than "over there!)

"Is there really a magazine with that title, Berenger?"

Yes. If you check the title page of this weeks edition (rather than turning straight to page 3), you will find that it is published jointly by Awesomely Reproduced Mammaries & Collosal Mammary Sightings (aka "ARM & CMS")














Tony - I realise that you are totally opposed to pornography, and apologise immediately if you are offended in any way by what I have jokingly suggested above.

It is obviously intended to be read as a joke, and not as any attempt to link ARM or CMS to pornographic publishers.

You are sooooooo cheeky sometimes!

;-)