Although interesting, the M25 (and others mentioned) are motorways in the
UK. This, however, is the USMA forum - a site dedicated to metrication in
the USA. Although countries can learn from each other's experience I
believe that a post like this, here would be the same as me cutting a
pasting huge swathes of info on how cheese is weighed at a "Wal-mart" store
in Florida to the BWMA (a UK based) forum-site.
And I suspect it would also get ignored too.
From: "Daniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA:34921] ARM and the Case of the Illegal Metric-only Signs on
the M25
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 18:56:28 -0400
ARM and the Case of the Illegal Metric-only Signs on the M25
October 16 2005 at 9:32 PM Tony Bennett
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARM AND THE CASE OF THE ILLEGAL METRIC-ONLY SIGNS ON THE M25
One of ARM's most spectacular actions last week has resulted in a
swift and equally spectacular response from the highways agency.
1. BLACK CAT
The action concerned a series of width restriction signs either side
of the crossing of the M25 with the A10 (Junction 25 on the M25) - a
section of the M25 known locally as 'Black Cat'.
These large 10' x 8' signs, with black lettering on a yellow
background, showed the width restriction on three lanes as, respectively,
3.0m, 3.0m, and 2.75m.
This follows a period during which a high degree of confusion by
highways authorities about how to sign width restrictions has been
revealed, especially on motorways and trunk roads. This confusion has been
caused entirely by the unwise attempt to gradually introduce metric
measurements on to the highways of this country.
2. 99%-PLUS
According to ARM's recent surveys, around 99%-plus of all width
restriction signs in the U.K. are signed in feet and inches only. A handful
of signs are dual, which is now legal. Occasionally - as in this instance -
we come across signs illegally signed in metres only - a blatant breach of
the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Regulations 2002.
3. RARE
On the few minor roads where there are dual Imperial/metric signs,
these tend to be metric first with Imperial below. On motorways and trunk
roads, there is - again, on the rare occasions when signs are dual - a mess
of Imperial and metric together. Either may come first. Sometimes the
alternative measurement is in brackets, sometimes not. A typical sign seen
recently on the M25 reads: "Width restriction 9' 6" (2.9m)". Sometimes the
metric dimension comes first.
4. IMPERIAL ONLY
The illegality of these metric-only signs on the M25 reported to ARM
was highlighted by many observations made by ARM members, supporters and
spotters elsewhere on Britain's motorways and trunk roads during the past
fortnight - in each case in Imperial only. These included the following:
(1) Width restrictions on the Dartford Tunnel/Bridge. These are
always signed in Imperial only, by means of electronic signs on overhead
canopies. During the last fortnight the width restrictions were shown as 7'
6" only (no metric). In the past, when there are some road works on the
bridge and/or in the tunnel, these have been shown as 6' 6". It is believed
that the width restrictions can be electronically switched at 6" intervals.
There is no provision for alternative signing in metric on The Dartford
Bridge/Tunnel.
(2) Road words on the M1 (several). All signed with just 6' 6" width
restrictions - no metric.
(3) Road works on the M1 in Northamptonshire: Large notices in black
writing on yellow background: "Wide loads over 9' 6" must use inside lane
only"
(4) Road works on the M6: "Wide loads over 9' 6" straddle two lanes"
(5) Road works on the M3 in several places: Width restrictions
signed: 6' 6". No metric alternative shown
(6) Road works on the M4 in several places: Width restriction 6' 6".
No metric alternative shown.
It is very clear from the above details what the 'norm' is. Namely,
width restrictions on our major motorways and trunk roads are signed in
feet and inches only.
5. PROFESSIONAL
In order to highlight the illegal erection of metric-only signs near
the M25/A10, ARM supporters prepared six professional plates, each 12" long
with 4" depth, to cover over the illegal metric distances. The plates were
of white plastic, overlain with adhesive reflective white panels to
Department for Transport regulations, with the legend, in black lettering
three inches high, saying: 9' 9" (to replace 3.0m), or 9' 0" (to replace
2.75m). As in all similar cases where intervention is taken by ARM
supporters as a last resort, the style of lettering is Department for
Transport Helvetica Bold, in conformity with the relevant regulations. The
erection of the signs was also carried out using all the required Health
and Safety requirements including the wearing of high visibility jackets
and hard hats and was only carried out after undertaking a risk assessment.
6. DAYLIGHT
In broad daylight, ARM supporters used ladders to overplate the
illegal 3.0m and 2.75m signs, using a powerful industrial adhesive to affix
the plates over the illegal metric units. This action was then reported to
the Department for Transport and to the Highways Agency, not without
considerable difficulty due to the confusing administrative structures in
both of the Departments and confusing chains of responsibility and overlaps
between different sections of the Highways Agency, itself a government
department. .
7. HERO
At this point a new hero emerges, one Tony McEnroe, a senior man in
the Highways Agency. A quiet-spoken gentleman who took infinite trouble to
get down all the details of the incorrect measurements and what ARM
supporters had done and why. He promised a swift response.
To cut what is a long story short, if one drives past those same
road signs at the M25/A10 junction today, one will see beautifully clear
width restriction signs in feet and inches only - either 9' 9" or 9' 0".
What's more, the lettering is larger than the original illegal metric
measurements.
An enquiry is now being held by the Highways Agency to find out who
was responsible for erecting the illegal signs and why. ARM will shortly be
making a Freedom of Information Act request to ascertain the answers to
these questions. The Highways Agency's answers will be posted here on the
British Weights and Measures Association official website when we get them.
8. RESPONSIBILITY
ARM will also be asking why the Highways Agency is making such a
mess of something as simple as signing width restrictions in clear large
lettering, and in accordance with the Traffic Signs Regulations' rules on
width restrictions. It appears that there is no co-ordination within the
Highways Agency about signing. As far as can be ascertained at the moment,
responsibility for correct signing of the motorways - and of temporary
roadworks on the highways - is left to individual sections of the Highways
Agency, or to the heads of particular geographical areas, or to
contractors, or even to sub-contractors.
9. DUCKING
In passing, it may be noted that this follows a familiar pattern of
government and local authority departments ducking responsibility for
errors. A familiar pattern of government officials saying: 'it's not my
fault, it's someone else's' has emerged. Sometimes Europe is blamed.
'That's a European decision now'. Sometimes a private company is blamed
e.g. when something goes badly wrong in a privately-run prison. Often
within government and local government one hears the refrain: 'well, it's
not my fault, it's the fault of some other section or department'. And so
it goes on. Constantly, responsibility for errors is evaded. ARM's Freedom
of Information Act requests will attempt to find out precisely who
authorised signs saying '2.75m' - illegal first because it was metric only
- and illegal, second, because it shows two decimal places after the number
of metres.
10. BLAME
ARM has already submitted that on such a key issue as signage on
roads where motorists regularly travel at 70mph and often faster, policy
needs to be determined centrally and followed scrupulously. We place the
blame for these errors fairly and squarely on the Director of the Highways
Agency. He, after all, is paid good money by the taxpayer to get things
right. He is manifestly failing so far as maintaining legal signage on the
country's busiest, fastest and most accident-prone roads is concerned.
11. UNSATISFACTORY
At this point we wish to refer to previous examples of illegal
signing by the Highways Agency and how the Highways Agency has reacted to
reports of their illegal signage.
In two recent cases, the Highways Agency has indeed corrected
illegal signage, though in an unsatisfactory way on each occasion.
12. TYPICAL
A recent example occurred with roadworks on the M3, understood to
have been taking place in north Hampshire. There, several width restriction
signs appeared, signed 2.0m for each lane, with no Imperial equivalent
given. Without the addition of the equivalent 6' 6", the signs were illegal
under the Traffic Signs Regulations. An ARM supporter reported this to a
Highways Agency official. He received the typical Highways Agency Response:
"We'll look into it". The person at the Highways Agency did not immediately
accept, as he should have done, that the signs were illegal. Nor - and this
is typical for the Highways Agency - did he offer to revert to the
public-spirited informant to let him know what action the Highways Agency
had taken.
In the good old days when officials were better trained in how to
respond to telephone calls for the public, the person concerned would
automatically have informed of the outcome of his telephone call.
13. BARELY LEGIBLE
In the event, the signs were corrected within two weeks of this
call. The Highways Agency added, in miniscule lettering about the smallest
ever seen on roundels, the legend: 6' 6". It was barely legible to a
motorist passing at speeds of 50mph to 70mph, and was almost certainly well
below the regulation height for such lettering.
A similar situation occurred two or three years ago during length
roadworks on the M2, mostly around the bridge over the River Medway but
also between there and the M25. Once again, illegal signs just giving the
width restriction as 2.0m appeared, although, bizarrely, here and there
they did use signs stating just: 6' 6". Eventually - after months - the
signs were made dual by the Highways Agency adding 6' 6" in very small
lettering under the 2.0m. The few signs just stating 6' 6" had 2.0m added
to them.
The signs were confusing due to their being two sets of measurements
and the lettering was again very small to accommodate them both on one
roundel.
14. CONFUSING
At this point, we need to refer to many letters sent in recent years
to the British Weights and Measures Association and to other individuals
about dual signage. Repeatedly, the Secretary of State for Transport has
said that the process of 'metrification' of Britain's roads cannot be
achieved by gradual introduction of dual signs, as this would be
'confusing'. A sentiment with which we in ARM totally agree.
Yet on a number of major routes, especially in London, dual metric
and Imperial signs have begun to be erected in recent years. This can only
be achieved in one of two ways:
(1) by putting both sets of measurements on one roundel, thus
forcing the authorities to use smaller lettering than normal. In some of
these instances, the Imperial height - nearly always signed below the
metric height - is shown in such small lettering as to make it difficult to
read, especially at any speed.
(2) by erecting two separate roundels, or two roundels on one sign,
one in metric, and one in Imperial. This costs extra money.
15. SURVEYS
It should be noted at this point that according to ARM's many
surveys of the signing of distances and dimensions on British roads, well
over 95% of all bridge height signs in the U.K. remain in Imperial units
only. The process of 'metrifying' height signs seems to have slowed to a
trickle. Most highways authorities find that signing height restrictions in
Imperial units only is both perfectly acceptable and - of course - cheaper.
16. FALLACY
It is also relevant here to note that the widely-used Truckers' Road
Atlas, which shows the actual height of every low bridge in the UK on any
motorway, trunk road, 'A' or 'B' road, uses only feet and inches. The
Truckers Road Atlas is used not only by native drivers but also by
continental drivers, thus exposing the fallacy put forward by the metric
zealots of the U.K. Metric Association that it is necessary to convert our
1.5 million or so road signs to metric - at an estimated cost of around £1
billion - 'to help continental truck drivers'.
17. PRAISE
On the evidence to date, Mr McEnroe deserves praise for dealing
promptly with ARM's action and for ensuring that the signs were made legal
without delay. The Council of ARM would like to express a pubic note of
appreciation to this individual for his actions to date.
However, it seems clear to ARM that the Highways Agency must now get
a grip on its habit of being responsible for erecting illegal signs in
metric only.
18. FORCED
Back in July 2002, the Head of the Traffic Policy Division of the
Department for Transport, Mike Talbot, was forced by ARM's actions on
metric signs to circulate a letter to all Chief Executives of local
authorities in England and Wales, reminding them that distances must never
be signed in metric and that dimensions may only be signed in metric with
an accompanying sign in Imperial. That letter seems to have put a stop to
local authorities erecting signs in metric, although ARM is still being
notified frequently of a number of cases of authorities erecting illegal
metric-only signage.
19. REMOVED
In one example two months ago, ARM supporters removed two illegal
signs in metric (saying '700m') erected earlier that month by North
Lincolnshire Council. The signs were delivered to a North Lincolnshire
Council depot and their Highways Director promptly acknowledged his
department's errors and promised to erect legal signs in yards or miles as
appropriate without delay.
20. ERROR
Illegal distance and dimension signs in metres only have been
reported to ARM in Northamptonshire, Birmingham, Hertfordshire, Essex, on
the A1(M) near Scotch Corner, in Lancashire, Gloucestershire, Shrewsbury,
York City and North Yorkshire and many other places. Some of these have by
now been dealt with. In the case of York City Council, an officer of the
Council publicly acknowledged that their metric distance footpath signs on
the highway were 'illegal' and had been 'erected in error'. Would that
other Councils and the Highways Agency were similarly capable of publicly
acknowledging their errors.
21. EXAMPLE
If the Traffic Signs Division needed in 2002 to take action against
rogue local authorities who were ignoring the Traffic Signs Regulations and
erecting illegal signs in metric, how much more, then, is it now necessary
for the Department for Transport's own agency, the Highways Agency, to set
a good example. What is the point of lecturing local authorities about
erecting illegal metric signs when its own agency does so?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More news on this matter will be posted on the BWMA official website
when we get it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report compiled 15 October 2005 by Tony Bennett M.A., Secretary to
the Council of Active Resistance to Metrication - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
