Stephen Humphreys wrote: "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."
Oh, I don't know. While this article is hardly earth shattering, it does have some relevance in regard to metrication and therefore of some interest to some on the USMA forum. After all, the Metric Martyrs campaign had absolutely nothing to do with the US, but it didn't stop citizens of the US from commenting upon it. It reminds me of a case a couple of years ago of Metric Martyr Neil Herron's campaign to force City of Sunderland council to change two illegal 1/2km signs on a remote public footpath in some countryside around Old Burdon Village, near Sunderland, England, to legal ones featuring yard measurements. They had been there 30+ years without bothering anyone...in fact, precious few people realised they even existed. However - Neil got his way and the signs were changed to legal yard measurements. He was, of course, in the right. The signs were indeed illegal....even in a country that was effectively meant to totally convert to metric over thirty years ago. Strangely, nobody at all complained when petrol was sold in litres rather than gallons when it made petrol appear cheaper, nor did anyone hear a peep when spirits converted to bigger metric measures...funny, that! But I digress. Of course, apart from the vandalism, the BWMA have right on their side regarding metric signposts (most of the time, anyway). However, both Neil Herron and the BWMA don't seem to appreciate the supreme irony of them hounding councils to obey the absolute letter of the law when they themselves supported the breaking of UK weights and measures law. But then, I suppose hypocrisy doesn't factor into the equation. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Humphreys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 11:05 AM Subject: [USMA:34927] RE: ARM and the Case of the Illegal Metric-only Signs on the M25 > 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] > > >
