Comments on: Is the DfT part of the Government?

By: derek

derek — Wed, 26 May 2010 19:47:56 +0000

There is a curious anomaly in section 82 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984:

“Section 82 (1) Subject to the provisions of this section …, a road is a restricted road for the purposes of section 81 of this Act if—
(a) in England and Wales, there is provided on it a system of street lighting furnished by means of lamps placed not more than 200 yards apart;
(b) in Scotland, there is provided on it a system of carriageway lighting furnished by means of lamps placed not more than 185 metres apart …”

Section 81 defines a restricted road as one with a speed limit of 30 mph.

And on costs, ARM say on their web site that they ‘converted’ 164 signs at Hastings for about £500, that is £3 per sign. Perhaps the DfT could employ them to do the conversion of UK’s traffic signs to metric. This would bring the cost down to about £600 000, which is less than the amount paid each year by those who import or export their cars and have to replace speedos and odometers.

By: Ken Cooper

Ken Cooper — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 21:15:24 +0000

I don’t think we should be taking “Sean’s” point too seriously unless he actually provides a link to a source showing Sinn Fein’s support for metrication of Northern Irish road signs.

One has to ask why someone who professes to support metrication would be trying to link UKMA with Sinn Fein and their allies on a UK Weights & Measures site.

By: philh

philh — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 11:45:33 +0000

The last thing we want is for metrication to be caught up in the politics of Ireland. Things are bad enough in mainland Britain where it has been hijacked by Europsceptics.

Hopefully politicians north and south of the border will, in time, see the practical merit of the change and view it as being of mutual interest upon which they can agree.

By: Ezra Steinberg

Ezra Steinberg — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 21:04:21 +0000

I’d imagine the Unionists would fight a change-over just in Northern Ireland tooth and nail. The last thing they want to see is any change that appears to align the northern counties more closely with the Republic than with Great Britain.

That’s a shame, too, because converting Northern Ireland to metric would be a showcase for how conversion could be done cheaply, safely, and quickly in the UK.

As a practical matter, though, all the control for road signs comes from Westminster, does it not? So, the change-over would have to have a scope that covers all of the United Kingdom.

By: Sean Weisthall

Sean Weisthall — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:21:13 +0000

I like the points about Northern Ireland.
If metric signs happen there then it will be the first place in the UK to adopt metric signage.
There is also talk here of Sinn Fein supporting this (and thus being more like the Republic) – is there any chance or possibility of UKMA partnering with Sinn Fein and their allies to form a greater pressure group to drive metric road signs through? We would become an enviable force with their backing and surely together be able to “persuade” our foes.

By: Alex Bailey

Alex Bailey — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 13:23:26 +0000

It seems to me as if somebody in the DfT is actually working against stated government policy.

The simple fact that “m” is still being used on road signs to denote “miles” despite a DfT memo as far back as 1991 (I think) stating that this was a problem that needed to be solved (and indeed would be dealt with in the near future) is a good example of a government department that is not planning ahead.

Add to this the growing number of expensive electronic speed signs that seem to have no capacity to display numbers higher than 99 and you start to see a department that seems to be deliberately spending taxpayers money in a manner that is actually making the final cost of road metrication higher than it might have been if they installed signs that, although showing imperial measures, were at least made in a manner that they could be easily converted at a later date.

It would have cost the DfT little or nothing to have made a few simple changes to existing laws in order to reduce the eventual cost of metrication; instead they actually seem to be building barriers.

By: Philip Oakley

Philip Oakley — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 22:14:45 +0000

Robin’s comments are well made. The problem is the lack of [ongoing] commitment in all the failed cases. At the moment there is no hint of a commitment even to make any ‘next step’.

I wholeheartedly agree with David’s comment about there being standard units, but there does need to be space on the sign, which is where my comment started. It is my view that we are unable to make a complete conversion in a single step, rather we need to find a safe and useful stepping stone, from which it will be just as easy to go forward as back.

I remember when the country decimalised the currency. One of the arguments against was that we should wait until the old folk died out. Well they still haven’t all died out, so it does take a long time.

The argument is not just between “clean break” and “voluntary/gradual”, but has at least the intermediate “positive step” option as well. A journey of a thousand miles(sic)…

By: Robin Paice

Robin Paice — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:09:11 +0000

Philip Oakley’s suggestion of an “intermediate method of signage”, while superficially attractive, is a repeat of the mistake that has bedevilled UK metrication ever since 1965: the belief that you can do it gradually, stealthily, voluntarily, hoping that nobody will notice and that it will all be over by the time opponents wake up. It doesn’t work.

Australia and most other Commonwealth countries succeeded because they decided on a “clean break”, explained the reasons for the change, and then just went ahead and did it. UK governments have refused to learn this lesson, have continued to follow the policy least likely to succeed (the “voluntary/gradual” route), and have now all but given up on the project.

By: David Brown

David Brown — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:41:38 +0000

Regarding Philip Oakley’s comments, there is no need to agree what symbols to use for metric units. The symbols are defined as part of the international system. They are m for metres, km for kilometres and km/h for kilometres per hour. Use of other symbols such as “kph” is simply incorrect – like a spelling error. The fact that this is not well understood by the British population shows just how poor our education system is when it comes to units of measure. That poverty of understanding is, I would suggest, a direct result of our failure to implement metrication and retire the obsolete units of measure.

By: Philip Oakley

Philip Oakley — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 22:32:08 +0000

The key is to identify a suitable intermediate method of signage, preferably that has safety benefits for all. It is folly to believe that the change could happen in a single step, but there should be fewer problems with say the inclusion, in smaller characters, of the metric equivalent – however it would need an agreement on the units of measure to be indicated e.g. kph, km/h, K, km.
It would be necessary for the metric value to be clear to the casual reader without confusion. By keeping the initial metric lettering small, it should fit within the confines of the existing white space, and avoid zenophobic suggestions of a foreign takeover.

One has to start somewhere.