Readers have commented recently on the obstacles to the transition to metric-only signs on Britain’s roads. This has prompted Metric Views to offer answers to some Frequently Asked Questions on this subject.
In 2006, the UK Metric Association (UKMA) produced a report ‘Metric signs ahead’. This advocated the change of UK’s road signs to metric, provided an estimate of the cost, and looked at the way the task had been tackled successfully in a number of Commonwealth countries and in the Republic of Ireland. The report produced a bewildered response from the Prime Minister, a dismissive reply from the Secretary of State for Transport, and a grossly-inflated cost estimate from his civil servants. Since then, events have followed a predictable course. In particular, the Traffic Signs Policy Review, which was billed as the most radical shakeup of road traffic signs for over forty years, failed to consider the radical option of metric-only signs, and then lost impetus. The Traffic Signs (Amendment)(No 2) Regulations and General Directions 2011, which originally promised savings from dual (imperial and metric) height and width restriction signs, also seem unlikely to deliver.
In the absence of credible responses on key issues from official sources, Metric Views is happy to offer answers to some of the FAQs put by readers.
FAQ 1. When was it first proposed that the UK’s road signs should be changed to metric?
Metrication of road signs was implicit in the original decision in 1965 that the UK should adopt the metric system as the primary and eventually the only measurement system for all official and legal purposes. However, it was not until the late 1960s that firm plans were made – with a target date of 1973 for converting road signs. However, following the change of government in 1970, the Minister for Transport Industries, John Peyton, postponed the target date, which has never been reinstated.
FAQ 2. Has a change on this scale been carried out successfully before on UK roads?
The system of British road signs was first developed around the turn of the twentieth century, but its most radical overhaul came between the Second World War and the Worboys Report of 1964. The final report of the Worboys Committee detailed a set of traffic signs that was an enormous improvement over its predecessor. It received widespread congratulations from the press, industry and motorists themselves. Britain, at last, conformed to European standards, and made full use of the technology then available to make large, detailed and colourful signs. Since then, the acclaimed system has been tweaked several times, but no need has ever been identified to change anything on a large scale, other than the system of measurement used. The full story can be found at: http://www.cbrd.co.uk/histories/wartoworboys/
FAQ 3. Would the costs involved for the UK in changing the measurements used on road signs, replacing signs, providing safety and publicity material and the consequential costs for businesses and other organisations exceed any benefits?
The costs are relatively easy to quantify (and inflate) and fall largely on government and the transport industry. The benefits are often less quantifiable, and involve the whole UK economy. An example is the problem of school leavers’ lack of familiarity with metric length and distance measures, particularly when entering the world of work.
On signage of height and width restrictions, a recent cost-benefit assessment showed that in England and Wales the one-off cost of the change to dual signage would be £527 000, whereas the benefits over a ten year period would be at least £2 335 000 – a net saving of £1.8 million. (Source: pages 2-3 and page 11 of Annex D to the DfT’s consultation document, http://ukma.org.uk/sites/default/files/rtc2011-12-annex-d.pdf)
FAQ 4. What is likely to be the cost of changing road signs for distance and speed from imperial to metric units?
The UK Department for Transport (DfT) prepared a report in November 2005 “Estimating the cost of conversion of road traffic signs to metric units”. (Source: The National Archives http://tinyurl.com/7bqczxa)
The estimates in the report gave an average cost of £1400 per road sign. This figure has regularly been called into question. For example, in 2009 in response to a parliamentary question, the Minister of Transport, Chris Mole, said “Driver Location Signs were introduced in 2003 and approximately 16 000 signs have been installed on 80% of the motorway network at a cost of £5.9 million. ….”. Thus, the average cost of driver location signs was £370 each. (Source: House of Commons Hansard http://tinyurl.com/6ohjtsp)
Last year, the Spanish government changed all their speed limits signs in a single day for €250 000, in order to promote fuel economy. They changed about 6000 signs by using vinyl overlays. This cost an average of €41 or about £35 per sign. (Source:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12663092)
The estimate of the cost of conversion to metric of speed and distance signs given in ’Metric signs ahead’ is in the range of £41 million to £160 million with a most likely cost of £80 million. This gives an average cost of £160 per sign, which is close to the actual cost of the change of speed limit signs in the Republic of Ireland in 2005.
FAQ 5. In this age of austerity, is there any room in the transport budget to pay the up-front cost of changing road traffic signs?
Few would claim that the transport budget is free of waste. For example, the House of Commons Transport Committee noted that £71 million had been spent on building 66 motorcyclist testing stations in order that learner motorcyclists could take the manoeuvring elements of the driving test at the requisite 50 km/h. This speed would be illegal on the quiet residential roads in urban areas where tests had previously been conducted, yet the Department had preferred to build the centres rather than seek a derogation of the requirement. (Source:http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmtran/442/442.pdf)
FAQ 6. It has been recognised for many years that there are benefits to the UK economy from having a single simple and widely understood measurement system used for all public purposes. Are there also benefits specifically for motorists from the transition to metric-only road signs?
The report ‘Metric signs ahead’ outlines a number of benefits for motorists from the transition. These include:
- Consistent information
- Compatibility with the Highway Code
- Compatibility between vehicle manuals and road signage
- Emergency incident location
- Calculation of fuel consumption and engine efficiency
- Sensitivity of speed limits
- Cross border traffic, to and from the UK
- Consistency with OS mapping
FAQ 7. Is there robust evidence to show that the metric changeover can be carried out without adversely affecting road safety?
There is evidence from abroad that the metric conversion of road traffic signs can be done safely. This was the experience in the 1970s in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and in 2005 in the Republic of Ireland. More recently, Spain provided further evidence that speed limit signs can be changed safely.
FAQ 8. Can we learn from the experience of other countries?
Yes – but only if we don’t leave it too long, because officials in Commonwealth countries with experience of the changeover are likely now to have retired (and are certainly not immortal!).
FAQ 9. If the change to metric road signs is required by the EU, then should not the EU pay for it?
The EU directive relating to units of measurement permits indefinitely both metric units and the mile, yard, foot and inch on UK “road traffic signs, distance and speed measurement”. Clearly, this is a matter for the UK government. If it can be shown that the transition to metric-only road signs is in the UK national interest, then the UK should expect to pay for it, rather than other countries.
FAQ 10. Could the nations of the UK go their separate ways?
Although the directive mentioned in FAQ 9 permits metric or imperial road traffic signs for distance and speed, the implementation of this directive is a matter for the UK Government, and is not currently devolved.
FAQ 11. Is there any country in the world, other than the UK, where metric road traffic signs for distance and speed are banned?
Not as far as Metric Views is aware.
Readers may have their own questions on this contentious topic. Please pass them on to Metric Views and we will see if we can provide answers.
A copy of UKMA’s report ‘Metric signs ahead’ may be downloaded free at: http://www.ukma.org.uk/sites/default/files/MSA.pdf
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Twitter
Re: FAQs 7 & 8
40 years is a long time.
In the US, the Federal government pushed for metrication while the States resisted. There are a small percentage of “exemplar” metric signs around the country, but no widespread use. Even in this mixed environment, there are no piles of dead bodies around the metric signs. The safety argument is greatly overblown. (USMA site has example photos including some obsolete signs with dual speed limits that would not be allowed under more recent editions of MUTCD. But signs that were legal when erected are generally “grandfathered.”)
Re FAQ 9/10 above:
Wales has for a long time been authorised to make Wales-only amendments to TSRGD for “purposes of language translation”. Nothing to do with any EU ruling on the subject, the Welsh Language Act requires that Welsh be regarded as equal with English in matters of public life in Wales.
As a result you end up with some really cluttered signs in Wales!
Now – this might be a matter for the UKMA’s legal eagles to go and take a look, but I’d say that if the Welsh Assembly’s Transport Department could be persuaded that a switch to kilometres on Welsh road signs would count as a “translation issue”, then they might well already be quite within their rights to switch Welsh roadsigns to metric and avoid a lot of this clutter. The signs would physically get smaller and would presumably be cheaper to make too.
It would make sense for Wales to adopt the “two arrows on either side of the distance indicator” trick to indicate “hazard starts from here and lasts for the indicated distance” because current signs say things like “For 1½ miles/Am 1½ milltir” whereas they could just say “^2.4km^” (where ^ is supposed to be an up-arrow). “Am” is of course Welsh for “for”.
Much smaller, less cluttered and understood by all. Including all those foreign visitors that Wales is keen to attract to its beauty spots and hotels.
An important point on the costs; while there would need to be a rapid changeover for certain signs, which would come with a (modest) cost (and valid, but difficult to quantify, benefits), many signs could be changed at nil cost.
It is scandalous that almost 20 years after the introduction of dual unit height signs, which the DfT itself says would reduce the number of bridge strikes which cost the economy a large amount each year, new imperial-only signs are being erected to this day with the endorsement of the DfT. Had the DfT simply required metric units to be added at that time, rather than made it optional, the nation’s low bridges would by now be signed in both units, foreign hauliers wouldn’t be causing as many accidents as they do, and we could by now be painlessly changing in-cab vehicle height notices to metres and phasing out imperial units. All at no cost.
If this government means what it claims about investing in a more efficient economy, it should begin with metric road signs, but I’m not holding my breath.
Regarding FAQ7: I can just imagine the headlines of such papers as the Daily Mail if the switch to km/h speed limits was ever announced. Probably huge letters, saying ‘CARNAGE!!’ or some such thing. Of course it simply isn’t true, as FAQ7 mentions. It is fortunate that a number of other countries have already made such a switch (Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, Ireland, to name but a few), and we can point to their ACTUAL real world evidence that such a switch had no negative impact on safety.
I remember the conversion in Canada well. Saturday night – all the speed limit signs in mph. Sunday morning – everything in km/h. Many cars at that time (1977) had mph-only displays, yet we still coped. Other cars had km/h-only displays, having been on sale since the beginning of that year, and, prior to the switch, we still coped. Today almost all cars have dual displays (even if, as has been mentioned here before, and certainly in my own case, the secondary km/h display is all but illegible)
The overnight switch to km/h had so little impact on safety that it was unmeasurable. IF there was any deterioration in accident rates due to confusion over the new speed limits, it was more than cancelled out by the better correlation of 10-km/h increments to prevailing road and traffic conditions. Police, for a while at least, were a bit more lenient in writing out speeding tickets, especially if you had an mph-only speedometer.
In, I would say, less than two months, people had forgotten what the old mph figures looked like – everyone had adjusted (I remember a work colleague getting a ticket in November 1977, just two months after the switch, and, in bemoaning her misfortune, never once reverted to mph).
Even more salient, the newspapers were notably completely silent on any safety concerns once it became obvious there weren’t any. It is a message that needs to be reinforced in very strong terms to counteract the use of this red herring by those who will oppose any idea of converting Britain’s road signs.
There is conceivably a slight risk of some motorists driving too fast in say a signed 50 km/h speed limit zone not realising the sign did not mean 50 mph. But it is pretty unlikely given the publicity that is bound to precede the change. Anyone not aware would have no real excuse and serves them right if they are penalised.
As for carnage, well such incidents would be comparativey rare and even then it would have to give rise to an accident before it counted as being a consequence of the change. I was not at all suprised that nothing was reported in the Irish press in 2005.
Any reason for the UK not to adopt the Irish program of conversion of speed limit signs (and the distance signs that were still in Imperial) “lock, stock, and barrel”?
They could use as an estimate the actual cost of the conversion in Ireland scaled up by the ratio of the number signs in the UK divided by the number of signs in Ireland.
You wouldn’t even need a calculator to figure that one out!
On 7 Feb, I wrote to the Department for Transport about this article. Here is the full text of my email to the DfT:
“Hi
I have recently written an article for Metric Views (http://metricviews.org.uk) on road signs and I hope that you will find this article informative. It was posted on the Metric Views website on 27 January 2012. You can find the article here:
http://metricviews.org.uk/2012/01/transition-to-metric-signs-on-uk-roads-faqs/
DfT staff and ministers are welcome to post comments on this web page in response to this article. Please join the debate and add your own comments.
I have also written an 80-page booklet called “Made in Britain: Not made to measure”, which is published by the UK Metric Association. It is publicly available as a FREE download. You can find it at http://www.ukma.org.uk/articles/rcohen. This booklet includes a section called “What is Wrong with Two Measurement Systems?”. That section includes a subsection called “Odd Use of Measurement Units by the DfT”.
I hope that you will read this article and my booklet with an open mind, even if you disagree with them. I hope that you will find them helpful in developing future policies.
Did you know that:
The UK is the only country in the world that bans the metric system for speed and distance signs?
The UK is the only country in the world that uses yards on its roads?
The UK is the only country in the developed world that bans the metric system from almost all of its road signs?
The DfT is out of step with the modern world in its use of imperial units on UK roads (out of step with private industry, other government departments, Europe, the Commonwealth, the developed world and the UK education system)?
This is all a consequence of DfT policies. How eccentric!
With kind regards,
Ronnie Cohen”
On 21 Feb, I received the following response from the DfT (Reference: GT 51/3/3/31768):
“Dear Ronnie Cohen,
Metric views on road signs
Thank you for your e-mail of 7 February 2012 about traffic signs.
We receive many letters asking why we do not use metric measurement on traffic signs from members of the public who feel that the imperial units are now outdated. But we also have people who write to us as they do not want to see metric units on signs and request that we do not change them.
This subject has been discussed in the European Parliament at length and they held a public consultation on amending the Units of Measurement Directive. This government asked for permission to continue to use imperial measurement (one reason being the enormous amount of money that it would cost to change) and the outcome was that this was agreed.
This Department worked out that the overall cost of changing traffic signs would be over £680 million; there is information on how this value was worked out on our website at “Estimating the cost of conversion of road traffic signs to metric units” and we do not consider that we can take money away from other more important areas of work to do this.
Thank you for taking the time to write and I hope that my answer has clarified the position.
Yours sincerely,
Ashraf Keeka”
I wonder how much attention they paid to FAQ 4 in this article, which was about the DfT’s cost estimates for the metric conversion of road signs. Judging by their response, they ignored it and still refuse to acknowledge that their cost estimates are grossly inflated despite all our evidence to the contrary. I tried to encourage DfT staff and ministers to post comments here in response to this article but they were not interested in doing so. This is unsurprising as they are not interested in having an open debate about measurement units on road signs. Their ridiculous estimate of £1400 per sign for the metrication of road signs seems to be a deliberate attempt to stifle debate about the metrication of road signs.
I informed the DfT about a section in my “Made in Britain: Not made to measure” booklet, which explains how the DfT illogically uses yards for metres and the random mix-and-match approach to measurement units in the Highway Code. Everything I have said about the DfT in this article and in my booklet had no impact on the DfT and they just do not care and will not listen to anyone. We saw that in their irrational, inexplicable and incomprehensible response to their consultation about mandatory dual signs for bridges, despite their own cost estimates of a net saving of £1.8 million over ten years and strong support for the change from many stakeholders.
Interestingly, they did not dispute what I have said about the DfT except what I have said about their cost estimates. The main problem with the DfT report is that it is not based on any actual costs but is based on a whole series of dubious and wild assumptions about the cost of road signs.