<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Metric Views &#187; DfT</title>
	<atom:link href="http://metricviews.org.uk/tag/dft/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://metricviews.org.uk</link>
	<description>Commentary on the measurement muddle in the UK</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 May 2012 20:54:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Fire hydrant signs &#8211; a successful metric conversion</title>
		<link>http://metricviews.org.uk/2012/05/fire-hydrant-signs-a-successful-metric-conversion/</link>
		<comments>http://metricviews.org.uk/2012/05/fire-hydrant-signs-a-successful-metric-conversion/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 May 2012 17:29:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>derekp</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[History]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Road signs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DfT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fire hydrant signs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[metric road signs]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://metricviews.org.uk/?p=3036</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Metric Views looks at a successful but unsung project that took place during the early years of the UK’s metric transition. We speculate what might have occurred had this job been the responsibility, not of local government, but of the &#8230; <a href="http://metricviews.org.uk/2012/05/fire-hydrant-signs-a-successful-metric-conversion/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://metricviews.org.uk/2012/05/fire-hydrant-signs-a-successful-metric-conversion/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>DfT admits: no basis for blocking metric signs</title>
		<link>http://metricviews.org.uk/2012/03/dft-admits-no-basis-for-blocking-metric-signs/</link>
		<comments>http://metricviews.org.uk/2012/03/dft-admits-no-basis-for-blocking-metric-signs/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Mar 2012 09:58:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Erithacus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Road signs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transport]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bridge strikes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Department for Transport]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DfT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dual-unit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[imperial road signs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[metric road signs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[metrication]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://metricviews.org.uk/?p=2898</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[After finally admitting they were wrong to try to withhold this information, the DfT have now published their analysis of the responses to their earlier consultation on the proposed phasing out of imperial-only height and width restriction traffic signs.  What &#8230; <a href="http://metricviews.org.uk/2012/03/dft-admits-no-basis-for-blocking-metric-signs/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://metricviews.org.uk/2012/03/dft-admits-no-basis-for-blocking-metric-signs/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>31</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>FAQs about the transition to metric signs on UK roads</title>
		<link>http://metricviews.org.uk/2012/01/transition-to-metric-signs-on-uk-roads-faqs/</link>
		<comments>http://metricviews.org.uk/2012/01/transition-to-metric-signs-on-uk-roads-faqs/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 00:07:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ronniec</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[History]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Road signs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transport]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commonwealth countries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DfT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[metric road signs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[metric speed limits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[metrication]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republic of Ireland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[road safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Worboys Report]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://metricviews.org.uk/?p=2599</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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 &#8230; <a href="http://metricviews.org.uk/2012/01/transition-to-metric-signs-on-uk-roads-faqs/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://metricviews.org.uk/2012/01/transition-to-metric-signs-on-uk-roads-faqs/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>28</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>DfT rejects industry view on metric signs</title>
		<link>http://metricviews.org.uk/2012/01/dft-rejects-industry-view-on-metric-signs/</link>
		<comments>http://metricviews.org.uk/2012/01/dft-rejects-industry-view-on-metric-signs/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Jan 2012 13:18:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Erithacus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Road signs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transport]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bridge strikes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Department for Transport]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DfT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dual-unit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[imperial road signs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[measurement units]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[metric road signs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[metric speed limits]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://metricviews.org.uk/?p=2566</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Department for Transport (DfT) has given in to anti-metric lobbying and backtracked on its earlier proposal that imperial-only height and width restriction signs should be replaced with dual metric/imperial signs within four years.  This climbdown is despite the responses &#8230; <a href="http://metricviews.org.uk/2012/01/dft-rejects-industry-view-on-metric-signs/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://metricviews.org.uk/2012/01/dft-rejects-industry-view-on-metric-signs/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>21</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Who should pay for metrication of road signs?</title>
		<link>http://metricviews.org.uk/2011/12/who-should-pay-for-metrication-of-road-signs/</link>
		<comments>http://metricviews.org.uk/2011/12/who-should-pay-for-metrication-of-road-signs/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2011 23:29:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Erithacus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Road signs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transport]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Department for Transport]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DfT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[imperial road signs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[measurement units]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[metric road signs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[metric speed limits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[metrication]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[weights and measures]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://metricviews.org.uk/?p=2463</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Department for Transport have claimed that converting road signs to show metric units would be an unjustifiable diversion of resources from other priority areas.  So is there an argument that the costs should be met from some other budget?  &#8230; <a href="http://metricviews.org.uk/2011/12/who-should-pay-for-metrication-of-road-signs/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://metricviews.org.uk/2011/12/who-should-pay-for-metrication-of-road-signs/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>22</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Review fails to address major traffic sign issues</title>
		<link>http://metricviews.org.uk/2011/10/review-fails-to-address-major-traffic-sign-issues/</link>
		<comments>http://metricviews.org.uk/2011/10/review-fails-to-address-major-traffic-sign-issues/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Oct 2011 19:36:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Isaac</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Road signs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transport]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bridge strikes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Department for Transport]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DfT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dual-unit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[imperial road signs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[metric road signs]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://metricviews.org.uk/?p=2370</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A three-year review of traffic signs has failed to address major problems with the UK&#8217;s signs. On 13 October the Department for Transport published the final report of its Traffic Signs Policy Review. The report, &#8220;Signing the Way&#8221;, marks the &#8230; <a href="http://metricviews.org.uk/2011/10/review-fails-to-address-major-traffic-sign-issues/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://metricviews.org.uk/2011/10/review-fails-to-address-major-traffic-sign-issues/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>20</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Spain discredits DfT&#8217;s case against metric signs</title>
		<link>http://metricviews.org.uk/2011/03/spain-discredits-dfts-case-against-metric-signs/</link>
		<comments>http://metricviews.org.uk/2011/03/spain-discredits-dfts-case-against-metric-signs/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Mar 2011 10:52:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>tonyw</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Road signs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transport]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Department for Transport]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DfT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[metric road signs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[metric speed limits]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://metricviews.org.uk/?p=1992</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Spanish government this week exposed the Department for Transport’s case against adopting metric road signs in the UK as flawed. While the DfT maintains that it must allow an average of around £1400 to change our road signs, Spain this week changed all its motorway speed limit signs for an average cost of just €41, or £35.
 <a href="http://metricviews.org.uk/2011/03/spain-discredits-dfts-case-against-metric-signs/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://metricviews.org.uk/2011/03/spain-discredits-dfts-case-against-metric-signs/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Southwark goes back to the 1980s</title>
		<link>http://metricviews.org.uk/2010/09/southwark-goes-back-to-the-1980s/</link>
		<comments>http://metricviews.org.uk/2010/09/southwark-goes-back-to-the-1980s/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Sep 2010 08:03:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Erithacus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Road signs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transport]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Department for Transport]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DfT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[imperial road signs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[metric road signs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Southwark]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://metricviews.org.uk/?p=1473</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The London Borough of Southwark appears to relish its role as the setting for the BBC’s 1980s retro series Ashes to Ashes, which was filmed on location in the borough. Just a few hundred metres from filming locations, which were &#8230; <a href="http://metricviews.org.uk/2010/09/southwark-goes-back-to-the-1980s/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://metricviews.org.uk/2010/09/southwark-goes-back-to-the-1980s/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8216;Rebalancing of the UK economy&#8217; postponed?</title>
		<link>http://metricviews.org.uk/2010/08/rebalancing-of-the-economy-postponed/</link>
		<comments>http://metricviews.org.uk/2010/08/rebalancing-of-the-economy-postponed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Aug 2010 18:02:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>derekp</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Road signs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transport]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DfT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[imperial road signs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[metric road signs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rebalancing the economy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://metricviews.org.uk/?p=1323</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Metric Views has learned that the coalition government may drop the proposed amendments to road traffic sign regulations, which would have required dual signage of height and width restrictions within four years and which would have achieved savings and improvements in &#8230; <a href="http://metricviews.org.uk/2010/08/rebalancing-of-the-economy-postponed/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://metricviews.org.uk/2010/08/rebalancing-of-the-economy-postponed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>23</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>DfT prefers imperial units to pedestrian safety</title>
		<link>http://metricviews.org.uk/2010/07/dft-prefers-imperial-units-to-pedestrian-safety/</link>
		<comments>http://metricviews.org.uk/2010/07/dft-prefers-imperial-units-to-pedestrian-safety/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2010 17:47:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Erithacus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Road signs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transport]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Department for Transport]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DfT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[metric]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Network Rail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transport for London]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://metricviews.org.uk/?p=1280</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Signs indicating the emergency escape routes in tunnels are of critical importance to the safety of tunnel users, given the particular hazards of fire and smoke within tunnel environments. Sadly, the government’s irrational position on units of measure even extends &#8230; <a href="http://metricviews.org.uk/2010/07/dft-prefers-imperial-units-to-pedestrian-safety/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://metricviews.org.uk/2010/07/dft-prefers-imperial-units-to-pedestrian-safety/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>25</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

