<?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; imperial road signs</title>
	<atom:link href="http://metricviews.org.uk/tag/imperial-road-signs/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>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>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>Road safety experts ignore UK sign problems</title>
		<link>http://metricviews.org.uk/2011/07/road-safety-experts-ignore-uk-sign-problems/</link>
		<comments>http://metricviews.org.uk/2011/07/road-safety-experts-ignore-uk-sign-problems/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Jul 2011 09:15:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Isaac</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Road signs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transport]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[imperial road signs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[metric road signs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[metric speed limits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[road safety]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://metricviews.org.uk/?p=2155</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A recent report into the safety implications of variations in road signs across Europe has ignored problems caused by the UK’s continued use of imperial units. In the last decade, 2 million Europeans lost their lives or suffered crippling injury &#8230; <a href="http://metricviews.org.uk/2011/07/road-safety-experts-ignore-uk-sign-problems/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://metricviews.org.uk/2011/07/road-safety-experts-ignore-uk-sign-problems/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>56</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8216;Optimism bias&#8217; falls from favour</title>
		<link>http://metricviews.org.uk/2010/11/optimism-bias-falls-from-favour/</link>
		<comments>http://metricviews.org.uk/2010/11/optimism-bias-falls-from-favour/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Nov 2010 15:24:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>derekp</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Road signs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transport]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Department for Transport]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[imperial road signs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[metric road signs]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://metricviews.org.uk/?p=1609</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In November 2005, the UK Department for Transport (DfT) produced an estimate of the cost of converting road traffic signs for speed and distance measurements to metric units. Optimism bias accounted for between 26% and 33% of the total overall &#8230; <a href="http://metricviews.org.uk/2010/11/optimism-bias-falls-from-favour/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://metricviews.org.uk/2010/11/optimism-bias-falls-from-favour/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>14</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>60 km Jubilee Greenway to be signed in imperial</title>
		<link>http://metricviews.org.uk/2010/06/60-km-jubilee-greenway-to-be-signed-in-imperial/</link>
		<comments>http://metricviews.org.uk/2010/06/60-km-jubilee-greenway-to-be-signed-in-imperial/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jun 2010 08:02:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Erithacus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Road signs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transport]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[imperial road signs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[journey time]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jubilee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[kilometre]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[metric road signs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[metrication]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[minutes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://metricviews.org.uk/?p=1234</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On 9th June 1977, the Queen officially opened the Silver Jubilee Walkway, a 21 km walking trail around central London to mark her Silver Jubilee, or 25 years on the throne. Thirty-three years later, work is under way to celebrate &#8230; <a href="http://metricviews.org.uk/2010/06/60-km-jubilee-greenway-to-be-signed-in-imperial/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://metricviews.org.uk/2010/06/60-km-jubilee-greenway-to-be-signed-in-imperial/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>DfT imperialists waste more taxpayers’  money</title>
		<link>http://metricviews.org.uk/2010/04/dft-imperialists-waste-more-taxpayers%e2%80%99-money/</link>
		<comments>http://metricviews.org.uk/2010/04/dft-imperialists-waste-more-taxpayers%e2%80%99-money/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Apr 2010 08:22:57 +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[metrication]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[speed limit]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://metricviews.org.uk/?p=1047</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Department for Transport, who once described metrication of road signs as “a waste of taxpayers’ money”, have themselves been condemned by a House of Commons Select Committee for wasting £71 million on building 66 motorcycle testing stations in order &#8230; <a href="http://metricviews.org.uk/2010/04/dft-imperialists-waste-more-taxpayers%e2%80%99-money/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://metricviews.org.uk/2010/04/dft-imperialists-waste-more-taxpayers%e2%80%99-money/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

