The previous article describes how weights and measures legislation was saved from the axe by changes to the REUL Bill. There was another important victory that has also been won by UKMA with the help of powerful stakeholders though it took years to win. UKMA spent years fighting the Department for Transport before the battle to make metres mandatory on restriction signs was eventually won.
The last Labour government proposed the replacement of imperial-only height and width restriction signs over a four-year period but did not implement it. Then the proposals were dropped in 2010 by the new coalition government despite strong support from stakeholders. In total, 64 organisations with an interest in road signing expressed support for the DfT’s proposals, including the withdrawal of imperial-only vehicle dimension signs. Some said it did not go far enough. Another 34 organisations made no comment on the DfT’s proposals, which suggested they didn’t mind them going ahead. Only 2 opposed the DfT’s proposals and that includes one major anti-metric pressure group.
The then Secretary of State of Transport and DfT civil servants expressed hostility to these modest proposals despite the fact that an internal DfT study showed that it would save money due to fewer bridge strikes. This proposal was reviewed again near the end of the life of the coalition government, and again was not implemented.
The option to add metres to vehicle dimension signs was introduced in the 1994 Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD). Height, width and length restriction signs still had to show feet and inches but the 1994 TSRGD gave highway authorities the option of adding metres alongside feet and inches. The DfT Circular 4/94 stated that “Where mandatory signs are used combined metric/imperial roundel (new diagram 629.2A) should be used if possible.”. While the TSRGD provides the legal framework for traffic signs, the government’s Traffic Signs Manual (TSM) sets out the detailed guidance to highway authorities on matters of signing. Over the years, the TSM’s recommendation to use dual units rather than just imperial units has become stronger:
- The TSM 2004 Update states “Metric heights may be shown in addition to imperial heights at any bridge. This is recommended for all bridges on main routes and on roads used frequently by foreign drivers.”.
- The TSM 2008 Update states “The sign to diagram 629A is a combined metric and imperial version of the width limit sign. … It is recommended that this sign is used in preference to the sign to diagram 629.”.
- The TSM 2013 Update states “The Regulations allow heights to be shown in either imperial units or both metric and imperial units. It is strongly recommended that both units are displayed on signs, especially on main routes and roads used frequently by foreign vehicles.” and “While the Regulations permit the omission of the height indication in metric units, this is inadvisable.”
So, there has been a growing cognitive dissonance between the TSM advice and what the TSRGD permits. On the one hand, the TSM states that dual units should be used but the TSRGD has allowed them to be omitted. Why did it take the DfT so many years before it mandated metric units on vehicle dimension signs to bring it into line with the TSM recommendations?
Finally, in November 2015 the DfT published a further consultation. One of the proposals in the consultation was that new signs indicating height, width and length limits should show both imperial and metric units of measurement. There was one question in the consultation about making dual units mandatory for all new height, width and length limit signs. Among all respondents, 96% of local authorities and 88% of all respondents were in favour. From 22 April 2016, dual unit height, width and length limit signs became mandatory and new imperial-only versions of these signs were no longer authorised.
It took UKMA many years of lobbying to convince the DfT to make metres mandatory for all new height, width and length limit signs, but we won in the end. UKMA had support from many powerful stakeholders to make weights and measures legislation safe from the REUL Bill’s bonfire of EU laws and to end the erection of new imperial-only vehicle dimension signs. It shows that when we work with stakeholders, we can win many big battles.
You can read the history of UKMA’s long struggle to make metres mandatory for all new vehicle dimension signs in previous Metric Views articles. These articles are listed below in chronological order.
- https://metricviews.uk/2008/04/17/vienna-convention-failure-costs/
- https://metricviews.uk/2008/06/24/police-and-network-rail-call-for-metric-signs/
- https://metricviews.uk/2009/06/26/traffic-signs-review-produces-inaction-plan-2/
- https://metricviews.uk/2009/10/10/end-of-imperial-only-restriction-signs/
- https://metricviews.uk/2011/10/16/review-fails-to-address-major-traffic-sign-issues/
- https://metricviews.uk/2012/01/02/dft-rejects-industry-view-on-metric-signs/
- https://metricviews.uk/2012/03/16/dft-admits-no-basis-for-blocking-metric-signs/
- https://metricviews.uk/2014/06/14/no-more-imperial-only-vehicle-signs-says-ukma/
- https://metricviews.uk/2014/11/09/minor-success-for-ukma-imperial-only-height-and-width-signs-to-be-discontinued/
- https://metricviews.uk/2015/07/03/another-bridge-bashed/
- https://metricviews.uk/2016/04/22/progress-at-last-on-vehicle-dimension-signs/
In May 2014, UKMA published the Vehicle Dimension Signs report, which argued for the end of imperial-only vehicle dimension signs and can be found at the following link:
https://ukmetric.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/ukma-dimension-signs-review-2014-05.pdf
Metric Views 
Why are roads used frequently by foreign vehicles singled out? The majority of British drivers were taught the metric system at school. Why do they have to suffer the archaic imperial measurements when foreigners don’t?
LikeLiked by 2 people
I am sorry but this is utterly depressing. It should not have been an upward battle of 20 years just to allow unnecessarily cluttered road signs. The UK is supposed to be a metric country and that is what has been taught in schools for over half a century. There is no good reason for British road signs to display anything other than metres and kilometres. The fact that the DFT won’t even retire the egregious usage of “m” for miles speaks volumes of the obtuseness and cowardness of those in power.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It’s still not a complete victory when you consider that 7 years later new signs are still going up with only imperial measurements on them. It’s worse when you consider that there are signs out there that still say ‘TONS’ when that hasn’t been permitted for decades!
The real victory will be when imperial units become optional on these signs and metric units are permitted on distance signs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The law as it stands requires the use of feet and inches on all road signs giving warnings/prohibitions regarding access due to restricted height, width or length. However the law requires that all other safety notices (ie not road signs) shall use metric units. Thus it is mandatory to give the heights of service entrances to shopping centres and the petrol station canopies in metric units. It is also mandatory for any UK-registered vehicle that is over 3 metres in height to display its height in feet and inches in a manner that is visible to the driver using letters that are at least 40 mm in height. (Note the mixture of feet, inches, metres and millimetres) What a mess I hear you say.
The legislation concerned can be found at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/530/made. Vehicles that are registered in any EEA states need only display their height if the vehicle concerned is more than 4 metres in height (ie greater than the maximum height to allow automatic entry into another EEA state).
It does not help that the symbols used for feet and inches on road signs do not comply with the EU directive which permitted such units to be used: The directive concerned, which echoed the ISO standard of the day, mandated that the symbols be “ft” and “in”, not the single and double apostrophe that is used.
The process of completing the conversion does not require much from a technical or financial point of view, but might well anger the editors of certain tabloid newspapers (who, as far as I am aware, do not drive HGVs as part of their daily job). The timetable that I propose is:
Year 1: Ensure that all road signs giving height, width or length restrictions or prohibitions have dual units.
Year 2: Part to the MoT test for all vehicles above 3 metres in height is that they should have their height displayed in metric, not imperial units. At the end of Year 2, it shall be illegal not to have height displayed in metric units.
Year 3 onwards: Road signs with imperial units are phased out as they reach the ends of their useful lives.
LikeLiked by 3 people
With regards to Alex M’s comment on retiring ‘m’ for miles, ‘m’ is very rarely used on road signage (is it just on the signs for motorway services?) so in theory should be an easy win to achieve.
The government are clearly happy to use metres for width, so why not for distance, thereby retiring the yard. As we all know, yards have been outlawed in road design and building for over five decades and all signs saying a certain number of ‘yards’ are by law, required to have the road distance measured in metres! This means that the signposts can stay in the same place and the old ‘yards signs can be replaced at zero additional cost with metric signs as and when they reach the end of their life. They certainly couldn’t use a yards conversion on the signs, which would expose the fact that they have been misleading drivers for decades.
If this small change were proposed, I suspect the government would doubtless say that some drivers would confuse ‘m’ for miles, e.g.they might think a sign saying STOP 100 m, means Stop in a hundred miles! So to get over this spurious notion, we may have to start using ‘mi’ on those very few signs where miles are still used until hopefully they are one day replaced by km signs.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Tim Bentley said:
The government are clearly happy to use metres for…
and
I suspect the government would doubtless say…
I don’t think the Government can be happy or unhappy or say anything. It is a non-sentient entity that can’t think or make choices. It is real people who work within the government structure that make decisions that result in the outcomes you see and experience.
The road signs are the way they are with the words yards and miles and “m” on them because at some point in the past a real person most likely an opponent of SI was in charge of the DfT and used his power and personal preference to keep metric off the signs for over 50 years. Since then no one who has replaced this person has seen fit to open up the matter and force the change.
Probably another person working in the engineering department of the DfT was a supporter of SI and set in motion the rules concerning what distances would be on the signs and how those distances would be hidden behind different unit names to comply with the wishes of his opposing superiors.
Change will come on the road signs only when a person supporting metrication is put in charge of the DfT and they decide it is in everyone’s interest to complete the metrication of road signs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tim Bentley:
A simple immediate solution for road signs that use “yards” is to have a plastic overlay that says “metres” to cover up the Imperial unit. No need to wait until the signs needs replacement and the cost of the change is cheap. 🙂
LikeLike
Ezra,
Why does the overlay need to spell out metres? Why not just use the symbol m?
LikeLike
Unfortunately, I don’t think highways authorities would agree to stickers as there would be various issues with regards to their longevity, reflectivity and sizing but most of all, the time and effort involved. Due to the hazardous location of many of the signs it would be mean a two man team in a van and the risk assessment may dictate coning off a lane with advance warning signs etc.
With my work, some years ago, I was involved with the commissioning and installation of two brown tourist signs on the A303 and was staggered how the costs mounted up, much of which was due to temporary lane closures etc.
On the broader struggle to complete metrication of road signage, all we can hope for is continued success for UKMA the next time the TSRGD is revised. I don’t know if there is a process or a timetable for the next revision but it seems to me that this will be the next chance to make further progress.
Something I did find amusing last weekend when I went on a long motorway journey was that in-car digitisation will perhaps mean in the future, we’ll soon no longer need road signs and National Highways are starting to wean us off them by allowing many of them to be obscured by vegetation!
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Tim Bentley
“comment on retiring ‘m’ for miles, ‘m’ is very rarely used on road signage (is it just on the signs for motorway services?)”
I have only seen it on motorways and on duel carriage A roads. A problem arises that it is also used on gantry signs to indicate the distance to the next junction something that other countries do not do.
” I don’t think highways authorities would agree to stickers as there would be various issues with regards to their longevity”
They already do it quite regularly to amend parts of a pre-existing sign. Modern adhesives are quite durable and modern signs do get replaced semi regularly as is. As such the next time there is routine maintenance the sign with the sticker would get replaced with one without. A simple solution for a lot of signs is to replace the old imperial plate with one with metric. That is what Ireland did to replace the speed limit signs at a total cost of about €13 million.
“all we can hope for is continued success for UKMA the next time the TSRGD is revised”
The TSRGD gets revised about every ten years, yet the egregious and needlessly confusing usage of m for miles is still permitted under that and there is no provisions to permit metric units for distance which just gives an excuse for groups to vandalise signs that do.
“was staggered how the costs mounted up, much of which was due to temporary lane closures etc.”
Which wouldn’t be needed in order to replace the vast majority of road signage so costs shouldn’t mount up like that. Besides the fact that the DFT are more than happy to spend massive amounts of money when it suits them just shows that cost is not a serious objection for switching road signage over to metric.
@Daniel”It is a non-sentient entity that can’t think or make choices.”
You feel the need to comment with this, but people aren’t confused. Organisations have cultures and policies that need to be changed. It is rarely just one person who is responsible for a decision. When people say the government or DFT are responsible for it. They are not saying that it is a non-sentient entity, but that there is an undesirable culture or policies within it that are preventing the desired outcome that they want.
LikeLike
@Alex M it’s always struck me that the ‘m’ for miles signs are actually an ideal place to start to fix the problem. As you mention, using stickers isn’t actually as bad as some might want us to think and I’ve seen many road signs fixed in this manner in recent years so it really ceases to be a valid excuse.
There’s one school of thought that says that ‘m’ could be changed to ‘mi’ or ‘MI’ but it seems to me better to just update the rules so that metric distances are permitted and ‘m’ is no longer to be used for anything other than the metre; it then wouldn’t take too long to update all service station signs to show distances in km, then do the same with gantry signs and any of the main junction distance signs. The only real question would be do we mark them in km, or (as in France for instance) have any distance of 2 km or less shown in metres?
Incidentally, has anybody noticed that new signage on updated roads (such as smart motorways) appears to be at ⅓ and ⅔ miles (as opposed to the traditional 1 and 1/2 miles) which is effectively 500 m and 1000 m?
LikeLike
Nowadays so many cars using a digital dashboard that it is perfectly possible to drive a car with speedometer in km/h and odometer in km – instead of mile. It is possible to change unit in flick of a switch. The sat navs, including Google Maps, can be set to display km instead of mile. I drive my car in UK with km/h speedo.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I consider myself lucky that my car has a display where I can switch it to metric but it still has an analogue display for speed (as well as a digital speed option if you flip through the display). The only thing to beware of is to switch it back to imperial before taking it for an MOT because the tester will more often than not just transcribe what is on the odometer (and getting an MOT certificate changed can be a real pain). Also for servicing as any waranty periods in the UK are done by the mile.
I’ve recently returned to motorcycling and there it’s less clear cut. The authorities don’t like digital speedos being set to km/h when there is no analogue equivalent and so although I’ve driven almost exclusively in km for several years in my car I’ve had to make the mental reversal to miles on the bike which has not been easy, especially listening to sat nav directions in my helmet in metric while looking at the imperial odometer. Though when my CarPlay display arrives later this week I’ll have some visual cues to follow as all my sat nav apps are set exclusively to metric!
On the subject of motorbikes it was interesting to discuss the rules about the test with instructors; some parts of the Module 1 test still have to be conducted at 50 km/h or above (the off-road course is laid out entirely to metric measures) and they have a speed measuring device set up to check you’re doing this, but you’re not allowed to switch the display on the bike to metric for the test even though it’s off-road.
LikeLike
AlexM said:
“You feel the need to comment with this, but people aren’t confused. Organisations have cultures and policies that need to be changed. It is rarely just one person who is responsible for a decision. When people say the government or DFT are responsible for it. They are not saying that it is a non-sentient entity, but that there is an undesirable culture or policies within it that are preventing the desired outcome that they want.”
The people are more confused than you think. When you look at an organisation, say the government or DFT, you will have within that organisation both metric and anti-metric supporters. I know it isn’t just one person, it may be hundreds. When anti-metric supporters do things that make outsiders feel the entire government or DFT is anti-metric, it accuses the pro-metric supporters in the organisation of being anti-metric.
My point is meant only to expose those who are actually anti-metric instead of giving them the shield of the government or DFT organisation. Just like with the REUL bill, we didn’t just blame the government, we openly mentioned the names of those who personally sponsored and promoted that bill. If they would have been anonymous supporters hiding behind the government shield then the outcome that we have recently seen for the bill would never have happened. If you want to change a policy in an organisation you need to point specifically those individuals who are supporting an offensive policy, not just the entire organisation that they are hiding behind.
You can only help prevent the undesired outcome that you don’t want as well as eliminate the undesirable culture by blaming only the individuals responsible and not the entire organisation. Otherwise the undesirable culture will not only persist, but it will grow.
LikeLike
@Free Thinker
My preference would be for a big bang changeover where all signs both speed and distance are switched over in a fairly brief timeframe preferably over say a weekend. As I think it would be easier for the public to accept, as well as getting it over and done with, then and there, rather than drawing it out. I don’t consider cost to be a serious objection but rather people just making excuses for keeping the status quo so they don’t have to do anything and there being a general hostility towards the thought of change.
As such it would remove the issue of ‘m’ being used for miles as all such signs would have km and m would be exclusively used to denote metres as it is supposed to be used for. Although, people can quite easily work out from context that a sign saying that a traffic light that is 100 m away is not 100 miles.
After all m is commonly used to denote minutes and million.
I object to the use of mi to denote miles, as the last thing they should be doing is introducing more imperial usage, when they are already very long overdue for a metric switchover and it is unnecessary when the current TSRGD rules allow it to be shown without any units. So just make any distance sign show m and km to distinguish them from the old imperial signs.
@Daniel
“When you look at an organisation, say the government or DFT, you will have within that organisation both metric and anti-metric supporters.”
I don’t think it is an ideological hostility, after all the DFT works almost exclusively in metric internally but chooses to speak to the public in old units, leading to loads of unnecessary conversions, which waste a huge amount of time and money. Rather it is more of a prevailing attituded of if it is not broke why bother to fix it and there is ultimately little political will for them to change. People in the UK are used to miles and don’t see why it would be better to use km instead. This is what needs to be overcome to ultimately finish the metric switch over, people who genuinely have prejudices against metric are few and far between.
LikeLike
@Alex M in an ideal world I think we’d all prefer a rapid cut over but in the real world the political will just isn’t there because there are too many who fund or influence the halls of government who would be upset if it happens and that translates into lost votes. While most people appear to be happy to operate in the real world in metric it just isn’t at the top of their list of important things to worry about.
I do think that a big-bang change over for all road signs would prove expensive though. It’s one thing doing that with speed limit signs but the sheer number of signs with any sort of distance on them is going to be prohibitive over a short period; having to audit every sign, ensure enough conversions for each distance are ordered, cleaning the signs so they stick, dealing with breakages and mistakes during implementation… I could go on.
In my mind the real challenge at the moment is removing any remaining barriers to ongoing metrication which is why I mention the use of ‘m’ for miles. As intelligent as people really are there is always going to be the person who says the confusion will be dangerous and that is what always stops it dead in its tracks.
LikeLike
@Free Thinker
I really don’t see why switching all road signage over to metric at once would be prohibitively expensive. Especially when it would be a one off cost. Even the highest figure the DFT could come up with as an excuse in order to try and scare off such discussion was £760 million which is not that high in the grand scheme of things. This would be about £1 billion when accounting for inflation. To put that into context the whole transport expenditure for 2019/20 was £37 billion and there are plenty of transport projects that cost more than that. Not just things like HS2 but even local network changes.
Road signs are pretty cheap and most don’t even mention units so wouldn’t need to be changed. There is also a very simple solution of replacing the plates and using adhesive stickers. Which would be very cost effective and could be done pretty quickly. I also don’t see why every sign would need to be audited. Just simply have a basic guideline to follow and replace it with a metric equivalent. After all they are already built and designed in metric, the only thing that currently isn’t is the units used on them. With plenty of Commonwealth countries getting this done and dusted without issue or major cost worries back in the 1970s as the UK should have done.
“the real world the political will just isn’t there”
I agree, that the political will isn’t there. The reason why it has persisted for this long without an end in site is because there simply isn’t a political will to change it. As I mentioned in my previous comment, people tend to prefer to stick with what they know and it is human nature to not particularly like change. The government and the wider public need to be convinced of that change but once it is changed people quickly get use to it. So I don’t agree that it would be a long term political loss for them.
“metrication which is why I mention the use of ‘m’ for miles”
I agree that misusage of m for miles should be prohibited with immediate effect and the persistence of it is egregious, even if they don’t intend on switching over. It amazes me after all this time why it is still permitted in the TSRGD, given how simple it would be not to. Sure I trust people are smart enough to know from context but it is still needlessly confusing and it gives a generally bad impression. As well as giving a convenient excuse as why not to permit metres in the TSRGD. Given that it is working under effectively a not allowed unless explicitly allowed kind of way.
LikeLike
I often wonder how the matter of the metrication or road signage will get resolved and have come to the conclusion that technological advances will ‘overtake’ the argument and make it somewhat irrelevant.
Even now with a smartphone (in a dashboard holder of course) by using a free app it’s possible to drive around the country without the need to ever look at a road sign.
As technology advances towards greater vehicle autonomy, road signage will become obsolete and I believe, eventually removed. All the necessary data regarding location, distance, hazards and speed will be received and processed automatically in the vehicle for it to travel extremely safely and reliably.
National Highways are very aware of their role in these inevitable digital advances as we move towards the mass rollout of self-driving cars. Their stated goal is zero road traffic accident fatalities by 2050 and this can only happen if the road system is fully autonomous.
https://nationalhighways.co.uk/our-work/digital-data-and-technology/
LikeLike
Tim:
Perhaps that’s why the DfT is dragging its feet: it thinks the signs will be obsolete in a few years time. But there’s still a long way to go before we are all in self-driving cars.
Alex M.
I think there’s more usage of m for miles than you think. All those signs with fractions of a mile on them for instance. I saw one, something or other “1 1/4m” ahead, quite recently. I happened to have an Asian friend in the car with me and I asked her if she understood the sign and what it meant. She said she had no idea. She also had no idea what numbers of “yards” were. I think most foreign drivers and visitors ignore these signs and rely on their satnav for navigation.
LikeLike
@Alex M you missed my point about the work required to convert distance signs as a ‘one hit’ job.
First of all you need to order the correct stickers for all the signs. You have to take into account that if you’re replacing distances in miles you will really need to add ‘km’ to the end regardless of whether or not they already say ‘m’ for the simple reason that it will avoid people complaining that they ‘didn’t know the signs had changed’. You also need to ensure there is enough room on each sign for the replacement label otherwise the whole sign may need to be modified or replaced.
Then you need to get the right number of stickers for each distance that you’re replacing. You could easilly provide a chart that says that gives mile/km equivalents so that the engineer doing the work can just select the right one but they will need to have them available when doing the conversion and not run out before finishing each sign. You also have to have extras to account for errors and breakages.
You then need to know which signs need to be visited because, as you correctly stated, many signs don’t show distances at all. And in order to make the job go as quickly as possible you’ll need to plan a route. You also need to account for any road or lane closures that will be required so that vans can be parked and engineers can work safely. I don’t work in this field but I would imagine that permissions and permits need to be sought from authorities in order to carry out the work. Then there’s getting the people to do the work, approving their overtime, etc.
Anybody with any sense would see that this part of the changover is better being done over a long period and to avoid any claims of confusion (regardless of how clever people are you only need one Daily Mail headline to kill it dead in its tracks) removing any letter ‘m’ from anything that means miles would need to be done first. This also means that it can be done as part of the normal maintanence cycle and so costs are kept to a minimum.
LikeLike
Free Thinker
Are you aware that in the late 1970s, Canada changed it signs using an overlay sticker? They also added a small plate with the letters km/h to indicate the change in units. There was was simple and cost effective.
You seem to be making it more complicated than need be. Why? You have the experience of Canada to go by, so there needn’t be any confusion or uncertainty. It worked for them, it can work for the UK and they did it overnight, not over a long period of time.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@metricnow
“I think there’s more usage of m for miles than you think. All those signs with fractions of a mile on them for instance.”
I have only noticed it on the motorways and on duel carriageways, most often indicating the distance between services or the distance to. I have only noticed it on the motorways and on duel carriageways, most often indicating the distance between services or the distance to the next junction on the gantry signs. Most signs spell the whole word mile out or have no abbreviations, so there is no excuse for it even if they don’t intend on switching the signs. This can be fairly easily phased out by prohibiting it in the TSRGD and removing instances of it during routine maintenance.
@Free Thinker
You are overcomplicating things. There would need to be some time for planning and preparation but there is no reason why it can not be implemented in a fairly short amount of time in a fairly cost-effective manner. There would also need to be education to inform people about the change, and it is a fairly easy thing to adjust to, so there is no reason to think that people would be confused about it.
After all, there are plenty of countries that successfully implemented such a switch over, fairly smoothly without the problems that people bring up as an excuse not to switch over. All you are doing by needlessly overcomplicating things like this is making it easier for detractors to maintain the status quo indefinitely.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The British Government likes to micro-manage these sorts of things. Defore any signs can be changed as suggested, the TSRGD (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/contents/made) needs to be changed to authorise such changes. This normally requires a consultation which will whip up the anger of the editors of the Daily Mail and Daily Express and will have the Treasury asking “How much will it cost?”. Once the go-ahead has been obtained, then signs can be changed and as Free Thinker said, it will take time.
As you rightly say, educating people about the changes will take time and, in my opinion, the best roads to start with will be the M25 and other very busy motorways. Changes from fractions of a mile to metres is unlikely to be safety critical, but the number of drivers who see the changes will be large making this a good place to start. After the M25 has been done, other motorways and dual carriageways could be done – in my view giving preference to those roads that are either part of the E-road network or are very busy. Trunk roads could be done from a central budget but other roads only need be changed over once the original signs reach the ends of their useful lives.
LikeLike
@Daniel I’m fully aware of the Canadian use of the overlay stickers and I’m sure that distance signs were done over a prolonged period rather than over a few days as is being suggested. In Canada and other countries where this has already been done (including most recently Ireland) I’m fairly certain that only the speed limit signs were changed in a ‘big bang’ and also there were probably considerably less cars on the road than there are in the UK at present.
@Alex M I’m not trying to over-complicate things, I’m just looking at the world as it is today. Major road works in the UK used to be done by closing off lanes to keep the traffic running, now more often than not councils will close an entire road for days on end just to fill a couple of pot holes on the grounds of ‘Health and Safety’. This would have to be built into any plan to make wholesale changes to road signs. I’d imagine it would be very difficult to get a bunch of road workers spending an entire weekend climbing up and down signs by the side of busy roads, accidents will happen, and it’ll all just play into the hands of the anti-Metric brigade and the right wing tabloids. As much as we might all want the change to happen it needs to be done safely and correctly.
I’m all for the ‘let’s use overlay stickers’ idea but unless you plan the work, buy the right stickers, have the staff available, and can stop people from driving into the staff doing the work, then it isn’t going to happen. Please see this more as ‘devils advocate’ than ‘over complication’.
LikeLike
@Free Thinker
Amending road signage is not major road work, so I don’t see why there would need to be extensive road closures in order to do it. Many road signs are located in areas that are perfectly accessible to the general public, so they can be changed safely and effectively without needing to close the roads. Even on motorways, closing down one lane should be sufficient, and when that is done, they can reopen it to move on to the next one. Things like potholes are actually on the physical road, so they often need to close part of the road in order to fill them in, which isn’t the case when road signage is on the side of it.
“I’m sure that distance signs were done over a prolonged period rather than over a few days as is being suggested”
Canada agreed to switch road signage to metric by 1977, so there were five years in total from announcement to implementation, and speed limit signs were switched over during Labour Day, which is the first Monday in September. Australia switched road signage for about a month during July 1974. While Ireland did phase distance signs over a long period of time, speed limits were switched over fairly quickly without issue. So such problems are unfounded, and it is more a matter of a lack of political will than any actual practical problems.
“and it’ll all just play into the hands of the anti-Metric brigade and the right wing tabloids.”
It didn’t happen in any country that successfully switched over. The reason why an anti-Metric brigade was allowed to develop in the UK is because the UK government did such a half-hearted job of switching over, so the issue got poisoned for political reasons. If they had bitten the bullet, people would have quickly gotten used to kilometres without much issue and moved on. People don’t like change, but if they have to, they quickly adapt and get used to it.
LikeLike