Category: Law

Are UK height, width and weight restrictions enforceable?

A contributor asks whether the failure of UK signs to use the correct international symbols could enable lawyers to get their clients off fines for motoring offences.

One of the guiding principles of the SI Brochure [the manual of the BIPM – International Bureau of Weights and Measures, who regulate the metric system) is that each unit of measure should have its own unique symbol. All units of measure that are included have been allocated symbols. These symbols include:

  • T (upper case) – teslas (strength of a magnetic field)
  • t (lower case) – tonnes
  • ‘ (single apostrophe) – minutes of arc
  • ” (double apostrophe) – seconds of arc

(No symbol was allocated for “mile”, which should be written in full.)The SI manual formed the basis of the EU directive on metrication. When the British Government negotiated with the governments of our partners in the EU to retain the foot and inch, one of the clauses of the agreement extended the catalogue of units to include feet and inches for use in certain circumstances and subject to specified conditions. When they were incorporated into the catalogue, they were allocated the following symbols:

  • ft – Feet
  • in – inches

What has the UK Government done?
On height and width restriction signs, one sees feet and inches denoted by single and double apostrophes respectively, while on weight restriction signs, one sees “T” (upper case) used to denote tonnes on weight restriction signs (OK, the law permits a lower case “t”, but I have yet to actually see one on a road sign in Britain – the law in question is – Statutory Instrument 2002 No. 3113 – The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 – the “TSRGD”).

The TSRGD also allows the use of the symbol “m” sometimes to denote “mile” and sometimes “metre”.

To the best of my knowledge, this has yet to be tested in a United Kingdom court – if it were, would the court rule that these signs are unenforceable due to the technicality of the incorrect use of symbols? One must remember of course that under the European Communities Act 1972, the courts would be obliged to pass judgement “in accordance with the principles laid down by and any relevant decision of the European Court”.

If such a case heard in a UK court and the road signs declared unenforceable, the first people to be affected would be those people who live on a “rat-run” where heavy vehicles are prohibited by width and weight restriction signs. The councils representing such people can take preventative action against the these signs being declared unenforceable by ensuring that weight restriction signs use the lower case “t” to denote “tonnes” and that width restriction signs clearly display both metric and imperial units.

[Please note:
Neither the author nor UKMA are able to offer any formal legal advice. The views published above are the views of the author who has not had formal legal training. The UKMA do not necessarily endorse these views. If somebody wishes to pursue a matter based on these views through the courts, they should seek proper legal advice from their solicitor.]

[article submitted by MV]

Market Stall holders trading illegally

Some fruit and vegetable sellers around the UK are failing to comply with metric trading regulations. [article contributed by PB]

Two examples of this failure are the markets in Redditch town centre and the Portobello Road in London.

Despite several requests to Trading Standards Officers, they are not enforcing the regulations.

The law requires that items sold by weight must have a metric price shown. If an imperial price is shown the imperial price must not be more prominent than the metric price.

The Prime Minister has been made aware of this problem.

Consumer watchdog misses metric opportunity

BBC Radio 4 has missed a golden opportunity to to do some real consumer education and help shoppers to obtain value for money by understanding and using “unit pricing” – i.e. prices per kg, litre, metre, etc.

On Thursday, 14 December, BBC Radio 4’s flagship “You and Yours” programme dealt with a recent report by the National Consumer Council (NCC) on public perceptions of Weights and Measures law, including an interview with its Deputy Chief Executive, Philip Cullum, who was joint author of the report.

The report, “Measuring up”, suggests that fixed sizes for packets and cartons are unnecessary, and consumers would not miss them if they were abolished. For example, jam and honey have to be packaged in the UK in multiples of 57 g (equivalent to 2 imperial ounces), so the more logical 400 g or 500 g sizes are banned from shops (unless they are imported!). The researchers found that most packers and consumers would be happy to see these restrictions abolished (as, incidentally, proposed by the European Commission).

However, what the BBC programme failed to say was that, if fixed sizes (or “prescribed quantities” (PQs) as they are known in the jargon) are abolished, then it is essential that consumers have another method of comparing value for money. For example, if you haven’t got a pocket calculator with you, how would you compare, say, a 454 g jar of honey at £1.78 with a 600 g jar at £2.30? The answer, of course, is “unit pricing” – that is, the obligation to show the price per kg or litre (or 100 g or 100 ml as appropriate) on the shelf label.

Unit pricing not understood and little used

Unfortunately, as the researchers showed, fully two thirds of consumers participating in the discussion groups either did not understand or did not use the unit prices in small print at the bottom of price labels. Moreover, only larger supermarkets and superstores (over 280 m² floorspace) are required to provide this information. The result is that most consumers will have no way of deciding which jar of honey is better value for money (leaving aside questions of quality).

If PQs are to be abolished (which they probably will because the EU will ultimately make the decision), then it will be the responsibility of the Government and consumer organisations to publicise and explain unit pricing so that consumers are better equipped to deal with all the ruses employed by manufacturers, packers and retailers to conceal the true cost of what they are selling. The Government should also reconsider whether the 280 m² floorspace limit is far too high (It may be onerous for a small corner shop – less than 100 m² – to have to unit price every item, but there is no reason why medium sized high street shops belonging to national chains should be exempt).

No mention of the metric/imperial muddle

Of equal concern is the fact that the NCC report carefully avoided raising what is perhaps an even greater problem – the continuing failure of the authorities to enforce the unit pricing of “loose goods” (i.e goods sold to order from bulk and not pre-packed – such as vegetables, meat and fish). Thus, six years after it became compulsory to show the price per kg or litre, many small businesses and market traders still display prices exclusively in obsolete imperial measures such as “lbs”, “st” or “fl oz”, and many local authorities appear to turn a blind eye. This obviously makes it difficult to compare prices and hence value for money as between the street market and the supermarket.

The BBC’s mission statement is “to inform, educate and entertain”. The “You and Yours” programme makers may have thought it entertaining to ridicule the soft target of the current PQ rules, but they failed in their responsibility to inform or educate the consumer.