<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.5" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Which Council in the UK is most metric?</title>
	<link>http://www.metricviews.org.uk/2007/11/19/most-metric-local-council/</link>
	<description>Commentary on the measurement muddle in the UK</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 07:48:11 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.5</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Dave Brown</title>
		<link>http://www.metricviews.org.uk/2007/11/19/most-metric-local-council/#comment-6676</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2007 13:33:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.metricviews.org.uk/2007/11/19/most-metric-local-council/#comment-6676</guid>
					<description>You say "Or would such awards attract the unwanted attention of those opposed to change, dragging out even further the metric changeover in the UK?"

Isn't it time that the UKMA stopped running scared of those who hold different views.  In our media-led democracy you do not win arguments by being right.  You win arguments by making the headlines and defining the terms of engagement yourself.  The reason that metrication has taken so long to implement in the UK is that those opposed to it have taken all the initiatives, whilst those in favour have rested on the laurels of being "right".
An award for the "most metric" council would be a great idea.  Let the fossils from other organisations come and knock it, and vandalise the street signs if they wish.  The more often they say "those signs are illegal" the more often we get a chance to say "it's time the law was changed".  But far better to take the initiative than be constantly in defence mode - the supplimentary indications debacle proved that.
&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;em&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You say &#8220;Or would such awards attract the unwanted attention of those opposed to change, dragging out even further the metric changeover in the UK?&#8221;</p>
<p>Isn&#8217;t it time that the UKMA stopped running scared of those who hold different views.  In our media-led democracy you do not win arguments by being right.  You win arguments by making the headlines and defining the terms of engagement yourself.  The reason that metrication has taken so long to implement in the UK is that those opposed to it have taken all the initiatives, whilst those in favour have rested on the laurels of being &#8220;right&#8221;.<br />
An award for the &#8220;most metric&#8221; council would be a great idea.  Let the fossils from other organisations come and knock it, and vandalise the street signs if they wish.  The more often they say &#8220;those signs are illegal&#8221; the more often we get a chance to say &#8220;it&#8217;s time the law was changed&#8221;.  But far better to take the initiative than be constantly in defence mode - the supplimentary indications debacle proved that.</p>
<blockquote><p><em><br />
</em></p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Martin Vlietstra</title>
		<link>http://www.metricviews.org.uk/2007/11/19/most-metric-local-council/#comment-6599</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Nov 2007 09:08:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.metricviews.org.uk/2007/11/19/most-metric-local-council/#comment-6599</guid>
					<description>Are the imperial unit only width restriction signs legal?  The TSRGD 2002 says they are. The EU directive (backed up by a now depreciated section of ISO-31) states that the symbols for feet and inches are “ft” and “in” respectively, not single and double quotes which implies that they are not legal.  So far nobody has had both reason and funds to get a ruling from the courts on this matter.

There is a possibility (Heaven forbid!) of a foreign registered wide vehicle causing a fatal accident as a result of being on a narrow road. In such a case the lawyers supporting the driver will support their client by looking at every possible loophole. I believe that they will certainly have a case against the Council and/or the Government for the width restriction sign being at variance with the EU directive on units of measure.  

The consequence of such an argument being upheld would be every council in the country, not just the council concerned, having to change every width and height restriction signs top comply with the EU directive overnight – the cost of which will not endear them to the ratepayers.  Maybe the cheapest option for any council concerned is to “insure” itself against such a scenario by erecting dual-unit width restriction signs (and also weight restriction signs that use “t” rather than “T” for tonnes).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Are the imperial unit only width restriction signs legal?  The TSRGD 2002 says they are. The EU directive (backed up by a now depreciated section of ISO-31) states that the symbols for feet and inches are “ft” and “in” respectively, not single and double quotes which implies that they are not legal.  So far nobody has had both reason and funds to get a ruling from the courts on this matter.</p>
<p>There is a possibility (Heaven forbid!) of a foreign registered wide vehicle causing a fatal accident as a result of being on a narrow road. In such a case the lawyers supporting the driver will support their client by looking at every possible loophole. I believe that they will certainly have a case against the Council and/or the Government for the width restriction sign being at variance with the EU directive on units of measure.  </p>
<p>The consequence of such an argument being upheld would be every council in the country, not just the council concerned, having to change every width and height restriction signs top comply with the EU directive overnight – the cost of which will not endear them to the ratepayers.  Maybe the cheapest option for any council concerned is to “insure” itself against such a scenario by erecting dual-unit width restriction signs (and also weight restriction signs that use “t” rather than “T” for tonnes).
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Alex Bailey</title>
		<link>http://www.metricviews.org.uk/2007/11/19/most-metric-local-council/#comment-6566</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:12:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.metricviews.org.uk/2007/11/19/most-metric-local-council/#comment-6566</guid>
					<description>I recently asked Northamptonshire County Council Roads department about their metrication policy (I did this after noticing a good number of dual height/width limit signs on trunk roads but new signs on minor roads being installed with only imperial measures). The response I got was very much a matter of "We do what is legal and cheap".

My original question to them suggested that putting up dual-unit signs would save them money in the longer term - the replies to several other messages seemed to indicate that it was the bottom line on the current years accounts that was the most important to them.

This seemed to mirror a response I got from the Highways Agency (not a local authority but still relevant) about width limit signs in roadworks. Imperial-only signs are the minimum allowed by law and are cheaper, so that's what gets used with no regard whatsoever to the possible public safety question!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I recently asked Northamptonshire County Council Roads department about their metrication policy (I did this after noticing a good number of dual height/width limit signs on trunk roads but new signs on minor roads being installed with only imperial measures). The response I got was very much a matter of &#8220;We do what is legal and cheap&#8221;.</p>
<p>My original question to them suggested that putting up dual-unit signs would save them money in the longer term - the replies to several other messages seemed to indicate that it was the bottom line on the current years accounts that was the most important to them.</p>
<p>This seemed to mirror a response I got from the Highways Agency (not a local authority but still relevant) about width limit signs in roadworks. Imperial-only signs are the minimum allowed by law and are cheaper, so that&#8217;s what gets used with no regard whatsoever to the possible public safety question!
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
