I have interspersed some remarks in red.
On 28/02/06 5:55 AM, "Stephen Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Note the method used by the vandals who modified these signs. They used a simple, presumably cheap, and relatively weather resistant, stick-on sign to replace the metric signs. I wonder whether this method was the one used for their cost estimates below.
POST THIS:
Active Resistance to Metrication
66 Chippingfield, HARLOW, Essex CM17 0DJ
Tel: 01279 635789
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mobile 07835 716537
MEDIA RELEASE: Wednesday 22 February 9.00am
PHOTOS:
See
below
http://www.bwmaonline.com/Transport%20-%20Direct%20Action%20-%20photopage.htm
No Need for Britain's 1.5 million Road Signs to go Metric
There is every need for Britain's road signs to go metric as they already have in all aspects of road construction. Roads are made with materials that are graded in millimetres, road widths are designed and then built in either millimetres or metres, road lengths are measured in kilometres. These truthful, and real, measures are then dumbed down to use seemingly old pre-metric measures such as inches, feet, yards, and miles.
The key word here is 'seemingly' as the old pre-metric measures, inches, feet, yards, and miles, are no longer used in England and they haven't been since an agreement between the English speaking nations in 1959. The 1959 agreement between Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK, and the USA provided for agreed definitions of these old names. The new metric inch is now 25.4 millimetres exactly, the new metric foot is 304.8 millimetres exactly, the new yards are 914.4 millimetres exactly, and the new miles are exactly 1609.344 metres.
When British engineers dumb down the reality of the metric measures they use everyday in a futile attempt to quiet the screaming of protestors they do so using metric inches, metric feet, metric yards, and metric miles in the full knowledge that Imperial measures no longer exist. To claim that you are returning metric unit signs to Imperial measures is at best mistaken and at worst downright deceitful.
Active Resistance to Metrication (ARM) is best known for a
vigorous
campaign to ensure that all 1.5 million signs on British roads
stay
in Imperial measurements.
One stick on sign for each of these — now let's see — these might cost 50 pence each — let's say 1 pound — total cost for upgrading all old signs to metric signs equals 1.5 million pounds.
And to say that they are replacing them with Imperial measurements is simply false. They are replacing fully metric signs with post-1959 inches, feet, yards, and miles — in short, they are replacing metric signs with metric signs.
Metric signs are currently illegal on
British roads under the Traffic Signs Regulations 2002 (with the
exception of dual height and width signs, which are permitted).
I cannot comment on this as I have insufficient knowledge of UK law.
During the past 5 years, ARM activists have successfully removed
or
amended over 2,000 illegal metric signs across the country and
keep
an up-to-date gazetteer which logs every single amendment.
Total cost to the vandals (say) 2000 pounds.
Yesterday, ARM learnt that the U.K. Metric Association was
planning
to issue a press release calling for British distance, dimension
and
speed limit signs to be changed to metric within 5 years.
Experience in all other countries who have made successful transitions to metric signs is that this is best done in a day. Five years sounds like a deliberate attempt to prolong a simple upgrade.
I sometimes suspect that people who actively oppose the upgrade to metric units are aware that they have more success by elongating the process in any way that they can. They seem to know that people will then react to the process chosen for the metric transition rather than considering the metric process itself. To support this view, I will suggest two examples.
1 The countries that decided to spend months preparing and then applying stick-on road signs in a single day (often designated M-day) had little issue or debate from resisters because the method used was so effective that the debate moved away from the issue of whether we should use the metric system or not to whether 100 km/h is better or worse that the 96.5 km/h provided by conversion from an old speed.
<snip>
Here is a summary of the main points ARM relies on to oppose
metrication of British roads:
1) The current system is simple and understood by all. The
latest survey showed that 98% of people in thee U.K. understand
Imperial distances and dimensions against only 29% understanding
metric
The present system is not simple as it is based on the random generation of different measures at different places and at different times. Following the introduction of definitions of inches, feet, Troyes and avoirdupois pounds were introduced from France in 1066, it took until 1824 for there to be uniform relationships between them such as 12 ounces in a pound (Troyes) or 16 ounces in a pound (avoirdupois). By then, there had been some diversions that included the USA gallon, the new (in 1824) UK gallon, the Cape inch in South Africa, and many, many others.
2) The cost of converting an estimated 1.5 million road signs
would be at least £1 billion [ £1,000,000,000]
These figures suggest that each road sign will cost about 666 pounds to replace. When UK legislators change whatever laws are necessary to provide for metric signs, the cost to apply stick-on signs will be about one pound per sign. The vandals who are currently defacing signs know from their own experience that this cost claim of 1000 000 000 pounds is simply not true. and they know this because they are currently using this stick-on technology.
3) In the latest consumer survey of opinion on the issue,
carried out by ICM on 26 to 28 April 2002, 86% wanted road and
footpath signs to stay in miles, yards, feet and inches - as
against
only 8% wanting a change to metric - a majority of 11 to 1
I won't enter this discussion even though the data I have seen differs markedly from this and is generally positive about a change to metric signs. My reason for not entering this discussion is that my data is based on things such as newspaper polls that are notoriously based on very small, voluntary, samples and have proved to be generally unreliable.
4) As the Department of Transport has frequently conceded,
metrication of roads signs could not happen gradually. To avoid
confusion and unnecessary dual measurements on signs, any
metrication programme would have to be accomplished virtually
overnight - a logistical impossibility.
I agree with this — up to the hyphen. It is interesting that anyone who has studied (or even looked briefly at) the successful upgrading to metric road signs in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, and South Africa could possibly claim that it is a logistical impossibility as it has already been done so successfully, smoothly, and quickly in these places, usually with a single day.
PHOTO OPPORTUNITY
To emphasise its continuing campaign to eradicate all illegal
metric
signs, ARM will later this week carry out a perfectly legal
amendment of an illegal metric sign by changing it to Imperial.
Further details from ARM.
There's that word, 'Imperial' again. Presumably they mean the newer post-1959 metric inches, metric feet, metric yards, or metric miles.
One of the things that saddens me most about these silly actions is the damage that these people do to the rest of the British economy. In 1980 the Confederation of British Industry did a survey of its members and then estimated that using dual measures of measurements was extremely costly. I quote from the 'Metric timeline' at http://www.metricationmatters.com/articles
1980
The 'Final Report of the UK Metrication Board' was presented to Parliament. However, increased production costs from continuing to work in dual systems of measuring were still an issue. A report to the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) in 1980 estimated 'the extra cost of continuing to work in dual systems of measuring was around £5 000 million every year'. For companies on which the survey was based, increased production costs were equal to 9% of the companies' gross profit and 14% of their net profit. To put this into perspective, in 1980, £5 000 million was roughly half the cost of the entire UK National Health Service; in today's currency, 5 000 M£ is equivalent to about 11 500 M£; the net saving from 1980 to 2005 is about 6 500 M£ – plus compounding interest.
Another source of great sadness is the damage that these sill action do to the education of British children. I don't know how much time is spent in England on teaching about all the old measures from bushels to USA gallons, but estimates made in the USA suggest that an entire year of every child's school life is spent trying to learn about how many inches there are in a yard and how many feet there are in a mile when the only thing that they will ever do with this information is try to understand old road signs— what a waste of time and energy.
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin
PO Box 305, Belmont, Geelong, Australia
Phone 61 3 5241 2008
Pat Naughtin is the editor of the free online monthly newsletter, 'Metrication matters'.
You can subscribe by going to http://www.metricationmatters.com/newsletter
Pat is the editor of the 'Numbers and measurement' chapter of the Australian Government Publishing Service 'Style manual – for writers, editors and printers'. He is a Member of the National Speakers Association of Australia and the International Federation of Professional Speakers. He is also recognised as a Lifetime Certified Advanced Metrication Specialist (LCAMS) with the United States Metric Association. For more information go to: http://metricationmatters.com
This email and its attachments are for the sole use of the addressee and may contain information that is confidential and/or legally privileged. This email and its attachments are subject to copyright and should not be partly or wholly reproduced without the consent of the copyright owner. Any unauthorised use of disclosure of this email or its attachments is prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender by return email.
--
