Friday 23 October 2009
This article is the first of many on distance signage. The metric conversion of distance signs can be spread over a longer period without any safety issues. In this article, we look at the conversions required for junction approach signs (for example on motorways) and services signs in particular. Currently these two types of signs are the most common signs where "m" has been incorrectly used to denote mile, this needs to be corrected. It is worth re-iterating that "m" is the international symbol for metre only.
It might be worth considering covering up the "m", or replacing "m" with "mi" or "mile"/"miles", where "m" has been incorrectly been used to abbreviate miles as pre-metrication preparatory work to eliminate confusion, especially on Services signs. It will not be a major safety issue if this preparatory work is not done.
Motorway junction ahead and similar signs
Metres should be used instead of kilometres on motorway junction ahead signs (and the equivalent signs for primary route and non-primary/local route signs) because there is greater flexibility (one is not just limited to 2 km or 1 km), one can avoid fractions, and be more accurate at the same time (e.g. 1600 m instead of 1.6 km or even 2 km). People are also familiar with large numbers of metres from athletics races. All signs need to have have at least 90% accuracy.The conversions from miles to kilometres could and should be as shown below:
| Before | After | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|
| 1⁄4 mile | 400 m | 99% |
| 1⁄3 mile | 500 m | 93% |
| 1⁄2 mile | 750 m | 93% |
| 1⁄2 mile | 800 m | 99% |
| 2⁄3 mile | 1000 m | 93% |
| 3⁄4 mile | 1200 m | 99% |
| 1 mile | 1500 m | 93% |
| 1 mile | 1600 m | 99% |
| 1 1⁄4 miles | 2000 m | 99% |
| 1 1⁄3 miles | 2000 m | 93% |
| 1 1⁄2 miles | 2400 m | 99% |
| 1 1⁄2 miles | 2500 m | 97% |
| 1 2⁄3 miles | 2500 m | 93% |
| 1 3⁄4 miles | 2800 m | 99% |
| 1 3⁄4 miles | 3000 m | 93% |
| 2 miles | 3000 m | 93% |
| 2 miles | 3200 m | 99% |
Note that there are some choices, for example to convert 1 mile it could be converted to either 1500 m or 1600 m. Similarly ½ mile can be converted to either 750 m or 800 m. As signs are placed at either 500 m or 800 m intervals typically, the most common signs would end up being 1600 m followed by 800 m, or 1000 m followed by 500 m, or 1500 m then 1000 m then 500 m, and you may occasionally see 1200 m and 400 m signs too. For 2 miles I strongly recommend converting to 3000 m instead of 3200 m where possible, on the rare occasions that 2 miles appears on the signs. As an alternative to having 1600 m then 800 m signs one can have 1500 m then 750 m signs, but one needs to be consistent.
Either way, only metres should be authorised on motorway (and dual carriageway and other similar exit signs), and on no account should kilometres or any other unit be allowed. Common sense would dictate that 1500 m means 1500 metres, not 1500 miles.
Example converted junction approach signs are shown below. On the top row are examples for motorways, the middle row shows primary routes, and the bottom row has an example sign for a non-primary/local route:
An example motorway overhead gantry sign is shown below:
More example motorway signs as well as suggested improvements will appear in a future article.
All motorway signs which need conversion can have the relevant imperial measurements plated with the metric equivalents, and there is no need to replace the whole sign unless the sign already needs to be replaced due to wear.
Services signs
All services signs have perhaps the most common and obvious incorrect usage of "m" to mean miles. This also needs to be corrected. This applies for both Services signs and services junction ahead signs.An example converted Services sign is shown below:
Having said that, there is one type of services sign that will always need to be in metres, the Services junction ahead sign. Examples of such signs are shown below:
It is an excellent idea to convert our road signs to the metric system, these measures are fit for the 21st century and beyond. The metric signs shown are easier to understand without any confusion. The changeover for these signs can be done safely and economically, and it will be good for everyone.
ReplyDeleteThese are great suggestions, hopefully the people who have the power to change things are reading.
ReplyDeleteA real life metric sample
ReplyDeletehttp://maps.google.com.hk/?ie=UTF8&ll=22.414411,114.062998&spn=0,0.013937&z=17&brcurrent=3,0x3403f985c981a725:0x55fd119bec023fa4,1,0x3403e4eb267ce625:0x78f6d847f52f2da9&layer=c&cbll=22.41456,114.063057&panoid=88wLd7mvE5E1EN0Yt3QRUw&cbp=12,168.73,,0,2.37
The numbers are much longer and more cluttering - given you think the GIVE WAY on give way signs is cluttering, I can't help but see overlooking this clutter as a bit of ideological blindness.
ReplyDeletePlus you have the problem of m being the abbreviation for miles on signage now, so you'd have, on a long journey, some signs with 1600m, and others with 1m, and they both mean the same thing. Unless of course, you feel it worth an extra couple of hundred million to do all the changes in a very short time.
@Si Hollett -
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean "ideological blindness"??
This is not a religious or political site!
An explanation would be appreciated.
Regarding the money bit, I would rather see the billions going to anywhere else rather than the banksters.
@Si Hollet - I don't think it is ideological blindness. It is neccesary to use longer numbers in a metric system, that is just how it is - do the math!! It is not that cluttered, it perhaps takes a bit of getting used to if you are used miles.
ReplyDeleteIn actuality using m to mean miles is techinically incorrect and it has just become a convention here and should not be that way.
It is worth spending money on getting it right but I am sure it can be done in a cost effective way if it is planned properly.
People against metrication will always use money and confusion as an excuse to stay with the status quo. Don't fight change, especially such a long overdue and neccesary one!!
@Si Hollett - 1600m, a measurement with only 5 characters (4 digits and a symbol), is definitely not clutter. It is easy to read 1600m at a glance, it is also language independent and does not require translation. There is nothing ideological in only using metres on exit signs. I have already explained why using only metres on junction exit signs is best in my article. Perhaps you could explain to us what you mean by "ideological blindness", and which "ideology" you mean.
ReplyDeleteThe symbol m is a reserved symbol for metres. It is not normal to use m to abbreviate miles, it is wrong and confusing to do so (and at variance with international agreements), this was realised in 1989 as shown in this DfT Traffic Policy Division internal memo (released under the FOI act), as shown on page 3 (where someone wrote "Which signs? And who allowed this?"). But nothing was done about this.
I am sure it will cost a lot less than "hundreds of millions" (10 times less most probably) to convert motorway exit signs, especially if plating over existing measurements is used, as not all signs would need to be replaced completely (unless they are worn out). And to put your estimate into perspective, "hundreds of millions" is considerably less than the money spent bailing out the banks (£850 billion or more), or proposed to replace trident with (£150 billion). And also think of the billions that would be saved if no wars were fought, no money was wasted on PFI, etc.
By contrast, converting metric road signs will not cost very much in the short term, and will only need to be done once. And this will give lots of benefits to everyone every year.
Apart from foreign drivers, who exactly would this benefit? You say the changeover is necessary - in what capacity? (except as a convenience to foreign drivers).
ReplyDeleteAs for your comments on 'm' being the internationally accepted symbol for metre; do you honestly believe that this is dangerous? Is any driver stupid enough to believe that a sign saying "exit 1m" is going to think the exit is 1 metre away and cause an accident by braking instantly?
I am 26 years old and was educated in both metric and imperial (with metric given the priority) however I (and most people of my age) feel more at home and comfortable working in miles and yards as that is what we are accustomed to. I strongly believe metricating our road network would cause confusion and perhaps (on the more extreme end of the scale) cost lives.
Besides which, we are a proud nation with our own customs and traditions. Why should we give all these up just to be "good little Europeans" and appease our political masters in Brussels?
I don´t believe you are 26 and think that way! It is vital to finish the process because the dual system is creating people who are innumerate, conversant in one system, conversant in both and conversant in neither. Try and do this quickly: 4ft3in x 6ft 2 & 3/4 in when buying a carpet! Much easier to measure the room in metres.
Delete@Anonymous (26 March 2011) - Your comment has a number of misconceptions which I have to correct:
ReplyDelete"Apart from foreign drivers, who exactly would this benefit?"
This will benefit all of us, young and old, locals and foreign drivers. I suggest you read this article for a more complete explanation of why. This is a necessary change, which was supposed to have been done by 1973, but postponed indefinitely since 1970.
"As for your comments on 'm' being the internationally accepted symbol for metre; do you honestly believe that this is dangerous?"
No, if you read my article carefully I never said this is dangerous. What I did say is that it is confusing, and I would like to add that it looks ridiculous, and it gives us a very bad image internationally, as it gives the impression of a cavalier attitude towards measurements. Even the US does not use 'm' to abbreviate miles. And as I have already said before, a symbol is not the same as an abbreviation.
"Is any driver stupid enough to believe that a sign saying "exit 1m" is going to think the exit is 1 metre away and cause an accident by braking instantly?"
Of course not, and using your argument you can also say that 1000m would be regarded as 1000 metres, not as 1000 miles.
There is no significant safety issue here, which is why converting distance signs can be spread out (unlike speed limit signs which would need to be changed overnight, or at a weekend).
What I would recommend though is all instances where 'm' is used to abbreviate mile are corrected, and once that is finished start converting these signs to metric.
"I am 26 years old and was educated in both metric and imperial (with metric given the priority) however I (and most people of my age) feel more at home and comfortable working in miles and yards as that is what we are accustomed to."
Well, I am 29 years old, and we learnt almost entirely metric at my school, and I only use metric, never imperial (and I am sure I am not the only one) - it is so much more straightforward, precise, and powerful.
Okay I concede that Geography lessons for example are not guaranteed to be entirely metric (mine almost were though), but what measurement units did you use in Maths and Science then?
Maths and Science would have most likely been primarily if not entirely metric at your school. They were at my school (I only had 1 or 2 lessons on metric-imperial conversion in my second year at Maths).
"I strongly believe metricating our road network would cause confusion and perhaps (on the more extreme end of the scale) cost lives."
What a load of nonsense. How did Australia, Canada, India, South Africa, New Zealand, Kenya, and recently Ireland manage to change to metric road signs without any reports of chaos or carnage on the roads? Because they had a publicity campaign well in advance of the changeover, so why would the UK be any different?
"Besides which, we are a proud nation with our own customs and traditions. Why should we give all these up just to be "good little Europeans" and appease our political masters in Brussels?"
Nonsense. I suggest you read these articles below to understand why this is nonsense:
Most imperial units are not British
Metrication is not a result of EU membership
It is sad how you are so willing to believe all the myths.
Thanks for the interesting article. Just a question on distance measurements: why are there two choices for some of the conversions? Surely we can just choose the most accurate one rounded to the nearest 100m?
ReplyDelete@Anonymous (2 April 2011) - You're welcome, and thank you for your feedback.
ReplyDeleteThat's a good question, the reason why I gave two choices for some of the conversions was because I believe that the conversions which are used depend on the other signs ahead of (or before) the sign being converted.
There are some situations where we would convert 1 mile to 1500m (i.e. 1 mile -> 1500m, 2/3 mile -> 1000m, 1/3 mile -> 500m). In most other cases 1 mile would be converted to 1600m (and 1/2 mile would be 800m).
I also had the thought that 1 mile could be 1500m and 1/2 mile could be 750m, that could be considered so I included that. Having said that, I think that 1600m replacing 1 mile and 800m replacing 1/2 mile is better.
And a similar rationale applies for the other conversions in the table where two choices appear.
I agree with you that we can simply choose the most accurate distance rounded to the nearest 100m. That is the easiest and best.
Why are eurosceptics jumping on the bandwagon against metrication? It makes no sense, europe is not the only place that is fully metric but most other countries around the world!! Moving out of the dark ages does not mean we are no longer proud british citizens.....
ReplyDeleteI just don't understand the concept that we should go metric 'just because everyone else has'. We're not sheep. I think it should be a matter for the people to decide. Put it to a referendum - if the people decide we should go metric then I would have to accept that decision. Or do you think we should drag the country into metrication against the will of the people?
ReplyDelete@Anonymous (8 May 2011 12:08),
ReplyDeleteDo you even understand why the UK started to go metric in the first place, back in 1965? No, it's not 'just because everyone else has', but because this is a modernisation, an upgrade, which benefits everyone, it is international, and it is simply a better system. Back in 1965, British industry and the then British government realised this, as well as the fact that the UK seriously loses out by not going fully metric.
But because the job is still not finished after 46 years and counting, the UK is still in a wasteful mess of two systems (although British industry and schools are metric), and the UK is losing out. I have already explained why the UK should complete metrication in one of my earlier articles here.
Metrication, should only be a minor technical issue, but has been politicised in the UK. That is the only reason why you, and others like you, would like to see a referendum at all. Metrication should not be a political issue at all.
And do you believe the issues would be honestly debated in a referendum? Do you believe that the press would be unbiased during the process? Can you be sure that elements of the press won't keep repeating the same lies? How can you be sure that the vote would not be influenced by other unrelated issues? Do you have any evidence that metrication would be against the will of the people? (And I think you'll find it's only a vocal minority who truly oppose the change, including yourself)
In Australia, and all the other countries that went metric, they did so without any of the politicisation seen in the UK (or the US or Canada for that matter). There was no referendum before or after completing the changeover, and nobody goes back or even supports going back to pre-metric measures after going fully metric.
Furthermore, from the Australian experience of metrication, it was found that any resistance is mostly due to simply being afraid of the unknown. Most people don't realise that the metric changeover can be a smooth changeover, so support for metrication can only be expected after the changeover has been completed.
Some quotes from the 1980/81 final report from the Australian Metric Conversion Board:
ReplyDelete"the Federal Government’s decision was based on an all-party unanimous recommendation following a detailed inquiry by a Select Committee of the Senate, thereby providing the answer to the inevitable query “Why was the matter not put to a referendum?” and allowing the Board to get on with planning and facilitating change without having to defend the Government’s decision;"
"effective communication is critical if fear of the unknown is to be allayed and intelligent cooperation obtained in the implementation of conversion plans."
"resistance to the metric change is mostly due to fear of the unknown. Few realised it could be a simple, non-traumatic experience so that, with the general public, support for the change can only be expected after it."
To the anonymous person who claims that not going metric means that "we are not sheep", going metric and following an international standard does not make us sheep.
ReplyDeleteNow saying "metrication is cos of the EU" or "go imperial to stick it to the EU", despite the fact that metrication has almost nothing to do with the EU, not to mention the damage that two systems is doing, that is sheep-like. Believing propaganda and repeated lies unquestioningly is sheep-like.
I just believe it is a matter for the people to decide. Of all the issues that are of importance right now, this is not one of them. I do not see thousands of people marching on Parliament Square demanding metrication. Miles work perfectly well, as do yards.
ReplyDeleteI still believe switching to Kilometers would only benefit foreign drivers. Why confuse 60 million Brits, just to benefit a few French tourists? It doesn't make sense.
I also believe that foreign tourists probably enjoy the nostalgia attached to our system and is perhaps one of the reasons they come here. If all cultures across Europe were the same then people may as well stay at home!
I have done some research on this subject and found polls conducted by various different bodies including The BBC, The Independant, The Sun and The Daily Telegraph. All found that the public were between 83% and 96% against metrication. Do you honestly believe that Kilometres should be enforced on us against such overwhelming opposition? What would that say about British Democracy?
I think we should celebrate our individuality, not be ashamed of it.
@Colin, it is an interesting you point you make about individuality..... I am all for it but at what cost! I could use a horse and cart and be very individual but its not the most effecient way to get around...
ReplyDeleteMetrication has many benefits in the long run, the change over has nothing to do with french tourists!! That is quite a common misconception people have. An estimate of the cost of not going metric in the US is $1.426 trillion dollars a year!!
http://www.metricationmatters.com/docs/CostOfNonMetrication.pdf
That is a huge amount of money. I agree that now there are greater priorities but had metrication happened a long time ago as a country we could have saved a lot of money. People are not aware of this and most don't care to find out. I think that the british people are hugely opposed to it because they do not know the facts.
I don't think units are in any way cultural!! Yes, differences should be celebrated but culture runs a lot deeper than whether you measure in miles or kilometres! There are still many far more important things that define us as british people.
I doubt people from abroad would think about, let alone enjoy, the "nostalgia associated with Imperial units" (as if the entire UK is a museum), when they visit the UK.
ReplyDeleteMore likely, if they think about this, the visitors to the UK would be unimpressed that the UK is still clinging on to Roman-style old measures (on road signs), and this gives the UK an old-fashioned, outdated, stuck in a timewarp image. This is not only embarassing, but it is very costly - as Anonymous (7 June 2011) has stated. This outdated image could even be costing the UK business.
I would be interested to see the polls you stated, Colin. It is not always the case, but polls can be biased by, for example, sampling a non-representative population, or asking leading questions. For example, back in 2008, the AA/Populus did a survey which claimed that a large majority of AA members don't want metric road signs, but this survey lacks credibility because it was not only unrepresentative, but also had some basic errors too.
And to add to what Anonymous says, for most people who do oppose the change, the root cause is that they are simply just afraid of the unknown, and don't realise that changing to metric road signs can be trouble-free and confusion-free - as already demonstrated in numerous places including Australia, Canada, India, and Ireland.
In the UK by contrast, the case for metric road signs has not been made properly by successive governments. As well as this, the DfT hugely exaggerated its cost estimate in 2006.
Some people asked me after I last looked at this blog why I was saying that having 1600m was ideological blindness.
ReplyDeleteThe answer is simple - while metric carries a ton of philosophical baggage (being born out of the French Revolution for philosophical objections to other units), I'm not caring one jot about the imperial/metric debate here - it's how all the stuff about clarity and removing clutter that's used to justify changing to the standard. 1600m is both more confusing while you change signs gradually (the link suggesting that 'm' for miles was abolished only talked about a plan - one that never happened. It also made it rather clear that there aren't many benefits in conversion) - what is wrong with 1.6km - it's 3.5 characters, not 5? Removing GIVE WAY in signs where you have to give way (which makes it the same, minus a small and missable plate, compared to the warning of approaching a give way, or a stop with that new sign - possibly dangerously so) due to clutter is passionately proclaimed as clutter is the great Satan, but any considerations of excess clutter and confusion that are done in the way you metricate get thrown out of the window.
I don't think metrication is worth the cost - every study suggests that giving into peer pressure and finishing the job off is a waste of money - expensive and with little benefits. However if the democratic (as such a move is despised by a large majority of the country) and the cost hurdles are overcome (by making new signs metric and replacing at the normal time, say) I'm not opposed to it. What I am opposed to is this implementation of the metric system that adds unnecessary clutter and confusion to signs. Worse still is that these things are said to be massively disliked elsewhere on the site, but that's ignored here as we have to do things the European way, whether there are better ways or not.
With the use of 1600m, we see that your actual motive is not to reduce clutter and confusion on our signs but to make them conform to a standard, regardless of whether that standard is good or bad. Conformity, like some puffed up dictator, or a cult leader, is the driving force of the changes here - not actually improving signage.
Given that we already have 1/2, 1/4, 3/4, 1/3 and 2/3 mile signs....
ReplyDelete...why not make 1000m = 1km, 1500m = 1 1/2km, 1600 more-or-less = 1 2/3km? And similar for any other "odd" differences?
As well as 2, 2 1/2, 3, 4km etc, rather than 2000, 2500, 3000, 4000m.
British drivers may find figuring out rough distances in kilometres a little easier than hundreds-of-metres; it is after all roughly 2/3rds of a mile, and distances measured in yards are rarely used for anything more than 800yd, or approx 1/2 mile (I've seen some odd ones like 1065yd, 1430yd, but they were in rather craggy areas where the signs were plunked wherever a 15cm square of solid ground could be found to secure them in).