Why, Unlike the Rest of the Civilised World, has the United Kingdom not Adopted Metric Road Signs?

8/14/2019 Why, Unlike the Rest of the Civilised World, has the United Kingdom not Adopted Metric Road Signs?

1/6

09

Why, Unlike the Rest of the Civilised World, has

the United Kingdom not

Adopted Metric RoadSigns? David B. Osborne


2/6

2

Why, Unlike the Rest of the Civilised World, has the United Kingdom not Adopted Metric RoadSigns?

The United Kingdom, just like every developed country, excluding the United States,

is officially metric, so why do road signs show miles, yards and feet, although designed and

manufactured in millimetres? The metric system was developed to allow for an international

standard in weights and measures. This essay aims to ascertain why the UK continues to be

an anomalous example of a metric country by keeping its road signs imperial. It will assess

the estimated costs of converting the road signs, the economic benefits of using a single

system of measurement versus the economic costs of using imperial signage whilst being

officially metric. It will also compare Irelands metric switchover in 2005 to the lack thereof of

the UK. This essay will also ignore the failed target to convert road signs by 1975.

There are varying estimates of how much a switchover to metric signage would cost.

According to the White Paper on Metrication The most expensive operation within the field

of public administration will be the conversion of all road signs showing miles (or mph) tokilometres (or kph). The cost of conversion of all road speed signs is likely to be about 2m

and of all road signs indi cating distance appreciably more . (Department of Trade and

Industry, 1972 paragraph 107). In todays prices (Using the Retail Price Index) that estimate

is around 21 million. Since then, the Department for Transport (DfT) and the UK Metric

Association have both made estimates about the cost of converting road signs. The DfT

estimated that the cost would be between 565 million and 644 million. (Department for

Transport 2006) The UK Metric Association however estimated the cost of the switchover to

be significantly less, approximating costs between 31 million and 160 million (Paice 2006).

In the period 2006-2007, expenditure on roads was approximately 7.01 billion for England

alone (Department for Transport 2008). The UKMA estimates amount to 0.49% and 2.3% of

the DfTs total expenditure on roads , whiltst the estimates from the DfT amount to 8.06% and

9.19% of total expenditure. The graphs on the following page illustrate the previous figures.

There are facts about these estimates that need to be tasken into consideration:

The estimates made by the DfT were made based on previous estimates in

1989.

The Estimates made by the UKMA are based on the 2005 Irish switchover.

The figure for total expenditure on roads is only for England, however the

estimates are for the entire Kingdom. Therefore, adding the Scottish and

Welsh road expendture would lower the percentage of expenture for both

estimates.


3/6

3


Figure 1

Source:UKMA (2006) & DfT (2006)

This graph compares the difference in estimates, between the UK Metric Association and theDepartment for Transport.

Source: UKMA (2006), DfT(2006)

This graph compares the estimates of the conversion costs with the totalexpenditure on roads in the year 2006-2007. Notice that the UKMAs lower

estimate is almost negligible compared to total expenditure.


4/6

4


The Republic of Ireland was in a similar situation as the UK until January 2005, when

they converted their road signs to metric. Irelands Department of Transport (DoT) estimated

that the switchover would cost 11.5 million. In reality, the switch had a price tag of 10.5million (1 million less than the estimate). (Paice 2006). In addition to the switchover costing

less than expected, the conversion day went with no hiccoughs. The Republic of Ireland is

much smaller than the UK in terms of population and land area, so therefore converting road

signs there is inevitably going to be cheaper than in the UK. However, the cost-effective

approach taken by Ireland towards the metrication of signage could be emulated by the UK.

The UKs reluctance to switch over to metric units on road signs has many implicit as

well as explicit costs. An implicit cost of not going metric is the waste of the metric

education, which has been taught in British schools since 1974 (Paice 2004). According to

the British Weights & Measures Association, By the time most young people reach their

20s, metric education has been replaced by the practical experience of British units . (British

Weights and Measures Association 2001). This statement is reality. Education is a benefit in

kind and therefore is a burden of the taxpayer. The fact that a metric education is all but

useless on British roads means that the taxpayers money is be ing wasted. A less subtle

cost of using imperial signage is the fact that they have the potential to result in accidents,

especially among the European drivers. There have been countless news reports of HeavyGoods Vehicles from the Continent striking low bridges where signs are exclusively imperial,

because lorry drivers from the continent do not understand imperial measures. This costs

millions in repairs to bridges, railway lines, roads and Lorries each year and in extreme

cases has resulted in injuries. (UK Metric Association 2008).

There is no good reason why Britain has not adopted metric road signage. There is

poor excuse that the British population incorrectly view the metric system as a European

Union imposition on British culture. The cost of conversion is also perceived to be a

deterrent to adopting metric signage, but the longer it is left, the more expensive it will

become. The fact that the metric system is the official system of measurements in the every

country in the world (excluding Burma, Liberia and the United States,) means that it is

inevitable that Britain will have to convert road signs to metric at some point in time (As will

Burma, Liberia and the US). Furthermore, the fact that the Republic of Ireland, Australia,

New Zealand and Canada have recently converted their road signs to metric must infer that

there are economic benefits from the switchover. By clinging on to imperial signage, the UK

is doing nothing but hindering the benefits of being a metric nation. In conclusion, the UK still


5/6

5


uses imperial road signs because there has been no thorough up-to-date research into the

matter.


6/6

6


Bibliography

British Weights and Measures Association. The Failure of Metric Education. British Weights

and Measures Association. 2001.

http://www.bwmaonline.com/The%20Failure%20of%20Metrication%20by%20Education.htm

(accessed March 10, 2009).

Department for Transport. Estimating the cost of conversion of road traffic signs to metric

units. 23 February 2006.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/general/estimatingcostconversion (accessed March 10,

2009).

Department for Transport. TSGB 2008: Expenditure on roads and road condition - data

tables. Department for Transport. 2008.http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/roadstraffic/expenditure/tsgbchapt

er7expendiroa1871.pdf (accessed March 10, 2009).

Department of Trade and Industry Consumer and Competition Policy Directorate. WHITE

PAPER ON METRICATION (1972) Summary and Conclusions. United Kingdom Metric

Association. 1972. http://www.metric.org.uk/Docs/DTI/met1972.pdf (accessed March 10,

2009).

Paice, R et al. A Very British Mess. London: United Kingdom Metric Association, 2004.

Paice, R. Metric Signs Ahead - The Case for Converting Road Signs to Metric Units.

London: United Kingdom Metric Association, 2006.

UK Metric Association. NEW GOVERNMENT ADVICE IS RECIPE FOR MORE BRIDGE -

STRIKE CHAOS. United Kingdom Metric Association. 1 July 2008.

http://www.metric.org.uk/Press/releases/ukma_press_release_2008_jul_01.pdf (accessed

March 12, 2009).

Documents

Why, Unlike the Rest of the Civilised World, has the United Kingdom not Adopted Metric Road Signs?