glob on someday

Announcement

2016-05-01T13:28:00.001+02:00

Unfortunately I no longer have the time to maintain this blog. This is because there is so much going on in my personal and professional life, which I need to concentrate on.

I therefore only plan on finishing the following articles:

An open letter to the DfT (which I will also email to them), in lieu of the PDF document, because I no longer have time to finish this document.
Why I personally believe Britain should drive on the right. Yes, I am in favour of this change too, but this has nothing to do with metrication.

After that, I will keep the blog open, moderate comments, and respond to comments. But I will no longer be posting new articles and the migration to WordPress is also cancelled. My apologies for this.

Should this change and I have more time to write articles, I will post another announcement saying so.

I will in any case maintain existing articles where necessary (corrections etc.), if I get the time.

Apologies and blog roadmap

2015-04-12T10:58:00.001+02:00

Apologies for the lack of posts since March 2014. Until this point I have had practically no time to prepare new posts for the moment, and a lot had been going on in my life - in short I was extremely busy, so had practically no time to make posts until now.

I have made the decision to migrate this blog to wordpress and get its own domain name, Facebook page and Twitter handle (currently the facebook and twitter buttons here are placeholders - apologies for the inconvenience).

The new blog will have a responsive interface, a modern design and true multi-lingual support. I need to translate both the theme and articles, I will do this to both German and French myself. Future posts may show progress in this, as well as screenshots.

In addition, I have been working on the PDF, or rather, a series of PDFs showing my signage suggestions for the DfT, not only metrication but to also ensure full compliance with the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals as well as clutter removal. The first volume is 80% complete.

My aim is for all volumes of the PDF to be reviewed by you the reader, so that there is an element of consensus before I send these PDFs to the DfT.

While I was working on the PDF, I also took the time to review everything, and will post some articles either showing new thoughts (and designs) or deprecating and replacing some designs that I reject.

And of course, I aim to find more time to write articles, especially on other subjects.

Video: Glyphosate and GM threaten monarch butterflies

2014-03-06T16:13:00.003+01:00

You may be aware that bees are under serious threat due to pesticides and other toxins in the environment. Likewise, the monarch butterfly risks becoming endangered, as genetically engineered corn and soya and other genetically modified crops have largely eliminated the monarch butterfly's sole food and breeding source, the milkweed. Glyphosate-based herbicides also destroy soil, plant, animal, and human health. A video explaining the plight of monarch butterflies as well as what you can do, is included with this article.

A group of scientists and writers are urging Mexican, American, and Canadian leaders to commit to restoring the monarch’s migration habitat. The proposal calls for planting milkweed all along the migratory path through the US; between fields, in ditches, along roadsides, and in public areas.

For those who live in North America, you can help by planting milkweed in your garden. You can also sign this petition asking the Environmental Protection Agency, US Department of Agriculture and President Obama to protect the monarch butterfly's breeding habitat by stopping approval of glyphosate-resistant genetically engineered crops.

It is thus vitally important that glyphosate usage, along with other pesticides, herbicides and GMO foods be banned. It is thus important that factory farming is also eliminated. An all natural wholesome balanced diet along with a healthy active lifestyle is the way to go, supporting organic farmers, honest labelling, animal welfare, real food and of course life on earth itself. Thus, it is recommended to eat organic where one can, and avoid GM or pesticide-laden food.

In addition to checking that the food is certified as organic, wish to avoid supporting those who oppose honest labelling of food when you, this poster shows who lobbied against the I-522 Right to Know campaign (a referendum in Washington state calling for honest labelling of food) and to know who to support in buying their produce. Even if one doesn't live in the USA, one can still avoid supporting the "lobbyists" by avoiding their goods. One can also check for the relevant labelling that the food is certified as organic in your country when buying food, for example in the UK by the Soil Association, in France by Agriculture Biologique, in Germany by Ökologischer Landbau - specifically one looks for a seal called das Bio-Siegel, "the organic seal", and in the USA by the USDA. EU countries also have an additional EU organic logo in addition to their national organic logo or seal.

Original source: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/03/04/monarch-butterfly.aspx

Reasons for drinking raw milk and avoiding processed milk

2014-01-16T17:48:00.000+01:00

(NaturalNews, 5th October 2013) Until the early 20th century, raw milk - natural milk sourced straight from the cow - was considered both a safe, nutritious drink and a medicine. Doctors would routinely prescribe it for a plethora of chronic ailments ranging from indigestion to constipation, and many cultures regarded it as a perfect food. After all, just as eggs provide all the nutrients needed to grow a healthy chick, milk provides all the nutrients needed to grow a healthy calf.

In this article, you'll find out why raw milk was held in such regard by every culture that consumed it. You'll also find out how today's processed milk, which has undergone pasteurisation and homogenisation, compares to it in the nutrition department.

Raw milk vs. processed milk

Vitamins

Vitamins A, C, D, E, and K are all found within raw milk, as are a large number of important B-vitamins such as choline, folic acid and vitamin B12. All of these vitamins have various roles, ranging from enhancing intestinal absorption of certain nutrients and boosting collagen production to aiding cellular metabolism or inhibiting free radicals. Processed milk, on the other hand, has a less impressive profile. Vitamins A and C are totally destroyed by the heating and pressing processes, as are 38 percent of the B-vitamins. Fortunately, vitamins D, E, and K remain intact.

Protein

All 22 standard amino acids are found in raw milk, including the eight essential amino acids that our bodies cannot make themselves. Consequently, raw milk is considered an excellent protein source for children and adolescents. Processed milk, however, suffers from a compromised amino acid profile. Studies show that pasteurisation kills at least two of these compounds (histidine and lysine), which destabilises the milk's protein structure and inhibits its absorption rate.

Minerals

Like all whole foods, raw milk enjoys a mineral profile that has been optimized by nature for superior absorption. For example, the magnesium in the milk helps our bodies absorb its calcium. Minerals always work in tandem, never in isolation. Now, can you guess what happens with processed milk? That's right - the amounts of each mineral within the milk is greatly diminished, completely disrupting the hitherto harmonious relationships between each nutrient. Consequently, some minerals (such as phosphorus and iodine) are difficult to absorb, whereas others don't get absorbed at all.

Fats

Raw milk provides us with all 18 fatty acids needed by our bodies, including conjugated linoleic acid. These fats boost brain function and cellular metabolism, help form healthy cell membranes and more. In processed milk, though, the homogenisation process actually oxidizes these fats, turning them carcinogenic. This makes processed milk toxic for us to consume.

Enzymes

Raw milk provides us with over 60 active enzymes that perform a wide range of tasks within our bodies. One of these enzymes is lipase, which helps us to actually digest the milk. Pasteurisation and homogenisation, however, destroy an enormous number of these enzymes - including lipase. Ever wondered why so many people have a difficult time digesting processed milk? It's because the very enzyme needed to digest it properly no longer exists after pasteurisation and homogenisation.

Conclusion

All of this information makes for an obvious conclusion: raw milk is a remarkable whole food, whereas processed milk is a foreign, toxic substance without nutritional balance or stability.

If you are unable to access organic raw milk in your country/region/state for whatever reason, it's better to stick with a nutritious milk substitute (such as organic almond milk or coconut milk) than pasteurised and homogenised cow's milk. The latter is but a grotesque shadow of its former self.

Sources

Original article

The original article can be read on NaturalNews.com. This article contains some minor adaptations but is not intended to change the meaning of the original article, and acknowledges the original source.

Three remedies for Alzheimer's Disease

2013-10-06T16:27:00.000+02:00

(NaturalNews.com, 5th October 2013 by J D Heyes) Medical science still has not figured out the puzzle of Alzheimer's disease, but there are some natural remedies that medical researchers say could offer substantial relief: colostrum, ashwagandha and turmeric.

Colostrum

There are those who argue that the mythical and elusive fountain of youth may actually exist, and that it can be found in something produced by every nursing mammal: colostrum.

Also known as "first milk," colostrum is a form of milk that is produced by the mammary glands of mammals (humans included, of courses), later in pregnancy. Most species will generate colostrum just prior to giving birth. Colostrum contains antibodies that protect newborns against disease, and it also contains a higher concentration of protein than regular milk, and it is lower in fat as well.

These protective benefits of colostrum have a long, rich history. Andrew Keech Ph.D., a New Zealand scientist and engineer and author of Colostrum: A Physician's Reference Guide, said ancient Egyptian art depicted Pharaohs drinking it to become immortal. Also, most farmers know that a new calf won't live long if it doesn't drink at least once from its mother's first milk.

In recent decades, there has been a renewed interest in colostrum and the benefits it provides. Scientists have discovered that the proteins contained in this first milk could hold vast treatment capabilities for such chronic maladies as Alzheimer's and rheumatoid arthritis. In fact, several of the proteins found in colostrum are growth and immune factors, and essentially "educate the developing gastrointestinal tract of newborns," an "essential process," according to BodyEcology.com.

How does it work?

Newborns have especially immature digestive systems. Colostrum delivers nutrients in a very low-volume, concentrated form, making them easier to digest. In fact, these nutrients contain a mild laxative, which helps a baby form its first stool, which is called meconium.

Colostrum is also known to contain antibodies known as immunoglobulins, the prime components of an infant's adaptive immune system, providing it with its first natural protection against pathogens.

But adults can also benefit from colostrum.

"Colostrum from pasture-fed cows contains proteins that are able to activate an immune response against human pathogens," says BodyEcology.com, including Escherichia coli, Cryptosporidium parvum, Shigella flexneri, rotavirus, Salmonella and Staphylococcus. In fact, before the advent of modern antibiotics - the development of which, by the way, is lagging, causing a rise in so-called "superbugs" that are resistant to antibiotics - humans protected themselves from infection using colostrum.

These benefits are being further substantiated by new research.

One study, for example, suggests that Proline Rich Polypeptides (PRPS) sometimes called Colostrinin, a component of colostrum, were found to improve the mental function of Alzheimer's patients, according to the Center for Nutritional Research.

In the study, 46 patients were divided into three groups. The first received colostrinin orally (100 µg every other day); the second received 100 µg every other day of commercially available bio-organic selenium and the third group received a placebo (Editor's note: Selenium is a trace mineral that is essential to good health but required only in small amounts; it "is incorporated into proteins to make selenoproteins, which are important antioxidant enzymes," according to the National Institute of Health).

Each patient completed 10 cycles of treatment, each of which lasted for three weeks with a two-week break, over the course of one year.

"Research demonstrates that colostrum with a phospholipid delivery system may be an excellent prophylactic against Alzheimer's disease, cognitive dysfunction and dementia. PRP, or colostrinin, a main component of colostrum, is known to improve the mental functioning of Alzheimer's patients," researchers concluded.

Ashwagandha

Researchers at India's National Brain Research Center have begun a series of studies involving an extract of the Ashwagandha root in mice, which "scientists found it can reverse memory loss and may prove to be an effective cure for the disease in humans," the Times of India newspaper reported recently.

Vijayalakshmi Ravindranath, a neuroscientist at NBRC, tested the semi-purified sample on genetically modified mice with Alzheimer's disease. Two sets of mice - middle-aged at nine to ten months and old mice at two years were given oral doses of the extract for 30 days, under continual observation.

Over the course of the month, researchers found a reduction in amyloid plaques, which is a symptom of Alzheimer's, in the mice's brains, as well as an improvement in their cognitive abilities.

Mice "were tested on a radial arm maze, where they are trained to go and pick food from four of the maze's eight arms," said Ravindranath. "Since the mice had Alzheimer's, they were neither able to learn nor retain the learning. But after 20 days of the Ashwagandha treatment, we noticed a difference, and after 30 days they had started behaving normally."

Curry, or to be precise, turmeric

A recent study conducted by researchers from Duke University found that regular consumption of turmeric (which is a staple of Indian cuisine and therefore curry), could reduce the risk of developing Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia.

"There is very solid evidence that curcumin (the active ingredient in turmeric and therefore curry) binds to plaques, and basic research on animals engineered to produce human amyloid plaques has shown benefits," said researcher Murali Doraiswamy. "You can modify a mouse so that at about 12 months its brain is riddled with plaques. If you feed this rat a curcumin-rich diet, it dissolves these plaques. The same diet prevented younger mice from forming new plaques."

Researchers began a clinical trial in Los Angeles in 2009. Scientists say because of the large amount of curcumin required to cause reductions, they are considering a curcumin pill.

Having said that it is always better to use turmeric in its natural form.

Sources

Center for Nutritional Research

http://www.icnr.org/home-page/colostrum-and-alzheimers-disease.html

National Institute of Health

http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Selenium-HealthProfessional/

Original article

The original article can be read on NaturalNews.com: NaturalNews.com - Tried everything? Three little-known natural remedies for Alzheimer's. This article contains some minor adaptations but is not intended to change the meaning of the original article, and acknowledges the original source.

Video: "Cancer: The forbidden cures"

2013-09-26T21:07:00.000+02:00

This article includes a video "Cancer: The forbidden cures", produced by the filmmaker Massimo Mazzucco. This video describes cures for cancer which are inexpensive and come from nature, but have been thwarted and suppressed by the drug-based medical profession and the pharmaceutical industry who cannot patent these natural cures.

Cancer is the only disease that has been defeated dozens of times without anyone knowing it. In the last 100 years, dozens of doctors, scientists, and researchers have developed diverse and effective solutions against cancer only to be thwarted by the political and propaganda power of the drug-dominated medical profession.
This is the story of Essiac, Hoxsey, Laetrile, Shark Cartilage, Mistletoe, and Bicarbonate of Soda all put together in a stunning overview that leaves no doubt that inexpensive cures for cancer do exist but are systematically blocked by Big Pharma because they come from nature and cannot be patented.
An excerpt from "Cancer: the forbidden cures"

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976 (USA): An allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favour of fair use.

Opting out of PRISM, the NSA's global surveillance program

2013-07-24T22:31:00.000+02:00

As you will have no doubt have seen in the news, the National Security Agency (NSA), a US government agency, has been running a hitherto top-secret global surveillance program called PRISM, in collaboration with US technology giants Microsoft, Google, Yahoo and Facebook among others (although Twitter was conspicuous by its absence from the leaked presentation slides).

Basically if you visit the website or use an application or Operating System of one of the collaborating companies, PRISM clandestinely logs your online activities. The activities of the NSA were leaked by ex-CIA operative Edward Snowden to Glenn Greenwald and hence the Guardian and the Washington Post (although the Washington Post subsequently heavily edited its story).

This article examines suggested alternative software and services according to the site PRISM Break and gives an analysis of the events. In any case, the Internet needs to be protected from governments and big corporations.

Which companies participated in PRISM

The following companies are involved in the PRISM scandal, according to the PRISM presentation slides:

Participating company	Since
Microsoft	11/09/2007
Yahoo	12/03/2008
Google	14/01/2009
Facebook	06/03/2009
PalTalk	07/12/2009
YouTube (owned by Google)	24/09/2010
Skype (owned by Microsoft)	06/02/2011
AOL	31/03/2011
Apple	October 2012

All the aforementioned companies are known for producing and providing proprietary closed-source services. Naturally, all Microsoft and Apple software is paid. Moreover, some of the above like Microsoft and Apple as well as Google are also known for their vendor lock-ins.

Twitter, however, is conspicuous by its absence from the slides, and does have a track record of attempting to resist demands to hand over data. Nonetheless, the PRISM Break website includes Twitter on its list of services to avoid due to Twitter itself being proprietary and closed source.

Suggested alternatives according to PRISM Break

The PRISM Break website gives a comprehensive list (in several languages as well as English) of free and open-source alternatives to proprietary and closed source software, and which also avoids sending data to the US NSA.

This website includes a list of recommended/alternative web browsers, web browser add-ons, web search, map services, instant messaging services, video conferencing / Voice over IP (VoIP), social networking, cloud storage, document collaboration, media publishing (WordPress.org, Noblogs.org, ZenPhoto, Piwigo, and MediaGoblin), email services, email clients, email encryption (OpenPGP, GPG, TorBirdy and add-ons based on OpenPGP), online financial transactions (BitCoin and alternative cryptocurrencies), web analytics (Piwik and Open Web Analytics), DNS providers, Darknet, Meshnet, alternatives to Android, warnings about Apple iOS (it is insecure), recommended Operating Systems, Live CDs and Virtual Machine images, XMPP Servers (for secure encrypted IM, OTR messaging, video-conferencing, gaming etc.), and SIP Servers (for secure encrypted video-conferencing and voice calls).

For example, instead of using Microsoft Internet Explorer, Google Chrome or Apple Safari, it recommends Firefox (which I use personally), GnuZilla IceCat and Tor Browser Bundle (the latter is encrypted).

And instead of using Microsoft Windows, Google Chrome OS, or Apple OS X, use one of the recommended Linux or BSD Operating Systems on your computer - Mint, Fedora, Debian and especially Trisquel are recommended by PRISM Break.

The PRISM Break site is a highly recommended read for anyone concerned about their privacy.

There are caveats however, for example PRISM Break warns that Mozilla Firefox and Mozilla Thunderbird recommend non-free add-ons, what to watch out for when using Tor (performance-related and complexity of setup), that there is no truly viable free and open-source search alternative although YaCy is promising. It is thus highly recommended to look at the Notes section for each entry in the PRISM Break website.

What you can also do to protect your privacy

In summary, you can do the following to protect your privacy:

Avoid social networking sites if you can, except for those recommended on PRISM break. However, it is possible that some of those social networking sites not connected to PRISM, particularly the proprietary sites, could be in the future (such as Twitter)
Surf using HTTPS - either using the HTTPS Everywhere plugin for Firefox, the Tor plugin for Firefox, or by using the Tor browser (which uses HTTPS everywhere as standard)
Create an alternate identity, then surf using a Proxy/VPN - Using an alternate identity for all digital communications, and using a Proxy or VPN to obscure your physical location
Encrypt your phone calls, or use a burner phone - You can either use burner phone services with disposable phone numbers or encrypted phone calls, but some of the services could be nullified by NSA backdoor access, and voice analysis could be used to trace the calls back to your identity.

Recommendations if you still intend to use the services involved in PRISM

If you still intend to use Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Youtube, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, Yahoo, Apple or DropBox services, it is best to treat these services as though you are in public (even if the said services are secure), so it is best not to divulge personal information at all on these services, especially in terms of content. And of course common sense applies, make sure you are within the law and never do anything illegal and immoral. Even though Twitter is not mentioned on the PRISM slides, the same advice applies.

How was this possible

A prior surveillance program implemented after the 11th September 2001 (authorised under the USA Patriot Act 2001, which authorised the "collection of business records" among other things) was criticised and regarded as illegal due to not including warrants issued by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (a court established as long ago as 1978, when the original Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was passed).

PRISM was enabled by the said court, enabled under President Bush under the Protect America Act 2007 and the FISA Amendments Act 2008. Congress under President Obama renewed this act for five more years.

It is worth noting that FISA Amendments Act 2008 enables intelligence agencies to monitor phone, email and other communications of US citizens for a week without a warrant when one of the parties is merely suspected of being outside the US. This enables US citizens to be spied on without a warrant, and US phone and internet companies are required to hand over data to the NSA or law enforcement agencies, and are forbidden from disclosing their involvement in surveillance.

In summary, human rights have been eroded in the US (and also the UK and other countries) in the name of "security" and "fighting the war on terror", among other things. Obviously they have not been eroded overnight, but gradually. The pattern is the same, first there is some event which arouses fear and hysteria, then the government either takes away some rights or declares a "state of emergency" or war.

What else is going on

Documents leaked by Edward Snowden have revealed that the US, with the aid of PRISM, has been spying on the EU mission in New York and its embassy in Washington. One document lists that 38 embassies have been bugged by the US, including those of France, Italy, Greece, India, Mexico and South Korea. The US has also been bugging the EU building in Brussels during the EU-US Free Trade talks. There was considerable anger aroused throughout the world, including in EU countries. The German Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger said that "If the media reports are accurate, then this recalls the methods used by enemies during the Cold War".

US Government and mainstream US media reaction to the leaks

The US government does not like leaks, has vowed revenge and is attempting to get the whistleblower Edward Snowden extradited. Snowden, who is attempting to gain political asylum, is currently in Moscow and his passport has been cancelled by his government. This is not the first time the US government has vowed revenge, remembering the leak of the US diplomatic cables through WikiLeaks - the government and opposition reaction in the US was vindictive to say the least. As a result, Julian Assange (who is believed to have risked facing extradition to the US if he was handed over to Swedish authorities on unrelated charges first) has been seeking asylum in the Ecuadorean embassy in the UK, while Bradley Manning is on trial and has already faced solitary confinement, both after leaking the US diplomatic cables.

Regarding the NSA spying scandal, it is also worth noting that the mainstream US media chose to focus on Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald rather than what has been leaked.

Who else was involved in PRISM

The UK's GCHQ has also allegedly been involved in using PRISM to bypass procedures (although recently cleared by an initial inquiry which was labelled as a whitewash by civil liberties groups), as well as maintaining its own spying program called TEMPORA, allegedly with even less regulatory oversight than of the FSA the United States. It is also claimed that both countries, along with Canada, Australia and New Zealand are alleged to have been involved in intelligence sharing with the US, as members of the Five Eyes alliance.

The need to protect the Internet from corporations and governments

In order to guarantee free speech and privacy, the Internet needs to be protected, especially against government and corporate interference. The government, often in the name of "national security", or corporations or their representatives and lobbyists (or both considering the merger of state and corporate power in the United States and other countries) in the name of fighting "piracy". While fighting piracy and serious crime is legitimate and should be done, these should not be used as an excuse to curtail freedoms and basic human rights.

Privacy is a human right, everyone has the right to privacy. The same applies for free speech and alternative ideas, points of view and thoughts. It is really not worth giving up any rights or liberties in the name of temporary security. And the price of liberty is indeed eternal vigilance, we need to be watchful against attempts to curtail freedoms, and not be distracted. At the same time, we need more freedom, not less.

Sources and further reading

Big Green divestment call

2013-05-19T20:59:00.001+02:00

I came across an article by Naomi Klein on The Nation magazine regarding a call for Big Green, that is the large mainstream environmental organisations, to divest in fossil fuels. According to this article, several mainstream environmental have stopped investing in fossil fuel companies, others have not. This article summarises the main points and provides a link to the original article.

Fossil-Free Movement and other divestment movements

Launched just six months ago, the movements which demand fossil fuel divestment are really active. So far, 305 universities and colleges as well as 100 cities and states in the United States are involved. The divestment demand has also spread to Canada, Australia, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. So far the divestment movement has already claimed successes:

Four US colleges have pledged to divest from fossil fuel shares and bonds
Ten US cities, including San Fransisco and Seattle, have made similar commitments

Although there are details to work out, such as how to guarantee a firm commitment to honour these pledges, it can be seen that there is a strong support for this cause. The mission statement of the Fossil-Free Movement is:

If it is wrong to wreck the climate, then it is wrong to profit from that wreckage. We believe that educational and religious institutions, city and state governments, and other institutions that serve the public good should divest from fossil fuels.
Fossil-Free Movement mission statement

Environmental organisations who have not invested in fossil fuels

The following organisations have neither invested in nor hold endowments in fossil fuel companies:

Greenpeace
350.org
Friends of the Earth
Rainforest Action Network
Oil Change International
Climate Reality Project
Many smaller organisations

In addition, they either do not take corporate donations or place severe restrictions on them that extractive industries are easily ruled out and would never qualify. Some also own a few shares in fossil fuel companies, but only for the purpose of causing trouble in shareholder meetings.

Environmental organisations who have invested in fossil fuels

Some of the other powerful environmental organisations did act as if they had a stake in the fossil fuels industry, lead the movement to various false "solutions": carbon dioxide trading, carbon dioxide capture, carbon dioxide offsetting, "clean coal", natural gas as a transitional fuel. This created the illusion of progress whilst allowing the fossil fuel companies to continue mining, drilling and hydraulic fracturing (better known as "fracking"), business as usual and no change in other words. The environmental groups, along with the amount they have invested are all shown in this other article on The Nation.

The role of foundations and endowment funds

Purists would say that no green group is completely clean, since virtually every group takes money from endowment funds which are built on fossil fuel empire-foundations and continue to do so. The largest foundation of them all, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, had at least $958.6 million invested in just two fossil fuel giants, ExxonMobil and BP, in 2012.

Klein asks how the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation can fund research on malaria while investing in one of the biggest contributors towards climate change and increases in malaria. I would add: Let us not forget that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is the same foundation that has also invested heavily in GMOs and Monsanto (not to mention Coca Cola, McDonalds and vaccinations).

Divestment groups call for Big Green to divest

Klein comments that the divestment question has taken these groups by surprise because for decades they were able to make deals with polluters. Nowadays people are fed up with being told that the best way to fight climate change is to change their light bulbs and buy carbon offsets, while leaving the big polluters undisturbed. And they are eager to take the fight directly to the industry most responsible for the climate crisis by divestment in fossil fuels, hence the student divestment movement and environmental groups forming Fossil Free.

For a long time, forming partnerships with polluters was how the green groups proved they were serious. But the young people demanding divestment and the grassroots organisations campaigning for divestment in fossil fuels are calling for Big Green to cut ties with fossil fuels.

Original article

Read the original article in full on The Nation:
http://www.thenation.com/article/174143/time-big-green-go-fossil-free

Acknowledgements

This article is a summary of the original article, which was written by Naomi Klein on The Nation. The original article is copyright © The Nation 2013. Under the Fair Use provisions of the US Copyright Act (1976), this article summarises and provides comments on the original article.

A call to reform or repeal the EU Directive on Herbal Medicines

2013-05-19T20:48:00.000+02:00

This article calls for either the amendment or repeal of the EU Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive (2004/24/EC), the THMPD in short, enacted back in 31/03/2004 and in force as of 01/05/2011. This directive has licensing requirements for safety and quality, but also imposes steep costs typically between €97 000 (£80 000) and €145 600 (£120 000) due mainly to the cost of testing. This is because the licensing requirements are intended to be similar to those for pharmaceutical drugs. Not a single license is in place for Ayurvedic medicine or traditional Chinese medicine which have both been in use for thousands of years, along with herbal remedies from all over the world including the Amazon basin.

The problems caused by the THMPD

The problems that this directive causes is that it actually reduces customer choice due to many herbal medicines not being able to meet the steep licensing costs and it also risks putting manufacturers of natural based medicine out of business as well. Furthermore, explanations of the health benefits are no longer allowed on the packaging (or are allowed with restrictions).

Even though it had been recognised, even by the European Commission, that "Medical traditions such as [Ayurveda and Traditional Chinese Medicine] are based on a holistic approach, and the set of requirements for the simplified registration procedure under Directive 2004/24/EC is not appropriate for a global regulation of such medical practices.", several member states are still applying the Herbal Medicine Directive on holistic approaches as well as food supplements used for many years, rendering them illegal unless registered under the Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive.

It is wrong to class herbal medicines as if they are pharmaceutical-style drugs because herbal medicines are not necessarily purified, they are made from natural and biological sources - indeed purifying the active ingredients can change their nature and efficacy. The active ingredient alone in its pure form is not guaranteed to be the same as in its natural state with other ingredients, indeed there is a synergistic effect which modern science should investigate further and not dismiss.

The directive benefits pharmaceutical corporations

The notion of licensing practitioners of natural-based medicine sounds good in principle, after all it is good to be assured that the doctors are licensed, but only so long as it is fair and is done for the benefit of the people. The reality is that the directive was not drawn up for the benefit of the people or for herbal medicine. It was drawn up for the benefit of big pharmaceutical corporations, so they can help preserve their oligopoly and profits, and therefore eliminate the competition. The question is where the licensing money actually goes to and what it is used for. Licensing herbs is wrong in principle, because this is either a tax on clean living or making money from nature, from plants that grow naturally.

Unanswered questions

There are also unanswered questions. I wonder how much lobbying there was been behind the scenes by pharmaceutical lobbyists. The directive was drawn up due to "safety concerns due to health alerts from unlicensed practitioners of aristolochia", but who knows whether the said alerts are truly genuine and a scapegoat was needed, or whether these were staged events with dirty tricks behind the scenes in order to justify this directive.

There are also claims that this directive forms part of the Codex Alimentarius Code, originally conceived to codify food additives and to set up international food standards, but which has been accused of trying to make sure people are always unhealthy, of lowering the Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) of vitamins and minerals way below the true level, and ultimately of handing over control over food and health to big pharmaceuticals and big agribusiness.

Whatever the truth of the matter is, there is no denying that is hypocritical to criticise safety standards on herbal medicine while ignoring those who tragically receive overdoses of pharmaceutical drugs and other safety concerns.

A call to repeal or reform the THMPD

Any directive or law that is passed should be there to protect the people first and foremost, and should not be about preserving corporate oligopolies and corporate power. I thus call for the directive to either be repealed or to have the following reforms:

Exempt herbs from the definition as a drug. The manufacturing process is totally different between natural-based and chemical-based pharmaceutical medicine.
If there really is a need to classify herbal medicine, it should be done in an untreated natural based medicines category.
Eliminate the licensing costs for herbs.
While there is no harm in officially registering herbal medicine practitioners, the process should be fair to the public and the said practitioners.

Legal challenge by the ANH Europe

At the time of writing, the Alliance for Natural Health Europe have prepared (that is, raised funds) for the first stage of their legal challenge against this directive, a judicial review in the UK High Court, after which the ANH Europe aim to take their legal challenge to the European Court of Justice.

Labelling Matters - A CiWF, RSPCA, WSPA and Soil Association campaign

2013-05-19T19:55:00.001+02:00

The organisations Compassion in World Farming (CiWF), the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) and The Soil Association are campaigning jointly for clear method of production labelling regarding dairy products and meat. This campaign, which was launched in Westminster, is an EU-wide campaign. Without clear labelling, there is the danger of buying factory farmed produce without realising it.

The Labelling Matters campaign calls for clear and simple labelling which convey the chief characteristic of the production system (e.g. factory farm, free range, organic). This will enable customers to know how the animals were kept. In writing this article, I am giving my backing to this campaign.

Mandatory labelling

According to CiWF, 80% of animals are raised in factory farms every year in the EU, hidden away from the public view. By contrast, customers want to be sure that they can buy food that is better for animal welfare. Indeed, if mandatory labelling was required, the customers would gravitate towards buying produce coming from organic farms or farms with better animal welfare standards, they would most likely avoid factory farm produce. However, speaking as a customer, I would also like to be assured that the statement on the label is factually correct, that the animals were truly well looked after.

How you can help

Sign the letter to the EU Agriculture Ministers

If you are resident in one of the EU member states, you can sign this message addressed to the EU's Agriculture Ministers calling for clearer labelling. The European Commission has so far resisted calls for this despite the recent horsemeat scandal.

Sign the petition for clear labelling (UK residents only)

If you are resident in the UK, you can sign this petition calling for clear labelling of animal produce. This petition closes on the 3rd September 2013.

More information on the Labelling Matters campaign

For more information, you can visit the CiWF Labelling Matters campaign page.

What I would also like to see

This may be within or outside the framework of the Labelling Matters campaign, but on a related note, I would also like to guarantee that dairy calves are treated humanely and allowed to live and I would also like to see this fact labelled. In addition I wish to be sure that dairy cows themselves are always treated humanely and nicely.

More research verifies powerful anti-cancer properties of turmeric

2013-05-04T19:20:00.000+02:00

(NaturalNews.com, Friday 3rd May 2013) A growing body of research continues to pile up, showing that turmeric (Hindi: हल्दी "haldi") and its naturally occurring compounds have potent anti-cancer properties.

The turmeric root is one of the most important spices and traditional medicines across vast sections of Asia, and has been for hundreds of years. Indeed, turmeric has been used in India for millenia, and is central to Indian cuisine and also a major part of ayurvedic medicine. Scientists attribute many of turmeric's health benefits to the trio of naturally occurring chemicals known as curcuminoids, which give the root its characteristic yellow-orange color. The name curcumin, which technically refers to only one of the curcuminoids, is sometimes also used to refer to the entire group.

Although many studies have been performed on curcumin rather than on turmeric root itself, it is important to note that the body absorbs curcumin much more effectively from the root than from supplements.

Reviewing the research data

As early as 1996, enough research had been conducted on the cancer-fighting benefits of turmeric and curcumin that scientists were able to conduct a comprehensive review of these studies in the journal Nutritional Reviews. The authors noted that studies had shown that even at low doses, turmeric inhibits the accumulation of mutations in DNA. Turmeric tablets were also found to lower the concentration of mutagenic chemicals in the urine of smokers. These tablets also reduced DNA damage and helped repair precancerous lesions. In addition, the reviewers found that turmeric inhibits tumour formation in the skin, breast, mouth and gut.

Since the publication of this review, new research has only strengthened the evidence for turmeric's anti-cancer prowess. For example, one study conducted by researchers from Siebold University of Nagasaki, Japan, and published in the Journal of Clinical Biochemistry and Nutrition in 2010, found that healthy people who took turmeric tablets had higher blood concentrations of the cancer-fighting chemical geranylgeranoic acid (GGA) four hours later.

Turmeric targets cancer cells

In another study, published the same year in the journal Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, researchers from the University of Michigan found that a solution of curcumin and piperine (the chemical that makes black pepper spicy) stopped the propagation of breast cancer stem cells while leaving healthy breast cells unaffected. The piperine appeared to boost the natural tumour-suppressing powers of the curcumin. Notably, even the typically hard-to-treat hormone-receptor negative tumours were suppressed by curcumin.

A 2011 study conducted by researchers from Zheijian Provincial People's Hospital in China backed this up, finding that curcumin actually induced apoptosis (programmed cell death) in triple negative breast cancer cells - the most lethal form of breast cancer. Another 2011 study, by researchers from the University of Texas, noted that curcumin is remarkable for its effectiveness at inducing apoptosis while not just leaving non-cancerous cells alone, but actually improving their health.

The benefits of turmeric don't stop there. Curcumin is a potent antioxidant and anti-inflammatory, and can therefore help fight a number of chronic health conditions from heart disease and diabetes to dementia. In fact, studies have shown that curcumin actually suppresses the formation of the amyloid plaques linked with Alzheimer's disease. It has also been proven to be useful at relieving arthritis and improving the health of the liver and gall bladder.

Sources for this article

Reposted (with minor amendments) from NaturalNews.com: http://www.naturalnews.com/040177_turmeric_curcuminoids_cancer_cells.html

New look ready, more posts to come

2013-03-14T20:43:00.001+01:00

This blog now has a new look, and makes use of HTML5, CSS3 and JQuery. Feel free to let me know your thoughts on the new layout.

More articles will be coming soon, including but not limited to:

One or several articles on the PDF of road signs improvements, this will be coming soon.
Articles on the environment
Technology articles
Articles on health

Apologies once again for the lack of posts

2012-07-01T07:50:00.001+02:00

Apologies once again for the lack of posts, I have been busy with moving from Antibes to Lyon, where I now live permanently. So did not have much time to go online until recently. I have several articles in progress, so new posts will be coming soon.

Video: GMO Film Project

2012-05-20T13:13:00.001+02:00

I decided to share the video trailer to an upcoming film, GMO Film Project, which shows a father's discovery of GMOs via the symbolic act of Haitian farmers burning seeds in defiance of Monsanto's "gift" of 430 t of hybrid corn and vegetable seeds after the devastating earthquake of January 2010.

The film description notes that after a journey to Haiti to find out why hungry farmers would burn seeds, the real awakening of what has happened to food in the United States and what is at stake at the global food supply.

The dangers of unknown health and environmental risks, takeover of seeds, toxins, and food monopoly meets with a growing resistance of organic farmers, concerned citizens, and a movement to take back what has been lost.

Multinational agrochemical companies such as Monsanto (known for Agent Orange, rBGH, PCBs and Roundup) and Dow (known for Napalm) are contributing towards producing genetically modified food that have never been fully labelled or fully tested. Indeed Monsanto has resisted attempts at requiring labelling.

The small handful of corporations are attempting to control everything we eat worldwide - through buying, genetically modifying, and patenting seeds.

Furthermore, there were 148 600 000 ha of GM crops worldwide in 2010 (of which 66 800 000 ha were grown in the United States alone). One can find the full statistics, as well as which GM crops are grown country-by-country, here.

However, there is still time to save our planet and protect our food supply. As mentioned in previous articles in this blog, we can also take action ourselves. In addition to demanding full labelling of food, boycott anything from big agribusiness, stick to local, organic, natural and ideally fresh produce. Avoid anything with GMO, anything resulting from factory farming or intensive farming as well as also harmful chemicals (including pesticides and herbicides).

Further information

Organic farming can feed the world

2012-03-12T22:28:00.001+01:00

Those who defend genetically modified (GM) crops claim that biotechnology is necessary to feed the world and that non-GM and organic farming alone is not capable of producing enough food for everyone. This is pro-GM propaganda.

The reality is that organic farming can feed the world, all that needs to be done is to change the methods of farming, including stopping factory farming and intensive farming which is bad for our health and for our planet. As well as this, wastage needs to be eliminated, and there needs to be a change from unhealthy diets to a healthy and varied diet (where this applies).

"Feeding the Future", a report by The Soil Association

The Soil Association has produced a report titled "Feeding the Future", which argues that organic and other agro-ecological farming systems not only solve the world's hunger problems, but actually help to bring the world's poorest out of poverty when implemented.

By contrast, GM farming actually perpetuates and even creates poverty due to making farmers dependent on agribusiness corporations for next season's batch of self-destructing seeds (so-called "terminator seeds") as well as the often proprietary toxic chemicals (pesticides, herbicides, and fertilisers) to assisting in growing these proprietary seeds.

Organic farming produces higher yields

There was a study performed by the Rodale Institute which includes 30 years of research, which shows that organic farming actually produces higher yields than conventional methods (both GM and non-GM). And of course with organic farming, there is no need to use toxic pesticides and herbicides. And composting, manure and other natural fertilising methods actually help improve the soil quality.

Other studies have modeled 9 billion people can be fed in 2050 with a healthy diet in an environmentally sustainable way. In one such study, French researchers have assumed an average food consumption of 12 500 kJ per person per day and 2 090 kJ per animal per day, which is a decrease for higher income consumers but an increase in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Waste reduction would reduce food demand by 25% in the more developed countries. People would eat more diverse and healthy diets, with a 25% decline in demand compared to the present.

There was also a similar scientific study in Germany and Austria which found that organic agriculture can probably feed the world population of 9.2 billion in 2050 provided that relatively modest diets are adopted, with a low level of inequality in food distribution required to avoid malnutrition.

In conventional farming, 40% of the world's grains go to factory farms

As much as 40% of the world's grains are fed to livestocks in factory farms, according to the Soil Association, and this could rise to 50% if current trends continue. Of course, the natural food for grazing animals is grass, not grain (and certainly not soya), is it any wonder these animals get sick when they eat grain. And of course an intense amount of resources is required to grow the grains in the first place.

If grazing animals are grass-fed on pasture grasses (which result in healthier ruminant animals), and grains used to feed humans instead, human health could be improved dramatically worldwide and hunger can be dramatically reduced (if not eliminated) as an extra 3.5 billion people could be fed. In addition to what was stated in the report, if more people became vegetarian, that would further reduce food requirements as well as greenhouse gas emissions, as less meat is required.

Reducing or eliminating waste in the food supply

There is a great amount of waste of food, as much as a third ends up in the dustbin as waste. Waste is a particularly big problem in the developed world, in Europe and North America approximately 280 kg to 350 kg is wasted, compared to about 125 kg to 165 kg in lower income countries.

Food wastage in the lower income countries are mainly caused by financial and technical limitations in harvesting, storage, infrastructure, and packaging - reducing this wastage alone would have a significant impact.

For the higher income countries, reducing the wastage, coming up with ways of conserving food, or even coming up with ways of sharing unused food with those in need, will also have a big impact in reducing world hunger.

Sources and Further Reading

Apologies for the lack of posts since October 2011

2012-01-13T20:10:00.001+01:00

My apologies for the lack of posts. Unfortunately the last few months have been very busy lately, and last month alone I was commuting to Monaco (from Antibes) for my day job, so I have not had time lately, to finish and post the articles I have been working on.

I have had time to work on some articles, but they are not yet finished:

PDF summarising the signage suggestions in my article, will include some new signage
An article on technology
An article on the environment

These I aim to publish as soon as possible, and I have many more articles on these and other subjects planned for the future. Thank you for your patience.

Video: Civilisation types

2011-10-21T00:54:00.000+02:00

In this lecture, theoretical physicist Dr. Michio Kaku talks about the types of civilisation. A Type 1 civilisation would correspond to a Buck Rogers type civilisation, type 2 which would correspond to a Star Trek type civilisation, and type 3 which would correspond to a Star Wars type civilisation (specifically The Empire).

Apparently we are currently a Type 0 Civilisation, but transitioning towards a Type 1 civilisation, and according to current calculations we will reach Type 1 in approximately 100 years, but that this transition from Type 0 to Type 1 is also the most dangerous phase and that some people fear this transition. More details are in the video itself.

Video: Why batteries are primitive

2011-10-20T23:26:00.003+02:00

This is an interesting video I found on batteries. In this video, the theoretical physicist Dr. Michio Kaku explains why current battery technology is primitive, that today's batteries have far less energy per kilogram compared to petrol. The future possibilities look very interesting indeed - including using lots of carbon nanofibres or graphenes (a graphene sheet is a 2-dimensional layer of carbon atoms) to increase storage capacity dramatically, once nanotechnology matures of course.

What a UK metric road signs changeover could look like

2011-09-18T19:12:00.013+02:00

We have explained the need to go metric, to have metric road signs, and have given many examples of what metric road signs would look like. I also believe metrication is a good time to have a look at signage improvements including clutter removal. I do not plan on going into too much detail about the changeover, as metrication and road signs have been rather overdone (on this blog). But I do intend on looking at the key points.

Estimates of the cost

The UKMA estimated in its Metric Signs Ahead report back in 2006 that the metric changeover would have a likely cost of £80 million, whereas the DfT who were looking for excuses not to change and hoping to stop the debate, made an overinflated estimate of £760 million. To put both into perspective, both are much less than the roads budget of £7 billion (this despite an estimated revenue of £43 billion in Road Taxes every year - which is a separate issue entirely).

Even though it is not intended to be prescriptive, I recommend that the UKMA's changeover plan, and the UKMA's suggestions in the Traffic Signs 2.0 booklet, would be good places for the DfT (who would be responsible for the changeover, to start). I also believe the signage suggestions I have included in my articles are also good places to start.

My points on this article are not prescriptive either, indeed as correctly pointed out, this is from the point of view of an ordinary road user and cyclist, and therefore a layman (and I do not have any operational experience with road signs either), albeit someone who supports metrication and suggests symbolic signage as a means of reducing clutter. The experts will know how best to carry out the metrication conversion.

Preparatory changes

In my opinion, I would recommend the following being done as preparatory work (which can be done today):

Where "m" has been incorrectly used to abbreviate mile, replace "m" with "mi" or "miles". The usage of "m" to abbreviate miles should be made illegal with immediate effect.

As a temporary step "mi", can added as a permitted variant of "mile" or "miles", or alternatively the misused symbol can be covered up.

Start replacing all instances of "T" with "t", on weight restriction signs, where "T" (the symbol for tesla) has been incorrectly used to denote tonne. The correct symbol for tonne is "t".
As a matter of urgency, start replacing imperial restriction signage with dual unit at least, as there is a safety issue from not having metric restriction signs. Dual unit should continue to be prohibited from all other signs.
Imperial-only restriction signs should be prohibited (in other words, reinstating what the previous government was planning).
Time should be converted from 12 hour to 24 hour (the necessary laws can be changed if required). This can be done today with no safety issues.

Otherwise these can be started as once the metric changeover has started. Then metrication proper can begin, once the correction of signage is done (or otherwise).

Announcement and metrication proper

The government has to announce plans for metric road signs:

Preparing for the changeover, in terms of funding, project planning, contracts, needs to be done.
The following need to be added to the list of authorised units: m and km. In addition, km/h will replace mph on the day of the changeover itself as an authorised unit.
The following need to be removed from the list of authorised units: inch, foot, yard, mile. Savings regulations would apply.
The use of "m" to mean miles should be made illegal, if this has not already been done. "mi" can be temporarily be added as a permitted variant of "m" until the end of the changeover.
Only 24 hour time should be authorised. Savings regulations would apply to unconverted signs.
A date for the changeover to metric speed limits needs to be named:
- The only authorised unit for speeds from the changeover day onwards will be km/h.
- Taking effect from the changeover day, miles per hour will no longer be authorised.
The government can require metric-primary imperial-secondary speedometers with km or dual-unit odometers in new cars.
Metric-only speedometers and odometers would be required from the day that the speed limit signs are all converted to km/h.
The start of the distance signage conversion can begin immediately
Speed limit changeover preparation can begin.
Stakeholders need to be involved early on in the planning of the changeover. Effective communication is necessary.
There needs to be a campaign of publicity, especially in the months leading up to the day speed limits go metric, where there needs to be a shorp sharp campaign of publicity.

Distance signage changeover, as well as implementing the Vienna Convention properly at the same time, can begin gradually, spread out over a longer period:

Gradually metricate all distance supplementary plates (with an accuracy of 90%).
- Can use m up to 3000 m
- Between 3 km and 10 km one can use km, and round to the nearest 0.5 km.
- For 10km onwards, one can round conversions to the nearest 1 km
- Supplementary plates which show length of a hazard should be made symbolic, for example replace "For 6 miles" with "↑ 10 km ↑".
Start or continue replacing "T" with "t".
Start or continue replacing 12 hour time with 24 hour time
Start or continue replacing "m" (incorrectly used to mean miles) with "mi"
Once no sign has "m" used to abbreviate miles, the relevant distance signs can be metricated (including motorway exit and services signs):
- For these type of signs, I would prefer to see m (metres) rather than km, it is my opinion that it is safer and more accurate, but it is certainly my preference.
- Using km does however allow the m (miles) -> mi step to be skipped completely.
Gradually metricate all other distance signs, including route confirmation and other signs. to an accuracy of 90%.
- For route confirmation signs, distances less than 1 km should be rounded to the nearest 0.1 km.
- Distances from 1 km to 10 km (inclusive) should be rounded to the nearest 0.5 km.
- Distances 10 km or greater should be rounded to the nearest 1 km.
Replace all imperial-only restriction signs with metric-only signs. Dual-unit signs can be replaced with metric-only signs either as part of this changeover, or as part of post-metrication maintenance.
Configure (or if required replace) 2-digit variable speed limit signs to make them capable of displaying speed limits of 100 km/h or more.
This is a good time to consider removing clutter, and making signs more symbolic. Both should be included where they relate to metrication.
I strongly suggest modifying the graphics for lane restrictions as shown in this previous article in particular, and several other articles (especially the roadworks articles). It makes lane restrictions clearer.
The signage improvements I have suggested can either be included or deferred as post-metrication work

Why metres instead of kilometres on certain distance signs?

I have been asked as to why I suggest metres and why not kilometres and decimal fractions of a kilometres, on certain exit signs (specifically motorway exit signs and service signs) and on supplementary plates. So that 1 mile is replaced by 1600m and so on. For the record, I do not oppose using km on motorway (and other) exit signs and service signs in principle, as long as the correct symbol is used (km). But the concern I have is that if decimal points are used e.g. in 1.6 km, then there is a risk of someone missing the decimal point when glancing at the sign while driving at speed, thus the distance of 1.6 km could be confused for 16 km (even when the 6 is made smaller than 1).

I do not oppose km on motorway exit signs in principle, and if it can be proven that 1.6 km, 0.8 km, can be read safely at a distance and at speed and not cause anyone to misread 1.6 km as 16 km or 0.8 km as 08 km, then I would not have a problem with it. I have not heard of this being done in any country with wholly metric road signs, which is almost the entire world - either whole numbers of km or whole numbers of m are used. I have not heard of anyone converting or planning to convert (in continental Europe), say 1500 m to 1.5 km. Note however, that the use of vulgar fractions (¹⁄₄, ¹⁄₃, ¹⁄₂, ²⁄₃, ³⁄₄, etc.) is not recommended, as this is not standard under SI, standards should be respected.

But sticking only to metres avoids this issue in the above paragraph. Yes, it means 1 or 2 extra characters for distances of 1000 m or greater, up to 3000 m but I don't see this as a problem, and a four digit number followed by a symbol with one letter does not constitute clutter. Plus if people are familiar with 1500 m races, I say why not have 1500 m on road signs too. And as already explained in my other article, it also gives more flexibility in terms of signage placement or conversion, the 90% accuracy rate is maintained, and there is no problem reading this at a glance. I don't see an extra 1 or 2 extra digits as a problem as clutter.

For using metres though signs I would recommend that the signs be rounded to the nearest 100m and only use multiples of 100m where possible, so use 500m, 1000m, 1200m, 2000m etc. However I do agree that 1250m, 2750m for example should be avoided, as it is best to keep the numbers simple.

Speed limit changeover - preparation and the changeover

In the previous articles, "Speed limit signs", and the related article "Improvements for UK speed related signs", example signage has already been shown. The focus of this subsection is on the preparation and changeover processes.

For speed limit signs, the changeover ideally has to be overnight for obvious reasons, but can be spread over a long weekend. What can also be considered is to having England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland work to different timetables, with Northern Ireland first to finish going metric. The UKMA has suggested within 3 years of the metric road signs announcement, so that the changeover would happen at the middle of the 5 year changeover for all of the UK.

That said, in principle the speed limit changeover can also happen at the beginning (as in Canada) or at the end (as in Australia and Ireland). For me I am not bothered when it happens as long as it happens, and above all as long as it is done properly. If it is done properly, quickly, swiftly, and above all with a short sharp campaign of publicity beforehand, then the public will adapt quickly, just like members of the public in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Ireland, and so many other countries that finished their changeover to metric speed limits. There is no reason why the UK should be any different.

The speed limits would need to be reviewed, to see whether they are appropriate for the area. There would be more choices available for those making decisions on speed limits, but they should take into account whatever the conditions are - so near an accident blackspot, where there are a lot of pedestrians, or (especially) near a school, it would make sense to reduce the speed limit, if necessary even lower than the converted speed limit.

But by default, the posted speed limit changes are expected to be converted as follows:

Speed limit before (imperial)	Speed limit before (equivalent metric)	Speed limit after (metric)
5 mph	8 km/h	5 km/h
10 mph	16 km/h	10 km/h
15 mph	24 km/h	20 km/h
20 mph	32 km/h	30 km/h
25 mph	40 km/h	40 km/h
30 mph	48 km/h	50 km/h
40 mph	64 km/h	60 km/h or 70 km/h
50 mph	80 km/h	80 km/h
60 mph	96 km/h	90 km/h or 100 km/h
70 mph	112 km/h	110 km/h or 120 km/h

Note that I have included all possible cases, speed limits of 20 km/h or lower would be expected to be found on private roads.

Examples of a minimum and maximum speed limit conversion is shown below:

Examples of conversion of minimum and maximum speed limit signs from on changeover day, with subtitles removed gradually after metrication.

Post-metrication changes are also shown in the diagram above, the gradual removal of the km/h subtitle after the changeover day, but this is described in more detailed in the next subsection within this article, "Post-metrication changes".

Some might worry that a 2 km/h (slightly more than 1 mph) speed limit increase for urban areas will be unsafe, but one has to remember that in the UK, speedometers are required to have a tolerance of 10% + 2 mph (i.e. up to 35 mph). 50km/h would fall within the tolerance of the old speed limit. Plus 50 km/h is the default for urban areas in the vast majority of countries, including Germany which in particular has a very good road safety record. There are other factors besides speed when considering road safety as well. Nonetheless, it is worth also considering introducing 40 km/h speed limits or 40 km/h Zones (as I would recommend) where safety can benefit.

Rural roads have a high accident rate, so it is worth considering reducing the default speed limit there. For cars and motorcycles on rural roads, one can have a speed limit of 80 km/h as in Ireland, 90 km/h as in France, or one can increase the limit instead and have the default speed limit set to 100 km/h as in Germany. Similar adjustments would need to be made for other vehicles as well as cars. But it would also make sense to review the roads and see which speed limits are more appropriate (and where necessary introduce lower posted speed limits). Metric speed limits gives more limits to choose from and the limits can be tailored better to local conditions.

For the default motorway speed limits for cars, given that the existing limit is 70 mph (112 km/h), the limit can be reduced to 110 km/h, or increased to 120 km/h. An increase in the speed limit would be popular, and 120 km/h falls within the 10% + 2 mph tolerance for the current speed limit in the UK.

Other possibilities include raising only the motorway limit to 130 km/h (for which the motorway would need to be better maintained) which would be popular especially with motoring groups, but that environmental groups would be unhappy with. Another is to reduce both motorway and dual carriageway limits to 100 km/h which environmental groups would laud but motoring groups would be very unhappy with.

The dual carriageway limit, whether or not expressways or expressroads (Kraftfahrstraßen / Voies rapides) are introduced will also need to be considered. Expressways should have identical limits to dual carriageways for all vehicles to avoid confusion if they are introduced in this changeover.

Vehicle speed limits should be brought in line with speed limiters where applicable. This is easy to do and does not require signage. However, the limits for other vehicles need to be defined in terms of metric.

One example I have come up with for default speed limits, based on existing rules, is as shown below (and using road sign graphics):

Default speed limit per vehicle class, this is an example. Note that there are currently no roads classed as Expressways (Kraftfahrstraße / Voies rapides) in the UK.

Lorries and buses, which already have primarily metric speedometers (and secondary imperial) and metric odometers, will need metric-only stickers which state the speed limiter settings. This could be required today with no consequences, as motorists in the UK will already Examples are shown below:

Speed stickers for various classes of vehicle.

Notice how km/h subtitles were included. But given that there are already lorries from continental Europe with these stickers on the back without the subtitle, saying "90" or "80", it obviously cannot be mph, it is km/h. Even though this could be deferred until after the changeover, I personally don't see any safety issues in having speed stickers without the km/h subtitle on the day of the changeover, or even before, but that is just my opinion.

Speed stickers for various classes of vehicle. No km/h subtitle was included.

And that is to prepare for the changeover. As well as this, the new speed limit signs can either be manufactured in advance for the changeover (which would look better), or adhesive stick-ons (which would be cheaper).

There is the question about what to do about variable speed limit signs. The UKMA has expressed concern that the DfT is not planning for the future, by installing variable speed limit signs only capable of displaying 2 digits. Readers on this blog said they would be surprised if this was true. Either way I hope that it can be reconfigured to support 3 digits, otherwise these would have to be (physically) replaced. Either way, variable speed limit signs do need to support 3 digits, the first digit would always be a 1 in three-digit speed limits however.

In the final months leading up to the speed limit changeover, there would need to be a short, sharp campaign of publicity, using all available media, with posters and adverts used as necessary. The public must have it made clear that speed limits will be metric. Even though speedometers are required to be dual unit in the UK, there is concern that in some cars with analogue speedometers, the metric-part is unreadable. So it is worth making sure that everyone has a conversion chart ready for the changeover (as well as what the new default speed limits for different classes of road), as part of the general publicity.


Metric speed limits and their imperial equivalents. This can be printed and used.

During the day of the changeover, one idea could be to turn off speed cameras as an incentive for motorists. And gradually reconfigure speed cameras to use metric, or turn them off for a limited time period, reconfigure to metric, then turn them back on. Alternatively speed cameras can be reconfigured (or replaced if required) to use metric signs on the day of the changeover. However, I believe that speed cameras should only be used in areas where there is a genuine need to do so, like on accident blackspots, not as a revenue generating machine, so metrication would be a good time to see which speed cameras are actually needed, but that is another issue for another article, and has almost nothing to do with metrication. Furthermore, the public will already be clear that the speed limits will be metric due to the changeover publicity beforehand.

Other consequences of the changeover are quite minor, the highway code will be revised (including graphics and measurements), along with the relevant literature (for example the traffic signs manual), anyone in the car, motorcycle, or van industries will have to start recording distances in km from changeover day rather than miles, distance travelled for expenses reports etc will also be in km rather than miles, however one can convert from miles to km if the distances are given in miles for older cars - this is only what British and American car owners have to do if they bring their cars abroad to anywhere else in the world if they move (except the UK or USA among the major countries). As mentioned earlier, UK-registered buses and lorries already have odometers and tachymeters in km, as well as primarily-metric speedometers, and km based speed limiters, and taxis have km based tachymeters too.

Post-metrication changes

As a post metrication task, it is worth removing the km/h subtitle. It is useful as a reminder once the speed limit changeover has been completed that the speed limits are now in km/h, as was done in Ireland. However, after the changeover it becomes clutter, and can be phased out. New signs with just the number in a red circle can replace the signs with subtitle gradually.

The signage improvements below can be done as a separate post-metrication task too, where applicable, as described in the subsection "Signage improvements" below.

Signage improvements

As for my thoughts in the "signage improvements" and signage suggestions, I believe that they are best done as a post metrication task if cost is an issue, or it can be incorporated into metrication (but I believe this would increase the budgetary requirements). Or they can be done today where they have nothing to do with metrication. But I would recommend incorporating the signage improvements as they are intended to make signs easier to read at a glance, and reduce clutter. Indeed, as well as being fully metric, British signs should also respect international standards (and agreements), be fully compliant with and implement fully the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals, use graphics rather than text where applicable (even on supplementary plates), and clutter should be removed where it exists.

You will have noticed that many of my designs are based on examples from continental Europe, especially Germany, as I believe these have examples of good practice that can be incorporated into British signage where applicable. Signs from continental Europe tend to be symbolic and easy to understand (even if you know zero of the spoken language you can still drive there without problems). British signs in general mostly follow this principle too as a result of the work done by the Worboys committee which is very good indeed (a shame that metrication wasn't included within their remit as well), but there is still room for improvement and clutter removal - these have been identified in my articles, and I have looked at signs from continental Europe, especially Germany, as examples of good practice for clutter free wholly symbolic signs.

Planning on sending my thoughts

I am planning on sending my thoughts to the DfT, on metrication, 24 hour time, and my thoughts on possible signage improvements (in the form of a PDF document), and either responding to consultations or mailing the DfT directly. If anyone wishes to add anything, or would like to add anything, please feel free to let me know and I will include your suggestions that I agree with or see the benefits of. At the time of writing, I am planning on sending my thoughts to the DfT at some stage in the future. I also plan on mentioning this in a future consultation on road signs as well, although I am not sure if it will be possible given that I live permanently in France.

The more controversial designs I have decided to reject myself - the relevant articles have already been updated.

Acknowledgements

And finally I would like to thank all those who read and commented on my articles on metrication and signage improvements, and in particular Kevin Steinhardt, Bryn Buck, Alexander, Andrew, Hughster, Gareth Parr, Tahrey, Mark, SwanseaSteve, WJG, Simon Patterson, all the anonymous commenters, the SABRE members not already mentioned, and everyone else not already mentioned, for taking the time to read my articles and review my designs. Your feedback, praise, and constructive criticisms were most invaluable. I have tried to take into account your suggestions where possible when making updates to my articles. Once I have sent my thoughts, we will see how the DfT responds.

Could sign colours (motorway, primary route, local route, roadworks) be standardised?

2011-08-28T20:38:00.002+02:00

Anyone who has driven through Europe will have noticed that the road sign colours are not uniform for motorways, primary routes, non-primary / local routes, and roadworks signs. The differences are explained in more detail here. Could the colours for these signs be standardised in Europe, if not worldwide? Even though there is no safety issue from leaving things as they are, the purpose of this article is to start a discussion.

As demonstrated in the link above, many countries in Europe use blue for motorway colours (UK, France, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Spain, etc.), there are also many who use green (Italy, Switzerland, and Sweden for example). For primary routes, the UK, France, and Ireland all uses green, whereas Germany and Luxembourg uses yellow (the colour of roadworks in UK and France), Sweden uses blue, and Spain uses white. For local routes in the UK, Ireland, and France the colour is white, whereas white is used for urban routes only in Germany. So this alone illustrates that there is no uniformity regarding colour schemes in Europe, let alone the world.

I believe there is no serious safety issue from leaving things as they are. Someone from the UK might mistake a primary route for a motorway in Sweden on signs where no motorway symbols are present, and vice versa, but that's about it - but this can easily be rectified by being familiar with signs before visiting anywhere. But standardisation does make life much more convenient, because this then means you only need to learn one set of signs in your home country, and it would be the same everywhere.

I think that if this was ever to be proposed, I would naturally suggest using the UK colour scheme of blue for motorway, green for primary routes, and white for local routes. However, I would suggest black text on a yellow background for temporary signs instead of the white text on a red background currently used in the UK (Black text on yellow background is easier on the eye than white text on red).

Although this is not an important issue, I was wondering what you think. Should we standardise on a single colour scheme for motorways, primary routes, local routes, and roadwork sign colours, and if so, what colours do you think should be used within Europe (and internationally)? Please feel free to discuss.

More thoughts on tunnel signage and tunnel safety

2011-08-28T16:00:00.000+02:00

In this article, I give more thoughts on tunnel signage as well as tunnel safety. For me, metrication is a big must, and the only thing really needed, as well as ensuring the signs are as clutter free as possible, and which respect international standards, specifically SI (metric system) and the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals.

Tunnel entrances

I found this on Wikipedia, on an image of the (Mersey) Queensway Tunnel, a metric distance sign in use in the UK, when looking for tunnel entrance images in use in the UK. For some reason, the sign is on the right hand side of the road only, and apart from lack of space, I wonder why this is. This gives an example of such a tunnel entrance sign, and it is already metric:

Warning sign meaning Queensway / Birkenhead tunnel ahead.
The tunnel length is 3420m.

Since this sign is already metric, this does not really require change, and I think this type of sign is perfectly good for a tunnel entrance sign. However, what I would suggest is that the actual length symbol be used, to make it clear and unambiguous that the measurement shown is the length of the tunnel, and cannot be confused with "3240m ahead". So that the supplementary plate would say "Mersey Queensway ↑ 3240m ↑":

Queensway / Birkenhead tunnel, the tunnel length is 3420m.
The sign above makes it clear that 3420m is a length (not the distance ahead).

Personally, I am perfectly happy for this sign to remain as is, and the same approach is used in Sweden and Norway, according to this comparison. I do have one question though, apart from lack of space, I do wonder why does this metric sign only appears on the right hand side of the road.

However, it is worth noting that technically the tunnel in a red triangle means "Warning of a tunnel". If there ever was the need to distinguish "Tunnel ahead" with "Tunnel regulations start here", we could consider using the sign shown in the example below, as is used in France, Germany, and in fact the vast majority of the countries in Europe (regardless of whether these countries are in or out of EU):

About to enter the Anytown tunnel.
The tunnel length is 3582m.
This sign is not used in the UK.

The above has been included for completeness, to see what British designs of such signs could look like. My opinion though, is that the existing designs, with the red triangle warning of the tunnel and the name and length of the tunnel in a supplementary plate, are fine and can be left as is.

Metrication of signs warning of a tunnel ahead (mandatory)

Of course, what is compulsory, is that a warning sign showing the tunnel a certain distance ahead needs to be metricated, an example is as shown below:

Tunnel 300m ahead, after metrication.

Metrication of restrictions signs (mandatory)

And of course, the signs showing restrictions on entering a tunnel need to be metricated as part of a general metrication programme, as illustrated in this article (the same article also pointed out a serious error on the sign itself). Metrication has to happen. In addition regarding the text "TUNNEL RESTRICTIONS", superfluous words can either be removed or replaced with symbolic equivalent, or more helpful wording (e.g. in the example in the link, Rotherhithe tunnel, or symbol of tunnel with Rotherhithe next to it).

Following distances (Suggested new signs)

In a tunnel, one can also consider higher following limits for lorries, and higher still for lorries carrying hazardous materials or water pollutants (which would either need its own sign, or supplementary plate). For example for cars it could be 100m, for lorries 150m, for lorries carrying hazardous materials 200m, but the actual distances can vary from tunnel to tunnel depending on speed, conditions, road classification, etc.

Below are example following restriction signs which were shown in one of our previous articles here:

70 m minimum following distance for vehicles 3.5 t or heavier

80 m minimum following distance for motor vehicles

Outside tunnels (and as an aside, mountain passes), I cannot see the following distance restriction signs being used anywhere else, and I don't believe they should be either in my opinion.

The overriding priority should be to improve tunnel safety

Note that the overriding priority however must be to ensure and improve tunnel safety, including by modernising the tunnels (many of which were built a long time ago, in Victorian times, and at an age when traffic levels were much lower). Furthermore, back in 2002, there was a report saying that some UK tunnels had been rated among the worst in Europe for safety.

I understand that in the UK, work is (or was) in progress in the UK to upgrade tunnels to match European safety standards, judging by this article on the Queensway tunnel. In general anything that helps improve safety in tunnels should be incorporated.

But one should not ignore signage. This is because clear, unambiguous, symbolic signage which is understood internationally can be read at a glance, be understood straight away, and therefore can potentially help improve safety. In addition, maintaining a safe following distance can only help in that regard. Where applicable, signs to remind people dipped headlights are required and when to turn them off on exit can also be considered (graphical is best of course), but only if actually needed. As well as this the motorists also need to be aware of what to do in the event of an emergency in a tunnel. All these measures should help.

From my experience, I have driven through the numerous tunnels between Nice and Monaco and they were well lit (not only on the top, and with numerous overhead electronic signage, but there was also lighting on the sides) and the signs (both before and in the tunnel) were easy to understand.

More signage suggestions and why the UK should properly implement the Vienna Convention

2011-08-28T14:48:00.000+02:00

In my previous articles, I have given my thoughts and ideas on possible signage improvements, the aim being to remove clutter and make the signs clearer, more symbolic, and language independent, as well as what British metric signage might (and in my opinion should) look like. This is because metrication and the conversion to 24 hour time would be an ideal time to rationalise road signs, not to do so would be a missed opportunity. But I also believe strongly that the UK should implement properly the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals that the UK already signed up to.

In this article, I give more signage suggestions that (hopefully) are compliant to the Vienna Convention, and that respects the standards including SI, and using 24 hour time format.

More signage examples

Here are yet more examples of removing superfluous plates / superfluous text, or replacing with a supplementary plate showing the symbolic equivalent. Metrication is also shown.

No vehicles sign.
Before removal of supplementary plate (left);
After removal of supplementary plate (right)

No vehicles sign.
Before conversion to 24h time and removal of superfluous text (left);
After conversion to 24h time and removal of superfluous text (right)

Ice warning sign:
Before removal of "Ice" supplementary plate (left);
After removal of "Ice" supplementary plate (right)

The warning of ice ahead sign already has the graphic for ice, so the "Ice" supplementary plate appears redundant, although I think there is a case for retaining the "Snowdrift" supplementary plate.

It is worth considering using symbolic supplementary plates. If supplementary information can be expressed graphically it should be, as it avoids the need to translate anything, and usually the symbolic or almost completely symbolic signs are smaller. Examples are shown below:

Slippery road due to ice. The warning sign is for slippery road,
the supplementary place meaning ice says ice is the reason.

Slippery road due to ice, for 6 km. The warning sign is for slippery road,
the supplementary place meaning ice says ice is the reason. Note that
"↑ 6km ↑" should always be used to mean "For 6 km", there is no need to use words.

An example of a wholly graphical supplementary plate, in this example is for an overhanging tree. This does not exist in the UK (but does in Germany), but could be used if there were ever overhanging trees, as an alternative to stating in words "Overhanging tree":

General warning sign (which already exists) with a symbolic supplementary plate
meaning overhanging tree (which does not currently exist in the UK).

The above proposal is just a draft. The supplementary plate above could be made smaller (or perhaps be used in the red triangle instead), but that is an aside. The main point of the example above to illustrate that one can use graphical supplementary plates even for general warning, where possible. There are some cases where this might not be easy, for example "Hidden dip".

Adverse camber supplementary plate with superfluous text (left);
Adverse camber supplementary plate, superfluous text removed (centre);

Dead end / cul-de-sac except for cycles (left);
Alternative design for "Cul-de-sac except for cycles" (right)

Farm traffic sign before removal of supplementary plate (left);
Farm traffic sign after removal of supplementary plate (right);

Symbolic replacements for "IN", "OUT", "NO ENTRY", "NO EXIT", and
"BUSES ONLY", using existing signs. I wonder why the symbolic equivalents
are not currently used.

Symbolic replacement for exceptions signs. In this case it is possible to replace buses and cycles with a symbolic equivalent, taxis replaced with the word taxi. Note how the
symbolic sign is smaller.

Recommendations for lane restriction signage

You will have noticed that in my designs for signs with lane restrictions or lanes where vehicles are permitted, I have made sure the arrow "goes through" the graphic - usually a restriction but can also be graphics of vehicles allowed (e.g. cycle lane, crawler lane). I believe this makes it clear that the lane has restrictions or is recommended/mandatory for certain vehicles.

Lane with restriction:
Not recommended (left);
Recommended (right)

Regarding the example above, although they technically both mean the same thing and are both graphical, the image on the left could also mean "we are going towards a restriction". I believe the image on the right is much clearer and unambiguously means lane restriction - plus done in a certain way space can be saved too. It is better to be clear and unambiguous hence the recommendation.

Below are some examples of such modifications, all of which already appear in previous articles:

Metrication and improvements for the road works get in lane sign.

Metrication and improvements for the road works stay in lane sign.

LGV restriction on a lane for 3000m, note that the format "↑ 3000m ↑" should
always be used, as prescribed by the Vienna Convention.

Lane shift with a contraflow and a 2m width restriction.

Suggested wholly symbolic crawler lane sign, based on existing designs.

Simplify worded signs if words are still needed

In general I strongly discourage text, in particular where the text is redundant or can be replaced by the equivalent symbol. However there might be some cases where using simplified text can be used - but only where the text is really necessary and cannot be avoided.

For example there is "REDUCE SPEED NOW" which is self-explanatory. Of course in Wales the signs would be twice as big to include the Welsh translation. I would suggest either replacing with a distance (or if possible removing "REDUCE SPEED NOW" if safe to do so), or simplifying the text by saying something in one word instead, like "SLOW" or "DANGER", which minimises the translation required where applicable.

And of course there are some cases where it is necessary to retain text: "Red Routes" and "part-time signals" are two such cases. Best is to try to keep the text as simple as possible and minimise the words needed where text is required. Of course it is always better to use symbolic equivalents instead where possible.

Why the UK should fully implement the Vienna Convention

The reasons why the UK should fully implement the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals that it has signed up to, is because it would standardise signage, make them language independent, clearer, and help deal with the problem of clutter. This standardisation is not for the sake of standardisation (nor should it be, and nor were the designs in this blog intended to be), indeed if signs are the same (or are similar enough) and have the same meaning everywhere that can prevent misunderstandings and therefore anger and accidents thus benefitting safety, and potentially saving money as a result. The smaller and less cluttered signs are safer to handle and cheaper to manufacture and maintain.

I think it would be a good thing if every country signed and ratified, and was therefore a contracting party to the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and signals as this is good for international travel. As already mentioned, the UK has already signed and ratified the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals, as have 62 other countries worldwide, but height restriction signs in the UK are not compliant.

Indeed, Vienna Convention only prescribes metres for height, width, length restriction signs. Too many bridge strikes have resulted from drivers not understanding height or width restrictions in feet and inches only, taking a chance, and the bridge gets damaged and peoples' safety and even lives potentially at risk.

In order for UK height, width, and length restriction signs to comply with the Vienna Convention, signs must as an absolute bare minimum be dual unit (which is currently allowed and recommended for routes used by foreign drivers and on main roads), better would be to permit (with view to later requiring) metric-only restriction signs which are simpler and easier to read at a glance. This is for safety reasons for all motorists, not just foreign drivers alone. I have already given my suggestions for metric only restriction signage in this previous article.

No overtaking signage: Metrication and other suggestions

2011-08-25T22:22:00.002+02:00

In this article I share my thoughts on "No overtaking signage". Not much needs to be done, except for metrication, making the supplementary plates more symbolic, and given the sign means no overtaking already, then perhaps remove the supplementary plate "No overtaking" (and thus eliminate the need to translate for bilingual signs too).

In addition a new sign "No overtaking for lorries" can be considered. This could be used for example, on some sections of 2 lane dual carriageways or motorways where "elephant racing" (lorries attempting to overtake other lorries) is a problem and is slowing down traffic significantly (an example is part of the M3), but I wouldn't advocate "No overtaking for lorries" being used everywhere - only when absolutely necessary and where there is a safety benefit and improved traffic flow. I would not recommend using "No overtaking for lorries" as a blanket replacement for crawler lane signage.

As with the previous articles on road signs, example images are shown in this article:

No overtaking signs

No overtaking sign. No change is required if there was no supplementary plate.
Any supplementary plate saying "No overtaking" can be removed.

No overtaking 500 m ahead (after metrication).

Wholly symbolic way of saying "No overtaking for 1500 m", after metrication.

No overtaking allowed between 09:00 and 18:00.

No overtaking for lorries (possible new sign)

Lorries not allowed to overtake.

Lorries not allowed to overtake between 09:00 and 18:00. Note that a more realistic scenario is for the restrictions to apply at peak hours instead (e.g. 07:00 - 09:00 and 17:00 - 19:00)

No overtaking with exemptions or for specific vehicles

No overtaking allowed, unless overtaking a tractor.

No overtaking allowed by buses, lorries, or cars with trailers between 09:00 and 18:00.

End of no overtaking restrictions (if these signs do not already exist)

End of overtaking restrictions.

End of overtaking restrictions for lorries.

Suggestions for crawler lane signage

2011-06-01T00:24:00.001+02:00

In this article, I will share with you the thoughts I have had on crawler lane signage, in particular how crawler lane signage can be made language independent. This article shows three different approaches, one is to modify the existing sign and graphic of the crawler lane sign, or alternatively one can use speed limit by lane, or mass limit by lane (and the lane without the speed limit or mass limit would be the crawler lane by implication).

These suggestions are described and illustrated in more detail in this article.

Modify the existing sign

The existing crawler lane sign has the text "Crawler lane" in England, and presumably "Crawler lane" as well as its Welsh translation in Wales. This usage of text is avoidable, if something can be represented wholly graphically using internationally recognised symbols, in a language independent manner, then it should be.

Existing Crawler Lane signage. "Crawler Lane" requires translation in Wales.

If we are going to keep the "Crawler lane" sign as it is, but make it wholly symbolic, my suggestion is to use a pictogram to mean "Crawler lane", something like the "Slow lorries" going up a hill sign.

Another alternative would be to use the existing lorry symbol, this for me is fine too. But I believe the arrow should go through the lorry to make it clear that the lane is a crawler lane and thus recommended for slow moving lorries.

And as I have shown in my earlier design suggestions in other articles, the arrow should "go through" the symbol as it were (the symbol tells what kind of lane it is, or what restriction is in place for that lane), this is much clearer. This is exactly what is done in countries which have signed the Vienna Convention fully.

A possible updated sign is shown below:

A possible language independent version of the Crawler Lane sign.

Another possible updated sign is shown below, which I would also recommend as an alternative, if the basic design is to be kept as is, but make it language independent and clearer:

Another possible (and recommended) language independent version of the Crawler Lane sign, should the existing design be retained.

Despite having given this suggestion, I would personally recommend or prefer using speed limit by lane, or mass limit by lane instead. These are done by countries which have signed up fully to the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals - including Germany and France. My personal preference is for speed limit by lane, but I would be content with mass limit by lane. The lane or lanes without the speed limit or mass limit would be crawler lanes by implication.

Use speed limit by lane instead (or as an option)

Speed limits by lane are used in Germany. I believe this could be applied for sections of road where crawler lanes exist. One can have speed limits by lane, but only where there are roads with a crawler lane or in general where lorries move slowly up-hill, whether a non-primary route, primary route, or a motorway.

Having speed limits by lane instead of a sign saying "Crawler lane" would change the legal meaning, due to actually prohibiting non-compliant vehicles in the non-crawler lanes, I don't see this as a big problem. Nonetheless I would suggest that it is essential to test the roads to see what the minimum speed is on a lane-by-lane basis.

There would need to be one or more signs warning of a speed limit by lane ahead, with or without a lane added.

The example sign below shows a warning of a speed limit by lane 3000m ahead with a lane added, on a primary route:

Minimum speed limit by lane, with lane added, 3000m ahead,
on a non-primary route. The speed limits differ from lane to lane, where applicable

Then once the speed limit by lane starts, a sign needs to inform people of this. Examples are shown below for start of speed limit by lane, with an extra lane added (the crawler lane by implication).

Minimum speed limit by lane, with a (crawler) lane added,
3000m ahead, on a motorway. Note the different speed limits per lane where applicable.

Minimum speed limit by lane, with a (crawler) lane added,
3000m ahead, on a primary route dual carriageway.
Note the different speed limits per lane where applicable.

Minimum speed limit by lane, with a (crawler) lane added,
3000m ahead, on a primary route dual carriageway.
Note the different speed limits.

Minimum speed limit by lane, with a (crawler) lane added,
3000m ahead, on a non-primary route dual carriageway.
Note the different speed limits.

Minimum speed limit by lane, with a (crawler) lane added,
3000m ahead, on a non-primary route single carriageway (hitherto one lane).
The lane without the minimum speed limit is the crawler lane.

A speed limit by lane can also exist without a lane needing to be added. But whether or not a lane has been added, the sign shown the speed limits needs to be shown to remind road users that the restrictions are in place.

Minimum speed limit by lane, with all except the left
lane having a minimum speed limit. This is on a motorway.
This would be used both at the start and as a reminder sign in this case.

Minimum speed limit by lane, with a (crawler) lane to the left, on a motorway.
The speed limits are different, this can only be used as a reminder sign.

Minimum speed limit by lane, with a (crawler) lane to the left, on a primary route.
The speed limits are different, this can only be used as a reminder sign.

Minimum speed limit by lane, with a (crawler) lane to the left, on a non-primary route.
The speed limits are different, this can only be used as a reminder sign.

For short distances, a supplementary section saying "↑ 800m ↑" (for example) could be used:

Minimum speed restrictions by lane for 800m

Of course, for the "↑ 800m ↑", the distance would obviously vary depending on the length. I would suggest though that "↑ 800m ↑" or similar should only appear if the distance for which the minimum speed limit by lane applies is very short. It could be that only if the distance is less than or equal to 1000m or 1500m (for example) would "↑ 1500m ↑" appear, if this needs to appear at all. In other words, it is suggested that one needs to define the maximum value for which one needs to show the length of the maximum speed limit.

There could also need to be a warning of an end of minimum speed requirement by lane ahead. The example below is for a non-primary route with a lane drop.

End of minimum speed restrictions by lane,
with a lane merge. This is 800m ahead.

Of course, if all lanes other than the crawler lane have the same minimum speed limit (for example these lanes have a minimum speed limit of 100km/h), and there is no lane drop, then one can just have a simple "End of 100km/h speed limit sign" with a supplementary plate simply saying "500m" when the minimum speed limit ends 500m ahead, for example. This would be considerably smaller.

End of 100km/h minimum speed limit 500m ahead.

Then once the restrictions actually end, if all the lanes with speed restrictions had the same speed limit (for example 100km/h in 3 lanes except the crawler lane), and there is no lane drop, then only a single standalone end of speed limit sign is sufficient. Otherwise in the general case, the end of speed limit needs to be reflected in the end of speed limit by lane sign.

End of 100km/h minimum speed limit.
Can also be used if there is no lane drop, and if all lanes
with a minimum speed limit had a 100km/h minimum speed.

End of speed limit by lane on a motorway.
In this case, there is a lane drop, but all other lanes
had the same minimum speed limit.

End of speed limit by lane on a motorway.
In this case, there is a lane drop, and the
minimum speed limit varied from lane to lane.

End of speed limit by lane on a primary route.
In this case, there is a lane drop, and the
minimum speed limit varied from lane to lane.

End of speed limit by lane on a non-primary route.
In this case, there is a lane drop, and the
minimum speed limit varied from lane to lane.

Use mass limit by lane instead (or as an option)

I have seen this type of sign used in France. With this, one can have mass limits by lane, for example 3.5t or 7.5t. I think that mass limit by lane can also be used to have a crawler lane by implication. Once again, although the legal meaning is changed, I don't necessarily see this as a problem.

An example which is for non-primary routes is shown below:

Mass limit by lane. All lanes except the
leftmost lanehave a 7.5t mass limit.

End of 7.5t mass restriction. Can be used when
all lanes with mass limits had a limit of 7.5t.

Minimum speed limit and/or Mass limit by lane, mounted on gantries

In the above examples, I have given examples of signage without gantries. Where gantries are used, instead of using the "repeater" speed limit by lane sign, the minimum speed limit or mass limit can be mounted on the gantry for the lane with that restriction.

Mandatory change - supplementary plate metrication

As expected, there are mandatory changes, namely the metrication and getting rid of superfluous text. In particular the supplementary plate saying "Slow moving lorries for 2 miles" should be replaced with the noticeably smaller supplementary plate saying simply "↑ 3000m ↑", following what has been said in this article.

Signage improvements: Turn signs for One Way and Dual Carriageways revisited

2011-05-11T00:33:00.006+02:00

Following the feedback and comments I have received on a previous article, "Signage improvements for mandatory direction and turn signs", and having thought about this some more, I have had some more thoughts and alternative ideas for the turn signs, one way roads, and dual carriageways.

Joining a one way route or dual carriageway

In one of my previous articles, it was suggested to remove the supplementary plates "One way" and "Dual Carriageway" for mandatory turn signs which at first looked wasteful, but these are in fact necessary and have legal meaning, and would be impossible to remove. Thanks to Bryn Buck and the one of the anonymous guys for your explanations as to why the supplementary plates "One way" and "Dual carriageway" are necessary.

For one way signs, as suggested by Gareth, one can use a design similar to the Canadian/American/German design (although the American version says "ONE WAY" inside the arrow and the German version says "Einbahnstraße"), for the joining a one way route sign - in fact the design would the same as the existing UK one-way sign rotated.

For turning onto one way signs, the "One way" supplementary plate could be retained and the sign left as is, or alternatively removing "One way" plate, if one uses a symbolic supplementary plate for dual carriageways whilst retaining the circular mandatory left or mandatory right turn sign. Another alternative is that one can also extend the notion that existing one way signs have a rectangular border (cf. mandatory turns), to all one way signs.

This is illustrated below:

Possible replacements for joining one way street, and turning-into one-way street.

This would distinguish one way signs from the mandatory turn signs (including for dual carriageways), and would render the "One Way" supplementary plate redundant. Thank you Gareth for your suggestion concerning one way signs.

And instead of removing the "Dual Carriageway" supplementary plate, we can make it symbolic instead, by replacing the text with a graphic which reflects the general road shape and direction, from the point of view of the approaching road, lane, or slip road, and showing which is the minor and major road (the graphic would obviously have to vary according to the road). The aim was to retain the legal meaning as well as make it symbolic. An example for the mandatory direction sign for the dual carriageway is shown below:

Possible replacement of "Dual carriageway" plate with symbolic equivalent.

Obviously the symbol used would need to reflect the shape of the road. The symbol should make clear which lane has the priority, and from which lane one has to give way (which will be the lane or slip road joining onto the dual carriageway).

Stop at dual carriageways

The Dual Carriageway supplementary plate can appear for Stop signs as well on dual carriageways (according to the DfT Traffic Signs Manual). I believe that the dual carriageway supplementary plates here should be made symbolic too.

An example of an approach to a Stop sign at an urban dual carriageway, is shown below:

Stop with dual carriageway 100m ahead, before (left) and after (right) conversion.

Example conversions for Stop sign at an urban dual carriageway, with the "Dual carriageway" worded supplementary plate replaced with a symbolic equivalent (reflecting the road shape), are shown below:

Stop sign, with example graphics for dual carriageway reflecting the road shape.

Give Way at dual carriageway - if Give Way wording is retained (minimum)

According to the Traffic Signs manual, there can also be Give Way signs at urban dual carriageways. The words "Dual carriageway" can be replaced with a symbol too.

Even if the wording "GIVE WAY" is retained, converting the "Dual carriageway" wording into its graphical equivalent, in addition to the necessary metrication, will bring lots of benefits as the clutter is reduced.

An example of a conversion for a Give Way approach sign (with "GIVE WAY" wording retained) is shown below:

Give Way at dual carriageway 400m ahead, before and after conversion ("GIVE WAY" retained).

Example conversions for Give Way sign (with the "GIVE WAY" wording retained) at an urban dual carriageway, with the "Dual carriageway" worded supplementary plate replaced with a symbolic equivalent (reflecting the road shape), are shown below:

Examples of Give Way at dual carriageway after conversion, "GIVE WAY" retained.

However, as explained in a previous article, I recommend getting rid of the "GIVE WAY" wording. Examples without the "GIVE WAY" wording is shown in the next subsection.

Give Way at dual carriageway - Give Way wording removed (recommended)

There is the the fact that including the words "GIVE WAY" makes the signs look a bit cluttered (moreso in Wales where bilingual signs are common). Also, the international meaning of the inverted red triangle with nothing in it, is a Give Way sign as stated in the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals. Whereas, the UK has used the inverted red triangle with nothing in it to mean "Approach to Give Way/Stop".

Removing the words "GIVE WAY" and its translations make the sign conform to international norms, more importantly it makes the signs look neater, less cluttered, and avoids the need for translation (one should not forget that Give Way most likely needs translation in Wales). We can see how much neater the signs look if we metricate, get rid of the words "GIVE WAY", and replace "Dual carriageway" with its symbolic equivalent, especially on the approach signs.

An example of a conversion for a Give Way approach sign (with "GIVE WAY" wording removed) is shown below:

Give Way at dual carriageway 400m ahead before and after, "GIVE WAY" words removed.

Example conversions for Give Way sign (with the "GIVE WAY" wording removed) at an urban dual carriageway, with the "Dual carriageway" worded supplementary plate replaced with a symbolic equivalent reflecting the road shape), are shown below:

Examples of Give Way at dual carriageway, with symbolic supplementary plates and no wording.

The above examples illustrate can see that the signs look a lot neater and a lot less cluttered, without the "GIVE WAY" wording.

Mandatory left or right and One-way to the left and right

Having thought about this some more, I think there is no harm in prescribing "mandatory left or right", as shown below in this article as well:

Mandatory left or right turn.

The rationale for this type of sign would be that if we are going ahead, and at the end of the road, there is a one-way road to the left and to the right. Using this type of sign means we can replace separate "turn left" and "turn right" signs with a single "turn left or right" where practical. In addition, roads with a "turn left or right" road marking at the end exist too, so I think if the markings exist, then there is no harm in introducing the sign. In addition, as per the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals, mandatory turns are to be in a blue circle.

I have also considered an alternative for one way streets (but only for one way streets), and use a rectangle instead of a circle This sign is shown below:

One-way street to the left and right.

As one way streets already have rectangular symbols, then one could consider using a rectangular symbol for this type of sign too.

I see no problem with prescribing both the circular and rectangular versions, although personally I would suggest prescribing just the circular mandatory sign as this is Vienna Convention compliant.

Deprecated suggestions

I have also decided not to suggest introducing "mandatory right or straight" or "mandatory left or straight" as there is not enough benefit to justify prescribing these signs, but primarily because the "no left turn" and "no right turn" respectively are sufficient instead, and are also already symbolic.

Deprecated signs (left), and which signs are sufficient instead (right)

Thanks to the other anonymous person, for your feedback regarding the now deprecated suggestions for "mandatory left or straight", "mandatory right or straight", and "mandatory left or right".

This article supercedes the now deprecated article "Signage improvements for mandatory direction and turn signs". This article also adds to the "Signage Improvement: Give Way and Stop signs" article done earlier.

glob on someday

Announcement

Apologies and blog roadmap

Video: Glyphosate and GM threaten monarch butterflies

Reasons for drinking raw milk and avoiding processed milk

Raw milk vs. processed milk

Vitamins

Protein

Minerals

Fats

Enzymes

Conclusion

Sources

Original article

Three remedies for Alzheimer's Disease

Colostrum

How does it work?

Ashwagandha

Curry, or to be precise, turmeric

Sources

Center for Nutritional Research

National Institute of Health

Original article

Video: "Cancer: The forbidden cures"

Opting out of PRISM, the NSA's global surveillance program

Which companies participated in PRISM

Suggested alternatives according to PRISM Break

What you can also do to protect your privacy

Recommendations if you still intend to use the services involved in PRISM

How was this possible

What else is going on

US Government and mainstream US media reaction to the leaks

Who else was involved in PRISM

The need to protect the Internet from corporations and governments

Sources and further reading

Big Green divestment call

Fossil-Free Movement and other divestment movements

Environmental organisations who have not invested in fossil fuels

Environmental organisations who have invested in fossil fuels

The role of foundations and endowment funds

Divestment groups call for Big Green to divest

Original article

Further reading

Acknowledgements

A call to reform or repeal the EU Directive on Herbal Medicines

The problems caused by the THMPD

The directive benefits pharmaceutical corporations

Unanswered questions

A call to repeal or reform the THMPD

Legal challenge by the ANH Europe

Further reading

Labelling Matters - A CiWF, RSPCA, WSPA and Soil Association campaign

Mandatory labelling

How you can help

Sign the letter to the EU Agriculture Ministers

Sign the petition for clear labelling (UK residents only)

More information on the Labelling Matters campaign

What I would also like to see

More research verifies powerful anti-cancer properties of turmeric

Reviewing the research data

Turmeric targets cancer cells

Sources for this article

New look ready, more posts to come

Apologies once again for the lack of posts

Video: GMO Film Project

Further information

Organic farming can feed the world

"Feeding the Future", a report by The Soil Association

Organic farming produces higher yields

In conventional farming, 40% of the world's grains go to factory farms

Reducing or eliminating waste in the food supply

Sources and Further Reading

Apologies for the lack of posts since October 2011

Video: Civilisation types

Video: Why batteries are primitive

What a UK metric road signs changeover could look like

Estimates of the cost

Preparatory changes

Announcement and metrication proper

Why metres instead of kilometres on certain distance signs?