glob on someday

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

2011-10-20T23:26:00.002+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 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

2011-09-18T19:12:00.011+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 estimate 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".

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) exist 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:

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. An alternative approach is that the km/h can simply be put on as a biodegradable sticker.

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).

For me 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, should we were to keep the basic design as it 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

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

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.

Speed 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.

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.

Motorroads / Expressroads and making Dual carriageway ahead symbolic

2011-05-11T00:32:00.002+02:00

Following feedback received for "Improvements for UK speed related signs", especially for the Motorroad / Expressroad part, and having had more thoughts about this topic, I decided to revisit Motorroads / Expressroads. And on a loosely related note, I also believe that all of the wordy "Dual carriageway ahead" signs should be replaced with symbolic equivalents, whether or not the dual carriageway in question is a motorroad / expressroad.

Motorroads / Expressroads

To recap, for dual carriageways with motorroad / expressroad regulations, the following regulations would apply:

Minimum speed limit 60km/h (no mopeds less than 50cm3 engine capacity)
No cyclists, pedestrians, tractors / agricultural vehicles, or horse riders.
Default speed limit the same as that for dual carriageways without motorroad / expressroad regulations, unless overriden by posted speed limits.
No U-turns or reversing.

In other words, motorroads / expressroads would be motorway-like. Unlike motorways, I think there could be a case for allowing learner drivers on motorroads / expressroads - after all they are allowed on dual carriageways. But that is only if this is practised where motorroads / expressroads are already in use elsewhere.

Dual carriageways which already prohibit cycles, pedestrians, horse riders, stopping and U-turns (or at least 3 from this list), should definitely be converted to motorroads / expressroads.

I also think that dual carriageways which already prohibit cycles or U-turns (as a possible minimum) should be considered candidates for conversion to motorroads / expressroads on a case by case basis.

Start of motorroad / expressroad regulations.

End of motorroad / expressroad regulations.

Motorroad / expressroad regulations 1500m ahead.

Below is an illustration of how "start of motorroad / expressroad regulations" can replace no less than at least 4 signs:

Single Motorroad / Expressroad sign replaces no less than 5 signs.

Single Motorroad / Expressroad sign replaces no less than 4 signs.

Note that the above examples were for standalone start of "motorroad / expressroad regulations" sign, which I would definitely recommend introducing.

Of course, normally, the start of motorroad / expressroad regulations would include the route number. Examples of "start of motorroad / expressroad regulations" with the route number, designed like motorway signs but with the motorroad colours as blue, are shown below:

Start of motorroad / expressroad regulations, on the A329 (non-primary route).

Start of motorroad / expressroad regulations, on the A33 (primary route).

Some alternative designs for start of motorroad / expressroad regulations non-primary and primary routes are shown below, with route number plate included:

Start of motorroad / expressroad regulations, on the A329 (non-primary route).
Alternative designs.

Start of motorroad / expressroad regulations, on the A33 (primary route).
Alternative designs.

Note that in the designs above, the colour blue has been used for the motorroad / expressroad symbol. In Europe, it the colour for the expressroads always matches motorway colours (so it's blue in much of Europe, but green in Italy and Switzerland for example), regardless of the colour of primary routes and local routes.

It is worth considering, as Alexander has suggested, having the expressroad symbol reflect the road classification. This would definitely make it neater on direction signs, as well as on the "start of expressroad regulations" signs. It also seems more logical to reflect the road classification colours too.

Standalone entry signs and exit signs:

Start of motorroad / expressroads regulations reflecting route classification:
Start of expressroad regulations on a primary route (left)
Start of expressroad regulations on a non-primary route (right)

End of motorroad / expressroads regulations reflecting route classification:
End of motorroad / expressroad regulations on a primary route (left)
End of motorroad / expressroad regulations on a non-primary route (right)

For the primary route, the expressroad regulation signs which also incorporate route numbers could look as shown below:

Start of expressroad regulations on a non-primary route.
The expressroad / motorroad colour reflects the route classification.

Start of expressroad regulations on a primary route.
The expressroad / motorroad colour reflects the route classification.

An alternative is including a border around the car symbols, this way one can distinguish "motorroad / expressroad" from "motor vehicles" (as used in no motor vehicles), especially for non-primary routes:

Start of motorroad / expressroad regulations on a
non-primary route (border included around pictogram).
The colour reflects the route classification.

Start of expressroad regulations on a
primary route (border included around pictogram).
The colour reflects the route classification.

Thank you Kevin Steinhardt and Alexander for your feedback in the "Improvements for UK speed related signs" article (especially the motorroad / expressroad part), and also for your suggestions for what this type of dual carriageway can be called (motorroad and expressroad respectively), I have not made a decision either way which one to go for, both are equally good for me. And also thank you Alexander for your suggestion that expressroad symbol colours should reflect the road classification colours.

Dual carriageways which are not motorroads / expressroads

For dual carriageways which are not motorroad / expressroads (specifically without the start of motorroad / expressroad regulation signs), cyclists should continue to be permitted, as should tractors and other agricultural vehicles, horse riders, and anyone or any vehicle allowed to use dual carriageways today.

Replacement of "Dual carriageway ahead" signs with symbolic equivalents

Signs which say "Dual carriageway (distance) ahead" should definitely be metricated. But we can do better, because these signs, along with "Dual carriageway ahead" should be made symbolic as well. There is no reason to have language specific text here when language independent graphics and symbols are easier to read and don't require translation. Only primary routes and non-primary routes are affected.

An example conversion for a primary route is shown below:

Replacement for "Dual carriageway ahead" with a symbolic equivalent, for a primary route.

Another example for a primary route is shown below, for a dual carriageway 3000m ahead:

Dual carriageway 3000m ahead (primary route), before and after conversion.

Examples for non-primary routes are shown below, for two different types of dual carriageway:

Dual carriageway ahead (non-primary route), before and after conversion.

And an example conversion of dual carriageway for 800m, symbolic and language independent of course, is shown below:

Dual carriageway for 800m (non-primary route), before and after conversion.

As we can see, the dual carriageway ahead signs can be replaced by symbolic equivalents. Although the wholly symbolic versions would be bigger (which I believe could be inevitable), they would be clearer, easier to see at a glance and at a distance, not need to be read, and not require translation.

Of course, if we are on a single carriageway where there is a dual carriageway a certain distance ahead, and the dual carriageway starts immediately after a roundabout (in a rural area). I think in this case, if the dual carriageway immediately after the roundabout is also a motorroad / expressroad, then one can use a "Motorroad / Expressroad 1500m" (as shown earlier) in stead of "Dual carriageway 1 mile ahead", and then have a "Motorroad / Expressroad" sign at the start itself. If the dual carriageway after the roundabout does not have motorroad/expressroad regulations as well, either the sign could be removed if possible, or a graphical equivalent can be used (I think it is better to use the graphical equivalent).

Poll Result: Should the UK change to a different time zone?

2011-04-27T00:03:00.000+02:00

poll by twiigs.com

If the UK joins Schengen

2011-04-24T01:31:00.001+02:00

Ever travelled from France to Germany, from Switzerland to Norway, or from Spain to Italy? Those of you who have, will have noticed that there are no border controls and no waiting at passport control, whether one travels by air, road, rail or sea. This is because these countries and several other countries (to be precise 22 EU countries, plus Norway, Iceland, and Switzerland) have implemented the Schengen Agreement fully, which includes the abolition of passport controls, although one still needs to bring identification when travelling. Contrary to popular myth, states do not need to have ID cards to implement the Schengen Agreement, passports can still be used as ID, and photo-card driving licenses ought to be accepted as ID too.

By contrast, only journeys between the UK and Ireland are free from passport controls. Journeys from the UK to France, Spain, Germany, or other full Schengen member states still have passport controls and the long queues which can come with them. The UK has only partially opted-in to Schengen, just to the police and judiciary co-operation part, the part which benefits the authorities. The UK has not opted into the part which benefits ordinary members of the public the most, the passport control part which would abolish passport controls for travel to fellow Schengen states. In 1999, the UK House of Lords Select Committee on European Communities recommended that the UK fully participates in Schengen.

If the UK joined the Schengen Area fully, one could take a flight from Manchester to Madrid, from Newcastle to Rome, or from Edinburgh to Athens, and not have to wait at passport control, although there would still be baggage check-ins and security checks like for a local flight or a flight to Ireland today. For sea travel border controls be retained for journeys to non-Schengen countries, but Schengen and non-Schengen departures and arrivals would need to be distinguished from each other, as passport control would be abolished for Schengen countries (for "Ireland" today, read "Schengen" in the future).

At the Eurotunnel entrance, border control posts would be abolished or abandoned, and a single road sign notifying the country being entered (i.e. just "United Kingdom" or "France") would be erected. And of course for train journeys, no more waiting at passport control (which would be abolished), no more waiting at airport style departure lounges (which would be redundant), and no need to arrive 30 min early - one could just board a train to potentially anywhere in Europe just like any other local train service, not only Paris, Brussels, Lille, or Calais. Much more direct destinations would be possible than if UK continued to stay outside of Schengen, and eliminating permanent border controls, security checks, and airport style departure lounges will save money in the long term.

Indeed, ordinary members of the public travelling by train in particular, will benefit a lot if the UK joined Schengen. There would be more productivity, as the waiting time is reduced considerably. Living in Lille but working in London, or living in Kent and working in Calais becomes feasible. It makes it much easier for Eurostar to expand and provide services to many other destinations, there could be direct train services to Nice, Rome, Berlin, Madrid, Amsterdam, or Frankfurt. Similarly other operators including SNCF, Deutsche Bahn or Thalys will also find it much easier to provide services to London from any station.

And if the UK expands its own high speed rail network, in addition to joining Schengen, one could even have a direct train from Manchester, Leeds, or Edinburgh to Milan, Nice, Berlin, Amsterdam or any other destination with any operator who provides services to and from there, for example Eurostar, Deutsche Bahn, SNCF, Renfe, Thalys, Veolia, or Transmanche Métro (a proposed service to serve destinations in Kent in the UK and Nord-Pas de Calais in France). Indeed one could be able to travel from anywhere on the high speed rail lines in the UK, to many destinations in Europe. As well as this, there could also be overnight sleeper trains to many destinations elsewhere in Europe from anywhere in the UK in future.

Schengen states can currently put up temporary border controls for up to 30 days, as has been done by several states already, most recently by France which sealed its border with Italy as a result of French government concerns about migrants being granted temporary residence permits in Italy. Furthermore, it has been reported that the French government wishes to make it easier to temporarily suspend the Schengen Agreement if need be, as a result of this. The UK government would also have the right to put up temporarily put up border controls under exceptional circumstances, and so would the Irish government, if both the UK and Ireland were full members of the Schengen Area. It is presumed that both the UK and the Republic of Ireland would join Schengen on the same day.

In general, Eurosceptics will be unhappy with the UK joining Schengen. While it is true that joining Schengen would make the UK a fuller participant in the EU, this would put the UK on a par with Sweden and Denmark, both of whom also stay outside the Eurozone. It is also worth noting that Norway, Iceland, and Switzerland are not in the EU yet they have also signed up fully to Schengen, although goods passing through Norway, Iceland, or Switzerland to or from EU member states still have to go through customs, which would not happen for goods moving between EU member states.

Some might say "but what about security?". I would say to them that freedom of movement within and between countries is an example of a freedom, a human right and a civil liberty. Freedoms and civil liberties need to be preserved and enhanced, they should not be sacrificed in the name of so-called "security" or for any other reason. The UK joining Schengen would give UK citizens freedom of movement to fellow Schengen countries without passport controls, but at the same time it is important that civil liberties are preserved, so no need for ID cards, and especially no biometric information should be stored in anything.

So in summary, as a member of the public, I would suggest that joining Schengen fully would benefit ordinary members of the public, as this gives people greater freedom to travel to other Schengen states, no more passport controls, and train journeys in particular would benefit a lot. However, what would be ideal is the freedom to travel to any country in the world, using any mode of transport, without going through passport or border control, and without having to go through security checks (especially the unsafe and privacy violating full-body scanners in use in American and some UK airports). Now that's what I would call real freedom of movement. Ironically, there were no airport security checks until the 1950s, and until 1914 it was possible to travel from Paris to St Petersburg without any passport controls.

The UK on CET debate

2011-03-27T17:39:00.002+02:00

I had hoped to post this article when the news was current, but was unfortunately extremely busy, and had little to no time recently. Nonetheless, in this article, I give my take on the debate regarding moving Greenwich Meridian Time (GMT) and British Summer Time (BST) an hour forward respectively, so that the UK would in effect use Central European Time (CET) in winter, and Central European Summer Time (CEST) in summer.

GMT (also known as Western European Time or WET) and UTC (Coordinated Universal Time) are identical for practical purposes, the difference is negligible (only a fraction of a second), and the same applies for BST (also known as Western European Summer Time or WEST) and GMT+1. Similarly, CET can be regarded as equivalent to UTC+1, and CEST as equivalent to UTC+2 for practical purposes.

Throughout this article, I will be referring to UTC only to avoid ambiguity, and because UTC (not GMT) has been the main reference for time worldwide since 1972. Having said that, one can still use GMT as a synonym for UTC, BST as a synonym for UTC+1, etc.

A brief history

Between 1968 and 1971, the British government experimentally put the UK on UTC+1 all year. The benefits and drawbacks were disputed, with the UK Parliament saying that they unable to quantify the advantages or disadvantages, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) were in favour of changing to UTC+1 in winter, and UTC+2 in summer, but outdoor workers and residents especially in Scotland (and Northern Ireland) were against. In the end, the UK parliament voted to end this experiment in 1971. Since the 1990s, and especially in the 2000s, whether to move all or part of the UK to UTC+1 and UTC+2 has been debated.

As well as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents who continues to back the change as they state there are safety benefits to the change, the campaign organisation 10:10, which aims to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 10% in 2010, also backs a change to UTC+1 in winter and UTC+2 in summer. 10:10's Lighter Later campaign is concerned primarily with the environmental benefits, and states that the change could save energy and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 500,000 t every year. More on the Lighter Later campaign can be found here.

In October 2010, there was a private member's bill to move to UTC+1 in winter and UTC+2 in summer, which was later passed by 90 votes to 10 in parliament. However, earlier this month, the coalition government declared that "the necessary consensus is not present" for them to support the time zone change (the Scottish Government opposed the change). Indeed, any change is unlikely unless the government supports the change, or if the public demands the change, or both. In the end, the time zone change was not included in the UK government's tourism strategy.

The debate on the UK adopting UTC+1 and UTC+2, is going to run and run for many years to come.

The entire UK in UTC+1 in winter, UTC+2 in summer?

This is exactly what was proposed in the private member's bill to adopt "Single/Double Summer Time". What this means is that the UK would adopt UTC+1 in winter, and UTC+2 in summer.

The advantages of this is that evenings would be lighter, if you are travelling from London to Paris by train then you no longer need to change the clock. Same applies if you are travelling anywhere in Europe which is on UTC+1 in winter, and UTC+2 in summer.

The disadvantages are that mornings would be darker, especially in Scotland which is nearer the North Pole. Hence the opposition in Scotland, especially from those who work outdoors in mornings (although the number of farmers has declined). If one drives this is not so much of a problem, but if one walks or works in the early morning, then one has to be careful.

But on the other hand, a Policy Studies Institute study concludes that adopting UTC+1 and UTC+2 would in fact benefit Scotland more than the rest of the UK. There was also a survey commissioned by npower which found that the Scots surveyed narrowly favoured the change, but (as mentioned earlier) the Scottish Government opposed moving to UTC+1 and UTC+2, as reported here.

If the UK were to adopt UTC+1 in winter and UTC+2 in summer, perhaps UTC+1 can be referred to colloquially as GMT or "the new GMT" and UTC+2 as BST or "the new BST".

England and Wales only in UTC+1 or UTC+2?

Given the complaints, especially in Scotland and Northern Ireland, an alternative is to only move England or Wales to UTC+1 in winter and UTC+2 in summer, and Scotland (and Ireland) can stay on UTC in winter and UTC+1 in summer. A leading historian, Alistair Horne, says that Scotland can remain on its own "tundra time".

This means that England and Wales can benefit from the brighter evenings as part of being in UTC+1 and UTC+2, and Scotland and Ireland can stay in UTC and UTC+1 and therefore not worry so much about the darker mornings. There could still be complaints from those in Northern England however about the mornings, but on the other hand, most of Northern England is further away from the North Pole than Scotland.

This also means that one would have to adjust the clocks whenever travelling from Scotland to England, or from Ireland or Scotland to Wales for example (instead of between France and the UK, as at present). This is because there would be two time zones for the UK, although this can be countered by noting that countries such as the USA, Canada, Australia, and Russia manage with multiple time zones (which can also be used as a reason why Europe can manage with multiple time zones too).

Could Britain (but not Ireland) move to UTC+0:30 and UTC+1:30?

As a compromise, Britain (but not Ireland) could move on to UTC+0:30 in winter and UTC+1:30 in summer. Those who would suggest this idea would probably cite India as an example, as India are on UTC+5:30 all year round (India does not apply daylight saving time in the summer).

With this compromise, people travelling from the Britain to Ireland would then have to adjust their clock by 30 min backwards, or from the Britain to France, Germany, etc would have to adjust their clocks by 30 min forwards instead of 1 h as at present.

Could France and Spain (and others) move to UTC and UTC+1?

Instead of the UK moving onto UTC+1 in winter and UTC+2 in summer, an alternative is for France and Spain to change back to UTC in winter and UTC+1 in summer, as well as for Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg to do the same. This would align the time zones to the longitude meridian lines more closely, and this means the legal time zones would correspond more closely to the physical geographical time zones.

The problem is that instead of just one country changing, France, Spain, Belgium, Netherlands, and Luxembourg would need to change. That is a lot of countries, and there is no guarantee that all, or even any, would agree with moving from UTC+1 and UTC+2, to UTC and UTC+1.

A variation of this alternative is for France and Spain alone to change to UTC and UTC+1, while Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg remain on UTC+1 and UTC+2. Again this means that France and Spain would both need to change and there is no guarantee that both, either, or any would agree to this change.

Some suggest that France and Spain should be in the same time zone as the UK, as stated here.

Some thoughts

I don't mind one way or the other, whether one of the proposals mentioned above are adopted, or if the European time zones remain as they are now. Having said that, I do like the idea of being able to travel from Paris or Lille to London without having to adjust clocks. The idea of brighter evenings does not sound bad either.

It is worth noting that the proposal to move clocks forward 1 hour permanently in winter, and 2 hours in summer, has nothing to do with the EU, and has nothing to do with metrication either. But there is politics involved when deciding which time zone to be on, not only geography.

What are your thoughts? Discuss, and feel free to vote on the poll.

US-style mega-dairy plans are withdrawn

2011-02-26T16:51:00.004+01:00

On the 16th Februrary 2010 there was some great and welcome news, plans for the US-style megadairy in Nocton, 10 km south of Lincoln in Lincolnshire, had been withdrawn. The animal rights and environmental campaign groups have done a great job, and so has everyone who supported the campaign against this mega-dairy. However, I believe it is not over yet, as the corporation behind the proposed factory farm still owns the land. The root cause of the problems facing UK dairy farmers, especially small and family farmers not paid a fair price at the farm gate, also needs to be addressed.

After a long campaign by animal rights and environmental campaign groups, and individuals including local residents, as well as objections raised by the Environmental Agency due to the risk of water pollution, Nocton Dairies withdrew their proposal for a 3,770 cow megadairy. Then on the 22nd February 2010, the Nocton Dairies proposal for the construction of an effluent (digestate) pipeline was refused permission by North Kesteven County Council, as reported here. However, Nocton Dairies have not sold the plot of land which they have bought, and say they are "considering their options". Indeed the farmers behind the Nocton Dairies say they "still hope to see large scale US-style mega dairies in the UK", and another farmer in Cambridgeshire is reported to be looking to set up a 2,000-3,000 cow unit mega-dairy there.

There is also another issue that also needs to be addressed, that the dairy farmers are simply not being paid anywhere near enough at the farm gate, which is why so many dairy farmers, especially small and family dairy farmers, struggle. This was mentioned in the Corporate Watch report "A rough guide to the UK farming crisis", which was also covered in a previous article, titled "The UK farming crisis". US-style megadairies will do nothing to address this, indeed this could drive small farmers out of business. Dairy farmers should be paid a fair price at the farm gate, and thus have a fair share of the profits in the milk chain. Indeed, the Campaign Against Factory Farming Operations (CAFFO.co.uk) has called for farmers to receive 50% of the retail price as a first step, and for the dairy industry (especially retailers) to ensure that farmers get a fair share of the profits.

The Nocton mega-dairy is not the only US-style factory farm proposed in the UK, and neither is the other proposed mega-dairy in Cambridgeshire. In Foston, 18 km west of Derby, in Derbyshire, there is a US-style pig mega-farm proposed, which would keep 2,500 breeding sows, and 20,000 pigs and piglets indoors. This also needs to be stopped, and for more information on the campaign against the pig farm, one can read the Compassion in World Farming (CiWF) webpage on this subject for example. The Soil Association also object very strongly to this pig factory farm, had submitted a formal objection. The Soil Association then received a warning from libel lawyers representing MPP claiming that their objection was "defamatory". This warning letter is regarded as "legal bullying", as well as an abuse of libel law meaning that free speech is stifled, and also an example of why libel law in the UK needs to be reformed.

I not only oppose all US-style factory farms, which must not be allowed to be started in the UK. I oppose all factory farming worldwide. Factory farming is a monstrosity which should be abolished and banned everywhere. An article "Ban factory farming now" was written explaining the reasons why.

Resources and further reading

Signage improvements: Diversion and advisory routes

2011-02-12T14:19:00.018+01:00

This article suggests changes (and new signage) to modify and improve diversion and advisory route signage, by making them wholly symbolic and language independent as well as metric, which can benefit safety by making the signs easier to read at a glance. Of course the bare minimum is to leave the designs as is and just metricate.

I believe however that we can do better, and make the signage more symbolic at the same time, where applicable. As with all the previous articles in the "Signage improvements" series, examples are given in this article as well. Also stated in this article is where changes are not required, for example recommended lorry routes, many diversion signs, and many signs showing routes avoiding restrictions (such as no left turn), do not require change.

Advisory routes for lorries

Advisory routes for lorries should remain unchanged, it is good as it is. The colour scheme could potentially be improved (e.g. use navy or a more aesthetically pleasing colour instead of black), but I suggest leaving the colour scheme as it is.

Signs which incorporate advisory routes for lorries, and standalone advisory routes for lorries are shown below, for completeness:

Signs showing advisory routes for lorries. These should remain unchanged.

Suggested new advisory route and diversion symbols

What I would suggest is extending the notion of advisory routes to lorries over a certain mass, vehicles over a certain mass, vehicles over a certain height, over a certain width, and so on. At the same time new symbols are also suggested. I would also suggest allowing diversion signs to use these symbols, with its own colour scheme.

The suggestions are shown below:

Advisory route symbols, Diversion route symbols, and the restrictions these avoid.
Shown here for lorries over 3.5t, lorries over 7.5t, vehicles over 7.5t,
and vehicles with a mass of over 4t per axle.

Advisory route symbols, Diversion route symbols, and the restrictions these avoid.
Shown here for overheight, overly wide, and overly long vehicles.

Advisory route symbols, Diversion route symbols, and the restrictions these avoid.
Shown here for vehicles carrying marked hazardous materials (e.g. highly flammable or toxic materials), and vehicles carrying more than 3000L of water pollutants.

Example usage of advisory route symbols (current and suggested)

Examples of the advisory / recommended route symbols in usage (current and proposed) are shown below:

Examples of advisory routes, not only for lorries (which currently exists),
but for other types of vehicles too.

More examples of advisory routes.

Examples for diversion signs are shown in the subsection "Examples using suggested new diversionary symbols".

Existing emergency diversion symbols can remain unchanged

You might be familiar with the diversionary symbols, for example the filled triangle, square, circle, diamond and the unfilled versions of the same shapes. These are used to give an alternative route in the event of an emergency where the motorway or primary route (for example) has to be closed. These do not need to be changed, examples are given below for completeness:

Existing emergency diversionary symbols. No change required.

One change that could be considered is to classify the diversions with a number, and to superimpose the number on the symbol. Classified diversions could help in journey planning, but I don't think classifying diversions is that important, so I have not provided examples of classified diversions for the moment.

Diversion direction signs can also remain unchanged as shown below:

Diversion direction signs. In general no change required.
However, "Diverted traffic" could be replaced with "Diversion".

Having said that, as a minor point, I would suggest that the words "Diverted traffic" could be replaced with the single word "Diversion". In general the wording "Diversion" can be retained, the words are kept to a minimum. An example of this is shown below:

Replacement of "Diverted traffic" with "Diversion".

However, end of diversion should have unnecessary wording removed. Whether it is the end of the symbolic emergency route, or an end of diversion, a red slash should be used to signify this is the end of the diversion. This is straightforward and can be understood internationally (even if the word "Diversion" is language specific but that is not a major issue). Examples are shown below:

Suggested end of diversion signage

Instead of saying "Diversion END" or "End of Diversion", one can use more symbolic versions. The resulting sign can be smaller as a result.

Examples using suggested new diversion symbols

It is suggested to use symbolic diversion signs, as shown in "Suggested new advisory route and diversion symbols", for lorries, overheight vehicles, and so on, on diversionary signs, or to incorporate them on to directional signs. Examples of these are shown below:

Example new standalone symbolic diversions, for avoiding height limits
and marked hazardous materials restrictions respectively.
This shows examples with and without a destination.

Similarly, signs for overly wide vehicles can also have unnecessary wording removed, as well as being made symbolic, examples are shown below:

Metrication of wide loads roadworks sign, with further improvements suggested.

A possible way of symbolically saying "Drivers of vehicles wider than 2.9m, phone here".

For the emergency telephone for drivers of wide loads, it should be sufficient just to have a telephone symbol and an actual definition of a wide load (in this case, greater than 2.9m). This should make it clear that the telephone is "here", and that this is for drivers of wide loads greater than 2.9m (which was used in this example).

For the wide loads signage, we can see how wholly symbolic signs are smaller, easier to read at a glance, smaller, and therefore safer to handle in road works situations. Furthermore minimising or eliminating unnecessary words really does eliminate clutter.

And an example of a symbolic overheight diversion incorporated into a direction sign is shown below:

Symbolic overheight diversion incorporated onto a direction sign.
This way the words "avoiding low bridge" do not need to go on the sign,
and the sign can be language independent.

Symbolic overheight diversion incorporated onto a direction sign (an alternative which incorporates the destination name into the diversion colour scheme too).

Signs with alternative routes to avoid restrictions (mandatory changes)

These signs are well designed and in general only require metrication where applicable.

Indeed many of these type of signs do not require any change, not even metrication (they show no measurements), these are shown below:

Turn prohibited with alternative route shown. No change required here.

By contrast, other signs, such as the signs below only require metrication, although for one of the examples, a possible (optional) redesign is suggested:

Metrication of turn prohibited signs, with a possible optional redesign shown where applicable.

Metrication is all that is sufficient, that change is mandatory. Note that in the optional redesign, the distance to the diversionary route is shown instead of the distance to the restriction.

Suggested new signs to avoid restrictions

In this subsection, examples are provided for signs that not only show restrictions, but have the diversionary route on a map-style sign.

Sign showing route to avoid a "No vehicles" restriction. In this case,
at 200m turn left, then follow Four Miles and Longacre to reach London.

The example above shows not only that a no vehicle restriction is ahead, but that 200m ahead there is a diversionary route, and that one should follow "Four Miles" then "Longacre" to get to London.

The example above also makes clear that if there were place names like "Four Miles" and "Longacre", they would not change as a result of metrication. The same applies for real life places such as Mile End (in East London), and Three Mile Cross (in Berkshire, near Reading).

The example below shows not only a height restriction, but a diversionary route for overheight vehicles to bypass the restriction and get to London:

Sign showing route to avoid a height restriction. In this case,
at 200m turn left, then follow the route shown to reach London.

And the example below shows not only restriction for vehicles carrying marked hazardous materials, but that 200m ahead, there is a diversionary route which can be used to bypass the hazard and reach London:

Sign showing route to avoid a marked hazardous materials restriction. In this case,
at 200m turn left, then follow the route shown to reach London.

I would also suggest that the routes would still need to be well signposted (without being cluttered) so that motorists can follow the diversions easily.

Escape route sign modifications

Escape route signs, for example to escape a steep hill, or to escape a height restriction, should be made more symbolic. It should be obvious that the sign is an escape route sign, so wording can be eliminated.

Escape lane ahead before and after removing unnecessary wording.
It should be obvious that the sign is for an "Escape lane".

I personally thought the colour scheme could be improved too, with the usage of red instead of black. But this is a minor cosmetic change. The important thing is that "Escape lane ahead" looks like unnecessary wording and can be removed.

Similarly, escape lane for high vehicles can be modified. Furthermore, the overheight vehicle symbol can be used to make it clear this lane is an escape lane for high vehicles without the need for words (which would otherwise require translation to make bilingual signs in Wales, the Scottish Highlands, etc.):

Making "escape route for high vehicles" fully symbolic and fully metric.
After conversion, the sign makes it clear, without the need for words, that the escape route is
for vehicles greater than 4.4m in height (note the diversion symbol was used).

And this notion can be extended for other diversions, e.g. escape route for wide vehicles, long vehicles, vehicles carrying marked hazardous loads, vehicles carrying lots of water pollutants and so on. The diversionary symbols as shown in "Suggested new advisory routes and diversion symbols" in this article can be used.

Restriction signs shown

In this article, there are three restriction signs which may (or may not) be unfamiliar to UK motorists. One is used in the UK already (no marked hazardous materials allowed, this is used on the Rotherhithe tunnel), the other two (water pollutant restriction, mass limit per axle) are used in most of the rest of Europe but not currently in the UK, these can be introduced into the UK as new prescribed signs without too much controversy. These can be used where there is a benefit, i.e. forbidding marked hazardous materials and/or forbidding more than 3000L of water pollutants, both can be done as environmental protection measures.

The sign forbidding vehicles carrying marked hazardous materials is shown below:

No vehicles carrying marked hazardous materials allowed sign.

The sign forbidding vehicles carrying more than 3000L of water pollutants is shown below:

No vehicles carrying more than 3000L of water pollutants allowed sign.

The axle mass limit gives the an alternative mass limit which could be used. This was already shown in this previous article. A 4t per axle mass limit is shown below:

Mass limit of 4t per axle.
Note the correct symbol for tonnes, t, should always be used.

Poll Result: When will the UK be prepared for snow?

2011-01-23T23:56:00.002+01:00

poll by twiigs.com

The state of football

2011-01-23T23:51:00.001+01:00

This article has been written to share with everyone my disillusionment with football (or soccer to those from the United States) in general, especially the football in England, and to look at suggestions to improve the game, in particular the suggestions in the Guardian series Blueprint for a better football.

Football has become showbusiness, fans have become consumers

One of the reasons why I am disillusioned with football, is because there is too much money in the game of football. I believe that this causes football to cease becoming just a game to be enjoyed, played, and watched, but to become a branch of the entertainment industry, and just another business, where supporters are treated as nothing more than consumers. The top clubs in England have got richer thanks to sponsorship money and revenue from British Sky Broadcasting and other News Corporation owned broadcasters, among other broadcasters. In addition, many top-flight players in the Premier League alone have been made millionaires, earning more in a week than many people in the UK earn in a year, and becoming celebrities (in some cases without achieving anything of note, football-wise).

A recent trend is that now billionaire businessmen, have started taking over football clubs, mostly Premiership clubs. Fans question whether they truly have the club's interests at heart or whether they are only in the game for a quick profit. Formerly debt-free Manchester United has had debt leveraged onto it from its takeover, eventually some disgruntled Manchester United fans set up their own club, FC United of Manchester. Much like how AFC Wimbledon was set up after the original Wimbledon was moved to Milton Keynes to become the Milton Keynes Dons. I like the idea of fans owning their teams, after all they support their team so why not run the team through a supporters' trust. In Germany, the majority of teams are at least 51% fan owned.

Matches in England are seriously overpriced

I decided to do a very brief sample to compare ticket prices, by comparing top and bottom sides from the Premier League, where prices are really expensive, and the Bundesliga where one can find very good deals. I also decided to compare Chelsea's ticket prices as well. All prices are based on an Adult (able-bodied) ticket. All England prices based on Premier League / Champions League / matches against the top teams (so-called "Category A" matches).

The comparison for seated day and season tickets (lowest possible and highest possible prices) is shown below:

Team	Day ticket (lowest)	Day ticket (highest)	Season ticket (lowest)	Season ticket (highest)
Manchester United	£27 (€32)	£49 (€58)	£513 (€604)	£931 (€1,096)
Chelsea	£23.50 (€28)	£75 (€88)	£550 (€647)	£1,210 (€1,424)
West Ham United	£42 (€49.50)	£69 (€81)	£585 (€688.50)	£830 (€977)
Borussia Dortmund	£12 (€14)	£55 (€65)	£310 (€365)	£720 (€847)
Borussia Mönchengladbach	£21 (€25)	£34.50 (€40.50)	£268 (€315)	£476 (€560)

And the standing prices in for Borussia Dortmund and Borussia Mönchengladbach are shown below:

Team	Day ticket (lowest)	Day ticket (highest)	Season ticket (lowest)	Season ticket (highest)
Borussia Dortmund	£8.50 (€10)	£12 (€14.50)	£92.50 (€109)	£150 (€176.50)
Borussia Mönchengladbach	£8 (€9.50)	£11 (€13)	£102 (€120)	£136 (€160)

All the prices were based on checking the football clubs' official websites. Note that the prices were rounded to the nearest €0.50 for pound to euro conversion, and to the nearest £0.50 for euro to pound conversion.

Further to this, a Bayern München day ticket can be as low as €15 (£13) if one is standing, or €25 (£20) if seated. For Bundesliga matches, people wanting to go to the game can find very reasonable ticket prices, and since standing is available in Germany, standing can save even more money.

Of course stands were abolished in England following the Taylor Report published after the Hillsborough tragedy in 1989. However, the Taylor Report advised specifically that ticket prices should not skyrocket, and this is no excuse for the sky-high prices charged in England, especially when one compares the lowest rates available in England to the lowest rates in Germany (both seated and standing).

The prices for football games in the UK simply have to come down, to say the least. Attendances are declining, especially for those teams whose supporters feel there is little chance of their team of reaching the top 4 or winning something. The Premier League is very uncompetitive with the same few teams challenging for the title every year.

One would think given there is a recession in the UK, attendances would be severely affected. However, for a supporter of a football team for whom football is their entire life, these supporters would still wish to go to the game and support their team.

Poor quality in Premiership, less great matches than there used to be

The main overriding reason for me, is that in my perception, the standard of football is generally not very high in the Premiership, and there are not so many good games in World Cups as there used to be. And watching the England team in recent tournaments has been boring, with all due respect.

Looking at the Premiership, with the honourable exception of Arsenal, who do attempt to play highly technical eyecatching football, and possibly Manchester United, it seems that too many Premiership teams play too much "fast and furious" football at a high pace, lots of hard (sometimes very rough, to say the least) tackling, and there is not much emphasis on technique as there should be, generally speaking.

Furthermore, there are very few English players with good technical ability let alone the class of Joe Cole in top form or the promise of Jack Wilshere, so is it any wonder that so many players are imported from abroad? The style of play, not to mention technical ability, gets worse as one goes down to lower divisions.

The Premiership is also a highly uncompetitve league with the big four of Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal, and normally Liverpool but this time either Manchester City or Tottenham Hotspur. Furthermore, since the Premier League was formed in 1992, only four different teams have won the title (Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea, Blackburn Rovers).

In the UEFA Champions League, the standard of play is naturally good, but it seems that the same top teams have the best chances of winning every year. But in my opinion, that there hasn't as many great games as there used to be. There have been some great matches, like Liverpool v Chelsea in 2009, Chelsea v Barcelona second leg in 2004.

However my perception is that the number of great matches is becoming less and less, especially in the knockout stages, and the final. It would be very different if only league champions were allowed to compete in the Champions League, and it would give more of a chance for teams outside the old G-14 group to win (especially if there is a shock result).

However, the top clubs would not be pleased at all to go back to how things were before 1997 when the Champions League really was a champions league, much less the old European Cup format, they want to maximise their chances of competing every year. With the amount of money at stake, it is no wonder that teams in general become more cautious in the knockout stages.

And regarding the World Cup and European Championships, money I think has also had a negative effect, given the prize money and sponsorship at stake, again it is natural for the teams to be more cautious in the knockout stages, with some teams actually playing for a penalty shoot-out. Although for national teams there is no way players can be bought or sold like for club teams (do clubs truly represent their cities?), but players can be naturalised from abroad at a young age.

There have been many great moments and great games in the World Cup and European Championships over the years. For me, the best I have watched was World Cup 1998, Euro 2000, and possibly Euro 2008 too. Otherwise in general, I feel though many tournaments, including the last World Cup last year, started promisingly, but the knockout stages had more cautious matches, and the first international tournament I watched, World Cup Italia 90, was boring with all due respect. I am not saying that every game should be an exciting classic, but the standard should be good, and there needs to be enough exciting games ideally to keep neutrals like myself interested.

Blueprint for a better football (Guardian series)

The Guardian did a series from June 2006 to May 2007, blueprint for a better football, and among the suggestions are:

Curb the power of agents
Curb the power of elite clubs (specifically the former members of the now superceded G-14)
Massively reduce the ticket prices everywhere, not just in the Premiership
Salary cap for players (the NFL has this for American Football)
Fan-owned clubs such as FC United of Manchester. As well as FC United of Manchester, AFC Wimbledon is another fan-owned club.
Fans prefer Saturday 15:00 kick-offs
A debate on whether standing areas should return
25 ways to make football better

On the whole I think there are some many interesting suggestions there. I believe that ticket prices really have to come down. It is not really necessary to bring back terraces as there are still in Germany, but the prices should be a lot more reasonable, and more importantly affordable.

I would also suggest that the overall footballing culture needs to change in England, especially at youth level so that more skilled players come through. The number of UEFA qualified coaches in England is pitiful. In addition, people need to be more active, eat healthily, and the government should stop selling off school playing fields. Unless this changes, England will not win a single international tournament for a long time, and football matches in England will continue to have mediocre technique demonstrated during matches.

There should be an alternative to penalty shoot outs in knockout stages. The penalty shoot out is an unsatisfactory way of breaking a tie, but it is probably the best method at the moment, the problem is that there is not really a satisfactory alternative that rewards attacking play.

To summarise, I would like to see football improve, become better to watch, and ideally attempt to reward attacking and skillful play. But it should also be affordable to spectators, and fans should be regarded as fans, not as "customers" of some "product" or "brand".

Metrication is not because of EU membership

2011-01-08T01:45:00.004+01:00

Even though this topic has been done a lot already it is worth re-iterating. Many people in the UK believe that metrication in the UK is a result of UK membership of the European Union (EU), and believe this often repeated lie unquestioningly. The truth is that the UK began its metrication programme in 1965, long before the UK joined the predecessor of the EU, the European Economic Community (EEC), in 1973. Furthermore, the EU itself was not even created until 1992.

Compulsory metrication within 2 years was recommended as long ago as 1895, as well as teaching only metric at primary school. And Britain was very close to being fully metric in 1907, when a compulsory metrication bill was passed in the House of Lords, but was narrowly defeated in the House of Commons by just 150 votes to 118. This was all a long time before the EEC was even thought about, never mind existed.

Then in 1951, a metric changeover plan was recommended by the Board of Trade, the predecessor of the Department for Trade and Industry, this was rejected by the government as a "premature" change. Again, this was nothing to do with the EU, neither the EU nor its predecessor the EEC existed at this time either.

It was not until 1965, following pressure from the Federation of British industry (now the CBI) who was concerned about losing out to metric competitors, that the Board of Trade announced that the UK would go metric, with a target completion date of 1975. It was also planned that road signs would go metric by 1973 (which later got postponed in 1970). In 1969, the Metrication Board was set up to oversee the changeover, and set up by Tony Benn and Douglas Jay, two Eurosceptics. Metrication was not started just to join the EEC.

Indeed, during this period, UK's EEC membership application was vetoed twice in 1963 and 1967 so the UK had little chance of joining the EEC during the 1960s. When the UK finally did join the EEC in 1973, the then (Conservative) government simply confirmed the existing UK government policy to adopt SI units. In the 1960s and 1970s, when metrication was not politicised in the UK, SI units were widely regarded as better.

Even if the UK never joined the EEC/EU, the fact is that the UK already started to go metric before it joined. It is not necessary to be pro-EU to support metrication, indeed it is possible to support metrication but be Eurosceptic. The entire Commonwealth uses metric too and so does most of the rest of the world, nothing to do with the EU. Indeed 95% of the world uses SI units. Inside or outside the EU or Commonwealth, the UK should finish its metrication soon, because SI is better than the imperial collection of units.

Resources

Video: Future by design

2011-01-08T01:08:00.003+01:00

I just came across this video, and thought this is worth sharing.

This documentary is called "Future by design" and looks at the life and designs of futurist, inventor, and architectural designer Jacque Fresco, along with his vision for the future which suggests using automation and technology to benefit people, a high standard of living for all, and no more warfare amongst other things.

© DocFlix Corporation and Jacque Fresco 2006. All rights reserved.
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.

Among the many things discussed and advocated in this video include renewable energy sources, ion propulsion engines, supersonic maglev trains, new designs for cars, automated construction of buildings, circular cities, self-cleaning houses, undersea cities, automating everything as much as possible, eliminating repetitive work, and a resource-based moneyless economy (which sounds to me very similar to Star Trek).

What do you think about the ideas discussed in the video? Feel free to have your say.

Future energy sources

2010-12-30T18:36:00.005+01:00

This article looks at future energy sources. This mainly includes sustainable energy sources which do not harm the environment, which we can use today and in the immediate future. In order to safeguard our environment and planet, the non-renewable and highly polluting fossil fuels will need to be phased out as soon as possible, they will run out one day, and nuclear fission will also need to be phased out as soon as possible as it produces radioactive waste which typically takes a very long time to decay, millions if not billions of years.

Solar and wind power on energy efficient buildings

Passivhaus compliant buildings, such as the flat shown
above, can have their own solar power.

Source: Passivhaus-Institut

In order to reduce our energy needs, every building should be constructed to be as energy efficient as possible, as 40% of all energy consumed is from existing buildings. One way to achieve this is to make all buildings conform to the Passive House or similar standard. Passive houses are recommended because buildings built to this standard are extremely energy efficient and comfortable to be in at the same time. It is not only new buildings that can be passive houses, existing buildings can also be retrofitted to this standard. Just doing this alone will tremendously reduce the energy requirements for the building.

These energy efficient buildings can and should also have their own solar energy, either as solar panels which are expensive, or better still (when available) using spray-on solar film for walls and windows and installing solar roof tiles which I would personally recommend. Such a building would at the very least be zero-energy (or minimal energy), and could even be a net exporter to the electricity-grid, especially if other energy sources are also added. We can also have rainwater collection systems added not only to potentially generate more electricity (especially using nanotechnology), but also to provide water at the same time for gardening, washing machine, car washes, WCs, and (with a suitable filtration system) even for drinking water and showering.

Of course, the main electricity grid can still be used as backup for solar, and if installed, rainwater collection too. And of course the main water supply can still be used as backup for the rainwater collection based water supply.

If every building in your country was constructed to the passive house standard, with solar, and possibly even rainwater collection power generation for each building, imagine how much energy, especially electricity can be generated for the building, and how much surplus could be exported back to the electricity grid. At the very least these type of buildings can really minimise energy consumption, especially when using OLED wallpapers for lighting in the future.

Solar power arrays and solar farms

It is recommended to carry on with existing solar power arrays. This is especially important for places which get a lot of sunshine. Having said that, simply having daylight alone (even on an overcast cloudy day) means a lot more sunshine than one thinks. Nanotechnology can also be used to make photovoltaic solar panels more efficient, this research is happening, as with spray-on solar film which also uses nanotechnology. But the photovoltaic solar panel is not the only solar power technology available.

Solúcar PS10 solar power tower in Sanlúcar
la Mayor, Andalusia, Spain

Author: afloresm
Licensed under CC-BY 2.0

What can also be used instead is to have arrays of flat movable mirrors which can be used to reflect sunlight towards a tower and focus the sun's rays towards that tower, where the water in the water tank is heated to temperatures between 250 °C and 255 °C, and the resulting steam powers the turbine, generating electricity, this is called a solar power tower. The Solúcar PS10 solar power tower, which is in Sanlúcar la Mayor, a small town 15 km west of Sevilla in Andalusia, Spain, is the world's first solar power plant is operational since 2007. Construction of the nearby Solúcar PS20, the second generation solar plant began in 2006. Both the PS10 and PS20 are estimated to generate enough energy to power the equivalent of the city of Sevilla, and are both scheduled to be complete in 2013.

In the long term future, solar panels or solar panel arrays can even be put into space, current designs have the solar panels collecting the light and then transmitting the energy to receivers on Earth using microwave rays. Perhaps an alternative method of transmission might be discovered in the future. Solar panels in space would be consistently exposed to a high amount of solar radiation (significantly higher than on Earth) so is no longer dependent on weather conditions, but other problems would be meteoroid impacts and radiation damage in space.

However today and in the immediate future, solar power arrays are one way of using renewable energy to supply energy to the electricity grid, and their use should be expanded.

Wind farms

Wind farm in Ardrossan, Scotland

Author: Vincent van Zeijst
Licensed under CC-BY 3.0

It is also recommended to carry on with wind farms at the same time, whether offshore on onshore. This is especially important to use in places where winds, especially strong winds, are common. The existing wind farms can and should be retained, and wind farms can also be expanded. Of course, one of the main issues include safety for wildlife and wind farms should be kept away from bird migratory routes, and designed so that birds cannot come near the turbines if possible. There is the other issue that there are people who complain that wind farms ruin the scenery, to address these complaints why not make wind farms blend in with the scenery and complement it, and interesting designs could be considered too. In the small Scottish town of Ardrossan, the local people even felt that the wind turbines there enhanced the landscape rather than spoiling it, and found that wind turbines were "silent workhorses" as one of the Ardrossan town councillors put it. I believe this shows that the design can be used to make wind turbines enhance the landscape. Either way, the usage of wind power should be expanded.

Geothermal energy

Geothermal power station in Krafla, Iceland

Attribution: Mike Schiraldi, Wikipedia (English)
Licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0

The usage of geothermal energy should also be expanded where practical. Geothermal energy, where thermal (heat) energy is extracted from the earth and converted into electricity, or used to heat water (as is done in Iceland). Geothermal power is scalable from a village to a big city, and is not a variable power source like solar or wind. Geothermal power also does not require anywhere near as much water for cooling compared to fossil fuel plants, and geothermal power only requires a minimal amount of land compared to conventional fossil fuel fired power plants.

The obvious place, and where traditionally where the first geothermal power plants were constructed, is to build close to the surface where tectonic activity happens, typically geysers, or near volcanoes. Binary cycle power plants is one modern type of geothermal plant, first introduced in the USSR in the 1960s. A more recent development is in Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) which do not require convective hydrothermal resources, and which involve deep drilling, injecting high pressure water, then extracting the resulting heat from the steam. Depths for the EGS wells can be 3-5 km deep.

Although there can be emissions including carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulphide, methane, and ammonia, as these are obtained via fluids drawn from deep earth, existing geothermal plants emit 33.9 g/GJ (122 g/MWh) of carbon dioxide, which is a small fraction of the emission intensity of conventional fossil fuel power plants per GJ of power generated. Geothermal sources can also contain trace amounts of toxins such as mercury, arsenic, boron, and antimony, but the modern practice of injecting cooled geothermal fluids back to Earth mitigates this environmental risk.

Some caution is advised however with geothermal power plants (especially with deep level heat extraction), as geothermal power plant construction can adversely affect land stability and in extreme cases cause seismic activity (earthquakes) as happened in Basel, so care needs to be taken, especially in or near earthquake zones (Basel is in an earthquake zone). It must be also noted that it is very expensive to drill very deep.

Despite this the usage of geothermal can and should be expanded, and EGS is also worth considering where practical, and where care is taken during construction and/or drilling. Although the easiest method still remains to construct near tectonic boundaries where practical.

Tidal power

SeaGen - world's first commercial tidal power
generator, Strangford Lough, Northern Ireland

Author: Fundy
Licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0

The power from sea waves can be harnessed, and converted into electricity and other useful forms of energy. Tidal power is more predictable compared to solar and wind power.

There have been recent design improvements (dynamic tidal power and tidal lagoons for example), and turbine technology (including axial turbines, and crossflow turbines), which shows that tidal power is much more available than was previously thought.

Since the Earth's tides are dependent on Earth's rotation, as well as the gravitational attraction of the Sun and the Moon, this source of energy is limitless. This power source has great potential, and should definitely be considered.

Nuclear fusion (long term future)

Deuterium-tritium fusion reaction

This is an energy source for the future, perhaps the late 21st Century or the 22nd Century onwards. Nuclear fusion works by fusing two or more atomic nuclei to form a single heavier atomic nucleus, currently known to operate at very high temperatures in the order of 1 million-100 million °C, and this releases vast amounts of energy. Nuclear fusion happens in the core of stars.

For fusion reactors, current designs involve two isotopes of hydrogen, deuterium and tritium, which get fused together, and this reaction generates six times as much energy compared to the equivalent fission reaction. 1g of nuclear fusion fuel (deuterium and tritium) would generate as much energy as 11t of coal.

Concerns however include to stop neutrons (a byproduct) from escaping although these would be absorbed by a material (for example a vanadium alloy or some material which can absorb neutrons), as well as tritium which has a radioactive half-life of 12.32 years. This means that having secure and fail-safe systems which prevent any leakage would still be extremely important for fusion power plants, as it is with nuclear fission today.

There is no risk of a major tragedy caused unlike with fission (but industrial accidents are still a risk). Waste products are the radioisotopes which would result from material surrounding the plasma absorbing the neutrons from the reactor core, these radioisotopes would have a comparatively short half life at 50 years as radioactive mater, become low level waste in 100 years, and have the same radioactivity as coal ash in 300 years. However, as with fission, this waste has to be handled. By contrast, nuclear fission produces waste products which can have a half-life of thousands of years at least. A fuller analysis of nuclear fusion is shown in the publication Fusion as a future energy source: Recent achievements and prospects.

Although fusion is technically non-renewable, there is enough deuterium in seawater on Earth to 150 billion years based on the 1995 global power output. However, to make tritium, lithium is required, and the lithium needs to be split in a nuclear fission reaction to make tritium (as well as the helium-4 byproduct. Although lithium is quite abundant on earth, it is still needed for other purposes, including Li-ion batteries for example, and it is not infinite because the known lithium reserves are estimated to last 3000 years, and lithium from seawater would last approximately 60 million years.

The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) in France, the Wendelstein 7-X in Germany, and the Large Helical Device in Japan, are demonstration proof-of-concept fusion reactors, whose development is in progress. Actual power generation for homes would be expected in the late 21st Century or the 22nd Century. Fusion Energy can also be used to propel spacecraft in the long term future (or could even be used just for spacecraft engines, should renewable energy meet all our energy needs on Earth).

Nuclear fusion is an energy source for the future. There might be also alternative designs for fusion reactors, or new ways of igniting a fusion reaction in the future which have not been invented yet (fusion reactions have to be ignited, and then contained). Having said that, renewable energy will always have a very important role to play in meeting our energy needs, so will need to co-exist with fusion, once fusion is introduced. At the same time, while research continues into viable nuclear fusion energy, there is no need to wait until the first fusion power plant is made, we can have renewable energy now.

Most Imperial units are not British

2010-12-25T18:38:00.007+01:00

One of the myths about Imperial units is that Imperial units are made in Britain. The truth is very different, although Imperial units were defined in the 1824 Weights and Measures Act which made several other traditional units obsolete, the origins of Imperial units, which came from medieval English units of measurement, are not British.

Imperial units were mostly brought to Britain by the Romans almost 2000 years ago, other units were introduced by the Angles and Saxons from Northern Germany who brought their own measures, the Normans reintroduced Roman style measures, and others were later adopted and modified from medieval French variations of Roman units, known as avoirdupois and troy measures.

The statute mile, better known as the mile, is of Roman origin. The word mile comes from the Latin mille passus ("thousand paces"), derived from 1000 paces of a Roman soldier, or 5000 Roman feet. The Roman mile was approximately 1479 m. During the reign of Elizabeth I of England, the 1584 Act of Parliament defined the mile to be 5280 feet or 1760 yards. In 1959, the mile was defined as 1609.344 m or 1.609344 km exactly.

The yard is probably of Anglo-Saxon origin. Certainly the word yard is derived from the Old English gyrd ("rod" or "stick"). There are many claims about the origin of the yard, one of them is that Henry I (1100-1135) decreed the lawful yard is the distance from the tip of his nose to the end of his thumb (with his arm outstretched), and also that a yard is 3 feet. In 1959, the yard was defined as 0.9144 m exactly.

The foot is a measurement nominally based on the length of the human foot, but the length of a foot varies from person to person. The Roman pes ("foot") was defined as 12 unciae (Roman inches), which is exactly how the Imperial foot is defined in terms of inches. The notion of 12 inches being 1 foot was brought to Britain by the Romans. The Roman foot was about 29.6 cm, whereas the Imperial foot became 30.48 cm.

The inch is a measurement nominally based on the width of a thumb. Ancient civilisations had their own words for inch or thumb, and presumably had their own standard "inch" or "thumb". The English word itself however comes from the Latin uncia ("one twelvth part"), the translation into English explains why there were twelve unciae (Roman inches) in one pes (Roman foot).

The pound is of Roman origin, and is ultimately descended from the Latin libra ("scales" or "weighing"). There was originally 12 unciae to 1 libra (uncia was also used to measure mass). The abbreviation for pound is lb, which ultimately comes from the Latin word libra.

The ounce is also of Roman origin, and the English word ounce also comes from the Latin word uncia. The translation also explains why there were originally 12 unciae in 1 libra. The abbreviation for ounce is oz, which comes from the Italian word onza.

The known pounds and ounces are actually avoirdupois pounds and avoirdupois ounces. Avoirdupois comes from Old French aveir de peis, later avoir du pois ("goods of weight"), and avoirdupois units were introduced into England in the early 1300s and first adopted by London merchants.

The basis of the avoirdupois units is that there are 16 ounces in 1 pound, and English avoirdupois was based on the French avoirdupois units, but adapted to fit other units in use in England. However these are still ultimately based on the Roman units of measurements with minor modifications.

A troy ounce is so-called because this measure (along with the troy pound etc.) originally came from Troyes in France, along with the troy pound, etc. Troy units retained the notion that there are 12 ounces in a pound, just like in Ancient Rome. A troy ounce is not the same as an avoirdupois ounce.

Acres, which are now no longer used in land registration, were introduced by the Anglo-Saxons and originally measured a strip of land that could be tilled by an ox in a single day. The Romans also had their own acre too, the actus quadratus or acnua, which was approximately 1260 m² (by contrast the Imperial acre, which is ultimately based on the Anglo-Saxon acre, is 4046.85642 m²).

Furlongs are only used in horse racing in the UK, and were also originally introduced by the Anglo-Saxons. The word furlong is derived from the Old English furhlang (furh is "furrow", and lang is "long"). This referred to the length of the furrow in one acre of a ploughed open field, specifically the distance a team of oxen could plough without rest. The furlong was regarded as roughly equivalent to the Roman measurement stade (stadium).

The pint is precious to so many beer drinkers. The word pint actually comes from the Old French pinte, which probably is ultimately derived from the Latin pincta ("to paint"), which specifically refers to painting the line on a glass. And an Imperial pint (568.261485 ml) is not the same as a US pint (473.1764723 ml).

As we can see, the Imperial units of measurement are based on Ancient Roman units of measurements in general. There is nothing British in the origin of Imperial units, the "system" was imposed by invaders. Indeed the Imperial "system" is like a cross between the Roman and Anglo-Saxon measurement "systems", but mostly Roman in origin. So far from being British, the majority of Imperial units originate from Ancient Rome, Italy, Germany, and France. Like Roman numerals, Roman-style Imperial units are really cumbersome to use, and Imperial units do not even form a system.

For more information, you can read this article and this article.

When will the UK be prepared for snow?

2010-12-23T00:11:00.006+01:00

So far, the winter of 2010 is looking like the worst winter in living memory in the UK, with arctic weather throughout the country, which is predicted to be the coldest winter in the UK since 1963, if not colder. November this year saw the earliest snowfall in winter for 17 years. Temperatures have been very low, as low as −21.2 °C in Altnaharra in the Scottish Highlands, and snowfall has been 30-40cm in Sussex, and 20 cm in Greater London. In most of the rest of Europe, it is a similar story, with heavy snowfall in Northern France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Ireland for example, where there has also been a lot of disruption. It is not only the places which normally get snow, for example Sweden, Norway, and Russia, that have had snow this winter, although Norway has had its coldest November on record, one place in Norway, Karasjok, had a temperature of −35 °C on the 27th November 2010.

There has been snow every January/February in the UK for the last three years now, including the South East of England, and there has also been snow in December for the last two years. The snow this year is predicted to last until at least 26th December. It seems that every time there is snow in the UK, everything grinds to a halt. Transport is disrupted severely, and so are sports fixtures among other things. When will this change? And what can be done for the UK to be better prepared, and prevent scenes of chaos such as those at Heathrow Airport and throughout the country?

Snow in London, January 2010

Author: The Vision Thing, London, UK
Licensed under CC-BY 2.0

Gritting is important in icy weather, so it is important to grit the roads and keep a good stock for winter. It seems as though there is a reliance on gritting in the UK. Given that the grit being used is a mixture of rock salt (which contains sodium chloride), sand, and anti-caking agents, gritting is not good for the environment as excess salt and especially the anti-caking are lethal to plants and animals in high concentrations. Roadside vegetation, slugs, amphibians, and migratory birds are all at risk from the grit. This can be mitigated by using different materials however, and airports that use gritting use different materials to avoid damaging the aircraft.

Gritting is also only useful when there is ice on the roads, rather than centimetres or metres of snow. So relying on gritting alone as being the solution is not advisable, and due to possible environmental impacts, gritting should probably be avoided unless unavoidable, and excessive gritting should be avoided. Of course, in the UK, the gritting could not keep up with demand, and according to the Independent, several councils were even reducing stocks of grit and relying on just-in-time deliveries, just to reduce costs.

Gritting is not the only solution, especially for thicker snow. If one goes to Siberia, there is an army of snow ploughs ready for action every year. Of course in a place like Siberia, snow is guaranteed every year. The same is true of Northern Sweden, Norway, Canada, cities such as Chicago in the USA. Snow ploughs would have been really useful in the UK this winter. Another possibility is to have tractors, lorries, or even army vehicles which can be converted into snow ploughs when needed. 75% of the Highways Agency's vehicles can have snow ploughs fitted.

Another alternative is to use snow melter vehicles which melt the snow, and avoid the pollutants used in gritting, although snow melters do require a large amount of energy. And yet another solution for snow depths of 10cm or less is snow sweepers. And as an alternative to gritting, de-icing can also be used, although this is normally used more at airports, and de-icing involves using propylene and ethylene glycol which are not exactly environmentally friendly either.

Could it be time to make winter tyres mandatory for the UK? In countries where there is snow every winter, such as Sweden, Norway, Finland, parts of France (such as Grenoble and Gap), and Germany, cold weather tyres are mandatory between December and March. Cold weather tyres have much better grip on snow and ice, and are designed to operate at temperatures of 7 °C or less. Winter tyres are not only useful in icy or snowy weather. They cannot be used outside of winter (in summer for example) otherwise they wear out very fast. One can still have winter tyres fitted in advance of a weather warning. Winter tyres would not necessarily need to be made mandatory every year (especially in areas which exceed 7 °C in winter, but accurate weather forecasts would be critical. Publicity for winter tyres would also help increase awareness.

In areas where there is a lot of snow in Europe, snow chains are mandatory and there are signs which tell the driver so. If there is very thick snow, snow chains would be helpful although one cannot travel at more than 50 km/h, and unless there is really thick snow, there is a risk the roads could be damaged if the snow is not thick enough (so the snow chain would need to be removed at the end of the thick snow). Nonetheless if snow is really bad, we need to be prepared, and knowing how to put on snow chains would help, as well as having snow chains ready. For snow chains, publicity is not a bad thing. And that is if one really needs to travel.

For mainline trains as well as the Underground, the trains could have been fitted with snow ploughs to get rid of snow from the tracks, been fitted with snow ploughs, and there is no reason why this couldn't have been incorporated into the design. This is especially important where there is a third rail to give power, such as the railways in the South East of England, and sections of the Underground which are actually not underground.

The most expensive option of all would be to use heated roads, and to have heated rails (especially the third rail in areas which use it). The cost to install heating to existing roads alone, however, would be a lot, especially if every single public road, including minor country roads were to be done. Considering that the UK has some 398,350 km of public roads, that will be a lot of roads which needs retrofitting. Even just doing the motorways alone would mean that 3,555 km of roads would need to have heating installed. In addition, presumably roads would only be heated during periods ice or snow, meaning extra energy is required during those periods. To make existing roads heated would involve digging up the road, and installing heat pipes (which I would not recommend) or heating elements. Smaller scale heating in urban areas is worth thinking about, even if this doesn't get used, this is done in Japan.

In summary, the UK needs to be prepared for snow at winter. This article suggests ways this can be achieved. This includes the following:

Having enough grit for both icy and snowy weather (although gritting should not really be relied upon)
Having grit spreading vehicles ready to spread the grit (as well as suitable alternatives to gritting)
Having dedicated snow ploughs ready
Having enough vehicles capable of having snow ploughs fitted on demand
Any other suitable snow removal / moving equipment
Winter tyre usage can be publicised and encouraged whenever there is a severe weather warning, or when temperatures are going to not exceed 7°C
Mandatory winter tyres between December to March is something to consider (it does not need to be every year, just when there are severe weather warning)
Snow chains can be publicised, and can used when snow is more than 10cm high (but only when snow is very thick) for vehicles that do not have all wheel drive.
Driving literature can be updated to include information on winter tyres and snow chains for winter months.
Trains should also be capable of having snow ploughs fitted on them too when required
Airports should also have snow ploughs and snow removing equipment ready too

And of course, common sense dictates that we need to keep our driveways and paths clear of snow and ice too. Heated roads and railways would be nice to have, but could be expensive to retrofit. Other methods can be considered too, and so can technical advances that are also ecologically sound. Yes other countries struggled too (even Germany), but the UK has been notoriously unprepared every time there is snow, and this has happened every time to date in living memory. When will this change?

The UK farming crisis

2010-12-18T14:32:00.002+01:00

Back in 2004, the watchdog Corporate Watch UK published a report "A Rough Guide to the UK Farming Crisis" which shows the crisis facing UK farmers, in particular small and family farmers, and the role that multinational corporations including big supermarkets and big agribusiness, government policy, and globalisation have all played in this crisis. Corporate Watch also suggests possible solutions.

About the report

The report "A Rough Guide to the UK Farming Crisis" argues that the root of the UK farming crisis is food and agriculture policies, and of course global trade agreements promoting trade liberalisation, which have concentrated power in the hands of only a few supermarkets and multinational food corporations. At the same time whatever the UK customer buys in the supermarket, very little of what they pay goes to the farmers.

The report also gives its most important conclusion which is that farmers, environmentalists, and social justice advocates need to work together towards transforming the conventional damaging and exploitative food system, and creating food production based on respect for the land and local community needs, and which is sustainable. One of the points worthy of note is that the report explains why small farms are better compared to big farms.

As well as this, the report also notes some possible solutions for rebalancing power away from multinational corporations:

Food sovereignty or food democracy

Via Campesina, an international movement for small farmers, proposes that neoliberal economic policies should be replaced with a more democratic approach to agriculture and food supply, with the principle that people, communities, and countries have the right to control their own agriculture and food systems.

Remove food and agriculture from international trade agreements

Via Campesina, and many other farming organisations and NGOs, form part of a growing lobby which argues that neo-liberal trade agreements such as the GATT (General Agreement on Trades and Tariffs) should not apply to food and agriculture. This lobby says there is a clash of economic models, and that the dominant model is based on "liberalising" agricultural markets and export-oriented industrial agriculture runs contrary to food sovereignty, and creation of participatory, sustainable, and locally controlled food systems.

Dismantling corporate power

Corporations have acquired a huge amount of power, and have even acquired legal rights (including being regarded as equal to a person), and at the same time very fiew responsibilities. Big corporations used their power to privatise decision making about who controls the food system and how it operates, and corporations are required by the law to act in the best interests of their shareholders, hence profit is the main concern, and corporate lobbying follows the same rule of pursuing ever higher profits, and as a result wish to ensure their interests in profits override the concerns of farmers, workers, consumers, etc.

One suggestion is that legal reform which transfers control of a corporation's actions from the shareholders to the people affected by the corporation's actions (workers, local communities, customers, etc) would remove the idea of profit as a separate interest group of profit, and open the way to a more sustainable and democratic food system. Another suggestion is that removing corporate personhood rights, and imposing full legal responsibilities for corporations' actions. It is suggested that these are needed to ensure that true food democracy is possible.

Also discussed are new rules for food corporations, supply and demand, dismantling monopoly power, and curbing the power of the supermarkets.

Creating new food networks

Creation of new food networks which operate outside the corporate controlled food system has already started. Re-localising the food supply, in which local produce is favoured.

What can be sensibly produced within a nation or region should be.Colin Hines, Co-Director of Finance for the Future

Proponents of localisation say localising the food supply will give farmers a greater share of the money spent on food, provide communities with affordable, healthy food, increase environmental protection, improve livelihoods, and revitalise local communities.

Co-operatives and producer groups have been used for many years by farmers, to increase their bargaining power in order to demand fairer trade and a better price. Co-operatives can continue to be used, but there is only so much co-operatives can do given the power that big supermarkets and agribusiness have, financial and lobbying. However, co-operative ways of working do have many benefits for farmers, retailers and consumers working to create a more participatory and democratic community-based food system.

Indeed, Community-based food networks are also being developed, which support locally adapted, environmentally friendly, sustainable, and socially responsible farming. They provide healthy, affordable, nutritious food and increase co-operation and build more direct links between producers and consumers. There are many different methods to achieve this including farmers markets, producer groups, growers co-operatives, food co-operatives and community supported agriculture.

Of course, supermarkets dominate our buying habits, and are associated with choice, convenience, and low prices, which does not make it easy for people to see how they can switch to ecologically sound buying habits. As well as that supermarkets in the UK have responded to consumer demand, including GM-free, organic, fair trade, and in some cases local produce, any niche where the supermarkets see a profit.

However, for all of us consumers, it is argued that there needs to be a shift in our relationship with the food system, from passive consumers to responsible citizens; ready to make informed choices, prepared to bypass brands in supermarkets and to enter into more ecologically and socially responsible direct buying arrangements with farmers and small suppliers, through farmers markets, farm shops, box schemes, local shops, food cooperatives, and so on.

Movement building

The National Farmers' Union (NFU) of the UK has been criticised as representing only the interests of the big farmers and the food industry, and failing to represent the interest of small and family farmers. There are many organisations who represent small and family farmers in the UK, including the Farmers' Union of Wales, Family Farmers Association, Small Farms Association, Small and Family Farms Alliance, Tenant Farmers Association, Farmers for Action and FARM, who are starting to develop a more radical analysis of the causes of the farming crisis. It is suggested that the best way forward is for these organisations to find their common ground and form an alliance that will create a powerful rallying point for disaffected farmers.

Farmers around the world are fighting back. Small farmers from the Philippines and Brazil to France and Canada are mobilising to fight for their survival and are at the forefront of the movement against economic globalisation and trade liberalisation. A common analysis of the causes of the global crisis in farming are forming among farmers worldwide, not just in the industrialised world, which is helping to increase farmers' power and create a focus for building a stronger movement.

The chances of farmers gaining sufficient power to overturn the might of the multinational food corporations on their own is slim, especially in industrialised countries where farmer numbers are shrinking. It is suggested that the future lies in forming an alliance between farmers, farmworkers, activists in the environmental and social justice movement, food industry workers and consumers, who share a common analysis of the causes of the farming crisis and are ready to work together to create systemic change and take back control of our food and agriculture systems.

Read Corporate Watch's report "A rough guide to the farming crisis" in full here.

Resources and further information

UK government reveals broadband strategy, no commitment to FTTH

2010-12-06T23:53:00.001+01:00

Today, Jeremy Hunt, the UK Secretary of State for Culture, the Olympics, Media, and Sport, has announced the coalition government's national broadband strategy, outlined in "Britain's Superfast Broadband Future", in which "super-fast broadband" is promised, and also mentions bringing a "Digital Hub" to every community, specifically aimed at rural communities. The UK government pledges £830 million (€980 million) towards rural communities, and two-thirds and 70% of work for the rest of the country is to be carried out by the private sector.

What was omitted from the strategy was what "super-fast" means, and although FTTH has been mentioned in the strategy document, and there is also no explicit commitment to support increasing FTTH deployments and eventually having FTTH to every building. There are no targets either in the NGA (next generation access) strategy plan to reach, all that has been pleged is that the UK is to "have the best broadband network in Europe by 2015".

National Broadband Strategy - "Superfast" broadband

As part of the government's national broadband strategy, all the government has committed to is:

Universal Service Obligation of 2Mb/s broadband for all by 2015 (not 2012 as the previous government had pledged)
To help roll-out "super-fast" (Next Generation Access or NGA) broadband into the "final third" of UK towns and villages for whom private sector investment alone is not enough.

Why only 2Mb/s? that is far too low and not even close to future-proof. Why not have 50Mb/s as a bare minimum, or even 100Mb/s as explained later on in this article. These sort of speeds are the minimum needed to support future applications, not only BBC iPlayer, but future applications and websites that have not been made yet. The EU are pledging that every European ciitzen should have basic broadband by 2013, and real super-fast broadband by 2020 (the EU are aiming for between 30-100Mb/s).

Within the UK, the de facto definition of "super-fast" is 24Mb/s, which is not super-fast at all, maybe it was 30 years ago. In fact, many people do not even get close to that speed, the average UK broadband download speed is 5.2Mb/s (another study says 5.55Mb/s), and upload speeds are much slower at 0.623Mb/s. The connection speeds for download and upload are not the same (they are asymmetric). By contrast, FTTH connection speeds are the same for both downloads and uploads.

And using FTTC is not a solution, that only brings speeds from 40Mb/s to 60Mb/s, which is hardly future-proof, and at best temporary (the remaining VDSL copper will have to be converted to FTTH eventually).

Now 100Mb/s is super-fast, and 1Gb/s has already been deployed in Japan, and 1Gb/s is due to reach South Korea by 2012. In both Japan and South Korea, 100Mb/s broadband speeds are common. Given that 1Gb/s is possible, and that BT has already trialled 1Gb/s, this is a perfectly good reason to make the universal service obligation 100Mb/s eventually, and perhaps 50Mb/s in the interim.

FTTH Council urged the UK government to do more on FTTH

Back in July this year, the FTTH Council has urged the UK to do much more for its FTTH deploymenrs, and their market forecast report suggests that the UK will be the last country in Europe to achieve 20% subscribers in FTTH, called "fibre maturity" by the FTTH Council. This is estimated to be between two to four years after France, Germany, and Italy.

UK members of the FTTH Council state the following reasons why FTTH progress has been extremely slow in the UK, including:

Lack of clarity on key policy issues such as infrastructure sharing
Lack of competitively priced backhaul connectivity for new networks
Consumer confusion over marketing of broadband services
No clear funding mechanism for local authorities to bring fibre to rural areas

And I would also add there has been no clear commitment from governments to support deployment of FTTH. The FTTH Council were also critical of BT's planned strategy to deploy FTTC.

In France, FTTH subscriptions rose 14.5% to an estimated 38,700 in the end of June 2010. It is available in parts of the major cities, and not available in every area yet but France appears to be making much more progress compared to the UK. In UK there are less than 5,000 FTTH subscribers in a handful of locations (Ebbsfleet, Wembley City, Liverpool ONE - all new build housing locations).

Also as of June 2010, Sweden has more than 500,000 FTTH subscriptions, and many Eastern European countries including Lithuania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, and Estonia have more FTTH subscribers than the UK (household percentages and absolute numbers). However, another report warns that Europe as a whole is risking falling behind in FTTH penetration.

On the other hand, back in 2007, Japan was estimated to have had 10 million FTTH subscribers, and South Korea had 37% of its homes connected by FTTH in 2009.

Original articles

UK Government reveals national broadband strategy and new rural digital hubs - ISPReview UK, 6/12/2010
UK Government: Superfast Broadband for all by 2015 - TheNextWeb, 6/12/2010
FTTH Council Urges UK to boost its Superfast Fibre Optic Broadband - ISPReview UK, 9/6/2010