Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs

Discussion about street lighting, road signs, traffic signals - and all other street furniture - goes here.

Moderator: Site Management Team

Post Reply
User avatar
dereer
Member
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2016 18:51
Location: County Monaghan, Ireland
Contact:

Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs

Post by dereer »

There are a few ".5 km" signs in Carrickmacross pointing towards Inniskeen.

9.5 km at the N2 junction
10.5 km near the town centre
it/he/they | aka computerfan0
My travelled roads can be found here.
User avatar
Big L
Deputy Site Manager
Posts: 7500
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 20:36
Location: B5012

Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs

Post by Big L »

I passed this today, but missed the 'f' on the sign, and thought of this thread. It is advertising a local radio station, obviously.
Make poetry history.

Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Help with maps using the new online calibrator.
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki.
WHBM
Member
Posts: 9696
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 18:01
Location: London

Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs

Post by WHBM »

There used to be an advance warning sign for a side road on the A13 in London (it just pre-dated Google) whose plate warned it was in 188 metres, obviously a conversion from 200 yards by someone both unnecessarily precise and who didn't know metric is not used. It was there for years.
User avatar
Vierwielen
Member
Posts: 5661
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 21:21
Location: Hampshire

Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs

Post by Vierwielen »

During the New Year of 1981/82 I joined a tour that crossed the Sahara by Landrover. WHen travelling on one of the main north-south roads in Algeria, I saw many roadsigns pointing to villages a little off the main road that were rounded to the nearest 100 metres. (The distances were usually less than one kilometre).
User avatar
the cheesecake man
Member
Posts: 2457
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 13:21
Location: Sheffield

Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs

Post by the cheesecake man »

Big L wrote: Wed Nov 03, 2021 21:03 I passed this today, but missed the 'f' on the sign, and thought of this thread. It is advertising a local radio station, obviously.
Or perhaps someone measured it very badly and thinks the roundabout is 92 femtometres away. :coat:

It's not a great advert as it doesn't tell me the name of the radio station. :facepalm:
jnty
Member
Posts: 1716
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2021 00:12

Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs

Post by jnty »

John McAdam wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 20:00
Jonathan24 wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 19:15 ... For anyone under 50, anywhere in the UK, do they actually use imperial measures anymore, unless they absolutely have to? Metric just seems to make so much more sense, otherwise why don't we go back to using pounds, shillings and pence again? :confused:
As I often hear in the pub: "Yes please, 568 millilitres of beer, thanks" ...

Quite agree with your underlying point though!
In these days of 'shrinkflation' I can imagine there'd be a lot of industry support for redefining a 'metric pint' as 500ml. Would solve a lot of problems!
linuxrocks
Member
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 15:31

Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs

Post by linuxrocks »

Back in the days of imperial measurement, does anybody know why the UK measured engine sizes in cc rather than cu in?
User avatar
the cheesecake man
Member
Posts: 2457
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 13:21
Location: Sheffield

Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs

Post by the cheesecake man »

linuxrocks wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 10:47 Back in the days of imperial measurement, does anybody know why the UK measured engine sizes in cc rather than cu in?
:idea: Because they're smaller so manufacturers could quote a bigger number?
User avatar
Big L
Deputy Site Manager
Posts: 7500
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 20:36
Location: B5012

Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs

Post by Big L »

the cheesecake man wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 12:42
linuxrocks wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 10:47 Back in the days of imperial measurement, does anybody know why the UK measured engine sizes in cc rather than cu in?
:idea: Because they're smaller so manufacturers could quote a bigger number?
Like temperatures on the weather forecast in shouty newspaper headlines ? High temperatures in F because the numbers are bigger, low temperatures in C because they are smaller.
Make poetry history.

Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Help with maps using the new online calibrator.
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki.
User avatar
skiddaw05
Member
Posts: 2034
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 21:33
Location: Norwich

Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs

Post by skiddaw05 »

linuxrocks wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 10:47 Back in the days of imperial measurement, does anybody know why the UK measured engine sizes in cc rather than cu in?
These days you're more likely to hear engine sizes quoted in litres, so the imperial equivalent would be pints, eg 'What do you think of my new 3½ pint Audi?'
User avatar
Chris Bertram
Member
Posts: 15721
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 12:30
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs

Post by Chris Bertram »

skiddaw05 wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 18:38
linuxrocks wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 10:47 Back in the days of imperial measurement, does anybody know why the UK measured engine sizes in cc rather than cu in?
These days you're more likely to hear engine sizes quoted in litres, so the imperial equivalent would be pints, eg 'What do you think of my new 3½ pint Audi?'
Ha ha, that sounds so wrong. The use of metric measures here is, I think, in no small part down to the influence of German engineers and manufacturers in the early days of the motor industry; their engines dominated the market, so their units became standard. Conversely, flying heights of aircraft are quoted in feet because of the involvement of the USA at the outset, and TV sizes are in inches because of the UK's role in its development.
“The quality of any advice anybody has to offer has to be judged against the quality of life they actually lead.” - Douglas Adams.

Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
User avatar
JohnnyMo
Member
Posts: 6982
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 13:56
Location: Letchworth, Herts, England

Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs

Post by JohnnyMo »

linuxrocks wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 10:47 Back in the days of imperial measurement, does anybody know why the UK measured engine sizes in cc rather than cu in?
I had wondered that my self at times and when did they start -- The RR Merlin was 27 litres, when made by Packard in the US it was a V-1650 (1650 cu in). Other RR Aero engine were also quoted in litres.

Pre-war Austin 7's had a 748cc engine and races were organised by the 750 Motor Club. Early engine were quoted as power output (hp) not displacement, but when displacement was quoted it always seemed to be in cc.
“The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie" - Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
Johnny Mo
User avatar
JohnnyMo
Member
Posts: 6982
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 13:56
Location: Letchworth, Herts, England

Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs

Post by JohnnyMo »

Chris Bertram wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 18:53 ... and TV sizes are in inches because of the UK's role in its development.
probably more to do with American dominance of consumer electronics. That said it did look funny in a German supermarket seeing TV's advertised in zoll (inches) with the official EU metric measurement in brackets.
“The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie" - Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
Johnny Mo
User avatar
the cheesecake man
Member
Posts: 2457
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 13:21
Location: Sheffield

Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs

Post by the cheesecake man »

Chris Bertram wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 18:53 ...and TV sizes are in inches because of the UK's role in its development.
TV sizes are instead inflated by quoting the diagonal. I'm not aware of anything else that's measured like that. Eg B&Q may sell me a 3m x 4m lump of wood, they won't insist it's 5m. :lol:
User avatar
Bfivethousand
Member
Posts: 1386
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 22:16
Location: Derbyshire

Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs

Post by Bfivethousand »

There's a verrrrry old AA sign listed here on Ebay for Stacksteads which includes the destination "LONDON 199 3/4" :laugh:
16 Sodium atoms walk into a bar
followed immediately by Batman
Klepsydra
Member
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 12:39
Location: Market Drayton
Contact:

Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs

Post by Klepsydra »

I think this may be a new record low: 12 yards in Croydon.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.3835904 ... 384!8i8192
"I went to a planet without bilateral symmetry and all I got was this lousy F-shirt."
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16896
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs

Post by Chris5156 »

Klepsydra wrote: Thu Feb 17, 2022 22:17 I think this may be a new record low: 12 yards in Croydon.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.3835904 ... 384!8i8192
And utterly redundant, given that there are also three width restriction roundels with the same restriction on them. Whether the physical obstruction is there, in 12 yards or in three miles, the legal ban on vehicles wider than the limit starts at that point. It's just sign clutter!
SteelCamel
Member
Posts: 597
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2020 15:46

Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs

Post by SteelCamel »

Chris5156 wrote: Sat Feb 19, 2022 09:28
Klepsydra wrote: Thu Feb 17, 2022 22:17 I think this may be a new record low: 12 yards in Croydon.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.3835904 ... 384!8i8192
And utterly redundant, given that there are also three width restriction roundels with the same restriction on them. Whether the physical obstruction is there, in 12 yards or in three miles, the legal ban on vehicles wider than the limit starts at that point. It's just sign clutter!
It looks like new width restriction signs have been added to the "12 yard" ones, when they should have replaced them - look at the 2008 view and there's no restriction sign on the outer posts.

The signs on the other side also say "12 yards" and are much further back - as best as I can tell on satellite view it's about 35 yards to the bollards, or 25 to the start of the hatching, certainly a lot more than 12. From that side, the restriction sign is just past the bollards - so if you hit the bollards with a wide vehicle, technically you haven't breached the width restriction.
User avatar
the cheesecake man
Member
Posts: 2457
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 13:21
Location: Sheffield

Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs

Post by the cheesecake man »

Klepsydra wrote: Thu Feb 17, 2022 22:17 I think this may be a new record low: 12 yards in Croydon.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.3835904 ... 384!8i8192
Sorry we had 11 yards earlier:
Vierwielen wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 22:51
I would have put the yellow board behind the traffic light.

BTW, 11 yards looks suspiciously like 10 metres to me.
TS
Member
Posts: 611
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 17:18
Location: Bournemouth

Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs

Post by TS »

Not a distance but a percentage:

Search for the word Vatersay here:
https://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/Forum/v ... =9&t=91351
Then scroll down a few pictures for a gradient percentage given to one decimal place...

[OK, so it's 1 in 9 as the writer points out, but 11.1% does seem peculiarly precise!]
Post Reply