...why 142 yards?

[Bmblbzzz]

If it comes from the 1968 Layout of Roads in Rural Areas and is also triple the minimum stopping distance specified at the same date, then the question is why allow three times the stopping distance? Presumably it's in part to allow for worn brakes and wet roads, as already mentioned, and in part to allow for following traffic to slow down before running into the back of the vehicle that's stopped at the give way line. Just like the shellgripp-ed distance approaching pedestrian crossings, traffic lights etc, is usually in excess of the stopping distance.

[Postboxer]

Same question here on Piston Heads in 2003.

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/top ... 26&t=38656

Still reading it.

Edit - Didn't get any further than this thread has.

[Mick F]

I've been keeping my eyes open looking at Give Way signs.
We're still Imperial here in Cornwall from what I've seen so far since this thread started.

Distances I've noticed are 150yds, 100yds and 50yds.

[peetee]

We're still Imperial here in Cornwall from what I've seen so far since this thread started.

Distances I've noticed are 150yds, 100yds and 50yds.

Long may it be so. Burn the bridges and lock the gates.
Kernow bys vyken!

[Brucey]

142 yards is the nearest yard to 130 metres. Could it be an EU directive?

129.845m.... ....seems quite likely to me. Although having said that, large parts of our infrastructure have been built in metric and signed in yards feet and inches, from well before we ever joined the EEC (as was).

cheers

[NetworkMan]

One of the first vacation jobs I had in the early 1970s was in a DO converting engineering drawings from Imperial to metric. Strange we never did quite get there ......

[Mick F]

Another point about distances ..........

They round them up/down these days maybe to save money and make the road signs simpler.
Some distances to towns and villages are in multiples of a quarter mile, but newer ones are in whole numbers which can make a mockery of it all.

Pass one road junction and it says (say) ten miles to Xtown, and half a mile - or even a mile - later at the next junction, it still says ten miles to Xtown. Both can't be right.

[mjr]

Pass one road junction and it says (say) ten miles to Xtown, and half a mile - or even a mile - later at the next junction, it still says ten miles to Xtown. Both can't be right.

And that's on a good day. Watton 5 and 2 miles later Watton 4½.

One of the drawbacks of those cycle route signs that give distances in minutes is that many of them seem to be based off the distance that would appear on regular road signs and I think that varies between whole, half or quarter mile precisions by type of road, which is why you get stuff like Tottenham 25 mins followed 4 minutes later (according to the sign, at least) in Dalston by Tottenham 25 mins on London's Cycle Superhighways.

[Bmblbzzz]

Signs in minutes obviously have to assume a standard speed, which probably works better for motor vehicles, where the constraints are largely common to all - speed limits and congestion rather than power or skill - than with cycling or walking.

[Bmblbzzz]

Another point about distances ..........

They round them up/down these days maybe to save money and make the road signs simpler.
Some distances to towns and villages are in multiples of a quarter mile, but newer ones are in whole numbers which can make a mockery of it all.

Pass one road junction and it says (say) ten miles to Xtown, and half a mile - or even a mile - later at the next junction, it still says ten miles to Xtown. Both can't be right.

I like those pre-war AA signs found in market towns and little villages that say things like "London 217 3/4 miles" but I'd say it's they which are a mockery. Firstly, how can you give such a precise distance to somewhere as large as London? Sometimes it's specified as eg Hyde Park Corner or Oxford Circus, but that still leaves the question of route, because you certainly wouldn't find AA signposts at every junction. And moreover, being precise to a quarter-mile over such a distance leaves the measurement open to change through the cumulative effect of the slightest alterations in road layout.

[mjr]

Signs in minutes obviously have to assume a standard speed, which probably works better for motor vehicles, where the constraints are largely common to all - speed limits and congestion rather than power or skill - than with cycling or walking.

That's still no excuse for signs along the route to give the same time to the route's final destination, though!

[Cyril Haearn]

What about signs showing travel time at the top and at the bottom of a long hill, they would be very different, Alston-Hartside for example
Best to stick to KMs

[Bmblbzzz]

Signs in minutes obviously have to assume a standard speed, which probably works better for motor vehicles, where the constraints are largely common to all - speed limits and congestion rather than power or skill - than with cycling or walking.

That's still no excuse for signs along the route to give the same time to the route's final destination, though!

Not at all, no. And somehow that seems more irritating than the same distance repeated.

[Bmblbzzz]

What about signs showing travel time at the top and at the bottom of a long hill, they would be very different, Alston-Hartside for example
Best to stick to KMs

They do in some places. I remember seeing that on some of trails in NZ. Which also illustrates an advantage of signs in time rather than distance: not every km takes the same time to cover, and that knowledge can be helpful when deciding eg to stay at this hut or push on to the next. Less relevant on roads though.

[Ben@Forest]

I like those pre-war AA signs found in market towns and little villages that say things like "London 217 3/4 miles" but I'd say it's they which are a mockery. Firstly, how can you give such a precise distance to somewhere as large as London? Sometimes it's specified as eg Hyde Park Corner or Oxford Circus, but that still leaves the question of route, because you certainly wouldn't find AA signposts at every junction. And moreover, being precise to a quarter-mile over such a distance leaves the measurement open to change through the cumulative effect of the slightest alterations in road layout.

For London all signs are to Charing Cross. I think for London black cab drivers 'The Knowledge' is a six mile radius from Charing Cross too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-35562786