Comments on: What’s wrong with two systems?

by: John Frewen-Lord

Wed, 14 Nov 2007 07:06:30 +0000

Much of the resistance to change, as has been said many times before, is the lack of familiarity in metric numbers. Take fuel consumption. Most people “know” that 40 mpg is very good, 30 mpg is not bad (depending on your car), and that 20 mpg puts you firmly in gas-guzzling territory.

But what if you knew only metric? Then you would know those same (approximately) fuel consumption figures as 6 L/100 km, 9 L/100 km, and 12 L/100 km. Remember these, and any other fuel consumption figure can be related to it. European manufacturers are striving for a ‘3 litre car’ - not 3 L in engine size, but fuel economy of 3 L/100 km. Compare that to the fuel figures above, and you can see it’s very economcal. But it all comes down to getting a feel for the numbers. Do that, and you don’t need imperial at all.

by: Martin Vlietstra

Fri, 02 Nov 2007 11:37:58 +0000

I was living in South Africa when they introduced decimal coinage (1961) and I made a visit to the UK in 1972 (a year after the UK introduced decimal coinage). There were a number of differences between the two programs:

The South African program chose to have an easy conversion for the shilling (which became 10c) while the UK chose to retain the pound at the cost of a slightly awkward conversion for the shilling (which became 5p). This was much more user-friendly for the man-in-the-street. All the Commonwealth countries (apart from the United Kingdom) that adopted decimal coinage at the same time followed the South African model.

The South African Government took a very strong line on profiteering during the decimalisation changeover. The new coins and stamps were almost identical to the old while a rigid control was made on prices.

by: Roddy Urquhart

Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:41:51 +0000

Most people over 45 in the will remember our awful Roman-style £sd currency that we used until 1971. Those over 50 will certainly have been taught pretty awful calculations in both “old money” and imperial units.

While the government of the day feared a total meltdown in popular confidence in our currency; the Treasury pushed on with an efficient campaign to inform the public.

Anybody who managed to adopt decimal currency ought to be able to adopt metric units; that happened in Australia, South Africa and New Zealand. However, the pussyfooting approach of successive governments over the last 30 years has wasted the opportunity for change and squandered education.

by: David

Tue, 30 Oct 2007 17:45:58 +0000

The question of distance is a messy one. Indeed, for longer distances, most people will respond in miles - because that is what the road signs say. But if you ask somebody how far it is to somewhere close by in walking distance (eg, the nearest cash machine, pub or post office, perhaps), you will find as many people respond “[so many] hundred metres away” as “[so many] hundred yards”. And it will only be the older people who reply in yards.

The fact is that we use metric in much of our daily lives, from buying food and drink in kilograms or litres to measuring furniture in centimetres, and it is only in a few areas where imperial measurements still remain to the forefront. This does not make us ‘bilingual’, it merely means we have to squeeze in a half-understanding of some imperial measures into an otherwise metric world.

by: George Carty

Sat, 20 Oct 2007 15:58:40 +0000

“Just ask a British person how far he lives from where he works and say that you are interested to know the distance in kilometres.”

I think very few Brits think metric in terms of distances (even if they do in other areas). Brits measure distances in miles because that’s what’s on the signs…

[This is probably true of miles (though not of metres, which are virtually interchangeable with yards). Presumably, the corollary is that if the signs were metric, people would soon adapt and start thinking in kilometres. - Editor]

by: Sean Weisthal

Fri, 19 Oct 2007 13:02:56 +0000

“I wonder how many people in Britain think metric but communicate in imperial (because they’re scared of being branded “Europhile traitors” if they use metric in public)? ”

That’s a simple one to answer.

Just ast a British person how far he lives from where he works and say that you are interested to know the distance in kilometres.

by: Ezra Steinberg

Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:57:31 +0000

This post and the previous one on the new standards from DfT made me think of a refinement of the argument against maintaining dual sets of units (such as Imperial road signs).

I think even most anti-metric folks in the UK will concede that the UK will convert road signs once the USA starts converting. It would be impractical and foolish-looking to remain the only country in the world (in that scenario) that has Imperial road signs.

However, the issue in that case has nothing to do with effects on trade. Commerce could still take place normally between a metric USA and a UK with Imperial road signs. Clearly, there are other issues involved that would push the UK in that scenario to convert road signs.

This is why I have my doubts about the cogency of the argument now being used by the EU to let the UK “off the hook” to set a date for conversion of road signs to metric. There are certainly arguments (which have been made by the UKMA) to convert road signs that have nothing to do with trade between EU countries. What a shame that those arguments have been ignored in order to avoid (I believe) a political “dust up” between Brussels and London.

by: George Carty

Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:32:48 +0000

I wonder how many people in Britain think metric but communicate in imperial (because they’re scared of being branded “Europhile traitors” if they use metric in public)?

by: Phil Hall

Tue, 16 Oct 2007 19:49:51 +0000

Mr Harris (like so many, possibly most people in the UK) is a victim of the farce of dual measures. He cannot see any particular reason why the metric system should be adopted exclusively because it has nothing to offer other than diversity. He welcomes that like a great many people in the UK appear so to do.
But what if that apparent diversity is really only the aftermath of shallow thinking, mathematical ignorance, political game playing and plain stupidity? Should we be proud and revere that as part of being British?
The plain fact is that British folk have not adopted the metric system in the way that was initially intended because it has never been given a chance! Metric is a system that captures the whole concept of measurement in a logical and coherent way that is far more grown-up than anything that has gone before. Traditional measures like imperial and the plethora of similar sounding units with totally inconsistent quantative values, have only survived because there are those in society who want the freedom to obsure and confuse for their own personal gain (I’m referring to the liars and tricksters in trade and advertising and the politicians who support them). To them honesty in measurement is inconvenient.
In such an intellectually muddled environment is it any wonder why people cannot see the simplicity, coherence and honesty of the metric system?

by: Martin Vlietstra

Tue, 16 Oct 2007 18:34:49 +0000

If a country has two languages, then the unscrupulous will often misuse them so as to confuse the public. A typical example was South Africa in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Until the fall of Apartheid, South Africa had two official languages that were equal in status. Until the practice was outlawed in either the 1960’s or 1970’s, lawyers who drew up conditions of sale on the back of an invoice would write the text in both English and Afrikaans and then interlace the two thus:

This is a typical example of
Hier het ons ‘n tipiese voorbeeld
how the two languages would
van hoe die twee taale in Suid
be interlaced in South Africa.
Afrika gemeng was.

Imagine a page of legalese that was written in this manner. (In later years both official languages would still appear in the conditions of sale, but would be clearly separated)

When Richard Harris wrote “Our bilingual success should be celebrated, not denigrated” he was overlooking the way in which market traders are trying to do the same with their prices as the South African lawyers were doing with their conditions of sale.