I was wanting to rent some storage space temporarily and approached a firm that offers this service.  I spoke to a youthful-sounding and well-spoken receptionist who was able to deal with my inquiry efficiently until we reached the subject of the volume of space I required.

“About 1500 litres”, I said.
“What!” she exclaimed.
I repeated “1500 litres” (I know I should perhaps have said “one and a half cubic metres”, but I didn’t).
“Do you mean metres?” she asked, trying to be helpful without being condescending.
“No, 1500 litres.”
“Oh, we don’t store liquids” was her clinching reply.

To be fair to the young woman, she was working in an imperial environment, as the firm  describes their lockers, cupboards and containers in terms of square feet (though presumably they mean cubic feet).  All the same it is a bit of a shocker that the products of over 30 years of metric education don’t make the connection between a volume of liquid and a volume of 3-dimensional space.

This has led me to wonder whether our schools are in fact simply reinforcing in our children the dysfunctional approach to measurement that prevails in the adult world in the UK.  Consider the following.

Although the teaching of metric units has been mandatory in state schools since 1974, the  National Curriculum for England was revised in the 1990s to include knowledge of approximate equivalents of imperial quantities. The following examples of lesson plans for 11-year olds shows how children are being taught to convert between kilometres and miles (in both directions).

http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/primary/teachingresources/mathematics/nns_unit_plans/year6/Y6T1Unit9Measures/nns_unitplan050703y6t1unit9.pdf

(Note incidentally that the guidance wrongly calls SI symbols “abbreviations”)

Similarly, at Key Stage 3 (up to 14-year-olds) children are expected to “know rough metric equivalents of pounds, feet, miles, pints and gallons”.  See the following link from the 1999 version of the National Curriculum.

http://curriculum.qca.org.uk/uploads/Mathematics%201999%20programme%20of%20study_tcm8-12059.pdf

In practice, there is anecdotal evidence that some teachers go well beyond this, teaching the imperial equivalent of kilograms, metres etc and even how to convert from ounces to pounds and pints to gallons (imperial, of course).

It is clear that a considerable amount of teaching time is spent in teaching children how to cope with two systems.  Arguably, this is a pragmatic response to the sad reality that in the UK in 2008, in order to function properly, an adult needs to be fluent in both systems.  But how much better it would be – for children, teachers and society generally – if they did not have to waste time in this way.  The cost must be horrifying.

But it gets worse.  Although metric units are prescribed for maths and science lessons (and perhaps for home economics?), there is no such guidance for other lessons or extra-curricular activities.  From anecdotal evidence it is believed that many teachers default to imperial in other subjects such as geography or on the sports field.  Children therefore learn by example that imperial units are “normal”, especially for personal weight and height, whereas metric units are for science and maths.

If this true, then it undermines the argument that society will gradually shift to general use of metric units as older non-metric-educated people die out and younger people take over.  In practice, society is becoming divided along educational and class lines.  The better educated cope reasonably well with two systems and often fail to see the problem, whereas the less educated (who also tend to be the less well off) struggle with two systems and generally use imperial units since those are what their parents and their peer group use.  Disraeli’s “two nations” in weights and measures.

Our education system could play a part in resolving this situation, but it fails to do so.  As a step in the right direction,  UKMA believes that teachers should be expected to use exclusively metric units throughout the school’s activities. In this way, the learning in the science and maths lessons will be reinforced rather than undermined.

Oh, and by the way, I didn’t rent the storage space from that firm.

This new series of six programmes has aerial photography, graphics, simulations, and other technical wizardry, with explanations presented by Andrew Marr. It is a ‘must see’ for anyone interested in Britain’s geography, and in the systems that enable us to live in the style to which we have become accustomed.

The first programme is called “24 hour Britain”. Metric Views was particularly impressed by the gps traces showing taxis rat-running when the main roads in London become congested, and the simulation of the British telephone network coming to life as the day progresses.

Those who expect a random muddle of measurement units from the BBC will also not be disappointed. A mixture of metric, imperial/US and analogue units was used in the first two programmes, and is summarised in this table:

                    metric     imperial/US       analogue

length/height   metre      foot, mile         world circumference

area                            acre, sq. mile    football pitch

volume           litre         gallon              bathtub

mass/weight   tonne

power            GW, MW

Metric Views does not favour the use of conversion tables, but for those who prefer showers to baths or don’t watch football, we provide the following conversions:

 1 BBC football pitch is about 4000 square metres
 1 BBC bathtub is about 900 litres

The programmes are being shown on BBC1 and BBC2 on Sunday evenings from 10 August, and are available on BBC iPlayer until the following Saturday. There is also a web site at www.bbc.co.uk/britainfromabove. Take a look, and let Metric Views know what you think.

UKMA Chairman, Robin Paice, said: “It is no surprise that a self-selected group of 18 500 AA members should not appreciate the case for going metric on the roads, especially when the Government has produced absurdly exaggerated cost figures to try to stifle discussion. The case for metric road signs has never been properly explained to the general public.”

(It appears that over 21 000 out of 40 000 panel members did not respond to the survey).

Background

The UK decided to go metric in 1965 (long before our entry into the then Common Market) with a target of completion by 1975. Road signs were originally to be converted in 1973. However, in 1970, the Government postponed the road signs changeover, and it has never been reinstated.

Metrication continued in most other areas, including maths and science teaching in schools, the building and engineering industries, packaging, retailing (including litres for petrol sales) and some sports. Apart from pints for draught beer and doorstep milk, the major exception remains road signs.

As a result, the UK is stuck half way through a conversion process, and the Government has said it has no plans to sort out the resulting muddle.

UKMA’s case for metric road signs

UKMA published “Metric signs ahead”* in 2006, arguing the case for metric road signs. Here is an extract from its executive summary.

• “The primary and overriding reason for extending the process of metric conversion to road signage is that it will enable the UK at last to enjoy a single system of measurement which is understood and used by everyone for all purposes - thus making it unnecessary for British people to be fluent with two very different and incompatible systems of measurement

• A second reason is that it would provide drivers with consistent information in one single, easy system of units

• Thirdly, a single set of units would be efficient for mapmakers, surveyors, engineers, motor manufacturers and contractors who build and maintain the UK’s road infrastructure

• Furthermore, there are many other reasons why it would be beneficial to complete the changeover as soon as possible, including:

It would possible easily to calculate fuel consumption and engine efficiency.
Speed limits could be reviewed and adjusted more sensitively according to local road conditions.
Drivers visiting the UK could drive more safely.
Signposting would be compatible with Ordnance Survey maps”

At the time UKMA’s best estimate of the cost was £80 million, assuming that speed limit signs were changed over 2 – 3 days, while distance signs were changed over 5 years.

The Department for Transport indicated it had no intention of converting road signs, claiming the cost as £700 millions for an immediate change of 500 000 signs. (This works out at £1400 per sign, although when the Irish changed in 2005, the average cost of new and replacement speed limit signs was £100. Talk about gold plating!)

Bridge strikes

A particular problem with current mess is that of bridge strikes, many of which are by foreign HGV drivers who do not understand imperial measurements. These cost many millions of pounds per year, as well as delays to road and rail users. Both the police and Network Rail have called for dual metric and imperial signs for all low bridges - yet the Department for Transport insists that metric signs should be optional.

Final comment

Robin Paice added: “Every country needs a system of weights and measures that everybody understands and uses for all purposes. Nobody needs two systems. It is untenable that road signs can remain indefinitely a stand alone system separate from the rest of society.”

ends

Notes for editors

(a)The UK Metric Association (UKMA) is an independent, non-party political, single issue organisation which advocates the full adoption of the international metric system (”Système International” - SI) for all official, trade, legal, contractual and other purposes in the United Kingdom as soon as practicable. UKMA is financed entirely by membership subscriptions and personal donations.

(b)Further extensive background information can be found generally on UKMA’s website at www.ukma.org.uk .

(c)*A free downloadable electronic version of “Metric signs ahead” is available to bona fide journalists

(d)The Chairman of UKMA is available for interviews.

(e)Please note that the correct symbol for “kilometres per hour” is “km/h” (as on vehicle instrument panels) - not the little understood “kph”.

Please follow this link for a photo of what could be the UK’s oldest metric distance sign.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dgeezer/2699831318/sizes/l/in/set-72157606355604347/ 
  
It has to be admitted that this sign shows its mile value more predominantly, and “KILOs” is not the modern symbol for distance, but this little piece of history is 100 years old this week! The British and Irish Parliament had agreed some time before the 1908 Games that metric measures could be adopted for all purposes. But Metric Views believes that this Edwardian marathon marker is the oldest surviving sign in Britain showing kilometres.
 
Clearly, the organisers of the 1908 London Games had to face up to the issue of measurement systems - whether to use international or Imperial measures. It does seem rather extraordinary that, more than a century on, those organising the 2012 London Games still have a problem with signage.
 
This antique also shows that a sign of historical significance can be retained as an interesting local feature long after its practical life is over; modernising our road signs does not mean the end for genuinely historic posts and signs dotted throughout the UK. Let’s just hope that, as this historic marker enters its second century, it stays untouched by those who now object to the use of internationally accepted units on road signs in Britain.

With a headline “EU abolishes British acre” the Telegraph declares that “The acre, one of Britain’s historic imperial measurements, is to be banned from use under a new European directive.” Similarly, the Daily Mail’s headline announced: “Selling land by the acre to be banned under new EU ruling.” See these links:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1036895/Selling-land-acre-banned-new-EU-ruling.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2310257/European-Union-abolishes-the-British-acre.html

Both papers then go on to print verbatim the misinformed comments of a Conservative spokesman - from which it is obvious that the story emanates from a Conservative Party press release.

In fact the acre is not to be abolished. All that has happened is that, since the UK’s Land Registries have for many years used hectares rather than acres for land registration, it has been agreed that the exemption for acres for this purpose (and this purpose only) is redundant. So the decision is a tidying up measure that makes no practical difference to this or any other uses of the acre.

In any case, land is not bought and sold by unit of area (that is, priced per acre or hectare). Each site is unique and is sold as a single lot. You can’t stroll into the estate agent and order “10 acres/hectares of land, please”. Where acres and hectares are used, they are simply descriptions of the size of a site.

However, when it comes to paying of EU subsidies under the Common Agricultural Policy, hectares are of course mandatory. This is because a consistent means of calculating subsidies is necessary, and since every other country uses hectares, it is only sensible that the UK should fall into line.

UKMA believes that it would be better if acres WERE abolished for all remaining legal, trade and official purposes. Once it is understood that a hectare is equivalent to a square 100 m by 100 m, it is very easy to work with. (The Mail and Telegraph articles illustrate the dysfunctional nature of acres by including the helpful information that an acre is 4840 square yards!) It is also highly inconvenient to have to work in hectares for some purposes and acres for others, with all the problems of conversion errors and incomprehension that result.

So the Mail and the Telegraph got it wrong. The EU has not abolished the acre. If only the UK Government would.

As technology develops, so the International System of Units (SI) evolves.  The status of SI is published from time to time by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) and is available on their website (home page - www.bipm.org).

In the eighth edition the classification of “non-SI units accepted for use with the International System” (such as hours, minute, litres, tonnes, etc) was re-organised.  One of the sections that is of interest is the set of units in Table 7 of the SI standard – “Non-SI units whose values in SI units must be obtained experimentally”.  Ten units are listed, three of which are endorsed “Units accepted for use with the SI”.  These three are:

* Electronvolt (symbol eV),
* Dalton (D) or unified atomic mass unit (u)
* Astronomical unit (symbol ua)

The remaining seven units are included because of their fundamental importance in modern physics.

The choice of the name “Dalton” is of particular interest.  John Dalton (1766 – 1844) was born in Cumbria and worked in Manchester.  His work laid the basis of atomic theory so it is appropriate that the “standard” atomic mass (one twelfth of the mass of the nucleus of a carbon 12 atom in its rest state) should be called a “dalton”. Dalton therefore is the seventh British scientist or engineer to be honoured in this way.  The other six are:

·        Isaac Newton  -  the unit of force is the newton (N)

·        James Joule  -  the unit of energy (or work or amount of heat) is the joule (J)

·        Michael Faraday  -  the unit of capacitance is the farad (F)

·        James Watt  -  the unit of power (radiant flux) is the watt (W)

·        William Thomson, Lord Kelvin  -  the unit of thermodynamic temperature is the kelvin (K)

·        Louis Gray  -  the unit of absorbed dose of specific (imparted) energy is the gray (Gy)

In their 2006 wayfinding study, Legible London described the situation of pedestrian signage as, “Distance Information. Minutes, miles, metres or yards? Across the systems there are inconsistencies which can be confusing for a pedestrian”. For their new wayfinding system distances are shown only in “minutes”.

Prototype signs have been installed in the West End. The maps on the signs have no scale, but do have a circle labelled in “minutes walk”. The implication is that all places within the circle can be walked to within the time shown. This is quite misleading as roads mostly do not lead in straight lines from the centre of the circle to its circumference.

The distances to various points of interest are also listed on the signs in “minutes”. Hopefully these walking times have not been calculated “as the crow flies” too.

No indication is given of the walking speed used to calculate walking times. Walking speeds vary widely between individuals, and are dependent on prevailing conditions such as weather and how crowded the streets are. Anyone who walks particularly slowly, is disabled, has children with them, or is walking in wintry conditions will have to guess how to adjust the times shown accordingly. Consequently, the figures shown can really only be used in comparison with each other, and not as an absolute guide. Surely it would be more useful to show distances using standard units of distance rather than improvised units based on time.

Metres are widely understood by both visitors and Londoners alike; whereas feet, yards and fractions of miles are unfamiliar to the majority of overseas visitors. With OS maps using a metric grid system since the 1940s, and other London travel maps using metric scales, one has to wonder at the continued reluctance of authorities to use the metre as a unit of distance on signage in the 21st century. Transport for London are missing a golden opportunity here to standardise on metres for all pedestrian signage.

Feedback on the new signs is being invited at the following link.

http://www.legiblelondon.info/wp01/?p=23

Four countries, now members of the EU, were or are users of the Imperial system of measures. Readers of MetricViews are familiar with the UK’s two-system mess. The situation in Ireland has been the subject of several comments on the blog, as a result of the metric changeover of the road signs in the Republic of Ireland in 2005. So that leaves Malta and the Republic of Cyprus (RoC).

MetricViews would welcome information on the situation in Malta. I can, however, report, following a brief visit, on the current position on the metric changeover in the RoC.

Cyprus was administered by Britain from 1878 onwards, became a Crown Colony in 1923 and gained independence in 1960. The Republic of Cyprus joined the EU in 2004.

There is evidence of the period of British administration everywhere in the RoC. The cars drive on the left and have British style number plates using the Latin alphabet, the system of land registration is said to be the best in the Mediterranean, and even the electrical plugs are our familiar square pin 13A. But of the imperial system of measures, I found absolutely no trace, on the roads, in shops, in publications, or elsewhere.

The absence of old road signs was particularly surprising. I fully expected on back roads to find some rusty relics of the imperial era. If they ever existed, they had all disappeared.

Australia is said to be the most SI country in the world. Yet, during a visit in 2006, I found many reminders of the time before the metric changeover, not only on private property but also in the public domain. So how has the RoC achieved a clean sweep?

New-found prosperity may be part of the answer. The RoC has now the fourth highest income per head of all EU countries, and much of the infrastructure is recent. But I suggest that Cyprus shows that the success of the metric changeover is not down to money (the UK is up there with the RoC when it comes to prosperity) or to EU membership, but to popular attitudes and to the competence and determination of governments.

Do readers agree?

A reader of Metric Views has written to us as follows :

“I read this story on the guardian website today and thought it may be of interest to you:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/20/travelandtransport.carbonemissions

To summarise it, it has been proposed the fuel efficiency in the UK and the US is displayed as gallons consumed per so many miles rather than the number of miles that can travelled per gallon (gpm rather than mpg).

The case for this is valid - it shows the potential fuel savings of a more efficient vehicle more clearly. However there is no mention of the fact that this is how metric countries have been measuring fuel efficiency for many years (as litres per 100 km).

If they are going to change the system it would make sense to adopt the international system.

Admittedly there is still the issue that we use miles for everything so the public would understand gallons per miles better, though perhaps litres per 100 miles might be a compromise moving us in the right direction?”

Metric Views wonders what are the chances of the US changing the habits of a century. And we are not sure about the suggestion of litres per 100 miles - temporary arrangements have a habit of becoming permanent.

The web site does not appear to have facilities for comment on this story, but it may be possible to respond to Ian Sample, the Guardian science correspondent.

(And don’t forget whichever way round you put the numbers, there are 4.546 litres to an imperial gallon and only 3.785 litres to a US gallon.)

http://www.expressandstar.com/2008/06/18/metric-signs-call-after-crash/

PC Michael Percival, of Watling Street police station in Cannock, was reported to have said: “We are making recommendations, as are Network Rail, to have metric signs put up in the area. This will hopefully alleviate the problems.”

Despite metric height restriction signs being legal since 1981, many bridges in the UK still have height warning signs in feet and inches only – units that are unfamiliar to most drivers from outside the UK, and probably many UK drivers too.

The Department for Transport Traffic Signs Manual has the following to say on the subject, “Metric heights may be shown in addition to imperial heights at any bridge. This is recommended for all bridges on main routes and on roads used frequently by foreign drivers”.

The cost of a bridge inspection resulting from a bridge bashing incident can be very expensive, hundred thousand-pound figures are not unheard of, and bridge repairs can run into costs approaching millions of pounds.

On their website, Network Rail states that, for the year to 31 March 2007, there were over 2000 reported bridge strikes, and that this number continues to rise. On average about 6 bridge strikes are reported each day.