A supporter of BWMA's and ARM's campaign, formerly a builder, writes:

"As a building trade foreman, metric proved disastrous, demanding many more numbers, and with a millimetre scale impossible to read in a bad light.

"After centuries of coping with bricks in many sizes, we had initially standardised at 8 5/8ths" by 2 5/8ths" with a 3/8ths" joint, four to the yard and four to the foot.

"Now it is 65mm thick, I forget the length, with 10mm joints making it 75mm laid. All very awkward.

"Paving slabs in metric sizes are smaller than those in Imperial sizes, so ugly wide joints are appearing in pavements. What a mess!

"Keep up the good work"


[From EC]

I believe that centimetres and metres should be used when it comes to building. These are far more user friendly than millimetres. Millimetres should only be used for measuring objects under a centimetre in my opinion.

This example might be more convincing if a builder used to working with metric standards tried the Imperial one and found it more convenient.

<<
I believe that centimetres and metres should be used when it comes to building. These are far more user friendly than millimetres. Millimetres should only be used for measuring objects under a centimetre in my opinion.
>>

One of the reasons why millimeters are used in engineering in general is that there is less risk of the decimal point being lost - furthermore, if millimeters are always used and centimeters are never used, ther eis no need to record the units that are used.

Well, with the English system, we don't have problems with decimal points being missed or misplaced.

That's true, but you have awkward fractions and units that are far less precise than millimetres.

far less precise? You can use any unit to measure anything to any precision you wish - you just keep subdividing as far as you want to go. And from my personal experience installing a wooden floor in my room, I can tell you that mixing centimeters and millimeters is a nightmare (I tried to use metric because I wanted to use my calculator, but I quickly realized that the decimal point is as much of a nuisance as a fraction bar, so I quickly reverted back.)

<<
Well, with the English system, we don't have problems with decimal points being missed or misplaced.
>>

The following two are quite easily confused, especially if hand written: 1 11/16 ands 11 1/16

Bud wrote

<<
I can tell you that mixing centimeters and millimeters is a nightmare
>>

The reason for the nightmare is quite simple - you should not mix your units - stick to eiher cm throughout or to mm throughout.


When I was at school, I was taught the phrase "Ek moenie my languages mix nie". Had I been in England and not South Africa, the equivalent phrase would have been "Je ne par mix mon languages" or "Ich mussen mir languages nicht mixen".

...or "tolladdau 3 milltir" (3=tri) which is welsh for "Toll 3 miles" at which point you pay £4.50 to enter Wales.

Irrelevent, but probably the best I could come up with on a Monday morning.

>>> "The reason for the nightmare is quite simple - you should not mix your units - stick to eiher cm throughout or to mm throughout".

In which case, how does the user benefit from the simpler-to-calculate conversion factor from mm to cm to m?

The text "3 milltir" is a blatant breach of the EU directive 80/181/EEC - it should read 3 miles!

The EU has always supported minority languages - my Dutch grandfather came from the province of Friesland -a province of the Netherlands thatg has its own language. They get around the problem of denoting distances in their own language quitre simply - they just use the internationally asccepted phrase "5 km". (The symbol "km" is the same whatever the language, even in Greek!)

Nothing to do with the EU. It was a parliamentary thing.
That nazi superstate thing had no part in it.
BTW, yards is "llath" but the accepted abbreviation is "yds" !

Under the Directive, the sign should use 'mile'. Therefore, amongst other things the Directive provides that the unit is to be described in an official Community language.

Therefore the sign violates Community and international law, but not domestic law.

<<
Under the Directive, the sign should use 'mile'. Therefore, amongst other things the Directive provides that the unit is to be described in an official Community language.
>>

When the negotitiaons were going on regarding the EU directove 80/181/EEC, the base document was the recomendation for SI from the International Bureau of Weights and Measures. The Thatcher Government insisted that they be allowed to keep the mile, yard, foot and inch for use on road signs. The agreed symbols were foot - "ft"; yard - "yd", inch - "in". These symbols were to be used in any language. This left a problem with miles - the symbol "m" could not be used because that meant "metres", "ml" could not ber used - it meant "milli-litres" and so on. Eventually the only sensible combination that was left was to leave it as it was - ie "miles". No other country objected since the only countries that used miles where the UK and Ireland.

Er, what does the US use? Or were you referring to just europe (ewrop).

BTW - I've seen "mi" in the US. Do you have any objection to that Mr Martin?

BTW(2) - The law that states that dual language signs be used in Wales was as a direct result of "direct action" from people who realised that their culture was under threat from outside.

(ahem....)

In the US, the accepted symbols are (note the use of periods):

inches-in.
feet-ft.
yards-yd.
miles-mi.
miles-per hour mph
feet per second-fps

In the US you will be hard pressed to find roadway distances measured in yards, as I have noted before. Thus there will be signs saying:

This Lane Ends
1 mi.

Construction
1500 ft.

Construction
1/2 mi.

<<
The law that states that dual language signs be used in Wales was as a direct result of "direct action" from people who realised that their culture was under threat from outside
>>

Dutch law states exactly the same as regards the province of Friesland - however they use "km", "km/h", "m", "t" etc as the standard symbols.

<<
I've seen "mi" in the US. Do you have any objection to that Mr Martin?
>>

In a metric country yes - the "m" stands for milli-something, but the "i" has no meaning.

Why would a metric country use "miles" on its road?

(heh!)

It doesn't stop the UK, does it ?

Our Builder friend is showing his age.

Metrication of the construction industry was completed almost 30 years ago (1975, to be exact).

I've asked a number of my colleagues who are old enough to remember the "good old days" and not one of them wanted to change back.

By the way, a brick is 215mm long which gives a laid length of 225mm including the 10mm mortar "perp".

225, 450, 675, 900, 1800 etc. So simple even a builder can manage it.

Also, if the light isn't good enough to read a drawing it isn't good enough to build anything. I'd suggest setting up some builders lamps or leaving it until the following morning. Although I can't imagine how it would be more difficult to read a measure given in millimetres where all the numbers are the same height than it would be to read something written with tiny ' and " symbols and all those fractions.

Last time I checked a brick did not include fractional sizes.

Bricks come:

2"x4"x8"

There is 1/2" of mortar between them. This is not difficult work with. Tell me, Evil Engineer why your length of 215 mm with a 10 mm mortar is easier to figure than nice round numbers like 2 6 8 and 1/2?

As another point, when the bricks made of these dimensions are stacked in course, you get walls of an even size in feet (imagine that).

9"+9"+9"+9" and so on will always give you a wall that comes out in a length quickly divisible into a foot or a yard.

A wall made with customary bricks 200 bricks long comes to 1800", 150', or 50 yd.

Your brick of 225 mm in a stack of 200 bricks long comes to 45000 mm, 45 cm, or 45 m.

And since I would measure a wall in feet and you would measure one in millimeters (to keep your units consistant), I have a wall 150 feet long. You have a wall 45000 mm long. I like 150 better than 45000.

I don't think this question by BWMA has been properly answered:

<<
In which case, how does the user benefit from the simpler-to-calculate conversion factor from mm to cm to m?
>>

It followed from Martin's point that that its best not to mix cm, mm and that mm-only dimensions can omit the decimal point.

My answer is as follows:

The ease of conversion between the different sized units mentioned is in fact key to the whole thing.

The first point to bear in mind is that given a dimension in mm one can think of it in any form you like e.g.

1487 mm = 148.7 cm = 1.487 m.

No arithmetic is needed.

So what's the importance of this?

Well suppose the above dimension was the length of a piece of furniture. Lets consider various ways that people might use the information;

* The person who is to actually construct it would require mm precision, so 1487 mm would be appropriate.

* The end user who wants to know if it can be accommodated in the space available. In this case cm would probably do so 148.7 ~ 149 cm.

* Estimates for materials. Decimeter precision probably ok, 1.487 m ~ 1.5 m.

Now the second point to bear in mind is that we achieved all the above with a straight integral number that can be shown unambiguously on a drawing, with no punctuations like . ' " that depend for clarity on high quality print or space consuming symbols like ft ins.

The third point is that mm dimensions can be read straight off a metric rule or tape measure with no more effort than cm.

Now compare this with the Imperial equivalent to the nearest 1/16 inch:

1487 mm ~ 4' 10 9/16"

We could in theory use the same method as above, i.e. simple whole numbers only, if we chose 1/16" (1/16 inch is about the right precision for furniture making)as the base unit like we did with mm for metric.

So the above becomes 16(48 + 10) + 9 = 937 sixteenths.

We then put 937 on the drawing and a general note that all dimensions are sixteenths of an inch.

Note that the symbol 937 is easier and clearer to indicate than 4' 10 9/16"

There is no way that anyone could sensibly read 937 sixteenths off a tape measure. It doesn't lend itself to more approximate interpretations either, e.g. nearest inch for the end user or nearest foot say for estimating materials.

Ok no one uses Imperial that way, of course not. Fact is they couldn't sensibly do so even if they wanted to.

Just to show I am not trying to criticise Imperial on the basis of in-appropriate methods (like the anti-mets do for metric) I acknowledge that the cabinet maker measures 4' 10 9/16", the end user 4'11" and 5' for materials estimates.

I also draw attention to the fact that I did not prejudice the argument by choosing convenient rational figures for the metric case only.

I would further contend however that measuring to the nearest mm on a metric rule or tape measure is easier than measuring to the 1/16" on an imperial device. The latter requires more effort because of the need to identify where it appears on the scale using fractional arithmetic.

re (pip): 'mm-only measures can omit the decimal point'.

One builder on a site to another:

"Fred, get me one of those two thousand, nine hundred and eighty-seven mills by one thousand, one hundred and ninety-one mill doors, would you, mate?

"Oh and then bring me one of those one thousand, seven hundred and fifty-six mills by one thousand, four hundred and seventy-nine mill windows, would you?

"And I'll need some by seventy-five by six hundred and seventy-seven mill posts for the jambs, as well.

"By the way, I've measured the garden and found out it's seventy one thousand, eight hundred and ninety-five mills long. How many seven hundred and seventy-five mills by seven hundred and seventy-five mill slabs will we need to get from here to that two thousand two hundred and twenty-five mill fence at the bottom of the garden? Allow say fifteen mills for the joins".

Other builder:

"Really sorry, Bill, did you say the two thousand two hundred and twenty-nine by one thousand one hundred and eleven mill windows or the one thousand seven hundred and fifty-six by one thousand four hundred and seventy-nine windows?"

"B____r! I've just measured that wall and I can't remember if it was eight thousand seven hundred and nintey-six mills long or seven thousand eight hundred and sixty-nine mills. Or it might have been..."

[cont. p.94]

Pip see my above argument with the bricks. I have a 150' wall while you have a 45000 mm wall. Don't argue that your wall is 45 meters because I have already been told that on drawings all units will be the same, so my detail showing the brick will be the same units as the length of the proposed wall.

150 and 45000, both approximately the same length, one easier to say, read and remember.

<<
"Fred, get me one of those two thousand, nine hundred and eighty-seven mills by one thousand, one hundred and ninety-one mill doors, would you, mate?
>>

Doors normally comne is stnadard sizes and I don't recall seing this size - at close on three meter high it is a very large door

MattS wrote

<<
Bricks come:

2"x4"x8"
>>

They might do so in the US, but not in the UK.
215mm = 8.5in (approx) and 65mm = 2.6in (approx). I beleive that UK bricks are 215 x 108 x 65.

<<
Pip see my above argument with the bricks. I have a 150' wall while you have a 45000 mm wall. Don't argue that your wall is 45 meters because I have already been told that on drawings all units will be the same, so my detail showing the brick will be the same units as the length of the proposed wall.

150 and 45000, both approximately the same length, one easier to say, read and remember.
>>

The recomendation for writing number that have more than four digits is to use a separator (or better still an "en space(a narrow space which cannot be reproduiced using a monospaced typeface) between each group of three digits. Thus, one would write 45,000 or 45 000. If one was reading the figure, one would read it as being 45m.

Evil Engineer: "It doesn't stop the UK, does it ?"

AHA!

So the UK is a metric country then!!! That's what you are saying!

So the miles, yards etc etc on our roads in the UK are metric measures?

Nice one!

Martin: "one would read it as being 45m"

(said in German voice):

You have forgotten zee rools again Martin - BAD BOY.
You must leave zee gap between zee meaurement zimbol and zee number zerfore you should have written:

45 m

Zis is zee rool - if you continue to dissobey I vill come down on you like a ton of bricks.

(hmm, how apt)

"The recomendation for writing number that have more than four digits is to use a separator (or better still an "en space(a narrow space which cannot be reproduiced using a monospaced typeface) between each group of three digits. Thus, one would write 45,000 or 45 000. If one was reading the figure, one would read it as being 45m"

Notice, I do not have that problem with my length in feet since 1 foot is of an adequate size for measurement. I have already been told that on drawings all measurements are given in millimeters, so your argument to read 45 m is meaningless. Besides, what about my wall if it were not 150 feet long, but 156 feet long, or 208 American bricks?

156 feet at 208 8" bricks equals
46 800 mm at 208 225 mm bricks

Your numbers are still too complicated to remember because they have too many digits.

Furthermore, your other dimensions of 108 mm and 65 mm are equally as nonsensical. A wall is then measured in heights in multiple of 85 mm if you include the 10 mm mortar joint.

That makes a 12 brick height course 1 020 mm compared with my 12 brick height of 36" or 3' No matter what my height is, it always divides out into a nice number in feet, whereas yours will aways be this awkward large number or number with a decimal point.

Face it, my brick math is simpler than yours is and quickly divisible.

Steve,

These "rules" are there for a purpose - to make it easier to read the numbers.

Whe I was working in Germany (2 years ago), I had ot check whether or not EXCEL could read a file that some software had generated. The customers who used this software were from anywhere in Europe or the US and I was able to show a number of deficiencies (Mainly on the dates).


BTW - are you aware that the Germans woud write ten thousand as 10.000 instead of 10,000. The reson why a space is recpomended rather than a dot or a commka is to overcome this problem.

Martin: "BTW - are you aware that the Germans woud write ten thousand as 10.000 instead of 10,000. The reson why a space is recpomended rather than a dot or a commka is to overcome this problem."

Correction: the whole world writes ten thousand as "10.000". Only in the English-speaking world, with the exception of South Africa, it's "10,000".

Well if we are playing silly b******

Alternative conversation:

"Fred, get me one of those nine feet nine and 5 eight inch by 3 foot ten and seven eight inch doors, would you, mate?

"Oh and then bring me one of those five feet nine and one eigth inch by four feet ten and a quarter inch windows, would you?

"And I'll need some ? by two and fifteen sixteeth inch by 2 feet 2 and a quarter inch posts for the jambs, as well.

"By the way, I've measured the garden and found out it's 78 yards 1 foot ten and half inch long. How many 2 foot six and a half inch by 2 foot six and a half inch slabs will we need to get from here to that 7 feet 3 and five eigth inch fence at the bottom of the garden? Allow say nine sixteenth of an inch for the joins".

Reminder of the original version of this latter problem:

<<
"By the way, I've measured the garden and found out it's seventy one thousand, eight hundred and ninety-five mills long. How many seven hundred and seventy-five mills by seven hundred and seventy-five mill slabs will we need to get from here to that two thousand two hundred and twenty-five mill fence at the bottom of the garden? Allow say fifteen mills for the joins".
>>

Answer 71895/(775 + 15) = 71895/790 ~ 91 slabs (used windows calculator).

Now come on you yards, feet and inch lubbers do your version of it!

(You may use any calculating aid you like)

<<
Correction: the whole world writes ten thousand as "10.000". Only in the English-speaking world, with the exception of South Africa, it's "10,000".
>>

Correction accepted - I only mentioned Germany since I had just referred to the fact that I was working there. I have worked in the Netherlands, Italy and South Africa as well and am fully aware of the fact. (Possibly Steve H was not aware of the fact).

1. An English brick is 215mm long by 102mm wide (yes, 4 inches) by 65mm high. The size of a brick wasn't altered at metrication and as 215mm isn't a whole number of inches it follows that fractions must have been used.

2. American bricks are obviously a different size. However the actual size of your bricks has a significant effect on the overall visual appearance of the finished masonry. A 50mm high brick with 12.5mm beds would look very odd to english eyes. Not to mention problems keying new walls into existing walls.

3. An 8" long brick with a 1/2" perp end gives a gauge length of 8 1/2" not 9". Not quite as easy as MattS makes it out.

4. A wall 200 bricks long is in fact 44,990mm because the last brick doesn't require it's own perp. By the way, your 150ft wall is in fact 45,720mm long. That's quite an error you've got there !

5. Vertical brick gauge lengths are 75mm, including the mortar. Each brick only requires one mortar bed because it's already sat on the mortar that was included with the brick directly below ! This means that four bricks are 300mm high, hence your typical storey height of 3300mm.

6. I think you need to go back and check your "simple" brick maths. Using your 2" high bricks with a 1/2" mortar bed gives a wall 30" high NOT 36". You appear to have a wall with 1" thick mortar beds. I wouldn't stand too close when the wind is blowing.

I've learned more about bricklaying reading this damn thread than I've ever done before in my life.

Now I've got to sift through the informtaion and misinformation.

Oh hold on - no, I've got better things to do! ;)

"By the way, I've measured the garden and found out it's 78 yards 1 foot ten and half inch long. How many 2 foot six and a half inch by 2 foot six and a half inch slabs will we need to get from here to that 7 feet 3 and five eigth inch fence at the bottom of the garden? Allow say nine sixteenth of an inch for the joins."

*No one* measures with a combination of yards feet and inches.

The garden: 235' 10.5" which is almost 236'.

And since you are obviously clueless about customary measures, things like your "slabs" will come in lengths given in inches. In this case it's 30.5"

And we wouldn't assume a number like 9/16ths for anything; try 1/2. Now your "hard" problem becomes easier.

236/((30.5+.5)/12)~91 slabs.

I used windows calculator too. I just have to add a factor of 12 for inches. Big deal.

It all depends on how you measure something. You need to realize that long distances are measured in feet and inches. Short distances are measured in inches, and you just carry a factor of twelve. Besides, my numbers look nicer than yours do. They're shorter and simpler.

236 compared to 71895.

We can each create nasty looking problems for each other to do. What you aren't seeing is that the materials for the customary world are made to simplify computations for the builder.

Things like slabs and bricks and pavers come in lengths of inches like 2" or 6" or 8" or 9" or 18" or 24" or 30". These numbers divide nicely by twelve.

We measure things in either all inches or a combination of feet and inches. Whereas you would look for a number with a lot of zeros at the end, we would look for a number divisible by 12.

Matt

Your garden is about 72m long. Each slab is about 0.75m long. 100 slabs would be 75m, which is about 3m too long. 4 slabs are 3m long, so we would need 96 slabs.

All done without a calculator.

I have already been told that no one will issue a building drawing with dimensions in meters, so your post is extraneous.

<<
We can each create nasty looking problems for each other to do. What you aren't seeing is that the materials for the customary world are made to simplify computations for the builder.
>>

I was only using the figures that Tony invented, which I converted to imperial equivalents to the nearest 1/16th inch.

I am well aware that they were all b__ks!

Even so I would point out that the metric case was simpler to work out no matter how awkward the numbers. If you use a calculator then its only the number of operations that mark the difference rather than the convenience of the numbers themselves.

In any case no one in their right mind would measure the length of a garden in mm, especially one more than 70 m long.

During the course of these exhanges, the point about mm only measures was taken out of context and the matter of sensible application was ignored.

cm, dm or even m only are also an option for larger scale measures. It's horses for courses. It just requires the user to be competent with measures generally and understand the rules about precision and what levels are appropriate.

"During the course of these exhanges, the point about mm only measures was taken out of context and the matter of sensible application was ignored.

cm, dm or even m only are also an option for larger scale measures. It's horses for courses. It just requires the user to be competent with measures generally and understand the rules about precision and what levels are appropriate."


That's correct, and you can't make a judgement about what system may be easier if someone has grown up measuring in feet and inches, he will always tell you that feet and inches work the best. Provided you are clued in to how the system operates you can easily handle the computations nescessary.

The point is that since I use these measurements everyday, I have gotten used to them. I can probably work a problem in feet and inches as fast as you can work one in metric. I like my system and you like yours. No one should tell me to switch because they think theirs is better. Neither is better.

My living room is 23ft long.
I could probably work out what that is in metres.

But I know it *IS* 23ft long.

Steve, did you measure it yourself or are you relying on what the estate agent told you?

Estate agent literature, and then when i saw it visually for the first time, all empty like.

Most in the UK would need a measuring device to work out the metres (or do the "divide by three and subtract a little bit" stuff). Visually we can predict it accurately in feet, which we did.

<<
The reason for the nightmare is quite simple - you should not mix your units - stick to eiher cm throughout or to mm throughout.
>>

But sometimes you don't have much choice....the labeling on the package is in one unit and the construction instructions use another unit. In my case the dimensions of the wood were given in metric in cm and the instructions referred mostly to mm for small lengths and cm or m for larger ones.

To MattS:

I think your obsessed with the 12 times table !

Are you really suggesting that the equivalent metric sizes of 50, 150, 200, 450, 600 and 900 etc. are more difficult to work with than your examples?

I don't think so. The fact that they don't divide by 12 is irrelevent because they aren't related back to the foot. However the fact they are all multiples of 50 is.

>>
I have already been told that no one will issue a building drawing with dimensions in meters, so your post is extraneous
<<

I do it all the time and nobody's ever complained !

>>
my numbers look nicer than yours do
<<

We really are scraping the barrel, there. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Personally I prefer nice round numbers to all those nasty threes and sixes.

Also, your example is highly unlikey to occur in real life. Nobody is going to measure 236ft and change it into metric as you have obviously done.

People are always going to naturally use a nice round number in their chosen system. I would go for a nice 72m (or 72 000mm) which just so happens to be 120 standard metric paving slabs (600x600 as built)long.

You are right about horses for courses when it comes to choice of units for drawings. Typically it would be millimetres for all structural and architectural drawings and metres for external works and civils.

However, the two should never be mixed on the same drawing. UK convention also rules out the cm and dm as drawing units, although I understand that the cm is used in Europe.

You like feet and inches and prefer working in that system ? Fine, good for you.

You've obviously spent a number of years learning all the work rounds and commiting the little conversion factors to memory.

Think back to the day you joined the industry. Wouldn't live have been easier if the only factor you needed was 1000 ?

No matter what you say, metric is definitely easier to learn and to use. Especially as an Engineer.

If you don't want to use it that's your loss. I've asked a number of colleagues in their 50's who remember using both systems and not one of them wanted to go back to imperial.

So, don't just take my word for it.....

>Also, your example is highly unlikey to occur in real life. Nobody is going to measure 236ft and change it into metric as you have obviously done.

Firstly, I did not do this. Pip's original problem stated the garden was 78 yds. 1 ft. 10.5" I merely converted it to feet since we measure with feet and inches only. Pavers in the US come either 24" or 36" which would make nice round numbers in feet.

>You've obviously spent a number of years learning all the work rounds and commiting the little conversion factors to memory.

I didn't find work arounds. You seem to not realize that in the US things are designed so that they work well with feet and inches. Materials come in multiples of the foot. I don't have to learn any kind of special stuff to use the units, things are designed for them. As for conversion factors, I did not "commit them to memory." I know them like I know how to speak English. It's all I've ever used.

>Think back to the day you joined the industry.
Wouldn't live have been easier if the only factor you needed was 1000 ?

I'm only 23. I have only ever known a 12" ruler (which conveniently fits in my briefcase, unlike a meter stick). I was taught metric in school and used in in college a tad, but it's NEVER used for anything in real life to any extent in my profession or my life, so it looks HARDER, not EASIER to learn another system than the one I know. It's like learning another language.

You all don't seem to understand that almost NOTHING in the US is metric and thus we consider it like a goofy system used only in chemistry and physics problems from High School. Real people use customary measures all over this country all the time.

MattS wrote <<I'm only 23>>

Matt, you are the exact age that I was when South Africa started her metrication program. I had just finished a degree in hysics and Applied Maths and was working at a research laboratory in Johannesburg. I made a point in learning the practical aspects of the metric system and it is now my system of choice.

ALthough we were taught in Farenheit at School, it was only when I started travelling for real that I started to understand what temperatures really were by which time I was using Celsius.

"Real people use customary measures all over this country all the time."

So those who use metric are 'pretend' people?

The Marlborough cigarette ads tried ot give teh impression that "real men" smoked Marlborough. The ads depicted a cowboy ....

"Real people use customary measures all over this country all the time."

Same in the UK

so welcome to the minority of metric (ab)users on this board who come here just to be "anti" !

However it is fun though - so may it continue!

"Real people use customary measures all over this country all the time."

When I say "real" people, I am referring to the general American public. The only people in the US that us metric on a daily regular basis are those in the pure sciences, but then only in their jobs. In fact, it's almost impossible to "choose" metric in the US for everyday activities. People don't understand it because it's NOT USED.

I don't know why you guys have trouble comprehending that things in the US aren't made with metric dimensions; distances aren't measured with metric dimensions; things aren't cooked with metric measures; construction is not done in metric measures; the weather is not given in metric measures. Metric is a NON-entity in everyday life in the US.

"Matt, you are the exact age that I was when South Africa started her metrication program."

Yes, but in your case, your whole country was switching to metric by force. I grew up doing everything in customary measures and we have never had to switch and so I don't see any need/reason to use the other system (although I understand it very well)

People in the US view metric in one of two ways. It's either some quirky system used by scientists and people in other countries OR it is a part of our customary system, but they are not sure how and don't care how it relates.

<<
Yes, but in your case, your whole country was switching to metric by force. I grew up doing everything in customary measures and we have never had to switch and so I don't see any need/reason to use the other system
>>

Ten years previously South Africa had decimalised her currency. Although it meant removing the Queen's head from the South African coins (Decimlaisation co-incided with South Africa leaving the Commonwealth over the Apartheid issue), the decimalisation issue was handled in a sensitive manner and many clamps put on profiteering, so the Government were trusted to handle the metrication issue.

Also, decimalisation and metrication were seen to a certain extent of the country asserting her independence by using a "modern" system rather than the archaic system used in Britian.

"leaving" the Commonwealth ?

"Also, decimalisation and metrication were seen to a certain extent of the country asserting her independence by using a "modern" system rather than the archaic system used in Britian."

Using the customary measures here in the US is our way of asserting our independance from the rest of the metric world. Our system of measurement is uniquely American and thus gives a measure of national pride.

Be that as it may, you have missed my point in that in South Africa you were forced by hook or crook to go metric. In the US we can't even choose to use metric in our daily lives because it isn't USEFUL. We haven't been forced to go metric and they won't force us to go metric.

Not only do I not want to use metric, I couldn't choose to use metric even if I wanted to. The reason I tell you that customary measures are better than metric is that the things I use everyday have been made to be easy to use with customary measures.

All the problems that you claim arise by using inches and pounds are NOT problems because all of your problems have been solved by the way things are made or written and because we have all the conversions engraved in our minds. It's more inconvenient than you think to tell me that metric is better because that involves more of a change that you can comprehend.

<<
"leaving" the Commonwealth ?
>>

Yes Steve, in 1960 [white] South Africa voted to become a republic. The republic came into effect on 31st May 1961 and South Africa left the Commonwealth on account of her Apartheid policies. South Africawas re-admitted after the multi-racial election of 1994 when Mandela became president.

Wow, _forced metrication_ causes problems which are "fixed" by putting "clamps" on "profiteering".

Sounds like a two-for-one sale for totalitarians.

At the time the prices of a number of commoditiy items such as petrol, dairy products and basic foodstuffs were regulated by the State, so price control of basic items was not difficult. There were also state subsidies on basic food items when world prices were high.

"At the time the prices of a number of commoditiy items such as petrol, dairy products and basic foodstuffs were regulated by the State, so price control of basic items was not difficult. There were also state subsidies on basic food items when world prices were high."

There's something you'll very *rarely* see the US Government do. You certainly can't have a laissez faire economy with price controls and forced metrication.

<<
There's something you'll very *rarely* see the US Government do. You certainly can't have a laissez faire economy with price controls and forced metrication.
>>

The two were quite separate. I believe that price controls in South Africa were in place in the 1950's if not earlier. The concept was a European one - you cannot compare US fiscal attitudes of 2003 with the fiscal attitides of emerging nations in the 1950's and 1960's.

"The concept was a European one - you cannot compare US fiscal attitudes of 2003 with the fiscal attitides of emerging nations in the 1950's and 1960's. "

I was not comparing fiscal attitudes of the US from 2003. It has been the policy of the US government from it's founding to interfere with the business of the nation as little as possible.

You are right to say that the concept was a European one, in that European nations are more likely to embrace marginally socialist policies.

You see Martin, you may have been around the world to many different countries, but you do not have any idea about Yankee stubborn individualism. Most European minded people don't and can't understand the mind of the American until they spend long periods of time here.

Forced or controlled anything does not sit well with any American mindset. Americans are an independant thinking bunch who do not take well to the government telling them how to run their lives. That goes for every aspect of life including forced metrication. In the late 1970's and early 80's when metric road signs started appearing, there was massive public outcry and they were mostly removed.

Americans like freedom to live their lives the way they see fit and government subjugation does not fit in their minds. When you have learned the American psyche, then come telling me about American fiscal policy.