From today's 'Sunday Telegraph' - reprinted verbatim, in full:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The end of the ounce - by Christopher Booker


There was some late silly-season fluttering of the dovecotes last week when Gunther Verheugen, the EU's commissioner for 'enterprise' (now there's an oxymoron), announced that 'unnamed parties' had lobbied him to ensure that Britain completes its conversion to the metric system. What sticks in the craw of metric fanatics, such as Geoffrey Howe's curious little pressure group the UK Metric Association, is that we enjoy an exemption from Brussels, under which we are graciously permitted to continue putting miles on our road signs and ordering a pint of beer (but not shandy) in a pub.

The Department for Transport responded that it has no plans to metricate Britain's 300,000-plus road signs, not least because of the cost, running into hundreds of millions of pounds. Thus for the time being we can enjoy that traditional British compromise whereby it is a criminal offence to use non-metric measures, for most purposes, but in practice this is widely ignored. In our local market last week, almost everyone, apart from the excellent French cheese stall, had price tickets in pounds and ounces, with kilograms in small print below.

In four years time, however, it will be illegal to show non-metric weights and measures (what are called 'supplementary indicators'). In all the 40-year struggle to impose metrication on Britain, this is the only metric law which has ever been debated or voted on in Parliament, albeit only in the House of Lords.

In 2001 the Government whipped its noble supporters to make it an offence for shopkeepers even to mention pounds and ounces. Among those who dutifully voted to push this through was my old friend Melvyn Bragg, now Lord Bragg of Wigton. When I next ran into him I expressed surprise that he was happy to support such a crazily illiberal measure, He responded with equal surprise: "Did I really do that? I had no idea that was what I was voting for".

So we are now governed.

Welcome back Tony

I'm amazed that the article quoted didn't mention a "pound of bananas"

It has most of the other "metrication myths" though.

Have you (or Mr Booker) ever read the Lacors advice on "pints of shandy"?

Why is selling a pint of shandy illegal?

I note the emotive use of "hundreds of millions of pounds".

Is the UK state so inefficient that it will cost at least £333 (300,000 signs = at least £100,000,000, according to the article) to replace one sign?

"In all the 40-year struggle to impose metrication on Britain, this is the only metric law which has ever been debated or voted on in Parliament, albeit only in the House of Lords."

How about the Weights & Meaures Act 1985 - it defines the units of measurement to be used for various uses for trade in both Imperial & Metric. I believe that it went through the Commons?

It includes (at section 1(3))

"Subject to subsection (4) below, the Secretary of State may by order amend Schedule 1 to this Act by adding to or removing from Parts I to VI of that Schedule any unit of measurement of length, of area, of volume, of capacity, or of mass or weight, as the case may be"

Is the artice suggesting that this sweeping power was never debated in the Commons?

"In 2001 the Government whipped its noble supporters to make it an offence for shopkeepers even to mention pounds and ounces."

It is not an offence to mention imperial. Not today - and (in my opinion) not on 1/1/2010. The article implies that it is an offence today.

Never mind, if you repeat the myths often enough - I'm sure someone will believe them!

<<
Is the UK state so inefficient that it will cost at least £333 (300,000 signs = at least £100,000,000, according to the article) to replace one sign?
>>

That actually seems like a very low estimate to me. It's not just the cost of producing the signs that counts. They have to be shipped across the country using petrol that is getting more costly by the day. Extra workers will have to be hired, or existing workers will have to be paid overtime. A public information campaign will be needed. All these associated costs have to be taken into account.

Bud wrote

<<
That actually seems like a very low estimate to me.
>>

The Iriash replaced 58,000 speed limit signs at a cost of 10.5 million Euros. That works out at less than 200 Euros per sign, or £130 per sign.

Signs don't need to be replaced. It is possible to apply an adhesive sticker (overlay) with the new number over the old number. Only later in time when the sign needs to be replaced due to decay would it be replaced with a new sign. The cost of the overlay is very minimal.

If the style of sign does not change, it will be possible to reuse the entire sign. A "60" mi/h sign can be reused as a 60 km/h sign, etc.

Labor costs are difficult to calculate. If the person who is applying the overlay is doing it during his normal working shift, he is being paid whether he is actually doing something or sitting around twiddling his thumbs. If he is doing it on an over time shift or extra help is hired to make the change, then that time can be charged to sign changing. Of course, extra money in the workers pockets helps stimulate the economy somewhat and with the UK in recession it can't hurt.

ROTFL! Slow growth = recession! He's said it again.

Incidentally, will there need to be a worker placed beside each and every variable speed limit sign? Wel he leap in front of it every few moments and hold up the speed limit for that particular time? And will they use those boards that they use in football to denote how much extra time should be added?

Keep 'em coming mate! You're the best entertainment I've had here since - erm - "euric".

It always amazes me when people wring their hands about metrication costs.

Do they ever worry about the cost of the illegal war in Iraq. Environmental damages don't bother them either as long as they can afford petrol. Ever heard that the surface temperature of the Gulf of Mexico is a staggering 30 C, a veritable hurricane engine? Neither do they ever mention the ongoing savings metrication entails.


Metrication does not cost lives, it saves them. War and environmental damage does and cost many many lives. So what's wrong with getting your priorities right?

Blimey

Didn't realise it was that simple.

<<
The Iriash replaced 58,000 speed limit signs at a cost of 10.5 million Euros. That works out at less than 200 Euros per sign, or £130 per sign.
>>

I think this might be the direct costs of carrying out the conversion that will be borne by the government. It doesn't include costs to the private sector, such as the cost of reprogramming computers, modifying speedometers, reprinting maps, etc. Besides, the 34 "individual road authorities" and "all of the main agencies" had additional costs that are not included or quantified in the total given.


The BWMA website says:
The proposed provision of 58,000 metric speed limit signs and 19,000 new posts for the metrication of speed limits will cost up to 9 million euro. A Government public awareness and information campaign will cost in the region of 1.5 million euro but of course all of the 34 individual road authorities and all of the main agencies such as the National Safety Council, motor industry, Automobile Association, Government Departments etc would provide information to the public also and link into a central metrication website and optimise every opportunity for multi-media coverage.

<<<I think this might be the direct costs of carrying out the conversion that will be borne by the government. It doesn't include costs to the private sector, such as the cost of reprogramming computers, modifying speedometers, reprinting maps, etc. Besides, the 34 "individual road authorities" and "all of the main agencies" had additional costs that are not included or quantified in the total given. >>>

Surely it must include all that and more.

How else can it possibly work out at £130 a sign??

Even including all the indirect costs, I can't see it costing that much.

Andy, you should take a closer look at how bureaucracies function.

Besides, this figure was given by someone who was in favour of the conversion, so it is bound to be on the low side.

"I think this might be the direct costs of carrying out the conversion that will be borne by the government. It doesn't include costs to the private sector, such as the cost of reprogramming computers, modifying speedometers, reprinting maps, etc. Besides, the 34 "individual road authorities" and "all of the main agencies" had additional costs that are not included or quantified in the total given. "


Why not add the cost of re-wallpapering the living room, replacing roof shingles, unplugging the toilet bowl, and a host of any non-related item that comes to mind.

Ireland already had metric distances, so programs may already had a provision for metric. It may be that all that needed to be done was select metric as the default units instead of imperial. As software ages and the computer needs an upgrade for other reasons, the new software will or could be metric only.

Speedometers don't need to be modified. New cars however are sold with a metric speedometer already installed. When your old car is ready for the scrap heap and you purchase a new one, then you get one with a metric binnacle.

Maps are reprinted yearly anyway. New roads, upgrades of old roads require constant changes to maps. Also the distances were in metric for a decade and maps already reflected that. Some maps may, but most maps don't display speed limits. If they do, it more in the fashion of what type of road is likely to carry what speed.

What additional costs did "individual road authorities" and "all of the main agencies" have that are not included or quantified in the total given. " Can you elaborate on what real costs these people have had to endure?

Also, what about the costs of having two different systems on the roads and if they had imperial the cost of being different from their major trading partners? The conversion is a one time cost. It more then pays for itself when it eliminates the continued on going costs of maintaining different opposing systems. Factor that in to please!

Re: "The end of the ounce" - Christopher Booker September 8 2005, 8:04 AM

>>Besides, this figure was given by someone who was in favour of the conversion, so it is bound to be on the low side.<<


metre
Sounds very much like fiendish metric conspiracy?

Ok - now we have two barmy posts with no sense to them at all how about a post relating to reality?

<<
What additional costs did "individual road authorities" and "all of the main agencies" have that are not included or quantified in the total given. " Can you elaborate on what real costs these people have had to endure?
>>

Those exact words were stated by the Irish minster of transport. See http://www.bwmaonline.com/Transport%20-%20Irish%20Road%20Metrication.htm for the full interview. He didn't elaborate, so I can't either.