[BWMA - please don't delete]

Metric meddlers put their feet down

How tall are you? If asked this question, do you reply five feet seven, or six feet two; or do you say 1.7018 metres or 1.8796 metres? I have met few people who would answer this question metrically, including youngsters still at school who have been educated using metric, rather than imperial, units.

Similarly, most of us still talk about a pint of beer, two pounds of apples, a three-mile trip, a six-inch blade, a 15-stone rugby player, and a 10-ton truck. We do so because we feel comfortable that we understand these concepts and can picture instantly what they involve.

But there are people who would rather we no longer used these measurements and think it is about time we adopted the metric system used in most of the rest of the world, with the exception of America. The UK Metric Association has just launched a fresh campaign aimed at persuading the Government to prepare the ground for total metrication by the end of the decade.

It has issued a glossy 60-page report whose purpose is "to persuade responsible opinion formers that the UK should complete the changeover to exclusive use of the international metric system as soon as practicable". It is noteworthy that the intention is to "persuade opinion formers" rather than the general populace, whose views, presumably, can simply be ignored if the great and good are convinced of the case for metrication.

At a press conference to launch the campaign, Geoffrey Howe, its patron, said he felt ashamed that when he was in a position to force the pace on metrication as Chancellor of the Exchequer in the early 1980s he had not done so. He abolished the Metrication Board, for which he was responsible, as a cost-cutting measure.

The momentum towards metrication, which had begun in 1965 with a decision by the Wilson government to dispense with imperial measurements within 10 years, was lost. "I didn't often run away from difficult decisions," said Lord Howe ruefully. "But this is one that I did duck."

He shouldn't be so hard on himself. The reason there was no headlong rush towards metrication throughout the 1980s and 1990s is that the country did not want it. Yet it is, in reality, being introduced by stealth whether we like it or not. It is, for instance, no longer legal to sell products in anything other than metric weights.

Although goods in supermarkets can be priced in both metric and imperial units, this will no longer be legal within five years. By 2009, Britain is due to drop these "supplementary indications" and move completely to metric units. There is also a creeping - and illegal - metrication of road signs and pedestrian distance indicators.

Under a European directive first handed down 24 years ago, Britain is required to set a date for adopting metric traffic signs. It has not done so and the European Commission has, wisely, decided not to press the point given the current state of opinion in Britain towards the EU. But the fact remains that Britain is in breach of the directive and the UKMA says we should get on with it and fix a date for K-Day, the big switch over to metric road signs.

"There is ample evidence from the experience of other countries which have made the change that both young and old drivers can adapt rapidly to metric signage," it adds. That might be so; but why on earth should we?

Not only would it cost hundreds of millions of pounds to change all the road signs, but what difference does it make if we are told it is 100 miles to Manchester or 160 kilometres? The UKMA maintains that it would help foreign drivers, who are otherwise confused, though no more so than British drivers abroad.

The reasons given by the UKMA as to why metrication matters are remarkably unpersuasive. They include the inconvenience of converting from one form of measurement to the other; the problems encountered by people buying properties who must think in two systems; and the difficulties of comparing the power output of different appliances.

The campaign document is at its most po-faced when it comes to the weather forecast: "We consider that the use of inches of rainfall alongside metres of visibility and wind speeds in miles per hour inhibits readers and listeners from being able to relate to sizes or values of different phenomena."

Really? Do you know anyone who thinks, "I just can't decide whether to put on a coat or wear shorts today because those wretched weathermen won't give me the atmospheric details in metric units"?

One area where the dual use of metric and imperial measurements is questionable is in weights and measures for sales purposes, since it is here that people can be ripped off. But metrication is already far advanced in retailing, even if most of us are unhappy with it and enforcement of the law remains patchy.

The UKMA is right to detect widespread hostility or indifference to metrication, not because it is seen as "foreign" or "European", but simply because there is no cultural empathy with the units.

Yet even though most of us simply do not want to adopt metric measurements, their proponents would force them down our throats in the name of the twin gods of uniformity and modernity. Campaigners call the current system "a very British mess".

It could also be considered an admirable British fudge, where people know where they stand and are happy with it. If people wish to say they were just a metre away from a 20ft bus, why shouldn't they? We, and they, know what is meant, which is what matters. Many of us want to hang on to our pint, yard and mile, but Lord Howe and his metric meddlers will keep on until they have all gone. So beware. Give them 25.4 millimetres and they will take 1.609 kilometres.

<<How tall are you? If asked this question, do you reply five feet seven, or six feet two; or do you say 1.7018 metres or 1.8796 metres?>>

Well, I already know where this guy is coming from. In Imperial, do you normally express your height to the nearest four ten-thousandths of an inch?

If he weren't an idiot, those would be 1.70 m (or 170 cm) and 1.88 m (or 188 cm). You really should understand both measurement systems before you reject one.

Steve,

Thanks for cutting and pasting a second-hand copy of a Daily Telegraph editorial that is over a year old.

At leaast it shows that the "Very British Mess" warrants comment which is more than I can say for Tony Bennett's response.

A couple of things - firstly I simply pasted another opinion on the issue. I don't care that he said something point something something metres - I'm not going to edit his piece just to make him more metric-savvy - the man was making a point.

2) I thought the stuff about EU regs etc tied in with the UKMA's recent lies.

Jeepers - I was only adding another viewpoint to the melting point.

P.S. I must admit - I did cringe at the something point something something metres almost as much as I cringed at Danny talking about his friend saying that he'd lost 5 kilograms in stress rather than the way normal pro-mets would phrase it.

<<How tall are you? If asked this question, do you reply five feet seven, or six feet two; or do you say 1.7018 metres or 1.8796 metres?>>

This is as far as I got as well..

You can't take it seriously after that.

Update
MIND
Set
STATUS= 'OPEN'
/

sommit;

Oh God - did I really write that?

**NERD ALERT**

Theres only so much you can open your mind to the same old rubbish about metrication, preying on peoples ignorance.

and that cuts both ways

<<Update
MIND
Set
STATUS= 'OPEN'
/

>>

The truth is that most of us are so bombarded by drivel that we have "litmus tests" to tell us early when we can ignore something. It is true they make an occasional error, but you can avoid a lot of drivel.

A person who deliberately or ignorantly misuses metric to bolster his argument against metric always activates mine.

re (JohnS-MI): "A person who deliberately or ignorantly misuses metric to bolster his argument against metric..."

REPLY: That sounds awful. Surely there should be some sort of law against it?

<<REPLY: That sounds awful. Surely there should be some sort of law against it?>>

I was really hoping my approbation and scorn would suffice. We, at least, have too many laws. :)