Category: Road signs

How others see us – an Australian view

UKMA occasionally receives letters from visitors to the UK expressing amazement at our dysfunctional muddle of measurement units. The following is typical (with thanks to JP for allowing us to use it):

Hi Robin,

I’ve just arrived back in Australia after a three and a half week visit to England. My wife was born in England and so we were visiting her parents and had some delightful weather. The trip included an eight day motor home trip around the north visiting York, Hadrian’s Wall, the Lake District and various other beautiful locations. It was a thoroughly enjoyable trip.

I’m just writing to express my amazement (I can’t think of a better word) at the mixture of measurement systems used in your country. Whilst driving, most road distances and speed were in miles and mph, some distances were expressed in metres, heights were sometimes in metres, feet and inches, or both. All weights were by the kilo, petrol by the litre, temperature in Celsius. What a mixed up muddled up world!

The thing I found most fascinating was the Ordinance Survey of Great Britain. An absolutely excellent mapping grid system designed in the mid 30’s I believe. Your road atlases use it, all your maps use it and most people (that I spoke to anyway) seem to understand it. For example, “TQ 03485 96849″. This system is entirely metric based – but no one is aware of the fact! For example the AA road atlas has each OSGB grid of 10 km square showing as exactly 5 cm by 5 cm on the page but the atlas never mentions this important fact. Instead it goes to great pains to explain the scale as 3 miles and 826.7 feet per inch!

Also fascinating, at a local fire station in Chatteris there was an old map of the local town. It was at least 70 years old and had many old features including a rail line that are no longer present. The really interesting thing was the coordinate system on this map was in metres. It was based on the OSGB.

Now, the reason I’m writing to you is that I read your quote:

The Chairman of the UK Metric Association (UKMA), Robin Paice, commented: The Irish changeover demonstrates that the British Government’s reasons for delaying the conversion of British road signs are simply a flimsy excuse for doing nothing. Frankly, they are rubbish. Irish drivers are no more likely to be familiar with speeds in km/h than are British drivers.
Familiarity with metric measures comes from use – not from education. The British Government should just get on with it.

I’m 42 years old and conversion happened when I was young (around 9) and so I have experience and what works and what doesn’t. From our experience here, your statement “Familiarity with metric measures comes from use – not from education” is the most important statement of all. I was speaking to mum (who is 65 and has pretty much embraced the entire metric system) about the change over to decimal currency in 1966. Australia moved from pounds, shillings and pence to dollars and cents – and it was overnight. I asked her how long it took to get used to the system and she said “a day”.

So I’m really just wishing you good luck in your journey and hope to see your road signs done soon. I think that will be a tipping point for England and it should be helped by the recent Irish conversion and the 2012 Olympics will provide an excellent target date.

Keep up the good work,

Regards,

*Jixx Pxxxxxx*

*Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.*

This letter also reminded me of Neil Kinnock’s comment (in a foreword to UKMA’s report “Metric signs ahead“) that, when the all-metric Olympic Games are hosted in London in 2012, “our imperial road signs … contradict the image – and the reality – of our country as a modern, multi-cultural, dynamic place where the past is valued and respected and the future is approached with creativity and confidence.”

Demonstrating their own ignorance and insularity, Government ministers (including Alistair Darling, then Transport Secretary) tried unconvincingly to dismiss and ridicule these comments. However, the truth is that JP’s letter is typical of the view from abroad.

Which Council in the UK is most metric?

Philip Bladon of Redditch puts this question. He also asks which local authority is most supportive of metrication. The editors of Metric Views, however, have doubts about whether this would be a useful line of enquiry, and invite comment from readers.

Continue reading “Which Council in the UK is most metric?”

Driver location signs – possibly coming to a motorway near you

Martin Vlietstra, a regular contributor to Metric Views, draws our attention to a trial of driver location signs, to be conducted by the Highways Agency. Martin notes that these signs are metric, and draws attention to the explanation for this. 

Continue reading “Driver location signs – possibly coming to a motorway near you”

Britain’s new Highway Code. Updated but outdated – a victim of the measurement muddle

The new Highway Code is an example of the consequences of the Britain’s measurement system muddle. Its mixture of units from the imperial and metric systems brings confusion, when clarity should be a foremost requirement. The UK Metric Association (UKMA) has looked forward to the completion of the metric changeover, and produced a simplified, metric version of the Highway Code to illustrate the clarity that one system makes possible. (Press release issued on 27 September 2007.) Continue reading “Britain’s new Highway Code. Updated but outdated – a victim of the measurement muddle”

No return to pounds and ounces

Today’s announcement by the European Commission that it is to propose that “supplementary indications” (such as lbs and oz) should be allowed indefinitely does NOT mean that traders can go back to weighing and pricing in imperial measures – so says the UK Metric Association (UKMA). [Press release issued on 11 September.]

Continue reading “No return to pounds and ounces”

UKMA slates EU climb down on metrication

The UK Metric Association has accused the European Commission of “political cowardice” because it has caved in to American and European exporters – supported by the UK Government – and effectively abandoned the objective of a single, rational system of measurement throughout Europe.

The Commission has just published its response to the recent consultation on revising the Units of Measurement Directive. It is a badly written and illogical document, and UKMA has commented on it in the following press release:

The following press release was issued on Wednesday, 27 June:
“Pro-metric group slates EU climb-down
London, 27 June 2007.
The UK Metric Association (UKMA) today accused the European Commission of caving in to pressure from European and American exporters – supported by the UK Government – to be allowed to carry on using imperial and American weights and measures in packaging and product manuals. In its response to the recent consultation the Commission proposes that “supplementary indications” should be allowed indefinitely and that the obligation of the UK to “fix a date” for converting road signs to metric units should be removed.

See http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/prepack/unitmeas/uni_ms_en.htm

UKMA Chairman, Robin Paice, commented: “This has all the signs of a stitch-up between the UK’s Department of Trade and Industry and the European Commission. The DTI has made it clear that they are implacably opposed to further metrication in the UK, and rather than challenge them, the Commission has bottled out and is proposing to abandon the objective of a single, rational system of measurement used and understood throughout the European Union.”

In its own submission to the Commission*, UKMA had argued that there is a simple solution to the problems allegedly encountered by transatlantic traders in coping with two conflicting labelling regimes (the USA mostly requires dual American/metric units on packages, whereas the EU had intended to require metric-only). All that is needed, said UKMA, is a reciprocal arrangement to accept each other’s labelling for imports and exports. Until such an agreement is reached the EU could unilaterally accept dual-labelling on American imports. Or if that is too difficult, dual labelling could be allowed on all packages and product manuals etc – but not on loose goods priced and weighed out by the trader.

The Commission’s report ignores this last point and attempts to justify its rejection of the mutual recognition argument by suggesting that third countries might complain that it also affected their exports and would be a non-tariff barrier to trade. This argument is clearly disingenuous since it would obviously be possible to devise wording that would accommodate this very minor problem. They thus appear (or pretend) to believe that two systems are cheaper than one.

The Commission has also agreed to support a UK proposal that it should not have to name a date for converting road signs to metric units. Citing both the UKMA cost estimate of £80 million and the Transport Department’s grossly inflated estimate of £800 million, the Commission’s paper comments that imperial road signs have “cultural significance and do not give rise to discomfort which can be considered a major benefit”. They have thus failed completely to understand the benefits of a single system as well as the hidden costs of continuing to muddle through with two systems. They have also ignored UKMA’s argument that the continued existence of imperial road signs is the biggest obstacle to the acceptance of metric measures in the UK in everyday life. “As long as we have miles, yards, feet and inches on the road signs, many people will not adapt to measuring up for curtains and carpets in metres and square metres.”, said Robin Paice.

He added: “Why should the refusal of the Americans to accept the world system condemn the British to endure indefinitely the misery and muddle of incompatible weights and measures in shops and markets. It undermines consumer protection (one of the Commission’s claimed new stated objectives) wastes our children’s education, and just prolongs this “very British mess**.It is a piece of political cowardice.”

ENDS

*This can be seen at http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/prepack/unitmeas/depot_anwers/c-non-gov-organis/R205.pdf

** “A very British mess”, with foreword by Lord Howe, is published by the UK Metric Association and can be obtained via UKMA’s website at http://www.ukma.org.uk/books/index.htm

Notes for editors:

(a) The UK Metric Association (UKMA) is an independent, non-party political, single issue pressure group 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) The following are available for interview or comment:

  • Robin Paice (Chairman) on 023 9275 5268 for telephone interviews
  • Roz Denny (Press Officer) on 020 7736 5383 or 0777 039 1581 for interviews in London or by telephone
  • Derek Pollard (Secretary) on 020 83746997 or 01304 375854″

—————————————————————
Further comment:

Despite this deeply depressing cave-in by the Commission, there are perhaps two consolations that can be drawn:

  • The Commission has at least not accepted the demands of the extreme imperialists (the so-called “metric martyrs”) to go back to selling in pounds and ounces, nor is the UK Government supporting this.
  • If these proposals are actually enacted. The EU will effectively cease to have any say in UK weights and measures. It will then be possible to separate the metrication issue from the European issue, and it will be possible to make the case for completing metrication on its merits without having to refute silly arguments about Brussels bureaucrats.

“Metric martyrs” – what was the fuss about?

On Wednesday, 9 May, the air waves and the prints were full of fanciful stories about Brussels caving in and allowing Britain to carry on using lbs, oz and other imperial units. The so-called “metric martyrs” * (Oh no, not them again!) declared a victory for their campaign. So what has really happened?

It appears that at a recent Committee meeting of the European Parliament, one of the 27 Commissioners, Günter Verheugen, indicated that, in response to lobbying from European and American exporters, he intended to propose to fellow Commissioners that the current authorisation of “supplementary indications” alongside metric units should be extended beyond its current deadline of 2009. If the Commission approves this proposal it will then have to go through the decision-making machinery of the EU before the current Units of Measurement Directive can be revised.

This has been claimed by a spokesman for the “metric martyrs” as a victory for their campaign to be allowed to weigh and price in lbs and oz. The reality is quite different.

No difference

If Mr Verheugen’s proposal were eventually to be agreed as reported (big “if”), it would make absolutely no difference to the current situation. Traders will still have to price and weigh goods at the point of sale in metric units, with the option of an accompanying supplementary indication, which must be no more prominent than the legal metric unit. Most shops and supermarkets now comply with the law, and many have given up on showing lbs, oz, pints, sq yds, etc. Only a handful of recalcitrant market traders and small shopkeepers still hold out against the law, and their numbers are dwindling.

A special exemption for US imports and exports?

However, this is by no means the end of the story. The reason given for authorising supplementary indications is that the USA requires dual labelling (metric and “US customary” – not the same as imperial, by the way) on packaged goods. Thus, if the EU insists on metric-only labelling, exporters will require separate packaging for the two markets. It is difficult to see why putting an extra sticky label on a package is a significant business cost, but even if it is, there is a simple solution which need not affect the great majority of transactions within the EU. All that is required to solve the exporters’ alleged problem is a special exemption for imports of packaged goods from and exports to the USA. This is exactly what was proposed by the UK Metric Association (UKMA) in its submission to the EU consultation on revising the Directive, which can be seen at
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/prepack/unitmeas/depot_anwers/c-non-gov-organis/R205.pdf
It remains to be seen whether the Commission will accept the obvious logic and common sense of our proposal.

Pints and miles

Contrary to many media reports, Mr Verheugen’s proposal would not affect the status of the pint for draught beer and cider and for milk in returnable containers, nor would it affect the mile, yard, foot and inch for road signs, distance and speed measurement. The UK Government will still be required to name a date for phasing out these measures. As far as road signs are concerned, UKMA has proposed that a new deadline of 2014 should be set.

* Footnote:

The suggestion that the original so-called “metric martyrs” have been exonerated is absurd. They were properly prosecuted and convicted under the current law for using illegal scales and other offences, and all their appeals to various UK and European (!) courts were dismissed. Even if the Directive were to be amended as suggested, they would still be breaking the law. They were guilty as charged and remain so.