metric system: miles and gallons...

[Deleted User YDKXO]

What we have in the UK is effectively a 2 tier system with business operating in metric units and the general public in imperial. So when a construction company builds a road all dimensions are metric and then the last thing they do is put up roadsigns and distance markers in mile/yards!
Our system, whilst its not exactly logical, at least works and I think most of us are 'literate' in both systems. Personally I would'nt want to change it even though like tcm, I was entirely taught in metric at school
The problem with the US is that they are trying to apply their imperial (what do they call it?) system to a business world that works in metric with inevitable cock-ups resulting like the recent case of the bridge girders manufactured in Italy not fitting the supports manufactured in the US

 

[Steve_D]

>....recent case of the bridge girders manufactured in Italy not fitting the supports >manufactured in the US.


Or space craft missing Mars!!!!

Steve D

 

[Guest]

Historical Perspectives: by the last Director of the Metrication Board.

I have been stimulated by some of the recollections of your recent correspondents to try to explore some of my old Metrication Board records to see when Parliament first debated the metric system, Many references suggest 1897.

In fact the first reference was 13th April 1790. One hundred years earlier. This was when parliamentarian Sir John Riggs Miller [Britain] and the Bishop of Autum, Prince Talleyrand [France] put to the British Parliament and French Assembly respectively, the proposition that the two countries should cooperate to equalise their weights and measures, by the joint introduction of the metric system.

There was no immediate progress although there were many positive debates in the second half of the 19th Century. For example, 1st July 1863 the Bill for a compulsory change to the metric system was approved by 110 votes to 75 votes. Speakers argued many of the points we hear today. On the one hand supporters argued its logic and simplicity, savings in time and money, advantages to trade and education. Opponents stressed the undesirability of following the precedent of France and the problems of conversion for the ill-educated and disadvantaged. However no specific cut-off dates were proposed.

The following year, 9th March 1864, the House of Lords debated a Bill to permit the use of metric weights and measures in trade. One supporter noted that Englishmen were notorious for liking old terms and old habits and he hoped that the new nomenclature would not be diverted by attempts at ridicule. He said the sound of the word 'metric' can be absurd to anyone but a fool who has never heard it before; but no more than a 'yard' to a man who has never heard of a 'yard' before.... !!!Parliament passed the Bill and this became the Metric Weights and Measures Act 1864.

On the 24th February 1868 a parliamentary proposal to set Imperial cut-off dates was withdrawn on promise of a Royal Commission of enquiry. The Enquiry Report was positive, and on the 26th July 1871 Britain almost became a metric country. The government lost the Bill to make metric compulsory after two years, by only 82 votes to 77 votes. An argument that might have influenced opponents was a plea that Britain would be "letting down America and our colonies" who had harmonised their systems with the ones in use in Britain. [NB At that time the American Congress had emulated Britain by allowing contracts in metric. A particularly strong USA advocate for metric was John Quincy Adams.]

There were further debates, and near misses, in the UK Parliament in 1872 and 1896, before a comprehensive debate [ 21st June - 6th August 1897] concluded by legalising the use of metric for all purposes. There were no contrary votes. NB This is the debate which most references indicate to be the genesis of metrication in the United Kingdom.

Metrication continued to be debated for the next 10 years. In 1904 The House of Lords unanimously voted to make metric compulsory after two years. It was claimed that the Austrian and German nations had successfully made metric compulsory with a changeover time of only "one week"!!!!! The Government said they would not obstruct the proposal, but the Bill was never adopted in the Commons. Two similar debates in 1907 failed. By now, the Board of Trade was expressing some reservations, claiming that metrication had failed in France and that the agricultural labourer would never ask for 0.56825 of a litre of beer. The vote against compulsion rose to 150 votes to 118 votes. Conflicts in Europe put further political consideration of metrication out of mind until the publication of a Government White Paper on Weights and Measures 10th May 1951.

The 1951 White Paper was in fact the 28th Report put to Parliament during the preceeding 100 years. This latest report was in response to the the Hodgson Committee Report published in 1949. Eventually we had the Weights and Measures Act 1963; a long series of Parliamentary questions to Ministers and the Federation of British Industries [now the CBI] lobby in favour of metrication in 1965. These initiatives culminated with the creation of the Metrication Board in 1969 by Anthony Wedgewood Benn, Minister of Technology. The target date for completion was end 1975. The transition to metrication and the role of the Board were given positive support and encouragement by Geoffrey Howe the resposible Minister of the new Government in 1972. Indeed at that time, and until circa 1977-1978, there was good, sensible and steady progress which seemed to be supported by every section of society including, for example, the small retailers and the elderly as represented by Age Concern.

Prepackaged food changed but the really difficult issue to emerge affected retailers of 'loose weight' products. They needed to be reassured there would be an agreed cut-off date for their transfer from Imperial to metric. The retail problem was that metric prices would always appear to be more expensive than their nearest Imperial equivalent. Voluntary transferees to metric found themselves commercially disadvantaged. This is because viz. 4 ozs is smaller than 125 g: one pound is smaller than 500 g and a pint is smaller than a litre. Prices are correspondingly lower. The issue of how best to explain the position to consumers dominated much of the Boards creative thinking.

The product which brought all voluntary retail initiatives to a full stop was the experience of the floor covering and carpet retailers. Their 1975 change to sales by the sq. metre started well, but in 1977 one of the major High Street retailers found enormous commercial advantage in reverting to sales by the square yard. Consumers could not be persuaded to believe that goods costing, for example, £10 per square or £12 per square metre were virtually priced the same. Consumers bought, in very significant volume, the apparently cheaper priced imperial version. Metrication of carpet sales entered into full scale reverse and the Chambers of Trade and retail associations pressed for firm Government leadership, i.e. compulsory cut-off. With hindsight one of the Metrication Board jingles may have helped spread the 'carpet' misunderstanding. This was the jingle "a metre measures about three foot three, just a bit longer than a yard you see". Consumers understandably couldn't relate an e.g. £2 per square unit price difference with the Metrication Board's "just a bit longer". Then the political nerve began to fail.

Board of Trade Ministers Shirley Williams, Alan Williams and later Roy Hattersley and John Fraser supported metrication. They seemed to recognise the setting of a cut-off date was unavoidable. They had had, by this time, the benefit of analysing the results of successful metric changes in all the Commonwealth countries. There was a wealth of information within the Department of Trade to show that a clear retail cut-off date was both desireable and inevitable....exactly as 19th Century parliamentarians had foreseen. The necessary Order, drafted by the Board of Trade in 1978, was agreed by a huge range of retail trade, industry, engineering, consumer, trade union, elderly person, sporting and educational organisations and..... the overwhelming number of parliamentarians. A small number of critics, in each political party, did voice opposition to the element of compulsion but this seemed to come from a relatively small minority within the Eurosceptic movement.

However, the initiative was in the hands of Secretary of State for Trade, Roy Hattersley and a General Election was expected in 1979. There seemed to be weeks and weeks of "will he/ won't he" allow Parliament to vote for the Order giving the final Imperial cut-off. Almost every private test of opinion indicated the Order would command a substantial majority in Parliament. Although the Opposition sensed a weakness in the resolution of the Labour Government it was acknowledged that many conservative MPs had been career-long advocates for cut-off and would therefore be likely to favour the Government Order, or at least abstain. In the event, Roy Hattersley chose not to test opinion, not to allow the vote. He withdrew the draft Order. Speculation was that he judged the issue might lose some votes in the forthcoming election. Plenty of time to introduce Imperial cut-off Orders after a Labour victory. The junior Trade Minister John Fraser made his disgust and disappointment apparent... suggesting the actions of his Secretary of State would be seen as "gutless". Many shared that view. Labour lost the election anyway and Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister.

One Conservative backbencher, Sally Oppenheim had been almost the lone but persistent critic of the metric programme. Ironically she was appointed junior Minister of Consumer Affairs at the DTI and then metrication was added to her portfolio. In letters to MP's and associations she made it clear [a] she was not opposed the metrication in principle, metrication was not the result of Britain's accession to the EEC but [c[ she did object to measures which would compell people to adopt metric against their will. Proponents of metrication, trade and consumer organisations, officials and the Metrication Board explained and argued that a voluntary change at retail level was absolutely impossible...it could never happen. It was a recipe for confusion, waste and duplication. Government had to lead over the last hurdle. It did, it led backwards. In 1980 the Metrication Board was abolished.

In truth the Metrication Board had little else to do. Every possible programme had been agreed, consumer information campaigns composed and there was nothing to do until or unless a date was fixed for the completion of the transition. We little knew then the die was set for a further 20 years of waste, confusion and argument. Successive DTI Ministers did nothing to inform consumers or public opinion. They did nothing to refute the new 'big lie' namely, that Britain was being forced to change because of the European Commission. In fact, during the past 20 years most Commission Officials, European Politicians and businesses in Continental Europe 'couldn't have given a damn' whether Britain changed to the metric system or not. They seemed to quite like the idea of Britain shooting itself in its economic foot, by imposing upon itself the extra costs and waste of maintaining a dual system. For twenty years not one single British Minister has attempted to explain the advantages of metrication; been frank about the changes which had successfully taken place in the rest of the World or the fact that we had committed ourselves to become a metric nation long before we joined the European Community. Most tried to pretend or imply they were protecting our British culture from the European bully.

How sad, what a waste, what a pity.

Jim Humble OBE

Director of the Metrication Board

 

[tcm]

Re: jolly good stuff

excellent and informative.

 

[lezgar]

Re: jolly good stuff

More information in

http://www.usma.demon.co.uk/

 

[ToMo]

Ah! so it seems that the Greek and Roman engineers were just a bunch of idiot for burdening us with all their work we should much rather look to our French friends for inspiration regarding how we should proceed, ere just how old is the arc-de-triomph?...are but it was caused to be built by a forsighted French designer? ere no! Corsican actually! - Oh just a minute! weren't the Corsicans originally part of the italian bit of the world!!...isn't that where the Rom......!
Okay well what about the Eifel Tower?....the French didn't like it when it was built! Well anyway everyone else is metric!....ere no most of the free world is not metric! so why go metric...it's easier - for who?.....the French!...haven't we been here before?
TôMö.....and now for a quick burst on my banjo!

 

[jfm]

Re: the speed contradiction

Sssssh. There are two, see. One at 71mph in a 60, the other 99mph in a 70. That's why I need mr lawyer.

 

[Bergman]

Irish roads are even better. Signposts give distance in kilometers. Speed limits are in mph.

Love it

 

[Bergman]

Re: the speed contradiction

Possible appeal to European Court of whatever it is. Speed should be given in meters/sec. Miles not included in National Curriculum.

Not sure I would want a lawyer called "Nick"

 

[jfm]

Re: ooh Please could you go over that bit again sir?

yes, you give name and address, but that's not a prob. Plod could have got that from dvla 'puter and your car reg #, so it doesn't advance his case as far as identifying you is concerned.

But you most definitely do not have to show your licence, nor any other ID (they will ask for these) nor sign the ticket (usually the signature box on the ticket - the HORT1 "producer" - is labelled "optional" or "request only"). Just say you have no ID, and say you prefer not to sign the ticket.

1. Not tried, but I wd think this helps. They have to record verbatim what you say (not that they do, in my exp, I mean they edit it a bit and write down the bits that help their case IMHO)
2. AFAIK no. Bit woolly, but they have duty to administer their powers fairly and consistently and in accordance with publicly available guidelines, carting you off to the shop is a massively more severe so they would need good grounds for it, more than merely speeding.
3. Nope, you're fine with the 167 claim

All AFAIK and IANAL

 

[oldgit]

ReHow not to pay speeding fines

And not to pay lawyers either.Its very Simple do-not -speed.Easy is it not.

 

[Steve_D]

Re: ooh Please could you go over that bit again sir?

I would need to check but I think that they can arrest if they cannot verify identity. The main "rule" is that the action must be commensurate (?) with the offence.

In my case (non UK number plate) it used to be that they would stop you make you hang around a while and then send you off. The word now is that if the speed is high enough you will be arrested and appear at the next available court.

comments like "haven't you got anything better to do..." or "why don't you go and catch real criminals" is more or less guaranteed to end up with a court appearance!

Steve D

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Brief: worth every penny

A few years back I got done for doing 92mph in a 40 limit - well it was the A40 dual carriageway into London before the gatsos arrived. I envisaged a driving ban for several centuries plus a monster fine. Somebody told me that being a member of the AA entitled me to free legal representation so I ended up in court with a brief doing all the talking
Well, it was a eye opener. He had the magistrates (who I guess dont often see barristers) eating out of his hand. Telling them how easy it is pile on the speed in modern cars without knowing it, how all my employees would be out on the street if they banned me, my family would starve, just had a row with the wife.....etc, etc. £300 fine, no ban, thank you very much

 

[tcm]

Re: 92 in a 40!

ooh i totally agree. The miles after mile of montonous, mesmerising and unchanging er suburban roads with roundbouts and traffic lights. I bet it was that one on the london end of the M3 near Macdonalds.

 

[BarryD]

Re: Brief: NOT worth every penny

In my far off distant days of youth I was caught doing naughty speeds (90 in 50) and sent to court. I hired a solicitor to defend my case and it was the worst god awful cluster f**k ever. The court threw the book at me - I got banned and fined almost £600 (1992). Afterwards the clerk of court said that he throught they went to the maximum penalty because I'd hired a solicitor. I try not to get caught these days - and the solicitor charged me £400 for his services - but at least he gave me a lift home.

"No, No, no - come off the plane before entering the lock..."

Barry D

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Re: Brief: NOT worth every penny

Having met you, Barry, I can quite understand why they threw the book at you. You're a danger to yourself, a danger to the general public and society would be well served if you were locked up for a very long time

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Re: 92 in a 40!

No, it wasnt. It was on the A40 through White City. Its the sort of area where these days you could argue that you were just trying to outrun our gangsta rap mugging and car jacking bretheren. Maybe jfm could use that one

 

[BarryD]

You\'re a cruel man Deleted User <NM>

Nada, zip.

"No, No, no - come off the plane before entering the lock..."

Barry D

 

[tcm]

Re: 92 in a 40!

ooh that is a delightful bit of road, esp westwards as the road floats downhill towards acton after the elevated white city section. 92 very reasonable, case dismissed. Report back to the courrt that you have bought a Valentine radr detector, changed your number plate by one digit so you can Doh! if stopped and will watch out for skid marks on the road ahead where the massive brake stomping has caused accidents.

 

[jfm]

Agree Brief: NOT worth every penny

Using normal provincial solicitors for anything is waste of time imho. You have to get the expert in the relevant field, whether speeding or anything else. There are very few serious experts, gotta trackem down. Else waste of £££ imho