Defenders of imperial units sometimes claim that using units from different systems simply contributes to the richness of our language and culture. People use whichever units are appropriate to the context (they argue).
Two examples of this viewpoint were published in the Independent recently. However, the Independent declined to publish a response sent by the Chairman of UKMA. We therefore reproduce the correspondence here together with further comment.
These were the two letters published in the Independent on 6 October:
Happy with our metric mixture
Sir: The miles/kilometres problem has nothing to do with British eccentricity, as suggested by John Shepherd (letter, 3 October). It is simply that measurements are part of language, and language is part of culture. The British have become metrically bilingual, and hurrah for that. It is extraordinary that having different words in different languages is celebrated as central to cultural identity, but having two ways of expressing distance is not.
As a historian, I have no difficulty in working in metric or imperial, whichever is more appropriate; and neither does a young mother who quotes her baby’s weight in pounds, then buys a kilogramme of fish. What’s the problem? Our bilingual success should be celebrated, not denigrated.
Sir: John Shepherd suggests that metrication doesn’t work for the British because it runs contrary to our eccentricity. Curiously, this echoes the strictures of Napoleon on the metric system when he said, “Nothing is more contrary to the organisation of the mind, memory and imagination”. In fact, metrication should appeal equally to the continental urge to fit everything into grandiose and abstract rational schemes, and to another quality the British also claim, progmatism. Metrication has had a bumpy ride in the UK, and had a cool reception when first tried in France, doubtless because of a more universal human quality: we like what we know. I was educated in metric and have only a shaky grasp of imperial, but tend to use imperial units in conversation. Those metres and grammes sound too clinical and spuriously exact for everyday speech.
This was the response sent by UKMA Chairman, Robin Paice:
Metric units are a proper system
Richard Harris asks what is the problem with mixing metric with imperial measurement units (letters, 6 October).
The point is that metric units constitute an integrated and consistent system, in which in which the units are interrelated. For example, a litre is a cubic decimetre and for practical purposes a litre of water weighs one kilogram. A hectare is a square 100 m by 100 m, and there are 100 hectares in a square kilometre. The introduction of random legacy units destroys the concept of a system. How would Mr Harris calculate how many litres there are in a refrigerator whose internal dimensions are given in inches? Indeed, how does he calculate his petrol consumption (in the standard measures of mpg or L/100 km) when he buys his petrol in litres but distances are measured in miles?
The use of different units for the same physical phenomenon prevents or inhibits comparisons. How much hotter is New York at 71 degrees Fahrenheit than London at 8 degrees Celsius? Will your car (2.03 m wide according to its handbook) get through a gap signed by the Highway Authority as 6′ 6″?
It is easy for the academically bright to claim that they can work in both metric and imperial, but many people struggle to cope with one system – let alone two. How many people can calculate the cost of carpeting a room when carpets are priced per square metre but the estate agent gives the dimensions in feet and inches? The failure to standardise on a single system of measurement is probably a factor in the reported low standards of numeracy in the general population.
While one should perhaps not make too much of the Independent’s failure to publish a response (nobody has the right to insist that a newspaper should publish a letter), it does illustrate the lack of appreciation by many journalists and others of the genuine problems of the “two systems” approach. They agree it’s a bit of a muddle, but think it’s just a harmless piece of British eccentricity, quite amusing and doesn’t matter very much. Indeed, this attitude prevails at the highest levels: in a letter to Lord Howe in 2004 ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair wrote: “I do not believe it would be right to take further initiatives on metrication merely for the sake of tidiness.”
In a necessarily short letter to a newspaper it is not possible to explain all the reasons why the “two systems” approach is unsustainable, so here are a few of them. Other constructive contributions are of course welcome (for and against).
- Incomprehension – as people who are familiar with one system do not understand (or refuse or pretend not to understand) information in the other system
- Conversion errors – e.g. in converting between Celsius and Fahrenheit
- Spurious accuracy in conversions – e.g. when 300 km/h (approximately) is converted to 186 mph (precisely)
- Costs and inconvenience of having to calculate both metric and imperial prices (mainly affects small shopkeepers and market traders who calculate prices manually)
- Accidents resulting from mistakes in conversion
- Incompatibility of OS maps (metric) and road signs (imperial)
- Much school teaching is wasted, as children are unable to practise outside school what they learn in the maths and science lesson – esp when they leave school