By international agreement under the auspices of the United Nations, new road signs showing pedestrian escape routes with distances were adopted for international use in tunnels in 2003, providing a common design for use in all countries to improve evacuation in the event of a tunnel incident. These new signs added the distance in metres to the nearest exit, as illustrated in the updated Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals:

In the UK, the Department for Transport (DfT) noted this advance, but decided that new signs using obsolete imperial units should be erected in tunnels across the UK, regardless of whether young people or visitors to this country may need to be evacuated from a tunnel, and heedless of government guidance that metric units are the primary system of units in the UK.

New signs are being installed by highway authorities in tunnels across the UK, including in London, where Transport for London (TfL) are refurbishing road tunnels with new signs showing the distance only in yards (and to the nearest yard!), as shown in this picture taken in the Rotherhithe Tunnel:

Meanwhile, TfL re-opened the refurbished East London line last month, whose tunnels pass below the Rotherhithe road tunnel.

This being the UK, the same standards do not apply in road and rail tunnels. New escape signs have also been installed by TfL within the rail tunnel adjoining the road tunnel:

Unlike the road tunnel, the rail tunnel is signed in metres, meaning any visitors are able to judge the distance to the emergency escape. Full marks to the rail authorities for using units all potential users will understand, but it highlights the mess that the UK is in when adjacent tunnels, one road and one rail, under control of the same authority, provide critical passenger safety information in different units and expect users to be able to understand both.

Sadly, other backward steps have been made within the rail tunnel. Line distances on the London Underground network changed to kilometres as long ago as 1972, but with the conversion of the East London line to National Rail standards, new mile and chain marker posts have replaced the metric signs which have stood for nearly 40 years. The new yellow sign below indicates the 3 ¾ mile mark:

At least these signs are not for public consumption!

At one time the Conservatives claimed that they would legislate to permit weighing and pricing of “loose goods” in imperial units (presumably without a metric equivalent) – as demanded by certain market traders.  For example, their 2005 policy statement, “Action on Deregulation”, announced: “We will negotiate to remove the compulsory nature of sales in metric amounts, which is contrary to consumer demands.”  (However, wiser counsels seem to have prevailed since this promise was not repeated in their election manifesto of that year, which was partly drafted by – guess who -  David Cameron).

(For their part, Labour ministers have also tried to pander to the imperialists by criticising trading standards officers for carrying out their duty to enforce the law passed by Parliament, and even claiming credit for having “saved” pounds and ounces on price labels in 2009).

Reverting to the question posed, in the first place the above 2005 statement implicitly acknowledges that the current EU Directive (which incidentally was negotiated with all-party support in the 1990s) would actually prevent a reversion to imperial weighing (although of course it does permit an imperial “supplementary indication”).  So any Government wishing to permit weighing in lbs and oz would need to renegotiate this provision with the European Commission, and if they were to agree, pilot it through the European Council of Ministers and the European Parliament.  Only then could they seek to amend UK law.

However, this might not be such an obstacle as it seems at first sight.  As former Commissioner, Gunter Verheugen, has famously remarked, the EU has never been interested in getting into a fight with an elected government over an issue that doesn’t affect cross-border trade or any other member state.  The Commission is not known for taking a principled stand on metrication issues (think of how they caved in to American pressure on dual marking on packaging and labelling), so in the interests of an easy life they might well find convenient reasons for giving in to populist clamour from British politicians and media.

But, when push comes to shove, would a future Government really actually do this (whatever it might have said before the election)?  On balance I think it unlikely – for the following reasons:

• What politicians say in order to get elected often conflicts with practical reality when they are in office.
• Read the history book rather than the crystal ball.  As noted above, in the 1970s, 80s and 90s successive governments of both parties negotiated and agreed the various EU Directives and the UK legislation that flowed from it – most recently the 1995 regulations requiring metric weighing and pricing of “loose goods” from 2000 (see SI 1995/1804).
• Many front benchers are in the age group that received their secondary education in metric units.  Like Andrew Lansley (Conservative), who recently advocated “centilitres” rather than “units” of alcohol, they are not so viscerally hostile to metric units as some of their predecessors.
• Although some leading politicians of all parties affect disdain for EU institutions they will need to work with their EU partners.  Is it really worth expending scarce political capital on this issue when they have much bigger fish to fry (such as the budget rebate, the Common Agricultural Policy,  the Lisbon Treaty, further enlargement, the European Defence Force, renegotiating the Working Time Directive etc etc)?  I think not.
• If they were successful in persuading the EU to amend the Directive, they would have lost a convenient scapegoat and would be unable to deflect criticism by blaming the EU for home-grown policies that they prefer not to defend publicly.
• There is likely to be considerable opposition from stakeholders in the UK to allowing a free-for-all in measurement units.  Most businesses (especially major retailers) operate wholly in metric (albeit sometimes with supplementary indications at the point of sale) and, although they have rarely publicly supported metrication, they will not welcome pressure from competitors to revert to imperial weighing and pricing, and perhaps having to replace all their scales again, retrain their staff etc.  Similarly, professional and educational organisations are likely to be dismayed at such a reactionary and unnecessary move.
• Sir Humphrey¹ would probably also be able to think of many other practical reasons for not reversing nearly half a century of consistent Civil Service policy – however half-heartedly it may have been implemented.

It may well be true that some politicians have sent out signals that they dislike metrication and would like to restore parity to imperial units.  For example, the former Conservative leadership contender, David Davies, made a pitch for the imperialist vote by having himself photographed with a market trader who had been successfully prosecuted by the local Council for using imperial scales.  Others, however, have maintained an embarrassed silence.

A realistic assessment is that, if faced with the responsibilities of power, no future Government would want to waste time and political capital on a project that would annoy as many people as it would please.  That is no doubt why the subject does not receive a mention in any of the major parties’ manifestoes. So if there any electors who intend to vote for a party in the expectation that they will soon be able to revert to weighing tomatoes in pounds, buying petrol in gallons or registering land in acres  – they are likely to be disappointed.

[Footnote: For the avoidance of doubt, UKMA does not support or oppose any particular political party but supports any candidate who will advocate early completion of the 45-year saga of British metrication.]

____________________________________________________________

¹Sir Humphrey Appleby was the fictional Permanent Secretary of the Department of Administrative Affairs in the 1980s television series “Yes, Minister.”

This is the press release issued by UKMA on 26 March.

LONDON, 26 March 2010. Transport for London (TfL) was today criticised by the UK Metric Association (UKMA) for bungling the erection of new signs at the Rotherhithe tunnel, including banning all vehicles over 33 inches long from using the tunnel.

Warning signs at low bridges and tunnels are normally signed in metres as well as feet, following Department for Transport (DfT) advice to reduce the number of large vehicles getting stuck and causing delays, particularly foreign goods vehicles.

However, TfL recently spent over £6,000 on new restriction signs at the tunnel entrances, but failed to add metres to many of the signs at the southern end, despite increasing problems with over-height vehicles at London’s river crossings (see pictures below).

Even more bizarrely, not only is the 10 metre length restriction still not posted in metres, but new signs have been erected which ban all vehicles longer than 33 inches from using the tunnel, instead of 33 feet.

UKMA Chairman Robin Paice said, “It beggars belief that new height restriction signs have been installed at the Rotherhithe tunnel without following long-standing national guidance and including metres, which could have been added at no extra cost and reduced the delays incurred whenever over-height vehicles try to enter the tunnel.”

“At the northern end, metres are included on the height and width signs, but not on the length restriction. Even those erecting the signs clearly don’t understand the imperial units very well, having signed the 10 metre length restriction as 33 inches!  If the government allowed the simple 10 m restriction to be added it is highly unlikely that the wrong measurement would have been posted as it would have been quite obvious that the signs were wrong.”

In 2009 the Department for Transport announced a proposal that the current recommendation that metres should be included on height restriction signs should become mandatory – meaning that the new signs will need to be replaced again.

When asked what plans TfL  had to implement the DfT’s 1990s advice to add metres to height restrictions, TfL replied that “currently there is no programme to replace any signs which remain legal. If the use of metric becomes mandatory, a cost effective programme will be put in place to update all of the non-compliant signs.”

Robin Paice responds, “It is extraordinary that rather than implement the DfT’s guidance at no cost when new signs are erected, TfL would rather waste money on new signs which will shortly be obsolete, and which increase the risk of accidents on London’s main roads.”

UKMA is calling on all highway authorities to update their vehicle restriction signs to include metres in accordance with DfT advice at the earliest opportunity, rather than waiting for the deadline for mandatory replacement of imperial-only signs to approach.

ANNEX 1: DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT GUIDANCE

Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3

Department for Transport, 2008

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/tsmanual/tsmchapter3.pdf

On width signs (para 5.36):

“It is recommended that this sign [metric and imperial] is used in preference to the sign to diagram 629 [imperial-only signs].”

On length signs (para 5.38):

“It is recommended that both the imperial and metric sign should be used wherever practicable.”

On height signs (para 5.42):

“It is recommended that the sign to diagram 629.2A [metric and imperial] is used in preference to the imperial-only sign.”

Draft Traffic Signs (Amendment) Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2010

Department for Transport, September 2009

http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/closed/trafficsignsamendmentregs/consultation.pdf

Draft changes to the regulations to come into force in Spring 2010:

“Width and Height Restrictions

2. We are making changes to require both metric and imperial triangular warning signs to be displayed to give warnings of restricted headroom, with the upgrade being complete in four years’ time. Using the imperial sign on its own will no longer be permitted.

3. We are making similar changes to require both metric and imperial measurements to be displayed on all width and height restriction roundel signs, with the upgrade being complete in four years’ time. The current imperial-only signs shown in diagrams 629 and 629.2 will be withdrawn.”

ANNEX 2: PHOTOGRAPHS ATTACHED

All photos by UKMA. News organisations are free to use any of these photographs to accompany this story, with or without credit to UKMA (but not credited to others).

Picture 1: New panel at Rotherhithe tunnel with height in feet only

Picture 2: New panel at Rotherhithe tunnel with height and width in feet only

Picture 3: 10 metre length restriction signed as 33 inches (or around one metre)

Picture 4: Close-up of 10 metre length restriction signed as 33 inches

For those who have not come across his books, a few words about Bill Bryson may be helpful. Mr Bryson was born in the USA in 1951, and lived both in England and the USA before settling in England in 2003. He worked as a journalist until 1987, and then became a freelance writer.

For his travel books, Mr Bryson uses the units of measurement he finds in common use in the country he is describing. Easy for him, and it should seem logical to the reader. What a shame that the BBC does not adopt this policy for its news reports from around the world.

But when Mr Bryson embarked on ‘A Short History of Nearly Everything‘, or, as John Waller of the Guardian called it, ‘a rough guide to science’, his decision on units was not so simple.

Should he:

• Use metric, and put off many US readers?
• Use US customary units (USC), antagonise many readers outside the US, reduce the credibility of the science, and defeat one of the purposes of the book?
• Use a mixture of units, and risk antagonising everyone?
• Abandon the project?

Fortunately for his readers, he persevered, trying to use USC for ‘conversational’ English and metric for the science. Thus, the Introduction of the book uses USC entirely; Chapter 1, about the universe, is 5:1 in favour of USC; Chapter 2, about the solar system, is 3:1 in favour of metric; and so on.

In my view, as a UK reader, this is not entirely successful, but I have some sympathy for Mr Bryson who had to reach a decision on which system to use each time he needed a measurement unit. There must have been many occasions when he was writing the book that he wished the English-speaking world used a single system of measurement.

What would you have done in his shoes?

In 2004, the book won the Aventis prize for general science, and in 2005 the EU Descartes prize for science communication.

Finally, here is a quote from the popular video “Globalisation and the Information Age” by Karl Fisch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljbI-363A2Q ) for would-be Brysons to consider:

“China will soon become the number one English-speaking country in the world.”

NIST, which is part of the US Department of Commerce, recently issued the following statement on its website:

“The EU Metric Directive [sic] (80/181/EEC), scheduled to go into effect January 1, 2010, has been modified to allow the continuation of both supplemental (U.S. customary, inch-pound) and metric units for consumer goods sold in the EU. The rule was published on May 7, 2009 in the Official Journal of the European Union.

The Directive instructs the European Commission to produce a report to the Parliament and Council regarding the smooth functioning of the internal market and international acceptance of SI units by December 31, 2019, including proposals where appropriate.

Demonstrated progress will be important for U.S. stakeholders to achieve long-term acceptance of supplemental units [sic] in the EU. Modifying the U.S. Fair Package and Labeling Act (FPLA), which currently requires dual labeling, to permit optional metric labeling is an example where greater international marketplace acceptance of SI units can be achieved.”

[This report is slightly inaccurate in that the Directive has been in force since 1980, and in any case its proper informal title is the “Units of Measurement Directive”]

The statement is so badly written that it is difficult to work out what it means.  In particular, the final paragraph , in so far as the words mean anything, appears to be gobbledegook.  There is no question that supplementary “units” should “achieve long term acceptance” in the EU.  The recent amendment to the Directive was simply a concession to exporters to remove a potential (alleged) business cost and/or barrier to trade – that is, the requirement for separate labelling for the EU and US markets. The only units legal for trade in the EU will continue to be metric (with the minor exception of the pint (imperial – not US) in limited circumstances in the UK and Ireland), but supplementary “indications” (not units) will be permitted on labels. The inability of NIST to get its head round this simple concept is depressing.

Perhaps I read too much into it, but why did the statement include reference to the review in 2019?  Surely, NIST is not planning to lobby the EU to allow American units as primary units with no metric equivalent stated?  In fact the obvious interpretation is that Directive’s intention is that the Commission should report on whether it will still be necessary to permit supplementary indications.

The statement’s final sentence is also nonsense.  Amending the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA) will not achieve “greater international marketplace acceptance of SI units”.  They already are accepted internationally – except in the USA!

If NIST feel that their statement has been misinterpreted, then perhaps they can explain what they really did mean.

However, NIST is right to focus on the issue of whether the FPLA should be amended to permit metric-only labelling on goods that are regulated at the federal level. Current federal law requires both metric and US customary units on regulated goods, and so far all attempts to introduce into Congress an amendment to permit metric-only labels have been blocked as a result of lobbying by powerful US business interests such as the Food Marketing Institute (FMI). (Illogically, they seem to believe that allowing voluntary metric-only labelling would compel them to change the sizes of their packages).  Further details can be read on the USMA website at http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/fpla-update.html

(It should also be explained that some goods that are not regulated at the federal level may be regulated at the level of the State, and most States do in fact permit metric-only labels on these goods).

The question now arises whether the FPLA is a non-tariff barrier to trade.  Such barriers, unless they can be justified on legitimate grounds (e.g. health and safety), are illegal under the rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), and this was one of the reasons why the European Commission agreed to support the continuation of supplementary indications on packages within the EU.  Otherwise the USA might have filed a complaint against the EU. However, arguably, the boot now appears to be on the other foot.

European (and other non-US) manufacturers would naturally expect to label their goods in metric units only.  However, if they want to export those goods to the USA, they will need to incur an increased business cost by adding an additional label or alternatively creating completely different packaging for the US market. Of course, they could simply standardise on a uniform dual-unit label and use this in all markets worldwide – but why should they?  Since the EU’s concession to the USA was not reciprocated, its effect is that EU manufacturers who currently export or might in the future export to the USA have effectively lost the option to label their goods in metric units only. The USA has effectively imposed dual-unit labelling world-wide – a form of American imperialism.

Can anything be done to retrieve the situation?  Whether a complaint to the WTO would be upheld probably depends on what view its Appellate Body would take of the argument that EU (and other) manufacturers should be free to label in metric-only and should not be compelled to dual-label simply because a single state (however powerful) refuses to use the same measurement system as the rest of the world.   Arguably, if the USA wishes to engage in international trade, it should be expected to accept the international system of measurement and not impose unnecessary burdens on foreign manufacturers.

In my view the European Commission should be seriously considering such a complaint – or at least it should let it be known (diplomatically of course) that unless there is progress on amending the FPLA, a complaint might be filed.  Without such an implied sanction, it is difficult to see how the US Congress might be persuaded to drop its opposition.

The proposal follows a precedent set by the Legible London project in 2008, which is pioneering the use of minutes walk to show distances on pedestrian wayfinding signs.

The new cycle route sign will be optional, which means that across the entire National Cycle Network, directional signage will become an incoherent mix of miles and minutes.

To further confuse matters, on cycle routes that are used by pedestrians, signs showing cycle journey times will be required to show pedestrian journey times too.

Traffic Signs Policy Review

The Traffic Signs Policy Review, which was announced in September 2008, was intended to address issues of sign clutter and the understanding of road signs, so it is quite unbelievable that one of the first signs to be produced by the review has apparently been so poorly thought out.

Many factors contribute to produce large variations in cycle journey times, including the fitness of the cyclist, the inclination of the terrain, the weather, and the quality of the bicycle, all of which make the use of any estimated journey time quite useless as a real indication of how far away a destination is.

Metric solution

The use of imprecise journey times is not what people expect to see on directional signage. In response, the UK Metric Association is proposing the following sign for the purpose of upgrading all cycle route direction signs. It is based on the current sign, but shows distances in kilometres, to one decimal place for shorter distances. Ideally, it should be introduced as part of a planned programme of conversion of all traffic signs to standard metric units.

Signs in kilometres will complement the use of existing Ordnance Survey maps, which have used a kilometre grid since the 1940s. They will also be useful to cycling enthusiasts and road racers who generally use kilometres. Signs  using the standard km symbol will not require bilingual translation in Wales, unlike the proposed new hrs and mins signs.

Background

The DfT continues to rule out any consideration of using standard metric units on traffic signs, even though Government policy since 1965 has been to gradually move towards the metric system of measurement for all official purposes.

You can comment on the new signs and other proposed amendments to traffic signs regulations in the DfT consultation, details of which can be found at the following link.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/open/trafficsignsamendmentregs/

Details of the Traffic Signs Policy Review can be found at the following link.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/policyreview/

You can apply to join the Traffic Signs Policy Review sounding board, or comment directly using the following e-mail address traffic.signs@dft.gsi.gov.uk

UKMA’s submission to the Traffic Signs Policy Review included the production of a leaflet Traffic Signs 2.0 which can be downloaded by clicking on this link.  Alternatively, free printed copies can be obtained by e-mailing secretary@metric.org.uk

Loony Measurement System

I was recently reading the manifesto of the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, and I started to wonder: if a spoof political party had a policy on units of measure, what would it be? Perhaps it would look something like this:

“We propose to introduce into Britain a measurement system which is different from that used in any other country in the world.  It would be similar to the system used in the United States of America, but not quite the same.  It would be defined in terms of the metric system, but would not define its units in any convenient whole numbers of metric units, making it dependent upon, but entirely incompatible with the standard international system of weights and measures.

There would be four different units to measure length.  The smallest, a “chin”, would be exactly 25.4 mm.  Then there would be toof which would be 12 chins, or 304.8 mm; then a dray which would be 36 chins or 914.4 mm and finally a lime which would be 63,360 chins, or 1609.344 m.

For weight there would be six different units. Starting with the nouce, which would weigh 28.349523125 g.  Then a pnoud would weigh 16 nouces or 0.45359237 kg;  a snote would weigh 224 nouces or 6.35029318 kg;  a ctw would be 4,480 nouces or 50.80234544 kg; and a not would weigh 53,760 nouces or 1,016.0469088 kg.

Volume would have three different units which would not be based on the length unit, but one of which would be loosely based on the density of water.  The units would be the fluid nouce, equal to 28.4130625 ml, or approximately the volume of 1 nouce of water.  Then a tinp would be 20 fluid nouces or 568.26125 ml, and a laglon would be 160 fluid nouces or 4.54609 litres.”

If that measurement system was proposed now, no one in their right mind would accept it. It makes no sense whatsoever. And yet this raving loony’s system is exactly the same (save the unit names) as the imperial system, which some people in the UK find it so difficult to let go of. I hope that any readers who support the use of that system can see how ridiculous it is to argue for its superiority over the international metric system. In fact the only possible argument for keeping such a system is that you simply can’t be bothered to change.

Copyright (c) David Brown 2009