Slashdot Mirror

I always wondered how everyone understood measurements given by the UK show Top Gear when they talk about miles, miles per hour and horsepower. Not to mention pints.

Well, basically it's a complete myth that everywhere but the U.S. converted to metric in everyday life. The UK has "officially" been using metric for 50 years, but imperial units are EVERYWHERE in common circumstances if you bother to look for them. (For a full explanation, you might look at this report from the UK Metric Association which seeks to promote literacy in metric.

There are obvious situations from everyday life where UK folks still use imperial units -- most prefer "stone" (or "pounds/ounces" for babies) for human weight, for example. But other units crop up all the time. Celsius is standard for weather forecasts, except when it gets really hot, in which case broadcasters love to point out it might get to "100 degrees!" Watts are the SI unit, but you get engines measured in HP and heating systems measured in BTUs. Clothing sizes are still commonly in inches. Road signs still commonly give distances in miles (or yards, for shorter distances and feet and inches for height restrictions). Paper is mostly metric, but photos are still standard 4"x6". Refrigerators are often still sold with volume given in cu. ft. House/apartment sizes are often still described by agents in sq. ft. Small grocers often still advertise in imperial units of weight or volume.

Etc., etc. There are also plenty of cases where more obscure units are still used in various skilled trades.

Most countries that claim to be "fully metric" have similar issues. This list is a bit old, but it shows how old non-metric units continue to be used in random places throughout Europe, even in countries that "converted" more than a century ago.

After reading a lot about this, my conclusion was that the most successful countries that really made a break with older measures did so by simply redefining their older units. Hence, the French still order a "pound loaf" of bread, but it's actually 500 grams -- they simply redefined the livre (pound) in the 1800s to be exactly half a kilo. Given the way that all the old imperial units have now been so precisely defined, it's no longer really feasible to do that anymore.

So most countries are stuck with weird hybrids, where officially everyone is supposed to use metric, but you get old units cropping up in all sorts of everyday places where they are useful.

I'm a big fan of the metric system and wish that everyone would adopt a standard measurement system -- but these residual units in most countries go to show how little utility the supposed "simplicity" of the metric system actually has for everyday life. People have a sense of how big a "X cu. ft." refrigerator is, and they can use it to compare when they buy a new one. The average person never really cares about the conversion of that unit to anything else -- they don't care that there are 1728 cu. in. in a cu. ft. and they'll basically never need to know that or do such a conversion. They just want to know how big their refrigerator is and how it compares to the new one they might buy. The units might as well be "7.2 standard refrigerator units" for all people care... and that's why these old units stick around. Very few circumstances demand conversion of units for everyday people in everyday life, so the "easiness" of the metric system means nothing to them. If they want to buy pants, they know the number that fits them -- it doesn't matter is it is centimeters or inches or cubits or furlongs.

In the UK, we've "converted" but you still see old measurements everywhere, such as milk having to be sold in litres, but they're sized in pints - for example I can buy 1.136 litres, or 2 pints of milk. See this as an example.

http://www.bwmaonline.com/Legal%20-%20Parking%20-%20C%20Booker.htm
http://www.bwmaonline.com/Robin%20de%20Crittenden's%20NPAS%20hearing.htm

Here is an extract from the above page which essentially says the queen rules via the 1689 bill of rights but that also creates parliament also . If you get into the link above you may find that the queen as head of state ceased to be so in 1991 due to signing a bill into law which conflicts the 1689 bill of rights act which she has to uphold or lose the crown (goes without saying that her government ministers are similarly out of office too).

Mr de Crittenden: I ask the tribunal to accept into evidence the Declaration of Rights that was given effect on 12th February, 1689 by William & Mary, Prince and Princess of Orange, the Parties of the first part, and A Convention Of The English People, the Party of the second part.

It is necessary for this tribunal to note that at the time that the Declaration of Rights was presented, William was the Prince of Orange - and that at a later time on the same day, he was King of England. It is clear that the Crown was given and received because William of Orange had accepted the provisions of the Declaration of Rights - and it is clear that at this time, there was no lawful Parliament. Once recognized as King, William was able to call a Parliament into being and in December of 1689 the Bill of Rights was enacted.

The Powers of the Crown and the Powers of Parliament are both regulated by the Contractual Provisions of the Constitutional Agree-ment known as the Declaration of Rights, and the Bill of Rights, enacted in December of 1689, is nothing more and nothing less than evidence of the contract that had been made and given a full effect in February of 1689. The Declaration of Rights was not entered into by any Parliament and is not a Creature of Any Parliament - Unlike the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Rights is not subject to repeal; amendment or any form of regulation or repudiation by any Parliament.

In confirmation of the terms acknowledged by the Declaration of Rights, and evidenced by the Bill of Rights, the Sovereign gives a Coronation Oath. The lawful exercise of the authority claimed by any Sovereign &/or by any Parliament was made dependent upon a full and absolute obedience to the provisions made by the Declaration of Rights - and if there should be failure on the part of any Sovereign to uphold the provisions of the Declaration of Rights, then the inheritance of the Crown itself becomes forfeit - with all rights to the Crown reverting to the line of the former and now-deposed Stuart Dynasty (if the rules of primogeniture and logic are properly applied) Our Present & Most Gracious Queen Elizabeth, Whom God Preserve, has no right to the Crown at all, unless it be the right that was conferred on her predecessors; their heirs and successors by the Declaration of Rights.

Should the Queen forfeit her lawful right to the Crown, as a consequence of failure to maintain the terms of the agreement made on 12th February 1689, then Parliament itself can have no lawful existence, because all Parliaments have their lawful existence only by virtue of the Sovereign's own Right to Govern this Country and to call such parliaments into lawful assembly.

Mr Prickett: The supreme body is the Queen in Parliament.

Mr de Crittenden: That is a present-day interpretation. The Declaration of Rights recognizes only that the Supreme Body is the Queen herself! Evidence of this is everywhere: for example, all Acts of Parliament are enacted in the name of the Queen and all Parliaments are required to maintain the Supremacy and Security of the Crown - as evidenced by the Oaths of Allegiance that must be sworn by all Members of Parliament - before any of these persons are permitted to take any lawful part in the pro

http://www.bwmaonline.com/Legal%20-%20Parking%20-%20C%20Booker.htm
http://www.bwmaonline.com/Robin%20de%20Crittenden's%20NPAS%20hearing.htm

Here is an extract from the above page which essentially says the queen rules via the 1689 bill of rights but that also creates parliament also . If you get into the link above you may find that the queen as head of state ceased to be so in 1991 due to signing a bill into law which conflicts the 1689 bill of rights act which she has to uphold or lose the crown (goes without saying that her government ministers are similarly out of office too).

Mr de Crittenden: I ask the tribunal to accept into evidence the Declaration of Rights that was given effect on 12th February, 1689 by William & Mary, Prince and Princess of Orange, the Parties of the first part, and A Convention Of The English People, the Party of the second part.

It is necessary for this tribunal to note that at the time that the Declaration of Rights was presented, William was the Prince of Orange - and that at a later time on the same day, he was King of England. It is clear that the Crown was given and received because William of Orange had accepted the provisions of the Declaration of Rights - and it is clear that at this time, there was no lawful Parliament. Once recognized as King, William was able to call a Parliament into being and in December of 1689 the Bill of Rights was enacted.

The Powers of the Crown and the Powers of Parliament are both regulated by the Contractual Provisions of the Constitutional Agree-ment known as the Declaration of Rights, and the Bill of Rights, enacted in December of 1689, is nothing more and nothing less than evidence of the contract that had been made and given a full effect in February of 1689. The Declaration of Rights was not entered into by any Parliament and is not a Creature of Any Parliament - Unlike the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Rights is not subject to repeal; amendment or any form of regulation or repudiation by any Parliament.

In confirmation of the terms acknowledged by the Declaration of Rights, and evidenced by the Bill of Rights, the Sovereign gives a Coronation Oath. The lawful exercise of the authority claimed by any Sovereign &/or by any Parliament was made dependent upon a full and absolute obedience to the provisions made by the Declaration of Rights - and if there should be failure on the part of any Sovereign to uphold the provisions of the Declaration of Rights, then the inheritance of the Crown itself becomes forfeit - with all rights to the Crown reverting to the line of the former and now-deposed Stuart Dynasty (if the rules of primogeniture and logic are properly applied) Our Present & Most Gracious Queen Elizabeth, Whom God Preserve, has no right to the Crown at all, unless it be the right that was conferred on her predecessors; their heirs and successors by the Declaration of Rights.

Should the Queen forfeit her lawful right to the Crown, as a consequence of failure to maintain the terms of the agreement made on 12th February 1689, then Parliament itself can have no lawful existence, because all Parliaments have their lawful existence only by virtue of the Sovereign's own Right to Govern this Country and to call such parliaments into lawful assembly.

Mr Prickett: The supreme body is the Queen in Parliament.

Mr de Crittenden: That is a present-day interpretation. The Declaration of Rights recognizes only that the Supreme Body is the Queen herself! Evidence of this is everywhere: for example, all Acts of Parliament are enacted in the name of the Queen and all Parliaments are required to maintain the Supremacy and Security of the Crown - as evidenced by the Oaths of Allegiance that must be sworn by all Members of Parliament - before any of these persons are permitted to take any lawful part in the pro

First, we tend to call them "Imperial" measurements, after the guy that invented them, Bob Imperial*.

Everybody under the age of about 40 has always been taught metric units from birth, so many of us have no real life experience using purely imperial units. However, we have plenty of infrastructures that will probably never swap over to metric, even in 30/40 years' time when there will be very few imperial-only peeps left.

All "long"-distance road signs in Britain are in miles. A sign saying "Birmingham 17" would indicate that Birmingham is 17 miles away.

HOWEVER, "short"-distance road signs tend to use metric units. "Humps for 200m" is a innuendo-laden example.

Speed limit signs are always in mph. Mechanical car speedos are marked in mph, with kph usually on there in significantly smaller digits. Mechanical car odometers are always in miles, but the newer digital combo displays can show all information in any combination.

Babies are weighed at birth, and everybody knows that a five-pounder is light, 7's about right and 10's a Christmas turkey.

And yes, before you ask, cocks are usually measured in inches here too.

There are some Canute-style Imperial zealots in the UK however.

* This is not true.

Here's a quote from the John Dell, Divisional Director of Worcester Weights and measures department:

Mr Dell said they want to work with businesses but they also have to enforce the regulations. He said that they had never prosecuted publicans for selling "pints" of shandy, which were illegal. He said that the law was somewhat "tedious".

Do you still wish to insist that I am a liar? That's strong language from someone who apparently didn't plug 'pint shandy illegal' into Google.