Could Brexit lead to a comeback for pounds, ounces, and yards?

Would that be a gallon bucket, with extra butter, Lee?

Any chance farthings and shillings might make a comeback, too?

I hope not. In the US, congress declared that the Metric System was the "preferred" system through the Metric Conversion Act in 1975. You may have noticed that the implementation of this act has been a tad bit slow and inefficient. It would be sad for the UK to back away from the progress it made.

The government is supposedly considering making it legal to sell goods in imperial measurements again, but apparently none of the official departments have any equipment that can calibrate scales etc in imperial and it will cost millions of pounds to buy new equipment. Not likely to happen.

I have never heard of imperial/metric measurements being a trigger for Brexit. Metric measurements in shops has been in place since 1994, so anyone under 45 can’t remember anything else.

There is no way that we will revert to buying gallons of petrol, not litres. It would cost too much to convert.

Not sure this is really a travel related topic.

Hi Lee -

The U.K. already has a schizophrenic attitude to measuring systems, we have metric currency but our road signs are in miles, we buy stuff in kilograms, but equally, dependent on what you are buying and where, you can buy in pounds and ounces (I’m thinking of a favourite cheese shop on this one), we buy fuel (when there is any) in litres but drink in pints, etc., etc.

I am not sure there’s any great desire or demand to change, and as others have pointed out it would involve tremendous unnecessary cost, something that would be desirous to avoid, especially just now. And it’s a question of where do you stop, not so much as where you start. Are we going to introduce the florin and groat back into our currency? Are we going to recalibrate our National Trails into leagues? Of all the things we need to take a look at, Brexit related or not, I’m fairly sure ditching the metric system is not near the top of the list.

I’m not aware of any English-speaking country that doesn’t weight newborns in pounds and ounces. I’m still waiting for a pop song that has kilometers or kilograms as lyrics.

The current US standard of using all units has some benefits. For example if fully versed in both systems the huge difference between using a unit of force, pound, versus a unit of mass, gram, is apparent and worth knowing the distinction. Kind of like the advantages of knowing 2 languages.

Having done site planning in feet and then in meters/metres, it’s easier in feet. Meter-based drawing measurements go to 3 decimal places (millimeters), whereas the smaller foot only needs 2 decimal places (hundredths of a foot). Imagine adding a third decimal place to every measurement on a drawing. Contours are much easier to read and deal with when in whole feet than when in the rather frightening quarter meter. Also feet plans are in convenient sheet sizes for human arms and hands: 24” x 36” or 30” x 42”. Metric drawings are either the enormous A0 (which has to be folded to handle and read) or the skimpy A1 which isn’t large enough to show enough area. Although in the US metric drawings are put on inch-based sheet sizes.

The article is silly because it is based on the premise that customary units can ever go away. Deeds won’t magically change to meters, the legal documents are set forever. Towns across the Midwest are still going to be precisely 1 township apart— 6 miles—center to center. Parts of Louisiana were divided by the French into lots based on the arpent (about 192’) and that is how they are legally recorded. Nothing taught in schools or placed on grocery store shelves changes that.

Edit: The arpent was used by the French upriver to Arkansas and Missouri, and by the Spanish across the Gulf coast to Florida, 6 states and Quebec have land deeds based on the arpent.

May not be travel related but Tom's post is one of the most interesting things I've ever read here. 😀

Apparently one of the triggers for Brexit was the EU's attempts to ban the Imperial measuring system.

No it wasn't. The majority of the country couldn't care less. The only people harking back to the days of imperial measurements are the elderly and those who haven't managed to get their heads round the simple metric system over the last 50 years.

I'm 45, I was never taught imperial and have no idea what an ounce, pound looks or feels like. I have no idea if 60f is warm or not. I can't stand the antiquated and innacurate American measuring system of cups, it makes cooking an unnecessary faff.

There are only three countries in the world that use the imprerial system, the US, Liberia and Myanmar. Surely that's enough to demonstrate what an antiquated system it is.

Tom. I have worked in commercial property for years and when I first started out, we measured property in feet and inches with a tape measure. To calculate the building areas, for say 2 ft 10 inches, we used 2.833, which is no fewer digits than a metric plan. Building and quantity surveyors have used metric for decades, but estate agents have used imperial for house sales, although this is changing to metric.

Newborns in the U.K. are quoted in metric and imperial.

Even my elderly parents thought in centigrade not Fahrenheit.

I doubt anything will change as we have more important things to focus on right now.

My partner is American and introduced me to "cups" for recipes, which are not very precise (the density of foodstuffs does vary a bit), but so much more convenient than using weight. I can measure a cup of rice, I do not have a scale to measure 50g...
The rest is an absolute nightmare (I'm looking at you, "miles per gallon").

Metric system measurements became lawful in the United Kingdom under the Weights and Measures (Metric System) Act 1897. It has been an awfully long time since then.

The policy to move towards sole use of metric units is a bit more recent: 1965, After that many schools started teaching predominantly or just in metric units, hence those younger now than around their late 50s were not taught the detailed ins and outs of imperial measures even if they have needed to pick this up some appreciation through life. One advantage of metrication (and decimalisation) is not needing to teach mixed radix arithmetic which used to take up to six months of school time.

I strongly prefer the metric system-all you have to do to convert from one unit to another is move the decimal. I always have to look up the number of cups in a quart, etc. when I'm cooking.

Edited: I'm referring to metric units of mass, length, and volume.

Fyi, this thread can stay for as long as the focus remains on units of measurement. Sure, that's not travel, but I don't see a need to be heavy handed with this one-off. However, if this thread becomes more about Brexit, this thread will be removed as we've been clear in the past about how it only causes arguments when mention of Brexit isn't specifically tied into providing travel advice. Lee, be more careful when bringing up Brexit, please.

Back to units of measurement!

it will cost millions of pounds to buy new equipment

High time you change that to kilos. :D

all you have to do to convert from one unit to another is move the decimal

So, convert 2 hrs to minutes. Just move the decimal? Is it 20 minutes, 200 minutes?

Or convert kgf to Newtons. 10 kgf = 98.0665 N (at standard gravitational accel).

Added: You're right. I started with 1 kgf=9.80665 N, then decided to make it 10 kgf, but forgot about the RH side.

But the point is, if they had defined the meter in a more sensible way, they could have had g=10.000 m/sec² at std grav acc. Then they would have had 10 kgf =100 N (just move the decimal point).

And the original metric system had 10 hrs/day, 100 minutes/hr, and 100 sec/min., but no one liked it, so they dropped it. Here in the US, we don't like meters and kilograms, either, so we dropped them, too.

So, convert 2 hrs to minutes. Just move the decimal? Is it 20 minutes,
200 minutes?

If your clock measures hours and minutes in the metric system, sure, then 2 hours is 20 minutes or 200 seconds.

The French revolution tried to introduce a ten-day week. Didn't go through. The ratio of weekend days to work days is just no good.

If your clock measures hours and minutes in the metric system, sure,
then 2 hours is 20 minutes or 200 seconds.

No, if my clock measure time in the ORIGINAL (decimalized) metric system (otherwise called the "French Revolutionary Time"), that was rejected, 2 hours would be 200 minutes or 20.000 seconds. There would be 100.000 seconds in a day (compared to 86.400 today).

A few Nerds carry a rule around in their pocket to measure lengths; almost no one carries a balance beam and "weights" to measure mass, but virtually everyone has a timepiece (watch or cell phone), because time is our most commonly used measurement. And yet, time is the one dimension not decimalized in the SI system.

we measured property in feet and inches with a tape measure.

By property I think you mean just buildings. I haven’t worked on building plans for decades but I assume in the US they still use feet and inches both which is less desirable. When inches and fractions of an inch are used on a drawing it really becomes an inch-based drawing with the feet just being bundles of 12 inches.

As to the third decimal place, 1/100 of a foot is about 3 mm. There isn’t any need for finer measurements in built environment settings, whereas rounding off at 1/100 of a meter (1 cm) is still too much distance to handle many situations.

There are tape measures of all sizes that are just in feet and tenths of a foot— no inches or fractions. For some reason they’re not very popular. Survey tapes never use inches, only feet and decimal parts of a foot.

The sheet size system of A0 to A5 and probably lower isn’t really based on the SI system but it is what the international community uses so it goes hand and hand with it. Surprised to see listed a nod to the practical 24” x 36”, the A1+, but I haven’t seen it in use. It would be nice to see an A1/2.

The sheet size system typifies the SI system in general. Let’s be really clever setting up all the units and intervals but not design units around human needs— just hope something works out suiting human needs by serendipity, not by design. Let’s divide the distance from Pluto to alpha centauri by one billion and that’s the unit we are going to force on humans to work out. In the case of the A0 sheet being so big it flops over the sides of a drafting table and has edges out of human reach: the system is clever but the functionality is low.

Getting back to travel, someone who had been in the military in Europe once told how to interpret "mileage" signs. When you see a sign in km, multiply by five, divide by eight, and then subtract 1.

Why do you subtract 1, you ask? Because it took about a mile to multiply by five and divide by eight.

A meter is 3.28 feet, so to get a distance in feet, multiply meters by 3 and add ¼ of the number of meters. That gets you within 1%.

3.28 squared is about 10¾, almost 11, so if you are renting an apartment that says it's 30 sq meter, its a little less than 330 sq ft.

Meat, cheese, etc is often sold in 100 gm amounts. 100 grams is a little less than ¼lb or 4 oz. (quarter pounder). About a serving. (It's actually about 3½ oz.)

We have a measurement that is close to a meter; it's the yard (0.91 m). But it's not commonly used (except for material or in football). Apparently 12 inches is a more convenient measure than 36 or 39 inches.

When you see a sign in km, multiply by five, divide by eight, and then
subtract 1.

Why do you subtract 1, you ask? Because it took about a mile to
multiply by five and divide by eight.

If you want a precise solution, yes, you'll have to do that complicated math. Since by the time you have your precise solution, its precision is not really worth much any more (hence the "subtract 1"), you might as well use the practical approach: Multiply by two and divide by three. Since it takes only 200m to get to that solution, you'll end up with similar precision as with the complicated approach. :-)

A mile is .6 km. Multiplying the km by 2 gives a rough estimate(of course not good enough for speed limits!)
I think Rick says to get .5 kg cheese, which makes sense becaue a kg is 2.2 lb.

to get .5 kg cheese, which makes sense becaue a kg is 2.2 lb.

Let me add to the confusion: In Germany, it's perfectly common to ask for a "Pfund" (pound) of cheese, and what you will get is 0.5 kg. :-)

A mile is .6 km

actually the other way around.

I find it easiest simply to know that 100 km, as in 100 kph, is 62 miles, or 62 mph. From there adding or subtracting 10 percent is easy.

If you use a rule of thumb that you'll drive an average of 60 miles in an hour you can use a rule of thumb that you'll drive around 100km in an hour. If somewhere is 350 km away it will take around 3 and a half hours, plus or minus traffic, construction, or a heavy foot...

Those would be iImperial pints, not US pints, but then the Imperial system is what they are considering returning to.

I think Rick recommend converting km to miles by dividing the number of km by two and adding 1/10 of the original km (which you can get my moving the decimal point). That method makes it 0.6 km (3½% error). The actual number is 0.621, which is very, very close to 0.625 or 5/8. 2/3 is .666, which is off by 7.4%.

Even at my advanced age, I don't find multiplying by 5/8 that difficult, but then I've been doing mental math most of my life.

Nigel, you beat me to it.

The actual number is 0.621, which is very, very close to 0.625 or 5/8.
2/3 is .666, which is off by 7.4%.

Sure, but not as far off as you are after you have driven another mile. :D

in England you will see a carton of milk containing the weirdly
specific 2.272 litre - in reality 4 pints.

.

Those would be iImperial pints, not US pints

Goodness, you don't even agree on those? :-o

I'll just stick with our 1 liter milk cartons. Anything more than that's just gonna spoil anyways.

Someone hand me the popcorn please...

Lots of British friends, and not once have I seen this topic up for discussion.

Having grown up in the US and now living in Germany for over 35 years, metric wins for easiness, hands down.

Not seen any thing in the news about this either. A bit of a non story I think!

Not seen any thing in the news about this either. A bit of a non story I think!

I think it started in The Daily Mail which would explain a lot.

The article I originally saw was on a major news website (might have been the NYT) a few days ago. I couldn't read it without subscribing to the website, so I searched the BBC website and found the linked article from 2016, before the Brexit vote.

well I was here 5 years ago - and 5 years before and after.

I had to listen to all the Brexit shouting back and forth and not once in those years of pain do I remember anybody making a fuss one way or the other about measurements. The colour of the passports and how Brexit would provide £300 million a week to the NHS (the passports are now blue, I think, and the NHS didn't get any of the money), yes, but not a single thing that I remember about measurements.

To take this away from Brexit and back to measurements and travel, I laugh regularly when considering a new car that we don't use gallons for anything but the official mileage of internal combustion engines is given in miles per gallon.

Hmmm, maybe fuel economy sounds better in Imperial measurements, than in Metric?

The USA switched from olive drab passports to navy blue, nearly 50 years ago. Maybe blue passports go with countries using gallons?

@ Cyn. Au Contraire.

My passport is blue. I have no idea about the ancient British measurements nor any desire to learn it or any conversion methods. Though my grandparents were unable to accept the ditching of an inefficient system and continually lamented the change. My children laugh when some one tries to explain how to measure a yard, mile, furlong.

Litres/ 100kms for me. Do not think my E-types (especially the V12) care which system, they love the fuel in both measurements.

Actually, I will let you into a secret. It is a smoke screen on the part of the poms as both the soccer teams and cricket test teams have been taking and absolute hiding of late. In reality the press is already looking for excuses to chicken out of what will be an undoubted one-sided ashes series this southern hemisphere summer. Standard sports journo hacks preparing the readership for another disappointment. Need to blame someone or thing.

Regards Ron.

Doesn't matter to me. I measure in whatever increments are used where I am. Feet and inches. Nautical miles. Furlongs. Parsecs. Light years.

Sticking with "cubits". None of these new-fangled measurements for me.

Right! And the ell, that's what we need to reintroduce! No need to carry any equipment to measure, just take your own arm!

It is a smoke screen on the part of the poms as both the soccer teams and cricket test teams have been taking and absolute hiding of late.

I wouldn't call reaching the finals of the Euro's "taking a hiding". FIFA currently ranks England third in the men's world ranking.

Cricket on the other hand.....that's just dull.

Noting that there isn’t any need to convert units, it’s possible to “speak” two systems of measurement just as it is to understand two languages without translating one language into another.

Although doing physics problems in conventional units is a pain, they work fine for everyday use and have some advantages over SI units as I noted. Yet another advantage is the useful facility of being able to refer to temperatures in easily spoken groups (the 70s, the 90s) which Celsius users have never had so they don’t know what they are missing. I also shudder at the thought of living consecutive weeks in negative Celsius temperatures. Maybe we need a Conventional Units Pride Week?

The whole concept of “conversion” is ancient and no longer required going forward. Technology has removed the need or advantage of conversion, for example most land surveys now are done in lats/longs and are unitless.

Now, how about a useful international movement like removing the gender of nouns in European languages, that’s the epitome of inefficiency.

how about a useful international movement like removing the gender of
nouns in European languages

Be my guest. With diversity awareness increasing rather than reducing gender in language, you're going to be fighting an uphill battle. :-)

The only people harking back to the days of imperial measurements are the elderly

By coincidence (or maybe not) that is exactly the age group that got Brexit passes. Every other age group voted to stay.

When the elderly were young, Britain had just won a world war, the sun never set on the British Empire, and there were 11.2 German Mark to the Pound.

Now Britain's influence in the world (the French and Germans dominate the EU) has waned, Britain has lost most of it's empire, and the Pound would now be worth only 2.28 Mark (if it had not been absorbed by the Euro). I think the elderly in Britain remember how Britain was in 1950, and blamed membership in the EU for Britain's decline, and that's why they voted to exit the EU.

I remember when the EU wanted to change the nominal voltage in Europe to 230V. (Britain had been 240V; the continent was 220V.) Brit objected because at 230V, their electric kettles were going to heat slower. The EU was seen as always forcing Britain into something they didn't want.

At one point, the EU was going to ban the use of quarts, feet, pounds, etc all together, but eventually they relented and allowed imperial units on packaging, but required that the metric units had to be the measurement more conspicuously shown on the packaging. I think the Brits resented having the French and the German, their traditional enemies, dictating everyday life for them.

I think the elderly in Britain remember how Britain was in 1950

I'm not going to enter an argument about Brexit - our Webmaster has forbidden it yet it keeps coming up - but I'll give you a few home truths about 1950.

you mean when India and Pakistan were no longer in the empire (1947)?

when many (most) women who had had jobs during the war were banned from working and expected to stay at home so the men could have the jobs

Or when many day to day necessities were still rationed?

Clothes had just come off rationing 6 months earlier

In mid May 1950 canned and dried fruit, chocolate biscuits, treacle, syrup, jellies and mincemeat came out of the ration book

Soap (all soap) was rationed until September 1950.

In all of 1950, and 1951 and almost all of 1952, tea was still on ration. Britain, tea. Paradise.

Sugar rationing and sweets (candy) were still on ration until 1953. So even after you could have a cup of tea, it wouldn't be very sweet.

The final food rationing didn't end until the 4th of July, 1954.

Speaking of the 4th of July, after the war the USA forgave the debts of Germany, rebuilt it, and gave all sorts of money to France. The USA helped Britain during the war with Lend/Lease - and collected all the money. The UK didn't finish paying all that back to the United States until 2006.

In 1950 the cities were still full of bomb craters and waste land where buildings had once stood. I remember that into the 1960s.

So anybody looking back at 1950 with glee must be doing it wearing rose coloured glasses.

Here’s to better times now, and safe travel. Lift a Pint (or is that a half liter or so)? Or have a cup of tea (a quarter liter, give or take). How many pounds for a pound of something?

I grew up in Northern England (I’m still there!) as a child of the late fifties and sixties and Nigel is entirely correct. The idea that it was better then - remember those terrific smallpox epidemics and smog? No, thought not! - is a nonsense, only visible when viewed through the rose tinted spectacles of nostalgia, that allow you to falsely recall a Britain that never existed.

By coincidence (or maybe not) that is exactly the age group that got Brexit passes. Every other age group voted to stay.

Did they? Where did you get that information? Here are the actual results:

18 - 24 - 73% remain 27% leave
25 - 34 - 62% remain 38% leave
35 - 44 - 53% remain 48% leave
45 - 54 - 44% remain 56% leave
55 - 64 - 43% remain 57% leave
65 + - 40% remain 60% leave

As you can see, a significant proportion of those who voted to leave would not have been educated in the imperial system so it's difficult to see why the issue would have much bearing on the decision making by so many voters notwithstanding I don't ever recall the issue being raised during any of the multitude debates leading up to the vote but having read the BBC article I've taken it for what it is, a hashed article written by a journalist who had to fill a few columns and relied on a few words provided by a handful of imperial advocates. Such a minority of people do not represent the views of the many hence the reason that the subject was not an issue with the general public and why none of us Brits on here can recall anything about it.