Common misconceptions and deliberate disinformation about the metric system
Floppy disks aren't metric
Yes, they are; 90.0 mm wide, to be exact. Allied to this myth is their description as '88.9 mm', or '89 mm'. ISO/IEC 9529-1 describes the dimensions of the diskette: 90.0 x 94.0 mm (neither of which is 3.50 inches).
Penalties for not using metric units have been imposed only in the UK and the Irish Republic (not in any other country in the EU)
It is up to individual nations how transgressions of national laws are penalized. EU Directives were established to harmonize units of measurements across the member states in order to facilitate trade. The actual legislation to enact these requirements is the responsibilty of each member state, as are the penalties for breaches. The penalties within the UK have not changed substantially since the 1963 Weights & Measures Act, and the most severe are reserved for offenders who persistently give misleading information. All that has changed is the list of permitted units. So someone persistently advertising by the bushel or peck could have been fined after 1968, even before the 1995 metrication legislation was enacted.
The new regulations mean A4 paper is banned
Logical thinking really went out the window with whoever came up with this gem! Absolute nonsense.
There is no justification here for denying freedom of choice
Yes there is (unless you're an anarchist, of course!). All legislation denies 'freedom of choice' to some extent, and weights and measures legislation is there to protect the public, by ensuring that the standards used for measuring equipment are maintained, and that traders are providing honest and open information to the public. There always has been W & M legislation to define what units are legal for trade. Trading Standards Officers are there to protect the public against unscrupulous traders. To permit traders and public to pick and chose which units they want to use would lead to anarchy, and the sort of confusion that anti-metric supporters claim to be against. There was no outcry by such people when a UK publican was fined by Trading Standards for selling his beer in metric measures! Nor were there any complaints when it became illegal to sell by the stone several years ago.
Metrication costs money
This is a statement often used, but grossly exaggerated in many cases, and untrue in others. Whilst it is true that replacing or recalibrating equipment costs money, it has to be remembered that businesses write off equipment against tax over a given period. Also, equipment wears out, and competitive pressures mean that some equipment has to be replaced before it wears out, if the company is to remain competitive. The excruciatingly slow pace of metrication in the UK (35 years an counting) exposes the desperate nature of such claims. In addition, claims of not being given enough warning must be regarded with suspicion (especially when voiced just a few months before new legislation), as the main EU directive behind the latest legislation appeared 10 years ago. Admittedly, the DTI has ducked its responsibility over giving widespread and timely publicity, and much of the press has given misleading information.
Experience by companies who have metricated has shown that metrication can actually save money. British engineering companies, US car manufacturers, and even the US Government (who mandate that new federal buildings be designed in metric) have shown that fewer different stock items and ease of use can reduce costs. Prolonging the process adds to costs.
The USA has not gone metric - why should we?
Not true; although the USA has made erratic progress towards metrication (like the UK), it has nonetheless advanced. Its wine and spirits industry made the change back in the 70s, the car industry went metric in the mid-80s (with considerable savings), and many goods are appearing in shops in rational metric sizes. Dual-labelling of goods is now mandatory for most products. The US is ahead of the UK in one significant area: that of road signs. They repealed the legislation which forbade metric units on signs over a decade ago, something which the UK has still to do. For more detail on practical examples of the changes happening in the USA see Jim Frysinger's Metric Methods site.
Even metric nations use non-metric units
I won't try and pretend that this is not true, but it warrants closer examination. In many cases, it is the historical dominance of the USA in particular fields that has forced the rest of the world to fall into line. Examples are:
Computer screens (though European companies often include the centimetre size as well)
Guns & ammunition - obviously these have to be mutually compatible, and become self-perpetuating
Car wheels - the past dominance of the US car industry
Plumbing fixtures - I understand that some European use inch-based parts. (I'd be grateful if someone could give me the history behind this.)
Aircaft heights and speeds; engine thrusts in pounds force - US industry dominance again
In other cases, names of non-SI units have been retained in a colloquial way. Many bear little or no relation to the 'imperial' units we have used in the UK, e.g. there have been many variants on how long a mile is. (Even within the British Isles the mile often varied by region). In other cases the terms are used as slang for actual metric units, e.g. the livre (pound) in France means 500 g. It has been argued that these units are not permitted by the EC Directives. However, it is important to note that these terms do not have any legal standing. To say that we should not use legally-enforced metric units because of these uses is a non sequitur. This is like saying we should not use terms like 'quid', 'bob', 'fiver', or 'buck', 'penny' in the USA, because these have never been legal terms of currency.
Centimetres are not valid within SI
Complete nonsense! This misunderstanding has its roots in the development of SI as a rational and coherent system of units, and in general good engineering and scientific practice. For such purposes it is recommended that one restricts the use of multiples and sub-multiples of units to factors of 10³, e.g. µm, mm and m. So engineering drawings and building plans are labelled in millimetres only. Regardless of the system of units used, it is not a good idea to mix units (e.g. inches and feet). Unfortunately, our own British Standards Institute promulgated the idea that the centimetre was not an approved unit, and as a result, the millimetre has been used (often expressed in terms that indicate a totally unwarranted precision) for many consumer products where the centimetre would have yielded a much more 'user friendly' figure. Of course, anti-metric folks do not point out the error of such practice, instead seizing on it as proof of the unsuitability of SI more everyday use.
Road signs could only be converted in an 'overnight' manner
The argument against a gradual replacement of road signs by the government is that it would be unsafe. Ireland has successfully converted the majority of its distance signs over a period of years by replacing worn signs and installing new ones with km-only markings. (The deadline for metricating speed signs has been deferred to 2001-06-30.) I do not believe there are any safety issues as far as distance signs are concerned. It should also be noted that vehicles in the transport industry (both people and freight) have metric speedometers and odometers. If safety issues don't arise in an industry where public safety is regulated carefully, why should they for car drivers?
An alternative strategy would be the Canadian one, where decals showing km and km/h were placed over signs on their Labour Day weekend.
