Why still miles?
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: alan.holmes on 26 Jul 2010 12:09 "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ppKdnTOQRd5qztnRnZ2dnUVZ8sGdnZ2d(a)bt.com... > > "ARWadsworth" <adamwadsworth(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message > news:brY0o.31127$JM4.17830(a)newsfe21.ams2... >> >> "NKTB" <north_korean_tourist_board(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:ff49cbf5-8f43-4cac-876e-d305ad586cff(a)l14g2000yql.googlegroups.com... >>> From watching various TV traffic cops type shows from various parts of >>> the Commonwealth, I notice that they all now use kilometres for >>> distances, and obviously kph for speed (and presumably km/Litre for >>> fuel consumption hopefully not the dreadful Litres/100km used on the >>> continent. >>> >>> I know the British people are a bit stick-in-the-mud, and don't like >>> all these nasty foreign weights and measures, but British people, >>> albeit in foreign parts (Aussies, Canucks, Enzedders etc) seem to have >>> happily adopted these measures, no doubt with some resistance from the >>> elder and more conservative of their number. The Irish, who are >>> probably our closest neighbours culturally now, have long since gone >>> metric. >>> >>> OK, we still buy milk in pints (multiples of 568ml), some food in >>> pounds (multiples of 454gm) but we are, to all intents and purposes, >>> fully metricated in the food area. We have for a long time used >>> celsius temperatures, and anyone who works in science or engineering, >>> as I do, will have used metric (MKS) units since I don't know when. >>> >>> Are the PTB scared of an almighty backlash if we go the final mile >>> (pun intended) and chuck the antiquated measurement into the long >>> grass? It would seem so. Is it just the expense of changing all >>> those road signs - I guess the current economic climate won't help. >>> >>> How long can we go on having a hybrid, half-arsed system of distance >>> measurement? At least the yanks have kept all the other imperial >>> measures. I'm thinking that KPH is a just a change too far. >> >> But the Commonwealth countries still drive on the correct side of the >> road even if it is in kph. >> > Be careful which way you look when crossing the road in Canada. Do they drive both ways? > > >
From: alan.holmes on 26 Jul 2010 12:13 "Mortimer" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message news:M_ednVVp0-Y9BNjRnZ2dnUVZ8vudnZ2d(a)brightview.co.uk... > "AnthonyL" <nospam(a)please.invalid> wrote in message > news:4c4587b8.19446109(a)news.zen.co.uk... >> On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 07:01:23 -0700 (PDT), NKTB >> <north_korean_tourist_board(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>On 19 July, 14:37, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> NKTB <north_korean_tourist_bo...(a)yahoo.com> gurgled happily, sounding >>>> much >>>> like they were saying: >>>> >>> >>>> <shrug> Does it matter? Really? >>> >>>Probably not to us, but kids who learn distances in Km are going to >>>get confused. As they grow up I guess there will be an increasing >>>demand to change >>> >> >> It's a good job they never had to deal with � s d then, with florins, >> bobs, thrupenny bits, farthings, guineas and half-crowns. >> >> And pounds, ounces, stones, cwt. >> >> Poor kids, lost without their calculators. > > Why use a system that has mixed bases (not even the same non-base-10 base > for all weight units, or for all length units) when you could use one that > uses base 10 which is the base that we are taught to count in? Keep it > simple! > > Computing uses base 16, but at least it's consistent in that *every* digit > is worth 16x the digit on its right - no mixed bases - and it uses letters > to represent numbers greater than 9, so there's always *one* character. > > I would find it incredibly difficult to have to deal with converting > between ounces, pounds, stones, hundredweights and tons, whether I used a > calculator or a pen and paper. And as formental arithmetic, well I have > enough trouble keeping track of carry digits and the numbers I'm adding up > in base 10, never mind having to cope with changing from one base to > another as well. So you do not know there are 960 farthings in a pound? > >
From: alan.holmes on 26 Jul 2010 12:15 "Mortimer" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message news:kpadnRteBoB2w9nRnZ2dnUVZ8qydnZ2d(a)brightview.co.uk... > "Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:8aj2pdFrp2U5(a)mid.individual.net... >> It's not as if miles are the only hangover, either. Apart from MPG >> (whereas we buy fuel in litres), there's the perennial temperature >> confusion (it's cold it's celsius (minus sodding five last night, my poor >> plants...), but when it's hot it's fahrenheit (nearly 90 deg the other >> day!)), then there's the odd measurements for bits of wood, feet and >> inches for height of people, stone and lbs for weight of people. >> >> And, of course, pints for beer. > > I'm one of those half-and-half people who is old enough to have been > brought up with imperial units so I estimate distances in inches, yards > etc and know my height and weight in feet/inches and stones/pounds, BUT if > I'm asked to measure anything I always do it in metric units for ease of > calculation and for consistency between linear, volumetric and weight > units. But you still buy plywood in 8 foot by 4 foot sheets! Alan
From: Adrian on 26 Jul 2010 12:19 "alan.holmes" <alan.holmes27(a)somewhere.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > So you do not know there are 960 farthings in a pound? Bear in mind, Alan, that decimalisation of the currency was forty years ago next year.
From: Brimstone on 26 Jul 2010 12:58
"alan.holmes" <alan.holmes27(a)somewhere.net> wrote in message news:Uqi3o.90993$xf1.53875(a)hurricane... > > "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:ppKdnTOQRd5qztnRnZ2dnUVZ8sGdnZ2d(a)bt.com... >> >> "ARWadsworth" <adamwadsworth(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:brY0o.31127$JM4.17830(a)newsfe21.ams2... >>> >>> "NKTB" <north_korean_tourist_board(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> news:ff49cbf5-8f43-4cac-876e-d305ad586cff(a)l14g2000yql.googlegroups.com... >>>> From watching various TV traffic cops type shows from various parts of >>>> the Commonwealth, I notice that they all now use kilometres for >>>> distances, and obviously kph for speed (and presumably km/Litre for >>>> fuel consumption hopefully not the dreadful Litres/100km used on the >>>> continent. >>>> >>>> I know the British people are a bit stick-in-the-mud, and don't like >>>> all these nasty foreign weights and measures, but British people, >>>> albeit in foreign parts (Aussies, Canucks, Enzedders etc) seem to have >>>> happily adopted these measures, no doubt with some resistance from the >>>> elder and more conservative of their number. The Irish, who are >>>> probably our closest neighbours culturally now, have long since gone >>>> metric. >>>> >>>> OK, we still buy milk in pints (multiples of 568ml), some food in >>>> pounds (multiples of 454gm) but we are, to all intents and purposes, >>>> fully metricated in the food area. We have for a long time used >>>> celsius temperatures, and anyone who works in science or engineering, >>>> as I do, will have used metric (MKS) units since I don't know when. >>>> >>>> Are the PTB scared of an almighty backlash if we go the final mile >>>> (pun intended) and chuck the antiquated measurement into the long >>>> grass? It would seem so. Is it just the expense of changing all >>>> those road signs - I guess the current economic climate won't help. >>>> >>>> How long can we go on having a hybrid, half-arsed system of distance >>>> measurement? At least the yanks have kept all the other imperial >>>> measures. I'm thinking that KPH is a just a change too far. >>> >>> But the Commonwealth countries still drive on the correct side of the >>> road even if it is in kph. >>> >> Be careful which way you look when crossing the road in Canada. > > Do they drive both ways? > On a single carriageway road, yes. |