Why still miles?
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Adrian on 19 Jul 2010 11:00 "Mortimer" <me(a)privacy.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> Sweden changed from RHD to LHD some time in the 60s, which must have >>> left a lot of obselete RHD cars which no-one wanted to buy second >>> hand. >> Not really, since they'd been buying LHD cars for years prior to that. > So they had. I never knew that. I've just looked it up: they preferred > the driver close to the kerb to avoid running off the edge of the road, > rather than near the centre to judge the distance from the oncoming cars > and for ease of overtaking. Strange how that "preference" changed after Dagen-H, eh...? > And many of the cars sold in Sweden were American. But Volvo and Saab built LHD cars for domestic use through the '50s, too...
From: NKTB on 19 Jul 2010 11:23 On 19 July, 15:13, 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 > > And if they don't learn about miles, they'll be confused when they deal > with Americans. Maybe, but if they want to deal with or converse with Americans I'm hoping that anyone unfamiliar with the imperial measures would do a little homework first. The Americans are also uite good at confusing themselves - it led to a Mars probe failing. Also when Canada was changing systems it led to an airliner running out of fuel. See Gimli glider. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider > > Just like so many mainland Europeans are when they come here currently > (or 'merkins when they go to mainland Europe), whilst us Brits are > equally happy with both. > > >> then there's the odd measurements for bits of wood, feet and > >> inches for height of people, stone and lbs for weight of people. > > My doctors always measure weight in Kg, makes it easy to work out BMI. > > As I'm about 5ft 8inches this equals 1.72 Metres > > Congratulations, you just proved my point. I just demonstrated that a recognised health parameter is based on the metric system, the fact that I am able to convert is down to my education and my job. There are quite a few people over 65 who are very unfamiliar with the metric system, and quite a few young people who are confused by imperial measures. I was brought up on both as were many of my generation. > > > I prefer half a litre of my beer. > > By "beer", are you referring to bland, dead fizz? No - I was merely emphasising that half a litre is more than a pint, I don't like Eurofizz or Yankee pop and would be quite happy to have a half litre of proper beer.
From: Adrian on 19 Jul 2010 11:27 NKTB <north_korean_tourist_board(a)yahoo.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> > I prefer half a litre of my beer. >> By "beer", are you referring to bland, dead fizz? > No - I was merely emphasising that half a litre is more than a pint Since when was 500 more than 564?
From: NKTB on 19 Jul 2010 11:31 On 19 July, 16:27, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > NKTB <north_korean_tourist_bo...(a)yahoo.com> gurgled happily, sounding much > like they were saying: > > >> > I prefer half a litre of my beer. > >> By "beer", are you referring to bland, dead fizz? > > No - I was merely emphasising that half a litre is more than a pint > > Since when was 500 more than 564? My mistake, a pint is actually 568 ml. I think I meant to say a litre of beer.
From: mike on 19 Jul 2010 11:32
"Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:8aj96uFrp2U10(a)mid.individual.net... > > Since when was 500 more than 564? Since the same time it was more than 568?! Mike |