|
These comments have been on this website for around 2 to 3
years now.
There is utter confusion from the layman (myself included) as
to what is lawful and what isn't.
Many seem to believe that imperial signage on our roads,
miles, yards, etc, must take precedence over metric one's.
A couple of years back, Neil Herron won a pathetic battle over
some metric signs in a remote country road in my local area of Sunderland called
Old Burdon Vilage.
The signs, if memory serves, read 1 1/2 km. They now
read something like 500 yards after protests from the aforementioned Mr
Herron.
He knows his battle to use metric-only measures on loose goods
is now a lost cause since he lost his appeal in the European Court of Human
Rights.
Good sense finally prevailed in that instance. I'll tell
you something, though...if kilograms weighed less than pounds, therefore making
them cheaper than pounds, they would have been accepted like a shot...much like
litres were in the 1980's by petrol stations.
That would probably have exposed their hypocrisy in an
instant.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 3:57
PM
Subject: [USMA:30300] more comments on
BWMA's ludicrous statements
I have added some comments of my own below:
- Metric
signs are less accurate than customary signs. For example, using
metres to describe the width of bridges (eg 4.4m) achieves an accuracy
of only one tenth of a metre, or four inches. Imperial signs (eg
14'6") are accurate to within one inch.
It appears the BWMA
doesn't know the difference between accuracy and
resolution. There is no implied
accuracy in the FFU declaration especially if the people who manufacture
the signs don't produce signs to 1 inch increments. If the
foot/inch figure is just a numerical conversion of the metric (which it
obviously is), and the metric is the true design figure, then the 1 inch
resolution does not reflect any greater accuracy. Since
British roads are built metric, then the metric is more accurate and the
FFU is actually more of an error if the converted number is rounded too
much. Maybe the people who produce the signs should follow
the BWMA advice and make 14 feet 6 inches as 14 feet 5.228 inches, which
is the true equivalent of the correct 4.4
m What the BWMA do not tell you is that all imperial signs
are rounded to nearest half foot, i.e. they will always be so many feet or so
many feet plus 6 inches. I don't think I ever see a sign in the UK with a
width that had inches other than 6, or maybe 3 or 9 in some places, but that
is still not totally accurate.
The view that metric signs help Continental
tourists is negated by the corresponding lack of help to American
tourists. In practice, Continental tourists are often interested by
signs showing miles, yards, feet and inches, while Americans are
delighted to discover that they are not alone in using them.
How many Americans
drive on British roads? How many Americans would attempt to drive
a car in which the steering is opposite or they have to drive on the
other side? but, to those that would, the delight of Americans
finding miles elsewhere then in the US must be offset by pulling into a
petrol station and finding petrol sold by the litre and then going into
a supermarket and finding a high volume of metric products. If
anything that has to be confusing. I also wonder how many
Americans come to the UK compared to those from the Continent and
vice-versa. Why doesn't the BWMA insist that all English speaking
countries add FFU signs just for the sake of the
England? I have met several American citizens, some here, some in
the USA. The majority all expressed a concern for driving on the wrong side of
the road and said they could not drive in the UK. Perhaps the BWMA know some
Americans who do drive here. I would think that if they were going to drive
here they would have to be well-above average drivers to cope as most
Americans would not cope. I have driven in America on the other side of the
road, it is not easy, but at least their roads are generally twice the width
of ours.
- According
to Gallup, 95% of people in Britain think in miles compared to only 3%
for kilometres. Changing to kilometres would cause misunderstanding,
make enforcement of speed limits more complicated and increase the
likelihood of accidents.
This is only true
because the road signs are in FFU. Remove the FFU with metric only
and watch the switch occur. Over time as people get new cars and
get a feel for metric speeds and distances, the numbers will
reverse. This is why they don't want to see the change. They
know it will cause people to forget miles. The proof can be found
in the reaction of people in other countries that don't see miles used
every day.
How many Australians
today would say they think in miles? And then compare this to the
1970s.
I notice the BWMA forget to mention the other 2%. But like
you say, most motorists think in miles because they have to -- the road signs
are in miles and mph. When I had a car I had to think in miles, there is no
other option because the signs are all that way. But, like you say, change the
signs to metric, and everyone will think in metric. Most people already think
of temperatures in Celsius due to the widespread use of metric for weather
forecasting. I should imagine that for all packaged goods people think in
metric, and certainly for soft drinks and bottled water everyone in the UK
pretty much thinks of litres, not gallons or pints. The word "pint" is usually
associated with beer/ale/cider/stout in pubs, and doorstop deliveries of milk.
Wine has been in metric for as long as I can remember, the standard size being
70 cl. BWMA continue to use false reasoning and statistics that favour their
position as they struggle to hang on to an antiquated system that has already
been replaced by metric in many walks of life in the UK. Or mabye the BWMA
spend a lot of time and effort and money finding suppliers of packaged and
bottled goods in FFU only.
|
