If that were so, it would help the SI case -- and that would please me no end.
However, context is everything. Nobody (even from an all-metric country) is going to think that a sign that says, for example, "Edinburgh 285 m" is referring to meters. Bill Potts, CMS Roseville, CA http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Behalf Of MightyChimp >Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 11:46 >To: U.S. Metric Association >Subject: [USMA:30303] Re: The Campaign against Metric Signage > > >Why does the UK use "m" to mean mile when it is already designated as a >symbol for metre? Doesn't that create confusion? > >Euric > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Terry Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Tuesday, 2004-07-06 11:33 >Subject: [USMA:30302] Re: The Campaign against Metric Signage > > >> Bill Hooper >> >Our anti-metric opponents have a valid point (a legal one, at least) >> >if the law says that metric signs cannot be posted and yet they >> >are being posted anyway. Or am I missing something in this discussion? >> >> The law specifies non-metric road signs for highways in most cases >> (exceptions include weight, height, width). >> http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/signs_index.shtml >> >> http://www.ukma.org.uk/legislation.htm >> "the UK is the only country in the world whose road sign regulations do >not >> include metric units as options for distances, despite widespread use of >> metres in the Highway Code, and roads having been designed and built in >> metric for decades" >> >> However, 'metric signs are illegal' is not a universal truth. >Some suggest >> that it is, in order to persuade private organisations to remove metric >> signs. >> >>
