It would be nice to have a worldwide standard like many road signs now are.
Adding metric in orange would add clutter. km/h is metric and people should be
able to adapt to that quickly since it's already printed on speedometers.
Stan Doore
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Millet
To: U.S. Metric Association
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 2:36 PM
Subject: [USMA:38004] Re: mm vs. cm
I actually prefer the current design for metric speed limit signs Stan, I
think the circle with the number in it is just too confusing even though it's
the world standard. I like the fact that our metric speed limits will look as
the old ones did but with the black circle and a clearly defined km/h
underneath it so that people recognize that this sign is different and
represents a different measure. I would still like to see "metric" put on them
in orange like the earlier proposed design was just to make sure :). One other
thing I want to see is road distances clearly marked in km on the green signs
i.e "24km" not just 24. that's how it's done now and if that trend were to
continue I think people would still think they were driving in miles.
I know in Australia I seem to have seen pictures of road signage that does it
both ways. In Australia however the metric transition has been complete long
enough that everyone knows that 24 means 24 kilometeres and not miles. I think
it helps to have that distinction and the written km.
MIke
On 2/18/07, STANLEY DOORE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I agree Mike that there should NOT be both English and metric road signs
as it would be very unsafe. Pasting over current signs with metric is a good
way to begin; however, the US should adopt the international sign/symbol for
speeds and speed limits. The sign is round with a number in the middle. The
would save on expensive aluminum material. The "km" could be placed in small
letters at the bottom of the circle beneath the number to help avoid confusion.
I haven't heard about the ridiculous thing you mentioned about high school
track coaches Mickey-mousing the track event lengths. Here and elsewhere I
know, track distances have been changed to metric standards.
I'm having a battle with Ohio Wesleyan U on the design specs for it's new
indoor swimming pool. I'm trying to get them to use the NCAA/Olympic standard
which is metric (metres). I'll probably see the President of OWU and other
influential people next month at OWU. We'll see where it stands then.
Regards, Stan Doore
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Millet
To: U.S. Metric Association
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 10:02 AM
Subject: [USMA:37995] Re: mm vs. cm
Funny you should mention that Stan, I know a few coaches on the local
high school teams that only just now switched to having their students run
races in meters. Before that the coach would convert it to feet and have them
run it and then they would be competing in meters.
I don't think that any distance should be in meters road sign wise unless
it's "All" in meters and kilometers. Mixing meters and miles leads to some very
dangerous problems with confusion about which unit is what and would in general
slow down the metrication process. If and when road signs go metric in the US
I'm sure what will probably happen is something similar to what did in Canada
where they put decals over the signs on a particular holiday and then
progressively replaced them as time went on. If we were smart we would be
putting SI signs in the ground right next to the mile markers but that's not
going to happen. That would take to much organization and planning for our
government to accomplish and our local governments to be comfortable with.
Mike
On 2/18/07, STANLEY DOORE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The comments below show why distances up to about a mile should be in
metres.
A quarter mile is 440 yards or 400 m, half mile is 880 yards or 800 m;
3/4
mile is 1200 m and a mile is 1600 m. You should remember this from
track.
Stan Doore
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pierre Abbat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" < [email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 12:14 AM
Subject: [USMA:37992] Re: mm vs. cm
> On Saturday 17 February 2007 15:43, Michael Payne wrote:
>> I vote for the comma, it's more easily seen than the dot, (.5 or ,5)
>> There
>> is a sign in Aspen that says Terminal .2 miles and I was telling
someone
>> one day that it was more like 200 meters then he pointed out it was
>> actually point 2 miles, I'd missed the point every time I saw the
sign
>> for
>> a couple of years!
>
> That's why a zero should be written before the point. If you miss a
dot
> in "0.5", you see "0 5", which wouldn't be written for 5, so it has
to be
> 0.5.
>
> I grew up with both dots and commas for the decimal point (my father
came
> from
> France, where they use the comma). For numbers in isolation, either
> convention makes sense to me. But when you have lists of numbers, the
only
> way that looks right is to use dots for the decimal point and commas
> between
> the numbers (not at the thousands).
>
> phma
>
>
--
"The boy is dangerous, they all sense it why can't you?"
--
"The boy is dangerous, they all sense it why can't you?"
