Stephen, The point you always seem to miss is that the question is not the traditional units habitually used since the 18 century or earlier, but the best units from SI for use in the future.
---- Original message ---- >Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:07:22 +0000 >From: Stephen Humphreys <[email protected]> >Subject: [USMA:47008] Re: FW: Special Employee Advisory: Message from Joe >Boardman >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > > I admire your scientific brain Martin ;-) but I'll > bet you a large sum of money that most (British) > people would quickly understand 95 mph and have a > 'feel' for what that looks like over "50 m/s based > upon some maths" even though what you say > technically makes a lot of sence. > > Of course, 'practice' often proves things and if you > ever hear one of the bowlers/batters for the England > and Wales side talking about fast-bowlers and > spin-bowlers then you note they will always use > mph. In fact my quote below about Flintoff came > from an Aussie cricketer(!). Note sure whether the > aussie chap in question used mph because they knew > it was SkySports interviewing them or not, however > whenever I have heard a feed from Australian criket > games I have often heard both mph and km/h > (admittedly more km/h from Australian broadcasts > than mph). Incidentally they refer to km/h as > 'kays' - eg "He bowled that one at 130 kays". > > > ------------------------------------------------ > > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: [USMA:47007] Re: FW: Special Employee > Advisory: Message from Joe Boardman > Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 06:36:44 +0100 > > On the other hand being told that the ball is coming > at you at 50 m/s and knowing that the pitch is just > 20 m long tells you that you have 0.4 s to work out > what to do with the ball. (A little less because you > are in front of the wickets) >..
