....I'm not sure on this one, so I probably am wrong but, aren't hours,
minutes and seconds accepted as SI units anyway?
If this is the case, then there's little problem with describing a
distance as km/h surely?
----- Original Message -----
*From:* John Frewen-Lord <mailto:[email protected]>
*To:* U.S. Metric Association <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Thursday, April 01, 2010 8:52 PM
*Subject:* [USMA:47013] Re: FW: Special Employee Advisory: Message
from Joe Boardman
Dear all:
It's not often I agree with Stephen Humphreys, but on this occasion
I think he's right. I once wrote an article for the UKMA
Newsletter, suggesting that we might need to make more use of what I
call the 'vernacular' in our use of SI for the everyday person.
That using metric must become as natural as it seems for people
brought up on imperial/USC to continue using those units. Hence I
suggested that we could describe our height as 'one-seventy-eight'
(1.78 m or 178 cm - your choice), our weight as 75 kaygees (I really
hate kaygees, but recognise that it makes using metric less
intimidating or clinical), our speed as 130 'kays' (or klicks') and
so on.
When it comes to km/h, that is what the entire world uses for
measuring speed, rightly or wrongly. Maybe it is 'wrong', but are
you going to change the entire world in this regard? As the US
hardly uses metric in the everyday sense (agreed that there is a lot
of hidden metric), then there is little chance the rest of the world
is going to take much notice if the US starts pontificating that we
should be using m/s rather than km/h, and even less chance that the
rest of the world is going to actually change.
Regardless of what measuring units we use, most of us relate to them
in a comparative or relative sense only, not in absolute terms. We
know that we take a size 8 shoe, or that we (at least the ladies
do!) fit into a size 14 dress, and so on, without ever knowing
exactly what those numbers mean. And we currently measure speed on
that basis. We know (at least those of us living in those
countries which measure our speed in km/h, which is virtually the
entire world USA and UK excepted) that 50 km/h is a typical urban
speed, that 80-100 km/h is a typical two lane highway speed and that
100-130 km/h is a typical freeway/motorway speed. We don't need to
actually visualise how many metres per second that represents, and
even if we did, we probably wouldn't be able to make practical use
of it. On the other hand, when planning journeys, a typical
suburban/rural average speed is say 60 km/h, which is 1 km per
minute. So a 20 km journey will take 20 minutes. On longer
journeys, where we might measure our time in hours, we might be able
to average 100 km/h, so a 400 km journey will take 4 hours. Km/h
allows these calculations to be made; m/s doesn't.
I think if we want the general populace to embrace metric, we have
to accept such 'vernacular' in its use. The clinically correct
stuff we can reserve for professional usage. Oh, and as a surveyor
working in the UK, I can assure everyone that I was indeed
'clinically correct' in my usage of SI in my professional work. For
everyday usage, I find I am quite happy to 'lighten up' and use the
'vernacular'.
John F-L
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Stephen Humphreys <mailto:[email protected]>
*To:* U.S. Metric Association <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Thursday, April 01, 2010 8:13 PM
*Subject:* [USMA:47012] Re: FW: Special Employee Advisory:
Message from Joe Boardman
I fully understand where you are coming from but even in 'fully'
metric countries km/h is used. I cannot see that changing but
furthermore I would not recommend pushing clinical use of si on
non metric people. Remember that in effect you have to 'sell'
this change so being critical about specifics should really be
low on your priorities. Of course this just my opinion
> From: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [USMA:47008] Re: FW: Special Employee Advisory:
Message from Joe Boardman
> To: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 10:04:08 -0500
>
> 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)
> >..
