Thanks. I think it needs some adaptation here. Our issue is the Associated Press Style Guide, which almost all media uses. They regard kph as an acceptable abbreviation, and apparently don't understand that the SI assigns symbols as short forms, not abbreviations, and that those symbols have rules. However, the primary AP recommendation on metric is to omit it entirely, so there is a need to be somewhat subdued about criticism. There is a genuine question of whether kph is better than no metric at all.
(However, pointing out that their competition, AFP, uses metric correctly may be the way to approach it.) ________________________________ From: Pat Naughtin <[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Cc: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Sat, September 4, 2010 8:56:05 PM Subject: [USMA:48468] Re: Danielle is a Customary/metric hurricane Dear John, Here is a letter that I used successfully in Australia some time ago. You may be able to adapt it to use in your local environment. The Editor The Age Dear Editor, I am appalled at the response of your 'Drive' editor to a letter written by Bert Smith in Thursday's copy of 'The Age' (2003-04-24). I quote your editor: 'The use of kmh is the style adopted by The Age and other Fairfax papers'. >From which orphanage was this style adopted. It definitely did not come >from any reputable institution. I have checked with the National Standards Commission in Australia, they use the correct unit, km/h. I have referred to the 'International System of Units (SI) 7th Edition 1998', and the website of the Bureau Internationale de Poids et Mesures (BIPM), and they use km/h. To make sure, I also checked with the National Institute of Standards and Technology in the USA; they use km/h. All of these sources recommend km/h as the correct international symbol for kilometres per hour. The unit symbol, km/h, is correct because it demonstrates how the value was obtained. If I drive 120 kilometres in 2 hours, I then calculate my speed as 120 divided by 2 to get 60 km/h. The fact that I divided one number by another is included in the solidus (or slash) contained within the unit, km/h. Your travesty of an abbreviation, kmh, is completely meaningless as it implies multiplying 120 km by 2 h (to get 240 kmh?), rather than the correct 60 km/h obtained by division. You are wrong in using kmh as an abbreviation for kilometres per hour. You are wrong because you are ignoring all international agreements and standards. You are also wrong because what you write, in the abbreviation kmh, is simply wrong physics and wrong engineering. Perhaps it was the nonchalance of your editor's explanation that raised my ire. It seemed to me that the 'Drive' editor was saying to the Physics teacher, Bert Smith, 'We are wrong when we use kmh, we know that we are wrong, but we don't really care about you, your students, or, for that matter, we don't really care about any other students in Australia, either'. Yours faithfully, Pat Naughtin Cheers, Pat Naughtin Author of the ebook, Metrication Leaders Guide, see http://metricationmatters.com/MetricationLeadersGuideInfo.html Hear Pat speak at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lshRAPvPZY PO Box 305 Belmont 3216, Geelong, Australia Phone: 61 3 5241 2008 Metric system consultant, writer, and speaker, Pat Naughtin, has helped thousands of people and hundreds of companies upgrade to the modern metric system smoothly, quickly, and so economically that they now save thousands each year when buying, processing, or selling for their businesses. Pat provides services and resources for many different trades, crafts, and professions for commercial, industrial and government metrication leaders in Asia, Europe, and in the USA. Pat's clients include the Australian Government, Google, NASA, NIST, and the metric associations of Canada, the UK, and the USA. See http://www.metricationmatters.com/ to subscribe. On 2010/08/24, at 22:07 , John M. Steele wrote: I am glad to see AP including (or leaving in) the metric in more stories that involve measurement. >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100824/ap_on_re_us/tropical_weather >Also, all their conversions seem sensibly rounded, no decimal dust. > >Now, if we could just persuade them to use km/h, not kph.
