Is it necessary to switch all road signs in the US and UK from imperial to metric?

Cowboy

My name is Sheridan
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
9,805
I realy don't get what the fuss is all about, Imperial backwards? Just sounds like typical Eurosnobisme (or secret Eurosnobisme) to me.
If it works and you like it? Whatever it is, fine, use it, stop trying to convince people of your superiority, you just look like an ass.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: TC

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,153
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'19 BMW M240i
Take Celcius v. Fahrenheit; celcius is based on the very essence of human life - water. 0C is freezing point, 100C is boiling point. That makes sense. Fahrenheit, on the other hand, is a system where the 100F mark was based on the body temperature of a horse. And is that really relevant today?
You forgot the 0?F mark - the lowest temperature measured in Gda?sk during the winter of 1708/09. How's that for randomness?
 

SirEdward

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2008
Messages
1,791
Location
Bologna, Italy
Car(s)
VW Golf MkV
"My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead and that's the way I likes it." (grandpa Simpson)

Well, I think the UK and US will eventually switch to metric, if anything because it's far more diffused and standardized. But it will take time. muuuuuuuch time.
 

YF19pilot

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
2,768
Location
Massillon, OH
Car(s)
2006 Honda Civic Coupe
It doesn't need to make sense as long as it's remembered, its not exactly rocket science to memorise a few basic numbers. Hence my complete inability to work in Metric, I didn't learn it so it makes no sense to me.
(Apart from working with Celsius)
Ah, but it is! There are basically three measurements used in the Aerospace Industry that everything pretty much boils down to: inches-pounds-seconds. I know there are some companies that prefer to use the Metric/SI systems for designing aircraft, but they're actually in the minority. Now, granted, I pretty much was taught that you science in metric up to the second year of college. The I got the engineering/design teachers and they tossed it all out of the window.

And my mile is 6076 feet long! And that figure is not random as some people may think.

And I really hate the bit about reducing mpg or l/km into an area measurement. Yes, you can do that (v = d^3, so v/d = d^3/d = d^2), but it destroys any practicality and meaning of the measurement. Oh hey, my car gets 0.000025 ft^2! Gee Bob, that's an awfully small trunk space. See, its even more useless than you're leading us to believe mpg is. There are measurements that crop up from time to time in engineering where you'll have something like inches per square inch, or seconds^2 per second. If you reduce that you end up screwing up the measurement and any practicality it had, not to mention earning the ire of the senior engineers.

MPG is a very easy way of contimplating fuel economy, as is Liters/100 km. Both show a direct correlation between 'how far I will go/how much I will use'. When most people are shopping based on fuel economy, they go for the highest numbers they can affoard. Sure, going from a Honda Civic (30/36) to a Prius (51/48) isn't going to save as much gas as going from Tundra (16/20) to a Fusion (23/33), but nobody shops like that.

The only thing you've proven is that averaging MPG ratings across a range of vehicles is a flawed way of creating legislation, thus CAFE is flawed, and we here in the USA already knew that!

(to avoid confusion, this post is responding to more than one person :p)
 
Last edited:
Reactions: TC

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,153
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'19 BMW M240i
Oh hey, my car gets 0.000025 ft^2! Gee Bob, that's an awfully small trunk space.
Trunk space would be ft?, no?

See, its even more useless than you're leading us to believe mpg is.
In case you didn't notice, I was not that serious about using square metres as the consumption unit.

The only thing you've proven is that averaging MPG ratings across a range of vehicles is a flawed way of creating legislation, thus CAFE is flawed, and we here in the USA already knew that!
The actual CAFE legislation isn't flawed in that way because they don't use the arithmetic mean of the values. The public's understanding of the legislation may be flawed though.
 

YF19pilot

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
2,768
Location
Massillon, OH
Car(s)
2006 Honda Civic Coupe
Trunk space would be ft?, no?
Depends who you talk to, I suppose.

In case you didn't notice, I was not that serious about using square metres as the consumption unit.
Good! Because it's rediculous! Sorry the back in forth in here is making it hard to read who's being sarcastic and who's being serious.

The actual CAFE legislation isn't flawed in that way because they don't use the arithmetic mean of the values. The public's understanding of the legislation may be flawed though.
Perhaps, but its still unpopular legislation in many peoples' eyes.
 

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,153
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'19 BMW M240i
Depends who you talk to, I suppose.
ft? would be area, not saying anything about space.

For instance, a convertible with the roof in the trunk may have the same ft? area for cargo as it would have without the roof in the trunk, but we all can agree that the trunk space is reduced by the roof. Hence ft?.


See http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/557313/space for further reading: "space, a boundless, three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction."
 
Last edited:

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
20,751
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
Why stick with imperial? Because America.
OTOH... Why go metric? Because Europe. There is no actual value in switching to a different system of measurement other than compatibility with the rest of the world. Going metric makes sense in science and engineering (easier to reproduce results, fit parts, etc..) and it's already being done even US made cars use a lot of metric stuff and science has been in SI for decades. As far as me driving a mile versus driving 1.5km, it makes very little difference. Keep in mind that literally all the road signs need to be changed not only speed limit signs but signs for highway exits and clearance for trucks. For instance usually exits signs will have one that is a mile away and another at 1/2 mile (sometimes also 1/4 mile). So instead you will have 1.5km, .75km, doesn't make a whole lot of sense does it? Not to mention that if you grow up with one system you know it, yes it was a pain in the ass for me to learn imperial when I moved here and I still have no clue how many feet are in a yard but you are talking about re-educating an entire country simply because a bunch of other countries use a different system.

Narf makes a very valid point - refusing his argument that MPG is a seriously flawed system of measurement on the basis of "no-one gives a shit" is simply stupid. Knowing something can be improved but not bothering to do anything about it - is that The American Way?
No, narf makes a non-point. The only thing about MPG that is flawed is that it does not give you a very good estimate of how much money/fuel you will save by switching from car to car because the difference is not linear. Even if it's non-linear a higher number is a more efficient vehicle, there is not much to think about. If you need to know how much money/fuel you will use up in a year you go to epa.gov and look at their estimations or you can calculate it yourself.

Additionally his argument really does nothing to suggest that SI system would be better than imperial because MPG would be changed to KMPL under a direct metric conversion and would have the same exact issues as MPG measurements do now. We can just as easily switch to G/100miles measurements right now without having to do ANY changes to our measurement system.
Depends who you talk to, I suppose.
I usually see it in gallons.
 
Last edited:

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,153
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'19 BMW M240i
Additionally his argument really does nothing to suggest that SI system would be better than imperial because MPG would be changed to KMPL under a direct metric conversion and would have the same exact issues as MPG measurements do now. We can just as easily switch to G/100miles measurements right now without having to do ANY changes to our measurement system.
My argument literally suggests gallon per 100 miles as a reasonable alternative and states that the new EPA stickers already come with that unit, great job reading :clap:
 

YF19pilot

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
2,768
Location
Massillon, OH
Car(s)
2006 Honda Civic Coupe
ft? would be area, not saying anything about space.

For instance, a convertible with the roof in the trunk may have the same ft? area for cargo as it would have without the roof in the trunk, but we all can agree that the trunk space is reduced by the roof. Hence ft?.


See http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/557313/space for further reading: "space, a boundless, three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction."
Hi. Did I mention I'm an Aerospace Engineer? Of all the things to respond to, you nit pick a strawman, a poor joke at best, and are taking the point out of context, and are at best insulting my intellegence. Congrats.
 

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,153
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'19 BMW M240i
Hi. Did I mention I'm an Aerospace Engineer?
As an engineer you should know that it does not depend on who you talk to concerning these types of definitions. That's why they are defined, so everyone talks about the same thing.

Of all the things to respond to, you nit pick a strawman, a poor joke at best, and are taking the point out of context, and are at best insulting my intellegence. Congrats.
Those two other lines in your post do not really need a response. However, if you want one, fine:

Good! Because it's rediculous! Sorry the back in forth in here is making it hard to read who's being sarcastic and who's being serious.
Ok.

Perhaps, but its still unpopular legislation in many peoples' eyes.
Yup.




Happy?
 

YF19pilot

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
2,768
Location
Massillon, OH
Car(s)
2006 Honda Civic Coupe
As an engineer you should know that it does not depend on who you talk to concerning these types of definitions. That's why they are defined, so everyone talks about the same thing.

Those two other lines in your post do not really need a response.
You are completely missing the point! The original statement of "Gee bob, that's an awfully small trunk space" is what you were pulling out of context. It's a throw away gag. Do you not understand humor!?! And yet you continue on like you're trying to correct or educate me about basic definitions of area and volume? I get it, you think you're smarter than me and I need to be corrected! Whatever, this is just moot at this point...
 

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,153
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'19 BMW M240i
You are completely missing the point! The original statement of "Gee bob, that's an awfully small trunk space" is what you were pulling out of context. It's a throw away gag. Do you not understand humor!?! And yet you continue on like you're trying to correct or educate me about basic definitions of area and volume? I get it, you think you're smarter than me and I need to be corrected! Whatever, this is just moot at this point...
Why are you quoting post X when you actually are talking about post Y?
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
20,751
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
My argument literally suggests gallon per 100 miles as a reasonable alternative and states that the new EPA stickers already come with that unit, great job reading :clap:
I know it does, I was responding to the other poster since he seemed to have used the MPG argument as an argument against the imperial system.
 

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,153
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'19 BMW M240i
I know it does, I was responding to the other poster since he seemed to have used the MPG argument as an argument against the imperial system.
Ah, ok.

Personally I would prefer everyone to use the same system to avoid future fuckups such as blowing up spaceshuttles or underfuelling airplanes, but meh. People misunderstanding fuel economy may mess us all up, so that's a bigger issue.


All my rambling may sound very theoretical, so here is a practical example: The Danish give luxury tax credits on new car registrations based on their fuel economy. A petrol car is supposed to achieve 16km/l (38mpg, 6.25l/100km). For every km over that you get 4000DKK credit, for every km under that you get 1000DKK penalty. They apply a linear reward scale to a nonlinear measurement.
As an example, the penalty for a 1km/l racecar (2.4mpg, 100l/100km) is only twice as high as the penalty for 8.5km/l SUV (20mpg, 11.8l/100km). That's just wrong - the same applies for credits, a tiny improvement will yield a huge credit.
 
Last edited:

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
20,751
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
Personally I would prefer everyone to use the same system to avoid future fuckups such as blowing up spaceshuttles or underfuelling airplanes, but meh. People misunderstanding fuel economy may mess us all up, so that's a bigger issue.
I agree that a singular worldwide system of measurement would be better in general, its just that the cost of conversion for the countries not on SI is prohibitive especially in the current economy.
 
Top