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

I cannot believe I just read this whole boring thread.

But as automotive enthusiasts i'd like to think imperial people here would be excited of temporarily using the excuse "I was speeding? Ohhhhh right sorry this whole unit changeover thing still hasn't quite clicked in yet". My cousins with US plates have gotten out of so many tickets up here using that.
 
speedycatz said:
Like for instance from mph to km/h (speed limit) and from feet to metres (height restrictions)?

I believe Canada, Australia and New Zealand managed to complete the conversion decades ago and they are still part of British Commonwealth to date. So why the British and also the Americans haven't put an (apparent) effort towards metrication?
Click to expand...


This will happen when those few backwards countries start driving on the right side of the road.
 
GRtak said:
This will happen when those few backwards countries start driving on the right side of the road.
Click to expand...

Yes, because one unnecessary change should be followed by another. Even if there was a benefit to be had from switching to LHD/km it's not like this country could afford to do it at the moment, I doubt there would be enough money until at least 2020.

I'm aware that it could be sarcasm so apologies if it wasn't serious. :D
 
I buy fuel in litres but calculate Miles per Gallon, I have low temperature in Centigrade/Celcius but high in Farenheit. Driving on the left side of the road with the steering wheel on the right and gear lever on the left with the indicator stalk on the right just seems natural to me and all out cras have speedo's with both Miles per hour (Usually white) and Kilometres per Hour (Usually red).

Seems to do us OK - now the Irish on the other hand. ?

They love the EU (Mad buggers, oh hang on caching [perhaps not so mad]. ?)

http://driving.drive-alive.co.uk/driving-in-ireland.htm
 
Last edited:
Well I was taught the metric system in school, but I'm 5'11" tall and weigh just over 11 stone (a whisker under 160lbs for Americans) but I move easily between both depending on what is easier at the time.

And of course America already uses metric units automotively speaking on a daily basis. I could be wrong but I don't think even the engine sizes of domestic cars are described in cubic inches these days are they?

And finally to address the "correct" side of the road debate and its origins. The practise of driving on the left dates back many centuries. In ye dayf of olde regardless of whether they were naturally right or left handed people were taught to use a sword in their right hand because being a southpaw had connotations with witchcraft and the like (dexter vs sinister). As a result of this for personal safety people would pass sword arm to sword arm as otherwise it would be far too easy for someone to stab them in the back. Note that Japan, a country in which we have had fairly little influence over the years, also drives on the left, doubtless because of the Samurai and similar reasons.

This became the norm until some shortarse Corsican gobshite who didn't like us very much decided to do the exact opposite and France went the other way. America adopted the same around the time of the revolution, developed the mass-produced automobile and the rest, as they say, is history.

Neither is right or wrong. They are simply cultural variations. I very much doubt the UK will ever switch. We have a high population density, very congested roads, an inadequate driver education system (IMHO) and of course all of us driving RHD cars on the right for many years would increase accident risk significantly and insurance premiums, already extortionate thanks to ambulance chasing lawyers and an imported compensation culture (yeah, thanks America!), would go through the roof.
 
The French think that shortarse invented democracy :lol: .

Koreans, who hate Japanese due to being part of a Japanese empire until the end of WWII, also drive on the left just to be different from them I suspect.

The only really technical reasons for having a controls in a certain manner that I can think of are:

1. Indicators are better on the right hand side (for people who are right handed)
2. BMW Pie dish thingy is more easily handled by people in the Left hand seat (again for people who are right handed)

So you pays your money and take your choice.
 
TomCat said:
It must come down to mindset, because I have no problem with mpg. I see what you're saying when it comes to comparison figures, but that hardly effects my every day life.
Click to expand...

It does when you consider fuel economy standards. Next time you buy a car your choices might be spoilt due to misguided policies based on not understanding the measurement.


Cobol74 said:
Koreans, who hate Japanese due to being part of a Japanese empire until the end of WWII, also drive on the left just to be different from them I suspect.
Click to expand...

Don't Koreans drive on the right and Japanese on the left?

The only really technical reasons for having a controls in a certain manner that I can think of are:

1. Indicators are better on the right hand side (for people who are right handed)
2. BMW Pie dish thingy is more easily handled by people in the Left hand seat (again for people who are right handed)
Click to expand...

To me it comes down to whether you prefer to steer with your left and shift with your right hand or vice versa. Habit is the most important factor here.
 
Last edited:
Viper007Bond said:
The one and only real advantage that metric has over the imperial system is that it's base 10 which makes it easy to use with math and science (conversion). That's exactly why in every single school in the US, metric is used for all science classes.
Click to expand...

And that advantage only really comes into play if you are converting from km to m, or mL to L, etc. Given, I'm in a specilized field, but the only conversions I do regularly are in temperature and flow rates and neither is any easier in SI. For temp, the adder of 459.67 to go between F and R becomes 273.15 to go between C and K. For flow rates, it is a time factor, so it is 60 or 3600 regardless of the system.

As pointed out already, this is pretty much a nonissue in the US. The only people who I hear bring this up anymore are from other countries, and we don't really care what you think. :p
 
Last edited:
narf said:
It does when you consider fuel economy standards. Next time you buy a car your choices might be spoilt due to misguided policies based on not understanding the measurement.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but I blame idiot politicians who can't do maths and have no concept of what cars are capable of, rather than mpg. I can't help but think even if we did use gallons per miles, these same idiot politicians will continue making unrealistic/impractical demands.
 
TomCat said:
Maybe, but I blame idiot politicians who can't do maths and have no concept of what cars are capable of, rather than mpg. I can't help but think even if we did use gallons per miles, these same idiot politicians will continue making unrealistic/impractical demands.
Click to expand...

It does not matter how high/low the mpg average figure would be. You can not calculate an average based on mpg. Here's an example:

Take a Leaf with 100mpg and a Veyron with 10mpg. Average that, you get 55mpg. How does that average work in real life?
Each car gets a gallon of fuel. As a result, the Leaf is allowed to drive 100 miles while the Veyron only is allowed to drive 10 miles. That's communism :lol:
If, like in reality, you weigh each car equally by miles driven you would need the gallon per mile measurement. 1g/100mi for the Leaf, 10g/100mi for the Veyron, average that and you get 5.5g/100mi (18.2mpg). That's quite a difference compared to the 55mpg, eh?
Similarly, take two different cars that result in the same "traditional" mpg average of 55mpg, let's say one with 70mpg and one with 40mpg. Let each travel 100 miles, the first will consume 1.43g and the second will consume 2.5g, averaged that's 1.96g/100mi or 51mpg - not quite 55mpg either.

To sum up, 55mpg = 18mpg = 51mpg :?
To make averages based on mpg work you would have to distribute the fuel evenly per car, everybody gets the same number of gallons. That's not The American Way, eh?
 
narf said:
It does not matter how high/low the mpg average figure would be. You can not calculate an average based on mpg. Here's an example:

Take a Leaf with 100mpg and a Veyron with 10mpg. Average that, you get 55mpg. How does that average work in real life?
Each car gets a gallon of fuel. As a result, the Leaf is allowed to drive 100 miles while the Veyron only is allowed to drive 10 miles. That's communism :lol:
If, like in reality, you weigh each car equally by miles driven you would need the gallon per mile measurement. 1g/100mi for the Leaf, 10g/100mi for the Veyron, average that and you get 5.5g/100mi (18.2mpg). That's quite a difference compared to the 55mpg, eh?
Similarly, take two different cars that result in the same "traditional" mpg average of 55mpg, let's say one with 70mpg and one with 40mpg. Let each travel 100 miles, the first will consume 1.43g and the second will consume 2.5g, averaged that's 1.96g/100mi or 51mpg - not quite 55mpg either.

To sum up, 55mpg = 18mpg = 51mpg :?
To make averages based on mpg work you would have to distribute the fuel evenly per car, everybody gets the same number of gallons. That's not The American Way, eh?
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_average

It's the same problem as if you calculate a simple mean average of the your recorded speeds at different points of a journey, you will not get the correct average speed of the entire journey.
 
narf said:
It does not matter how high/low the mpg average figure would be. You can not calculate an average based on mpg. Here's an example:

Take a Leaf with 100mpg and a Veyron with 10mpg. Average that, you get 55mpg. How does that average work in real life?
Each car gets a gallon of fuel. As a result, the Leaf is allowed to drive 100 miles while the Veyron only is allowed to drive 10 miles. That's communism :lol:
If, like in reality, you weigh each car equally by miles driven you would need the gallon per mile measurement. 1g/100mi for the Leaf, 10g/100mi for the Veyron, average that and you get 5.5g/100mi (18.2mpg). That's quite a difference compared to the 55mpg, eh?
Similarly, take two different cars that result in the same "traditional" mpg average of 55mpg, let's say one with 70mpg and one with 40mpg. Let each travel 100 miles, the first will consume 1.43g and the second will consume 2.5g, averaged that's 1.96g/100mi or 51mpg - not quite 55mpg either.

To sum up, 55mpg = 18mpg = 51mpg :?
To make averages based on mpg work you would have to distribute the fuel evenly per car, everybody gets the same number of gallons. That's not The American Way, eh?
Click to expand...

We get it, mpg is not a linear representation of fuel economy... but nobody cares.
 
narf said:
It does not matter how high/low the mpg average figure would be. You can not calculate an average based on mpg. Here's an example:

Take a Leaf with 100mpg and a Veyron with 10mpg. Average that, you get 55mpg. How does that average work in real life?
Each car gets a gallon of fuel. As a result, the Leaf is allowed to drive 100 miles while the Veyron only is allowed to drive 10 miles. That's communism :lol:
If, like in reality, you weigh each car equally by miles driven you would need the gallon per mile measurement. 1g/100mi for the Leaf, 10g/100mi for the Veyron, average that and you get 5.5g/100mi (18.2mpg). That's quite a difference compared to the 55mpg, eh?
Similarly, take two different cars that result in the same "traditional" mpg average of 55mpg, let's say one with 70mpg and one with 40mpg. Let each travel 100 miles, the first will consume 1.43g and the second will consume 2.5g, averaged that's 1.96g/100mi or 51mpg - not quite 55mpg either.

To sum up, 55mpg = 18mpg = 51mpg :?
To make averages based on mpg work you would have to distribute the fuel evenly per car, everybody gets the same number of gallons. That's not The American Way, eh?
Click to expand...
A car that gets 20MPG will use less fuel than a car that gets 15MPG. If you want to spend less in fuel when you are getting a new car you get one that has a higher MPG figure, who the fuck cares about all the math going on in the background?

Also new regulations require for the MPG sticker on a car to tell you estimated yearly fuel costs of each vehicle. You can also use the EPA site to compare different cars or do the math yourself based on your driving habbits if necessary. Just like the metric system there is no real benefit to switching from MPG to GPM.
 
This is all so stupid. Narf is arguing about something completely off topic because he likes to use a calculator to divide. All hard sciences use metric regardless. American schools teach both methods of measurement. And if Americans like to measure their distances in miles and feet, why does that bother you silly Germans so much?
 
Last edited:
Matt2000 said:
Yes, because one unnecessary change should be followed by another. Even if there was a benefit to be had from switching to LHD/km it's not like this country could afford to do it at the moment, I doubt there would be enough money until at least 2020.

I'm aware that it could be sarcasm so apologies if it wasn't serious. :D
Click to expand...

Sarcasm? From me? Who would'a thunk? :p
 
What I'm getting from this thread:

Why stick with imperial? Because America.


Obviously, growing up with the metric system, that's the one I prefer. It makes far more theoretical sense; I'd rather say something is 5mm long than three sixteenths of an inch. Simply from maths in school, I know fractions lead to all sorts of ambiguities - rounding to decial places and so on.

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?

When you grew up using the metric system and have had very little exposure to the imperial system, it seriously makes no sense and sounds truly medieval. I suspect that's why the "silly Germans" are bothering so much. 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?

In the end, it doesn't affect my life that America still uses the imperial system. But understand that to the rest of the metric world, the imperial system just looks a little bit backwards. Whether it is or not, that's an argument I don't want to go further into.
 
Last edited:
Cold Fussion said:
12 inches in a foot, 5280 feet in a mile. Sense, this makes none.
Click to expand...
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)

Essentially it should be noted that most of the countries which use Imperial (and drive on the left) are island nations. In Europe all the countries are directly connected so it makes sense to have unified systems. The UK and the US are physically separated from most other countries, there isn't any real risk of people suddenly crossing the border and being on the wrong side of the road and being unable to judge distance.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top