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

Anyone for pounds (mass) per kilo pound (force)?

Aviation, because systems of units are there to be mixed.
 
Anyone for pounds (mass) per kilo pound (force)?

I don't know what system you're using, but pounds is the Imperial unit of force. The Imperial unit of mass is the slug. The SI unit of force is the Newton.
 
As someone who has lived through most of Australia's Metrication, I'd have to say that it all seemed pretty painless.

Even the daunting task of changing all the road signs was completed in a single month (July 1974).

The whole process started in 1972 (or thereabouts) and was mostly finished by 1978. From memory, the last group to change to metric was the real estate industry in 1988. It is funny though how some uses of imperial measures just won't die. New parents today, who have known nothing but metric measures their whole life, still publish their newborn child's weight in pounds and ounces even though they would have no idea what they themselves weigh in stones and pounds.

Using quick Google statistics, Australia has over 810,000 km of public roads. The US has 3,573,000 km in highways alone. Not saying it can't be done, but it's considerably more difficult.
 
I don't know what system you're using, but pounds is the Imperial unit of force. The Imperial unit of mass is the slug. The SI unit of force is the Newton.

As WillDAQ said, it's aviation. As I said earlier, everything breaks down to inches-pounds-seconds in designing aircraft, so you avoid using things like slugs (because it confuses pilots) in favor of the three basic measurements (when possible).

And narf, I don't see it being confused for kiloponds as that's an informal use/term for Newtons, which is SI, so I suppose unless someone isn't clear about which set you're using, maybe some knothead may confuse a kip for a kp? But generally speaking if you're designing something and are unclear about what units you're using perhaps you should pay more attention in team meetings.
 
Last edited:
Using quick Google statistics, Australia has over 810,000 km of public roads. The US has 3,573,000 km in highways alone. Not saying it can't be done, but it's considerably more difficult.
I was actually thinking that.
As WillDAQ said, it's aviation. As I said earlier, everything breaks down to inches-pounds-seconds in designing aircraft, so you avoid using things like slugs (because it confuses pilots) in favor of the three basic measurements (when possible).
What about knots? I thought planes use knots for speed measurement.
 
Using quick Google statistics, Australia has over 810,000 km of public roads. The US has 3,573,000 km in highways alone. Not saying it can't be done, but it's considerably more difficult.

Australia also has 1/15th the population and workforce of the USA .. so we have almost 4 times more road per head of population than the USA .... it should be much easier for the USA.
 
Australia also has 1/15th the population and workforce of the USA .. so we have almost 4 times more road per head of population than the USA .... it should be much easier for the USA.

Actually my Googling failed quite badly there, that's China's number :? /facepalm

The correct length for the US in 2006 was 4,033,002 miles or 6,490,487 km.

Funding is more of an issue than workforce. Taxpayers would have to just eat the cost as there's no immediate benefit. That's not a popular idea.
 
^ It is still less km per head of population (or per tax-payer, if you like) than Australia. Also, I don't know how much more road we have now than we had in 1974, but I do know our population has grown by 70% in the last 35 years.

The only thing that was in Australia's favour (in terms of ease of transition) is the fact that we did it in 1974 ... before the invention of high visibility jackets.
 
Is that where your insane automobile tax came from? To pay for the metric conversions? :p
 
^ :lol: But seriously, we finished metric conversion long ago. We pay more for automobiles (through taxes and tariffs) to protect American (and Japanese) companies that still build them here. Although I think that is only part of the story ... even without the tariffs and taxes, the base price charged by foreign manufacturers is much higher here than UK or USA ... like double (in the case of USA). My M3 cost almost as much here as an Aston Martin DB9 costs in America. :(
 
And narf, I don't see it being confused for kiloponds as that's an informal use/term for Newtons, which is SI, so I suppose unless someone isn't clear about which set you're using, maybe some knothead may confuse a kip for a kp? But generally speaking if you're designing something and are unclear about what units you're using perhaps you should pay more attention in team meetings.

It's just one letter away, and denotes the same type - force. Given a large enough team there are bound to be misunderstandings. It's happened before, sometimes catastrophically such as with the Mars Climate Orbiter.
 
I was actually thinking that.

What about knots? I thought planes use knots for speed measurement.

Pilots use knots. Controllers use knots. Customers use knots. Engineers and Designers use inches/second. Number crunching happens in those three measurments.

It's just one letter away, and denotes the same type - force. Given a large enough team there are bound to be misunderstandings. It's happened before, sometimes catastrophically such as with the Mars Climate Orbiter.

I know, that's a big example that got tossed around at my school of why a) you need to be clear what measurments you're using, b) pay attention at team meetings, c) don't do knothead things like mixing measurement systems, d) have a damn good Project Manager/Systems Engineer.
 
We have half and half in the UK. Most things are sold in metric but they kinda cheat by selling the pound/ounce equivelant in grams (454g for a pound) and they sell 568ml of milk (pint). Everyone talks about height and weight in feet/inches and stones/pounds (1 stone = 14 pounds). It can be a bit confusing with things like fuel consumption as we buy our fuel in litres but try to work out the mpg. It may not be perfect but everyone learns both systems so if someone from europe says they're 185cm it doesn't really click with you straight away but you can kinda work out what it is roughly in feet
 
We have half and half in the UK. Most things are sold in metric but they kinda cheat by selling the pound/ounce equivelant in grams (454g for a pound) and they sell 568ml of milk (pint). Everyone talks about height and weight in feet/inches and stones/pounds (1 stone = 14 pounds). It can be a bit confusing with things like fuel consumption as we buy our fuel in litres but try to work out the mpg. It may not be perfect but everyone learns both systems so if someone from europe says they're 185cm it doesn't really click with you straight away but you can kinda work out what it is roughly in feet

we watch top gear! the first season i had no idea what all the numbers meant, but from calculating them over and over, by now i can guess it pretty accuratly
and thanks to best motoring i can do the same with kw - hp

so thanks top gear! but on the other hand, if it wasn't for top gear i never needed mph in the first place :lol:

(but i'm still going blind when he says how many pounds a certain car costs, have no idea what that resembles in ?)
 
Pilots use knots. Controllers use knots. Customers use knots. Engineers and Designers use inches/second. Number crunching happens in those three measurments.

in/sec? Never seen that one used, I'm used to ft/sec, Mach or knots for speed.
 
and thanks to best motoring i can do the same with kw - hp

746 right?

MPG calc needs 4.54

lbs to kg needs 2.2046

m to feet needs 0.3048

knots to kmh needs 1852

mph needs 1609

Just remember this sort of stuff, then who cares what units its in.
 
no, 1kw = 1.34hp, so about a third more

most of the time i'm satisfied with rough estimate, so i just guess

if you know that
60mph is around 100kmh
100mph is around 160kmn
155mph is around 250kmh
200mph is around 320kmh
you can quickly tell to what an interlaying number relates

an lbs is a bit less than half a kg, so a chunk less than half

m to feet, just divide by 3

most of the time i'm not that concerned about the exact number
who cares a car has 243hp? if it's on top of a high mountain it might only have 200 left, if it's freezing at sea level it might have 245. so "around 240" will do for me
same for weight. if you take a bottle of water along, you're already off the indicate weight...
 
Top