Should the US abide by the Convention on Road Signs and Signals?

[Scott5114]

Flipping the ruler around and doing cm/mm now. It's 15 mm. I can tell because it's five lines to the right of the 1 cm mark. Simple, straightforward, no decimals or fractions.

You can count how many millimeters on a ruler?  Good grief, I can't.  They're too close together.  Millimeters are too small to be useful, and you've already proven that centimeters are no better than inches.

Different things are easy for different people, I guess. Do you have the same problem with sixteenths of an inch? To me, it doesn't seem like they'd be too much easier to work with than mm.

It helps that on most rulers the half-cm/5 mm mark is made more prominent, so you don't really need to count any more than 3 lines. (Yes, I did just complain about bunches of different line sizes, but I can parse the {big with number, small, small, small, small, medium, small, small, small, small, big with number} pattern more easily than {big with number, size 5, size 4, size 5, size 3, size 5, size 4, size 5, size 2 ...} pattern on the inch side.)

It's already in place with liquid measurements; 2 cups in 1 pint, 2 pints in a quart, 4 quarts in a gallon.

And I have to look those damn things up every time I need to do something with those too.

That's the real problem–I deal with units of measure so infrequently I never remember which hairbrained numbering scheme which units follow!

I don't use pints and quarts, so I always forget those too.  What I use all the time, however, are teaspoons and tablespoons and measuring cups in the kitchen.

1 cup = 2 half-cups
1 half-cup = 2 quarter-cups
1 quarter-cup = 2 tablespoons
1 tablespoon = 3 teaspoons

Oh, hey, look, base twelve again!  1 quarter-cup = 12 teaspoons.  I guess it's in there after all...

See, and I hardly ever convert between the two, I just put in what the recipe says. If I am doing a recipe that calls for a quarter-cup of something and I'm making half a serving, I'll just fill the quarter cup up halfway.

Of course, there was that one damned recipe that called for 1⅔ cup of something, and I was trying to make a half serving. The easiest way for me to figure that one out was to actually convert it to mL and divide that by two. At least that is actually measurable with standard kitchen equipment–how do you measure 0.83 of a cup?! THANKS BETTY CROCKER

[kalvado]

Of course, there was that one damned recipe that called for 1⅔ cup of something, and I was trying to make a half serving. The easiest way for me to figure that one out was to actually convert it to mL and divide that by two. At least that is actually measurable with standard kitchen equipment–how do you measure 0.83 of a cup?! THANKS BETTY CROCKER

1/2 cup + 1/3 cup. Don't make it more difficult than it should be!

[Scott5114]

But then I have to wash two measuring cups...

[kalvado]

But then I have to wash two measuring cups...

Pro hint: you don't need to wash the cup between measurements if you measure the same ingredient twice in a row....

[vdeane]

One thing I hate about feet/miles is how Google Maps uses feet for any line less than a mile.  I couldn't relate the feet distances to miles if my life depended on it, so whenever measuring a road distance of less than a mile, I have to keep laying additional points afterwards until the line is more than a mile long to get the units to switch.  To make it less Google-specific, we have signs on the road that say things like "lane ends 2000 feet".  That means nothing to me beyond "somewhere up ahead less than a mile away".

[Scott5114]

But then I have to wash two measuring cups...

Pro hint: you don't need to wash the cup between measurements if you measure the same ingredient twice in a row....

The smallest thirds mark my big measuring cup has on it is ⅔ cup. I do have one of the little plastic ⅓ cup measuring cups, but...

[kalvado]

But then I have to wash two measuring cups...

Pro hint: you don't need to wash the cup between measurements if you measure the same ingredient twice in a row....

The smallest thirds mark my big measuring cup has on it is ⅔ cup. I do have one of the little plastic ⅓ cup measuring cups, but...

then you can do 2/3 cup + 1/6cup. 1/6 cup is 2.5 tablespoons. Tablespoon is easier to clean than a plastic cup, so that is an easier option.

[kalvado]

But then I have to wash two measuring cups...

Pro hint: you don't need to wash the cup between measurements if you measure the same ingredient twice in a row....

The smallest thirds mark my big measuring cup has on it is ⅔ cup. I do have one of the little plastic ⅓ cup measuring cups, but...

Or an even easier option (assuming the cup with 2/3 mark also has 1/2 and 1 cup marks)
Fill it to 1 cup mark. pour your ingredient out into the mixture until your cup is 2/3 full. Then pour it out into original container until it is 1/2  full. Then empty remaining 1/2 into the mixture.
See how easy that is??

[Scott5114]

If I have to convert between measurements anyway, why not just convert to mL and divide by two?

[Rothman]

Celsius is a ridiculously coarse scale of measurement.  I much prefer the refinement of Fahrenheit.  Although I see the simplicity of the measurements of length in the metric system, I think the refined degrees of Fahrenheit beats Celsius hands down.

[Scott5114]

Yeah, I don't really see a whole lot of need for Celsius either. The whole thing that makes the other metric measurements appealing is the ability to convert between them easily. Celsius is just kinda...there.

[mgk920]

Still though, slowly but surely, some Vienna Convention standards HAVE made it into the MUTCD, such as the red circle/slash to mean 'prohibited', the retroreflective outline around traffic signal backplates etc, while things in the MUTCD, such as the red octagon STOP sign and RYG traffic signals. have made it into the Vienna convention.  There has been and continues to be much trading between the two.

Are there things in the Geneva Convention that I'd like to see added to the MUTCD? Of course there are, but I'll take them as they come in their due time.

Mike

[mgk920]

Celsius is a ridiculously coarse scale of measurement.  I much prefer the refinement of Fahrenheit.  Although I see the simplicity of the measurements of length in the metric system, I think the refined degrees of Fahrenheit beats Celsius hands down.

The big thing that I most like with Celsius temps is the water freezes at zero and (at sea level) boils at 100 thing.  My mind wants to know at a glance how much above or below freezing it is. I figured that out with no reading nor any other lessons of any kind back in the 1st grade (and I got a strange stare in return from the teacher when I said it in response to a question that she posed to the class!).

Mike

[US 89]

Yeah, I don't really see a whole lot of need for Celsius either. The whole thing that makes the other metric measurements appealing is the ability to convert between them easily. Celsius is just kinda...there.

Celsius isn't really a metric measurement in the same way that the other metric units are, though. It's basically just the Kelvin scale translated down 273.15 degrees, so that the numbers are a little more meaningful to us. It's quite useful in the lab and for scientific applications that don't require the thermodynamics type math that you need Kelvin for. Because a degree K and C have the same size, if all you need is a difference in temperature for a scientific calculation, you can just plug your Celsius temps straight into your equation without having to convert to K first and they will work great.

As a meteorologist, I interact with all three on a regular basis. As far as describing how it actually feels outside, Fahrenheit wins hands down because of its smaller unit size and better useful range (0 to 100 is more or less the range of possible temperatures in most populated parts of the world). Celsius is great for interpreting computer models and doing other more math/behind the scenes type stuff. Kelvin I don't use as much and always have to think about it a bit when I do come across it, but I've gotten really good at the C/F conversion and can do an exact or really close conversion quickly in my head for basically anything between 0 and 110F.

Best way to think about them is this: Kelvin is how atoms feel. Celsius is how water feels. Fahrenheit is how humans feel.

[Rothman]

Yeah, I don't really see a whole lot of need for Celsius either. The whole thing that makes the other metric measurements appealing is the ability to convert between them easily. Celsius is just kinda...there.

As far as describing how it actually feels outside, Fahrenheit wins hands down because of its smaller unit size and better useful range (0 to 100 is more or less the range of possible temperatures in most populated parts of the world).

Best way to think about them is this: Kelvin is how atoms feel. Celsius is how water feels. Fahrenheit is how humans feel.

There we go.  And, as a human, Fahrenheit it is.

[kalvado]

Still though, slowly but surely, some Vienna Convention standards HAVE made it into the MUTCD, such as the red circle/slash to mean 'prohibited', the retroreflective outline around traffic signal backplates etc, while things in the MUTCD, such as the red octagon STOP sign and RYG traffic signals. have made it into the Vienna convention.  There has been and continues to be much trading between the two.

Are there things in the Geneva Convention that I'd like to see added to the MUTCD? Of course there are, but I'll take them as they come in their due time.

Mike

I don't think this is that much a result of intermixing; more like Vienna convention and MUTCD are two branches of a common root.
Remember, Vienna was a result of a harmonizing effort combining best practices.  Stop, do not enter, and yield signs are part of that. Even then, you can see an emphasis on text in MUTCD as all 3 usually have text in the US, while only STOP does in most of Vienna world.
As for traffic light colors - I wonder how much of that is due to available technology and human vision physiology with red/green and blue/orange-yellow being natural antagonists.  maritime green and red lights and railroad lights are on the same page..
As a fun fact, one can see how the definition of green evolved over the past 25 years due to technological change. If you can find any old incandescent traffic light, you'll know what I mean...

[kalvado]

If I have to convert between measurements anyway, why not just convert to mL and divide by two?

More like I would say that a half of (1 2/3 cup) is "a bit less than a cup". Most cooking is tolerant to ingredients ratio changes (assuming you're not a Micheline restaurant chef). Baking may be the only area where water content is important. Professional baking has to account for flour moisture level; home baking recipes often say "add a teaspoon of water if dough is too dry". It takes a dedicated effort to make an uneadible dish in most cases.
And I suspect  1 2/3 part is a result of conversion from metric to begin with.

[kphoger]

Do you have the same problem with sixteenths of an inch? To me, it doesn't seem like they'd be too much easier to work with than mm.

It's easier for 1/16 inch marks, because of the different tick mark lengths you mentioned.  But I hardly ever have to count 1/16s.  Generally, I only need to measure down to the 1/8 inch–which is smaller than 5 mm, therefore smaller than the "big tick" on a metric ruler.

See, and I hardly ever convert between the two, I just put in what the recipe says. If I am doing a recipe that calls for a quarter-cup of something and I'm making half a serving, I'll just fill the quarter cup up halfway.

We hardly ever make exactly one recipe of something.

Of course, there was that one damned recipe that called for 1⅔ cup of something, and I was trying to make a half serving. The easiest way for me to figure that one out was to actually convert it to mL and divide that by two. At least that is actually measurable with standard kitchen equipment–how do you measure 0.83 of a cup?! THANKS BETTY CROCKER

As already mentioned, a half-cup plus a third-cup.

But also, you're only fortunate that 197 ml is close to 200 ml.  If the recipe had called for 2 2/3 cups, then you would have had to measure 315 ml, which I'm guessing wouldn't have been as easy.

But then I have to wash two measuring cups...

Yes.  It takes, like, fifteen extra seconds to wipe it out with a washrag, rinse it, and dry it.



But this is all bringing up a larger issue.  All of our recipes are based on US Customary units.  Converting them to metric would take nice tidy measurements and turn them into weird non-round measurements.  A recipe that calls for three pounds of ground beef and two 15-ounce cans of tomato sauce would instead call for 1.36 kg of ground beef and 887 ml of tomato sauce.  That's just silly–especially when the ground beef in our freezer is either 3-pound tubes (Kroger brand) or 1-pound packages (Aldi), and when the tomato sauce on the grocery store shelf comes in 15-ounce cans.  Converting all of our recipes to metric would make the measurements less useful for no real benefit.

Oh, but you ask, People in Europe do just fine, don't they?  Well, yes, they do.  But they use different recipes.  And their recipes are based on the common sizes that items are sold in where they live.  Their measurements only make sense to the home cook because package sizes are different where they live.

Oh, but now you say, The solution to that problem is to just sell groceries in metric-friendly sizes.  Except it isn't.  If your recipe scales up by, let's say, 30% due to metrification, then what do you do when the old recipe calls for one egg?  An egg is a fixed size and cannot be adjusted.  The result would be different;  in some recipes the difference would be tolerable, in others it wouldn't be.  And this is why European recipes are unavoidably different from American recipes:  some ingredients cannot be scaled.

[kphoger]

But thirds are useful.  It's one thing I like about having clocks based on the number 12 (5 minutes is 1/12 of an hour, 20 minutes is 1/3 of an hour, 8 hours is 1/3 of a day).  I wish liquid measurements were based on twelves instead of simple powers of two.  For example, if the recipe says 1 tablespoon of olive oil, and we're tripling the recipe, it's ridiculous that the answer is 3/16 of a cup.

1 tablespoon x3 is 3 tablespoons....  Oh, you don't have to thank so hard!

But my point is that, if a cup were divided into 12 tablespoons instead of 16, then 1 Tbsp x 3 = 1 quarter-cup.

And one cup is 250 ml, one tablespoon is 15 ml

How is that useful?  My glass (liquid) measuring cups would be useless for measuring either one of those.

This brings up an interesting question:  how are small amounts measured in Europe?  For example, a US recipe might call for 1 Tbsp of honey and 1/4 tsp of ground cloves.  I'm assuming these amounts are not actually metric-measured in a European home kitchen, but I don't know for sure.

Now the real one: how many tablespoons of sugar you need to add to 1 cup of hot water to get 20% hummingbird syrup?

Good one.  I'd probably add a scant quarter-cup, with the understanding that it would probably be a little bit off.

[kalvado]

Oh, but you ask, People in Europe do just fine, don't they?  Well, yes, they do.  But they use different recipes.  And their recipes are based on the common sizes that items are sold in where they live.  Their measurements only make sense to the home cook because package sizes are different where they live.

Oh, but now you say, The solution to that problem is to just sell groceries in metric-friendly sizes.  Except it isn't.  If your recipe scales up by, let's say, 30% due to metrification, then what do you do when the old recipe calls for one egg?  An egg is a fixed size and cannot be adjusted.  The result would be different;  in some recipes the difference would be tolerable, in others it wouldn't be.  And this is why European recipes are unavoidably different from American recipes:  some ingredients cannot be scaled.

Basically what you say is that recipe should be adapted to local situation. I am totally with you.
One egg may be an issue when you want to scale that (not really, make sure you save another half for a 1.5 egg omlet next morning. 2 egg whites are a bigger problem IMHO.  1 egg + 1 US standard can of tomato sauce do work for you? great. (I know those are from different recipes, but whatever)
Would 1 egg + 1 euro size can create inedible product? I don't believe that. Can would be a bit smaller or a bit larger, but it cannot be 5x bigger, nor 5x smaller. It would be somewhere on the same page. A different type of sauces are a bigger issue.
It is also about size of the egg - medium to XL in a local walmart; plus chicken may be of a different breed in another state or country. Flour from different cultivars of wheat, different cow diet for milk and butter would all contribute. But 95% of cases it doesn't matter that much.

[SEWIGuy]

If the United States would have enforced the use of the metric system back in the 1800s, when it was one of the original signors of the Metre Convention and passed the Metric Act in 1866, we would have all grown up with the metric system and would have hardly had any complaints.  But that didn't happen and here we are.

It is doubtful that it will be implemented here in the near term - if ever.

[bing101]

An interesting tidbit I picked up from this video is that we tested out signs noted in the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals in the United States, and the public was pretty adamant on sticking with what was in the MUTCD.

It's easier to read the Vienna convention on road signs.

[kalvado]

How is that useful?  My glass (liquid) measuring cups would be useless for measuring either one of those.

This brings up an interesting question:  how are small amounts measured in Europe?  For example, a US recipe might call for 1 Tbsp of honey and 1/4 tsp of ground cloves.  I'm assuming these amounts are not actually metric-measured in a European home kitchen, but I don't know for sure.

Actually size of a cup and a spoon are not so much dictated by system of units. It is about size of a mouth and tradition. Of course, people getting larger in past few generations may be a factor in scaling (as evidenced by superlarge coke cups!)
1 US cup is 237 or 240 ml, depending on who you ask. Euro cup is 240-250 ml as far as I know. Really within the accuracy of kitchen equipment.
1 US tsp = 4.93 ml, 5 ml in europe. 1.5% is nothing really.
And yes, you can put a bit more emphases on weight instead of volume. Digital scale doesn't care.  4.25 ounces of flour shouldn't be a problem if you have a kitchen scale. 120 gramms is easy as well. Yes, that's 1 cup.

[kphoger]

One egg may be an issue when you want to scale that (not really, make sure you save another half for a 1.5 egg omlet next morning.

So your solution is that I need to switch from granola to omelettes the morning after we make meatballs?  That's not really a solution.

2 egg whites are a bigger problem IMHO.

Well, if we're already switching to omelettes in the morning, then I suppose we also need to start making Spaghetti Carbonara the day after we make whatever calls for egg whites...

Would 1 egg + 1 euro size can create inedible product? I don't believe that. Can would be a bit smaller or a bit larger, but it cannot be 5x bigger, nor 5x smaller. It would be somewhere on the same page.

No, it wouldn't be inedible.  It might be slightly more or less thick, which might be slightly better or worse, depending on your taste.  But my point is that it wouldn't be the same.  My point is that there's more involved in the metrification of recipes than just mathematical conversions.  The results will be slightly different–maybe noticeably, maybe not, depending on the recipe.

[kalvado]

An interesting tidbit I picked up from this video is that we tested out signs noted in the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals in the United States, and the public was pretty adamant on sticking with what was in the MUTCD.

It's easier to read the Vienna convention on road signs.

It's same as metric - it's easier to use the one you are used to.