Really interesting article. I didn't not know these signs existed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/15/us/15highway.html?src=mv
They exist mainly close to the border and within border states. I haven't seen BGS's signed exclusively signed in metric, but I have seen others.
I can't remember when I heard about ADOT wanting to switch I-19 from metric to miles, but I was disappointed. At least they're suspending it... for now.
Interesting in that such a large percentage of the locals along the way want the metric to stay.
Mike
IIRC, the signs north of Ajo Way in Tucson along I-19 are now in English, which would be added confusion.
That said, I hope the signs remain metric, especially after reading this article.
I don't really see the changing exit numbers as that big of a deal-it's not unlike the states that changed numbers when they switched from sequential numbering to mile-based numbering. Personally, I think it seems a little ridiculous to like them just because of their unique nature. If I had my choice, I'd switch them to miles. But if there's a lot of local opposition to changing them, then it probably isn't worth the controversy.
Quote from: huskeroadgeek on September 15, 2010, 02:50:12 AM
I don't really see the changing exit numbers as that big of a deal-it's not unlike the states that changed numbers when they switched from sequential numbering to mile-based numbering. Personally, I think it seems a little ridiculous to like them just because of their unique nature. If I had my choice, I'd switch them to miles. But if there's a lot of local opposition to changing them, then it probably isn't worth the controversy.
What's wrong with the metric system? Eventually, we'll switch over...
I believe the MUTCD actually has had metric signs. Note that all metric speeds are circumscribed, and some regulatory signs have a warning sign above it indicating METRIC. Obviously, if we do switch, we'll have to have a transition period with both signage in place (except distance).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flamar.colostate.edu%2F%7Ehillger%2Flaws%2Fmutcd-r2-1-2-3.gif&hash=bf7a7a40e183dfedf046eec11a1a93baa2a5958c)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flamar.colostate.edu%2F%7Ehillger%2Flaws%2Fmutcd-d10-4-5.gif&hash=a2756643f72639d19a5ef2af9f21937cc7f3d45b)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flamar.colostate.edu%2F%7Ehillger%2Flaws%2Fmutcd-w12-2-2p.gif&hash=d76f306007aa7a95280aa2c9eda54b8f7bd3a43c)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flamar.colostate.edu%2F%7Ehillger%2Flaws%2Fmutcd-r12-1-2-3-4-5.gif&hash=e37ec241bf8ca033462350221feb3914aa5bf5b8)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flamar.colostate.edu%2F%7Ehillger%2Flaws%2Fmutcd-w1-1a-2a.gif&hash=f7d5b685557615cade13edcf594cde39b0d5499d)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flamar.colostate.edu%2F%7Ehillger%2Flaws%2Fmutcd-w13-1-2-3-5.gif&hash=1e0570d89d4ae91018d208a18d556a845eb80f7e)
Source (http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/laws/mutcd.html)
Quote from: KEK Inc. on September 15, 2010, 03:19:27 AM
Quote from: huskeroadgeek on September 15, 2010, 02:50:12 AM
I don't really see the changing exit numbers as that big of a deal-it's not unlike the states that changed numbers when they switched from sequential numbering to mile-based numbering. Personally, I think it seems a little ridiculous to like them just because of their unique nature. If I had my choice, I'd switch them to miles. But if there's a lot of local opposition to changing them, then it probably isn't worth the controversy.
What's wrong with the metric system? Eventually, we'll switch over...
I've been hearing that since the late 70s when I was in school and we had some woman come in especially to teach us about the metric system because as we were told at the time, we were going to be completely converting to it soon. I don't see that we're any closer to doing it now than we were 30 years ago. And that's fine with me.
For road signs, I don't think anything has been done with it since the mid 90s. I believe there had been a mandate that all road signs were to be converted to metric by 1996, but the 1995 highway bill removed that mandate and originally delayed it until 2000, but the 1998 highway bill removed it permanently. As far as I know, the issue hasn't even been revisited since then, and I've heard almost no recent discussion of the issue.
Quote from: KEK Inc. on September 15, 2010, 03:19:27 AM
Quote from: huskeroadgeek on September 15, 2010, 02:50:12 AM
I don't really see the changing exit numbers as that big of a deal-it's not unlike the states that changed numbers when they switched from sequential numbering to mile-based numbering. Personally, I think it seems a little ridiculous to like them just because of their unique nature. If I had my choice, I'd switch them to miles. But if there's a lot of local opposition to changing them, then it probably isn't worth the controversy.
What's wrong with the metric system? Eventually, we'll switch over...
That may be true, just don't hold your breath ;)
Quote(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flamar.colostate.edu%2F%7Ehillger%2Flaws%2Fmutcd-r2-1-2-3.gif&hash=bf7a7a40e183dfedf046eec11a1a93baa2a5958c)
Ideally, those circles would be red. That way, once the transition's been made and everyone's used to it, these signs could then be transitioned to the international standard, the red-bordered circle shield.
Incidentally, that also provides an incentive to rid ourselves of all circle shields for state highways -- circles would only be for speed limits!
The MUTCD is still evolving concepts on metric signs, regardless. The 2009 MUTCD has some metric updates. :P
@ Bick: Yeah, red would be nice. Also, blue circles with white borders are the international standard for minimum speeds. I'd be content with a blue circle, though.
I wonder what maps would do about state routes. There's only a couple of states that still have round shields.
My thanks to KillerTux for posting the link to the NY Times article--I wondered what had become of the proposed I-19 signs replacement.
Arizona DOT set up this webpage to gather public comment on the "Old Exit XX" compromise proposal:
http://www.azdot.gov/i19signage/
The ARRA money originally allocated for the I-19 signs job was apparently moved to an I-10 pavement preservation job. Personally, I think Arizona DOT should resurrect the approach toward metric signing embodied in the 1981 signs (which generally did not have explicit units except in contexts where explicit English units would be shown on English-unit signs) rather than the 1998 signs (which had "km" and "meters" everywhere, including on interchange sequence and distance signs).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.azdot.gov%2Fi19signage%2FImages%2FSign3.jpg&hash=c7e8383bf9be9ccf79e17fd62bddd68db5829624)
Is this Clearview, I spy? I didn't know Arizona switched over to Clearview now...
Yup, Arizona DOT has gone over to Clearview in a big way, and I think all or nearly all of I-10 has been changed over now. Ground zero for Clearview in Arizona was (I think) Hovatter-SR 85 (on I-10 west of Phoenix; this length includes the exit for the Palo Verde nuclear plant). Tucson to the New Mexico state line got changed over in two contracts (Craycroft Rd.-Willcox and Willcox-New Mexico state line). I-40 has had its signs largely changed out in the last 10 years so I don't expect it to be up for conversion to Clearview in short order, but Arizona DOT has Hipkoe-Goodwater in design.
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 15, 2010, 04:34:06 AM
Yup, Arizona DOT has gone over to Clearview in a big way, and I think all or nearly all of I-10 has been changed over now. Ground zero for Clearview in Arizona was (I think) Hovatter-SR 85 (on I-10 west of Phoenix; this length includes the exit for the Palo Verde nuclear plant). Tucson to the New Mexico state line got changed over in two contracts (Craycroft Rd.-Willcox and Willcox-New Mexico state line). I-40 has had its signs largely changed out in the last 10 years so I don't expect it to be up for conversion to Clearview in short order, but Arizona DOT has Hipkoe-Goodwater in design.
Man, I used to admire Arizona for their road signs. :( I love the way they handle exit tabs (well the shorter ones... I don't like the obnoxiously tall ones). They're more vanilla than most states in the west.
Quote from: KEK Inc. on September 15, 2010, 03:19:27 AM
Quote from: huskeroadgeek on September 15, 2010, 02:50:12 AM
I don't really see the changing exit numbers as that big of a deal-it's not unlike the states that changed numbers when they switched from sequential numbering to mile-based numbering. Personally, I think it seems a little ridiculous to like them just because of their unique nature. If I had my choice, I'd switch them to miles. But if there's a lot of local opposition to changing them, then it probably isn't worth the controversy.
What's wrong with the metric system? Eventually, we'll switch over...
Why? Switching over for industry and business is fine, but for road distances and speeds, it makes little practical sense to do so. We border Mexico and Canada which both use the metric system eextensively on their road systems, but we don't have much cross border traffic with them in the sense that Europe has a lot of cross border traffic. With this in mind, what's the point? I hate to say it, but the metric system fails in many ways for distance measurement within the US (and even for that matter, in Canada). Everything is laid out using sections, not hecatres, hence miles simply make more sense than kilometers. I drove in Cozumel over the past week, and metric makes sense there since the area was laid out using metric. Here, it does not since it is not.
Personally, I favor a dual system with both sets of measures for volume and weight, but distances make more sense in miles and fractions thereof.
Americans do not think in terms of metric units. Signs which include them are solely a convenience to foreigners, hence why you mostly see them near the border.
The circle on metric speed limit signs is, of course, a nod to the standard form of such signs outside of North America. I don't see where making it red would be much of an issue practically speaking, but current practice demands that regulatory signs simply be black and white, so don't count on it.
As for an eventual changeover of all speed limit signs to the red circle format... nah, no point. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with our way of doing it; changing anything merely for the sake of doing it the same way everyone else does is silly.
(besides, Canada follows our standard. We'd be introducing a lot of local inconsistency by switching)
That's a shame. Any idea when these are going to be replaced? I wish ADOT would put bilingual distances on the signs, similar to what they do in New Hampshire and on the Maine Turnpike.
IIRC, DE 1 in Delaware used to have all metric signs. They switched to english distance signs shortly, yet they kept the same exit numbers!
Quote from: iwishiwascanadian on September 14, 2010, 11:30:59 PM
I haven't seen BGS's signed exclusively signed in metric, but I have seen others.
I can't completely recall if they were exclusively metric, and don't know if it's still that way, but on our way back from our 1st Lebowskifest in Louisville, we ended up on I-265 from I-64 to I-71, and I think everything was in metric. (Though the only border that's close to is the state of Indiana).
Quote from: Mr_Northside on September 16, 2010, 02:26:49 PM
I can't completely recall if they were exclusively metric, and don't know if it's still that way, but on our way back from our 1st Lebowskifest in Louisville, we ended up on I-265 from I-64 to I-71, and I think everything was in metric. (Though the only border that's close to is the state of Indiana).
I remember advance BGSes with both metric and customary for the Westport Road and possibly the Brownsboro Road interchanges. Since I haven't been that way in recent years, I wouldn't know if they're still that way.
There used to be signs on interstates in Illinois that had [Control City]/100 Miles/161 Kilometer or [Control City]/62 Miles/100 Kilometers, but those seem to have disappeared. I think there used to be similar signs in Missouri.
And for any future switch, I hope those considering it actually think about how much fun it can make trying to develop new highway plans when the old ones in English units won't convert well - as going from the metric plans in the brief 1990's stint back to English units is as much fun as sitting on a flaming chair.
I say keep it metric. Its unique. But what the hell is it with metric speeds surrounded by a circle? I dont get it...
Quote from: DollarBill on September 16, 2010, 06:34:02 PM
I say keep it metric. Its unique. But what the hell is it with metric speeds surrounded by a circle? I dont get it...
One, it is to differentiate them from speeds given in Olde Englische units, and
Two, in the rest of the World outside of Canada and the USA, speed limit signs show the limit as a number inside of a red circle. They are in MPH is the UK and km/h throughout the rest of the World.
Mike
Quote from: PennDOTFan on September 15, 2010, 08:46:48 PM
IIRC, DE 1 in Delaware used to have all metric signs. They switched to english distance signs shortly, yet they kept the same exit numbers!
In some cases on DE 1, when they did switch to miles, they just slapped the "xx MILES" over the old "XX km" part, so the sign would state 1 mile when it was really closer to 1/2 mile. And yes, they did keep the exit numbers from the km distances.
as far as the community upset about the new exit numbers, plenty of states have switched over the past decade and all of the "confusion" ended up being pretty minimal. I know PA and VA switched about 10 years ago, and PA, several of the "OLD EXIT XX" signs are still up.
Quote from: DollarBill on September 16, 2010, 06:34:02 PM
I say keep it metric. Its unique. But what the hell is it with metric speeds surrounded by a circle? I dont get it...
For some reason, Europe chose to use circles for regulatory signage. Problem is, that's specifically reserved for railroad crossing ahead signage in the MUTCD. Why the European system chose not to have a specific symbol for railroad crossing ahead signage is beyond me. They claim to be big on symbols, yet all their signs look alike. Here, the RR crossing and RR crossing ahead, the school crossing, the stop sign, and the yield sign are symbols in their own right and can be read even when the text has been completely sandblasted off. Even the early stop signs in Europe were circular.
Yield in Europe has the unique upside down triangle. Actually pay some attention to European signage before going "it's all crap".
There's only so many shapes you can make signs - Europe went with circles for legal stuff (red-ringed prohibitions, white on blue mandatory requirements), triangles for warning stuff (so even if you can't discern one of the many very distinct symbols on that, you know you have been told to look out) and rectangles for information signage. STOP and Yield/Give Way have special shapes and most countries have one for pedestrian crossings (the UK tends to use either traffic lights or big yellow balls on stripy poles to mark official, peds have right-of-way at some point, crossings so don't have a special symbol).
Most importantly for this discussion, we also have an X-type shape for level crossings, going beneath the warning triangle with a picture of a train, with a gate, or without a gate, dependant on the crossing (none of this RR rubbish, that even people who have English as a first language might only get because they've seen films). We also put wig-wag flashing orange balls warning of a hazard, which go on when a train is coming and turn off only after it's gone (unless another one comes).
I think, what with the flashing lights, gates (if the road is in anyway busy) with bells, whistles and lights on and the special X-shaped sign under the warning sign with a picture of a train on it, European crossings are pretty obvious - at least as much so as their American counterparts, if not more so.
Since it is actually easier to do conversions than it was in the late 70s, my guess is that we are further away than we ever have been from converting to metric. You are going to see it more in items like packaging (liter soda bottles for example), but you will never see it on the roadways or in temperatures and the like.
The UK has almost dropped Farenheit from conversation entirely - it was quite common 10 years ago. I think when the weather only gave "that's about 80" occasionally during the summer, or "we're going to see 100 degrees for the first time in the UK today", the rest of the culture followed.
Before that it was much more of a centigrade in winter and Fahrenheit in summer - probably to make our maritime climate seem like it went to bigger extremes and the weather tended to give dual units more often.
However because the US is totally Fahrenheit for weather, it's unlikely to change there.
The centigrade scale is the one part of metric units that I see no real advantage to. Yeah, the freezing and boiling points of water at standard pressure are nice round numbers, but so what? That doesn't really make the scale any more intuitive or convenient to use.
Other units are definitely more convenient in metric simply because the conversion factors between units of the same type are all multiples of 10. 100 centimeters in a meter and 1000 meters in a kilometer is easier to work with than 12 inches in a foot and 5280 feet in a mile, no question. But degrees are degrees. No multiple or fraction of them is ever used as a unit. So, where's the benefit to just changing the datum and the size of the increment? Surely remembering that water freezes at 32 degrees and boils at 212 isn't that difficult.
Now, on the other hand, if you'd get average people to be familiar and comfortable with an absolute scale (Kelvin or Rankine, your choice), then you'd have achieved something.
Quote from: english si on September 17, 2010, 06:48:01 AM
Yield in Europe has the unique upside down triangle. Actually pay some attention to European signage before going "it's all crap".
There's only so many shapes you can make signs - Europe went with circles for legal stuff (red-ringed prohibitions, white on blue mandatory requirements), triangles for warning stuff (so even if you can't discern one of the many very distinct symbols on that, you know you have been told to look out) and rectangles for information signage. STOP and Yield/Give Way have special shapes and most countries have one for pedestrian crossings (the UK tends to use either traffic lights or big yellow balls on stripy poles to mark official, peds have right-of-way at some point, crossings so don't have a special symbol).
Most importantly for this discussion, we also have an X-type shape for level crossings, going beneath the warning triangle with a picture of a train, with a gate, or without a gate, dependant on the crossing (none of this RR rubbish, that even people who have English as a first language might only get because they've seen films). We also put wig-wag flashing orange balls warning of a hazard, which go on when a train is coming and turn off only after it's gone (unless another one comes).
I think, what with the flashing lights, gates (if the road is in anyway busy) with bells, whistles and lights on and the special X-shaped sign under the warning sign with a picture of a train on it, European crossings are pretty obvious - at least as much so as their American counterparts, if not more so.
The down-pointing red triangle YIELD sign now used in Europe was developed in the USA, the European version simply omits the word 'YIELD'.
The red-octagon STOP sign was also developed in the USA.
Railroad crossing signals in Canada and the USA are unmistakable, only different from those used in Europe. The only notable difference between those of Canada and those of the USA is the 'crossbuck' part of the assembly. The Canadian version is a white 'X' with a red outline while the USA version omits the red outline but includes the crossed words 'RAILROAD' and 'CROSSING'.
Mike
I think it just boils down to whether or not you have learned to convert to metric and back or not. The only ones I can convert are the temperatures and speed limits. The first I learned taking a weather course in the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary, and the other only because the speedometer shows both m.p.h. and k.p.h. Other than that, there's maybe a few I learned from memorizing, such as there's about 39 inches in 1 meter. :coffee:
Quote from: mgk920 on September 18, 2010, 01:14:16 AMThe down-pointing red triangle YIELD sign now used in Europe was developed in the USA, the European version simply omits the word 'YIELD'.
In the UK they put it in British English - "Give Way", and bilingually on other things. Fairly certain that at least some other countries do likewise.
QuoteThe red-octagon STOP sign was also developed in the USA.
Yes, but it doesn't matter who made it. What matters is that we actually do have unique shapes over here for important signs.
Quote from: Duke87 on September 17, 2010, 09:42:29 PMThe centigrade scale is the one part of metric units that I see no real advantage to. Yeah, the freezing and boiling points of water at standard pressure are nice round numbers, but so what? That doesn't really make the scale any more intuitive or convenient to use.
Indeed, I'm just saying that we don't really use it any more. I'd argue that given the finer scale, and that UK weather would easily fit in the 0-100 range with few exceptions Farenheit it's probably a better system for weather in the UK, but we've ditched it. Of course it, like Centigrade, it was 0 and 100 set at two points - neither are any more metric.
I have several speculative reasons for the change of unit in the UK over the last 40 years:
1)deg C is more European, less American than deg F - the media and the elite likes that
2)deg F is 'old', whereas deg C is 'new' (of course, they are both about the same age, but our forebears used Farenheit, so clearly we can't as we chase whatever seems new)
3)Ovens don't have deg F on them, and deg C is probably better for that, so we use that temp scale for that thing, might as well use it for weather
4)Science/Geography at school is exclusively deg C - the government brainwashing program to certain units 'dead' without banning them is working.
5)Probably the biggest reason - the weather started giving dual units, changed the primary unit and stopped giving deg F and everyone else followed.
Quote from: english si on September 18, 2010, 08:10:27 AM
4)Science/Geography at school is exclusively deg C - the government brainwashing program to certain units 'dead' without banning them is working.
In that case, expect the US to go metric eventually. All our science/math in school is metric. Conversion factors between different English units aren't even taught any more.
Quote from: deanej on September 18, 2010, 10:50:36 AM
Quote from: english si on September 18, 2010, 08:10:27 AM
4)Science/Geography at school is exclusively deg C - the government brainwashing program to certain units 'dead' without banning them is working.
In that case, expect the US to go metric eventually. All our science/math in school is metric. Conversion factors between different English units aren't even taught any more.
Maybe in New York, but here in Virginia everything is still taught in good ol' miles, feet, pounds, etc.
I'm not sure whether we actually want to go metric or not, but I'm 90% sure the only way for this country to pull it off is to do it cold-turkey. The slow phasein we had in the 70s and 80s that was supposed to lead to metrication failed miserably.
An overnight change is obviously infeasible, but I'd say within 1 year of announcing a metrication policy we'd need to be fully converted- that means new signs, cars retrofitted with primarily km/h speedometers, no english packaging or recipes, very limited production of english unit-based items like rulers. Banning the system altogether would be hugely unAmerican, and I'm not sure exactly how but I'd bet it would be unconstitutional as well, so you'd have to incentivize the conversion massively.
No matter how you feel about it, I'm not quite sure we can afford to do all that right now. I think the conversion would be beneficial long term and I really hope to see it in my lifetime, but I firmly believe the only way to do it is to go cold-turkey and switch within a year (similar to how Canada did it except maybe even more compressed- but now how the Brits are doing it). That will cost an exorbitant amount of money to pull off.
I was taught about both metric and US customary units here in Connecticut, at least in grade school. In science class in high school we did everything in metric because, as we were taught, science is supposed to be done in metric.
Then I went to college and found that engineering classes were mostly still being taught in US customary units... and went to work and found that the same was true for actual engineering and construction. Still, there is motion towards metric slowly occurring. As of last year, the FE exam features problems using both sets of units. Previously it was all US units.
I spotted on Youtube, a vintage tv australian ad from 1974 when Australia switched to the metric system in 1974.
As an engineer, metric makes a lot of sense. The units just plain work out better. I can see us continuing to increase metric usage in consumer products as well as most other occasions. Anything past middle school science, metric (or rather, SI) was taught because it's what everyone uses. Even the US military uses metric.
As for roads, I don't really see the benefit, and I don't see it happening any time soon. Why bother to change? Most Americans can estimate distance in miles better than kilometers. Most cars are marked in miles, and the km scale is hard to read (if present at all). I have no problem traveling to other countries because the speedometers are marked appropriately for the limits (well, usually - I've had cars marked ONLY in km in Caribbean islands with speed limits in mph). Foreigners may not understand intuitively how fast 40 mph is, but the speedo on their rental cars shows them that clearly. Moving to metric speeds/distances just seems like a costly, unnecessary move to me.
You all know the quick, dirty conversion for temperature, right? Take the Celsius, double it, and add 30. It's not exact, but it gets you close enough.
I've definitely heard that method before, but I personally find it easier to just know C = 5/9(F-32) and work from there. I'm more inclined to remember the full formula than an approximation derived from it.
As for other conversion factors, I can memorize numbers pretty easily so I have no problem with them.
1 mi = 5280 ft = 1760 yd = 1.609 km
1 km = 0.621 mi
1 in = 2.54 cm
1 ft = 0.3048 m
1 m = 3.28 ft
1 gal(US) = 231 in3 = 128 fl oz = 3.785 L
1 gal(imp) = 1.2 gal(US)
1 lb = 4.448 N ≈ 2.2 kg
1 atm = 14.7 psi = 101.3 kPa = 760 mmHg ≈ 34 ftH20
This is what happens to you when you spend too much time staring at those "useful information" tables in the back of marble notebooks as a kid. :-P
You know, why does ARZ worry about immigration when they gotta figure out "Metric or Customary"
Quote from: Duke87 on September 20, 2010, 08:15:12 PM
1 mi = 5280 ft = 1760 yd = 1.609 km
1 km = 0.621 mi
I realize that the mile/km conversion isn't a perfect 5/8 ratio, but I've always found the 1.6/.625 to work far, far better than conversion factors I've found elsewhere.
Agreed. Even Ontario when crossing from the I-190 has a sign saying 100km is 60mph (I think, been quite a few years since using that crossing).
Sykotyk
That is an inaccurate sign. 100 km is 62.5 miles (or 62.1, as Duke and a few textbooks I've seen note...).
Close enough though, especially since Americans think in multiples of 5 (to be fair, the rest of the world thinks in multiples of 10).
The Canadian "Thinkmetric" signs were notorious for doing approximate, rounded conversions. 70 km/h was supposedly equal to 45 mph as well.
Indeed, here's another particularly notorious one:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Forugallu.net%2FvinDu%2Fimages%2Fvancouver%2Fthinkmetric.jpg&hash=7e29c35896e8836f1163aa4a4a64f49abf594977)
Quote from: huskeroadgeek on September 15, 2010, 02:50:12 AM
I don't really see the changing exit numbers as that big of a deal-it's not unlike the states that changed numbers when they switched from sequential numbering to mile-based numbering. Personally, I think it seems a little ridiculous to like them just because of their unique nature. If I had my choice, I'd switch them to miles. But if there's a lot of local opposition to changing them, then it probably isn't worth the controversy.
And that should be the case, I see no reason in changing them. Thanks for sharing!
QuoteThat is an inaccurate sign. 100 km is 62.5 miles (or 62.1, as Duke and a few textbooks I've seen note...).
I'd rather see that than this
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fhighways%2F395%2F20tocanada%2Fbonus.JPG&hash=0e0df696c62f0b940f13ac7d84ae92daef5c1eba)
Quote from: corco on September 25, 2010, 07:15:55 PM
QuoteThat is an inaccurate sign. 100 km is 62.5 miles (or 62.1, as Duke and a few textbooks I've seen note...).
I'd rather see that than this
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fhighways%2F395%2F20tocanada%2Fbonus.JPG&hash=0e0df696c62f0b940f13ac7d84ae92daef5c1eba)
Under current rules, that bottom sign would say '90' (convert and round up to the next multiple of 5)
Mike
QuoteUnder current rules, that bottom sign would say '90' (convert and round up to the next multiple of 5)
Right, and that's the way it should be, even though it may be slightly inaccurate.
Whereas 88 is spot on.
Just for kicks, though: The sign reads 55/90.
You're doing 90, cop pulls you over.
"You know how fast you were going, son?"
"Um, 90 kmh. Why?"
"Exactly. Speed limit's 55, not 56 and a quarter. We go by the lower number in these here parts. Gonna need to see yer license, insurance and registration and I'm gonna need you step outside your ve-hic-le."
Quote
What's wrong with the metric system? Eventually, we'll switch over...
Quote
I've been hearing that since the late 70s when I was in school and we had some woman come in especially to teach us about the metric system because as we were told at the time, we were going to be completely converting to it soon. I don't see that we're any closer to doing it now than we were 30 years ago. And that's fine with me.
I remember in the early '70s that we were going to be on the metric system starting in 1976 or thereabouts and the teachers all wanted us to teach our parents and grandparents about the metric system. But 1976 came along and by then, with double-digit inflation, high unemployment, plus Watergate and Vietnam still echoing through the nation's consciousness, the country had far more pressing issues than whether or not we measured the distance from L.A. to San Francisco in miles or kilometers. So that half-hearted effort to switch came to an end.
Every half-decade or so, some politico or high-falutin' educational bigwig will step up and say, "You know, America really needs to switch to the metric system and be like everybody else..." and blah, blah, blah. And we the people say exactly the same thing: "Shut up, Crackerbox!" :pan: And that's just fine with me, too!
Quote from: realjd on September 19, 2010, 08:03:54 PM
You all know the quick, dirty conversion for temperature, right? Take the Celsius, double it, and add 30. It's not exact, but it gets you close enough.
I just go by remembering that each 5 degrees of Celsius is about 9 degrees Farenheit; each 10 degreesC is 18 degreesF. Forget the fancy formulas!
QuoteWhereas 88 is spot on.
Just for kicks, though: The sign reads 55/90.
You're doing 90, cop pulls you over.
"You know how fast you were going, son?"
"Um, 90 kmh. Why?"
"Exactly. Speed limit's 55, not 56 and a quarter. We go by the lower number in these here parts. Gonna need to see yer license, insurance and registration and I'm gonna need you step outside your ve-hic-le."
If the sign says 90 km/h is legal, the cop has to honor that number. That's an open and shut case in traffic court. Beyond that, if that arose and a Canadian were unable to go to traffic court, that'd be great because we'd be getting free foreign money. That's good for the economy! If the sign isn't legally binding, let's say the speed limit in metric is 110 km/h, so it's a big ticket but not so big that we waste domestic resources jailing the foreigner.
If that makes the Canadian government mad, well, so? That's a great excuse to finally take over their fine country and make it America as it should be. Manifest Destiny! 54 40 or fight! America and Canada as one. Wow. I'm aroused.
Quote from: corco on September 28, 2010, 09:13:09 PMWow. I'm aroused.
I for one welcome our new Canadian overlords.
Quote from: Mr_Northside on September 16, 2010, 02:26:49 PM
Quote from: iwishiwascanadian on September 14, 2010, 11:30:59 PM
I haven't seen BGS's signed exclusively signed in metric, but I have seen others.
I can't completely recall if they were exclusively metric, and don't know if it's still that way, but on our way back from our 1st Lebowskifest in Louisville, we ended up on I-265 from I-64 to I-71, and I think everything was in metric. (Though the only border that's close to is the state of Indiana).
I just started going through my Kentucky photos. I found three metric signs on this route: 71 north, 841 north, U turn, 265 west. One was on 841N, one on 841S (both on the stub part), one for Exit 30 on 265W. Didn't see any others, so maybe they were all EB.
Quote from: AlpsROADS on March 12, 2011, 08:21:02 AM
Quote from: Mr_Northside on September 16, 2010, 02:26:49 PM
Quote from: iwishiwascanadian on September 14, 2010, 11:30:59 PM
I haven't seen BGS's signed exclusively signed in metric, but I have seen others.
I can't completely recall if they were exclusively metric, and don't know if it's still that way, but on our way back from our 1st Lebowskifest in Louisville, we ended up on I-265 from I-64 to I-71, and I think everything was in metric. (Though the only border that's close to is the state of Indiana).
I just started going through my Kentucky photos. I found three metric signs on this route: 71 north, 841 north, U turn, 265 west. One was on 841N, one on 841S (both on the stub part), one for Exit 30 on 265W. Didn't see any others, so maybe they were all EB.
I have photos of signs for exits 30 & 32 along I-265 SB (CW from I-71) that show metric and standard mileage.
Metric Sign I came across along the Osceola Parkway on June 6th.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54587948087_4e5134234b_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2raKv9K)IMG_1024 (https://flic.kr/p/2raKv9K) by Adam Prince (https://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/), on Flickr
Quote from: CanesFan27 on June 14, 2025, 03:26:00 PMMetric Sign I came across along the Osceola Parkway on June 6th.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54587948087_4e5134234b_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2raKv9K)IMG_1024 (https://flic.kr/p/2raKv9K) by Adam Prince (https://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/), on Flickr
Honestly, given the number of folks from other countries who are probably driving that way for Disney World, it makes sense that the sign is in dual units.
Too bad whoever made it doesn't have the self-control to lay off the horizontal stretch button.
Quote from: corco on September 28, 2010, 09:13:09 PMIf that makes the Canadian government mad, well, so? That's a great excuse to finally take over their fine country and make it America as it should be. Manifest Destiny! 54 40 or fight! America and Canada as one. Wow. I'm aroused.
This aged... well, yeah. This aged.
hehehe
Also, I really do like the "800 m" part.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on June 15, 2025, 01:35:23 PMhehehe
Also, I really do like the "800 m" part.
Mike
The nicest part of metric road signs is the scalability without fractions. Especially since a 1600 m "metric mile" divides so easily that most US signs would only need decals to convert.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on June 19, 2025, 11:46:33 AMQuote from: mgk920 on June 15, 2025, 01:35:23 PMhehehe
Also, I really do like the "800 m" part.
Mike
We use feet. I've seen lots of signs with distances like 1000 ft on them. I don't think I've seen any signs with yards, though.
The nicest part of metric road signs is the scalability without fractions. Especially since a 1600 m "metric mile" divides so easily that most US signs would only need decals to convert.
^^ In English units, most lengths in Civil Engineering highway plans are measured in feet and decimal feet to 2 units. The only thing measured in yards is earth excavation, which use cubic yards.
With that signs use feet, or in longer lengths miles (which is done in fractions)
Where did Florida once ever post metric speed limit signs other than the ones near FGCU? I couldn't find any evidence of a mass-use of these signs other than a few older pictures and a few older speed limit signs saying MPH.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on June 19, 2025, 11:46:33 AMQuote from: mgk920 on June 15, 2025, 01:35:23 PMhehehe
Also, I really do like the "800 m" part.
Mike
The nicest part of metric road signs is the scalability without fractions. Especially since a 1600 m "metric mile" divides so easily that most US signs would only need decals to convert.
Yea, 'fractions' are soooo old fashioned and obsolete.
Mike
Quote from: ElishaGOtis on June 19, 2025, 09:29:15 PMWhere did Florida once ever post metric speed limit signs other than the ones near FGCU? I couldn't find any evidence of a mass-use of these signs other than a few older pictures and a few older speed limit signs saying MPH.
Florida went through a short phase in the mid-1980s with dual signage, usually on new construction. Two I can recall were on/near Sawgrass Expressway and its nearby access roads (completed in 1986), and so did the final stages of I-95 in Martin County (finished in 1987). I'm sure there were others since road construction and expansion was seemingly everywhere in Florida during the 1980s.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/3471/3394213440_75c50e14e9_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/6aWepo)
As you can see, it should have been 64 (accurate) or 65 (rounded) km/h. I think I saw one straggler hang on until 2008 or so.
This popped up on Corkscrew Road, east of Fort Myers, but likely not an FDOT install on a County Road:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/8893/28409903526_c21c8225f7_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/KhubwS)
Quote from: Big John on June 19, 2025, 07:53:15 PM^^ In English units, most lengths in Civil Engineering highway plans are measured in feet and decimal feet to 2 units. The only thing measured in yards is earth excavation, which use cubic yards.
With that signs use feet, or in longer lengths miles (which is done in fractions)
The Brits have road signs posted in yards. I assume the first one seen below is somewhere in Wales.
(https://metrication.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/ts_lanes_merge_350350.jpg?w=740)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/New_road_signs_in_Spango_Valley_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1164076.jpg)
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 20, 2025, 12:31:32 PMThe Brits have road signs posted in yards. I assume the first one seen below is somewhere in Wales.
Furlongs are better.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/AzzNPRQoJNzwzdge6
Quote from: kphoger on June 20, 2025, 01:31:59 PMQuote from: 1995hoo on June 20, 2025, 12:31:32 PMThe Brits have road signs posted in yards. I assume the first one seen below is somewhere in Wales.
Furlongs are better.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/AzzNPRQoJNzwzdge6
and the speed limits are in furlongs/fortnight.
Quote from: mgk920 on June 20, 2025, 12:15:12 PMQuote from: TXtoNJ on June 19, 2025, 11:46:33 AMQuote from: mgk920 on June 15, 2025, 01:35:23 PMhehehe
Also, I really do like the "800 m" part.
Mike
The nicest part of metric road signs is the scalability without fractions. Especially since a 1600 m "metric mile" divides so easily that most US signs would only need decals to convert.
Yea, 'fractions' are soooo old fashioned and obsolete.
Mike
Fractions are great for doing math, and horrible for estimating (which is what you're doing when driving). The classic example is when A&W tried to sell a 1/3 lb burger, and customers didn't like it because they thought they were getting less meat than a quarter-pounder.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on June 20, 2025, 05:29:52 PMFractions are great for doing math, and horrible for estimating (which is what you're doing when driving). The classic example is when A&W tried to sell a 1/3 lb burger, and customers didn't like it because they thought they were getting less meat than a quarter-pounder.
I can't find my older post right now, but I once attempted to track down the actual study that supposedly found all those customers thinking a third was smaller than a quarter, and I was unable. As memory serves, the trail runs cold at hearsay in a book by Alfred Taubman. I remain unconvinced that the guy didn't just make it up, or that the focus group wasn't a made up of a dozen high school dropouts.
Per a 2014 paywalled New York Times article:
QuoteOne of the most vivid arithmetic failings displayed by Americans occurred in the early 1980s, when the A&W restaurant chain released a new hamburger to rival the McDonald's Quarter Pounder. With a third-pound of beef, the A&W burger had more meat than the Quarter Pounder; in taste tests, customers preferred A&W's burger. And it was less expensive. A lavish A&W television and radio marketing campaign cited these benefits. Yet instead of leaping at the great value, customers snubbed it.
Only when the company held customer focus groups did it become clear why. The Third Pounder presented the American public with a test in fractions. And we failed. Misunderstanding the value of one-third, customers believed they were being overcharged. Why, they asked the researchers, should they pay the same amount for a third of a pound of meat as they did for a quarter-pound of meat at McDonald's. The "4" in "¼," larger than the "3" in "⅓," led them astray.
Quote from: kphoger on June 20, 2025, 06:02:58 PMI once attempted to track down the actual study
Quote from: Big John on June 20, 2025, 06:22:32 PMNew York Times article
As I said.
All the news article did was repeat what Taubman claimed. I've never been able to identify any such study. The details of what I had researched are fuzzy to me now, but I seem to remember that I did read somewhere the name of the group that's purported to have conducted the study, but was never able to corroborate it as fact.
Maybe they should have remarketed it as: The Five Ouncer, 'cause 5 is more than 4 and 3, you see.
Or perhaps there were just more McDonald's locations.
Heck, even in some of my high-school and college math classes, the muttered phrase "I hate fractions" was oft-repeated.
Quote from: pderocco on June 20, 2025, 03:32:39 PMQuote from: kphoger on June 20, 2025, 01:31:59 PMQuote from: 1995hoo on June 20, 2025, 12:31:32 PMThe Brits have road signs posted in yards. I assume the first one seen below is somewhere in Wales.
Furlongs are better.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/AzzNPRQoJNzwzdge6
and the speed limits are in furlongs/fortnight.
I remember a computer OS parameter measured in "microfortnights" (apparently it was supposed to be seconds, but a bug messed up the timing and they found that this was close)
Quote from: pderocco on June 20, 2025, 03:32:39 PMQuote from: kphoger on June 20, 2025, 01:31:59 PMQuote from: 1995hoo on June 20, 2025, 12:31:32 PMThe Brits have road signs posted in yards. I assume the first one seen below is somewhere in Wales.
Furlongs are better.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/AzzNPRQoJNzwzdge6
and the speed limits are in furlongs/fortnight.
I'll have you know my lorry gets 20 fortnights to the hogshead!
Quote from: formulanone on June 20, 2025, 08:16:38 PMMaybe they should have remarketed it as: The Five Ouncer, 'cause 5 is more than 4 and 3, you see.
Or perhaps there were just more McDonald's locations.
Heck, even in some of my high-school and college math classes, the muttered phrase "I hate fractions" was oft-repeated.
'Across da Pond', McD's calls it the 'Royale', this because the only exposure that most Europeans have to 'Pounds' is when discussing those curious units of British money.
Mike
Even if you can work with fractions, they're not better just because they require more work.
And even if you are competent with fractions, they can be more error-prone. Sometimes I have to work with eighths, but my program only allows decimal input. And sometimes I catch myself thinking ⅝ = .675 (it's actually .625, and I'm getting it confused with ⅞, which is .875).
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 21, 2025, 08:44:27 AMEven if you can work with fractions, they're not better just because they require more work.
And even if you are competent with fractions, they can be more error-prone. Sometimes I have to work with eighths, but my program only allows decimal input. And sometimes I catch myself thinking ⅝ = .675 (it's actually .625, and I'm getting it confused with ⅞, which is .875).
In Europe, math students don't even touch fractions until at least second term Algebra. That alone cuts about 1.5 years off of the time that it takes to teach children arithmetic. To me, that sounds like it is VERY efficient.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on June 21, 2025, 09:40:58 AMIn Europe, math students don't even touch fractions until at least second term Algebra. That alone cuts about 1.5 years off of the time that it takes to teach children arithmetic. To me, that sounds like it is VERY efficient.
Mike
Fractions are more efficient because kids learn faster when they
don't teach them fractions?
Or are you suggesting that it would be a good idea to de-emphasize fractions the way Europe did?
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 21, 2025, 09:58:28 AMQuote from: mgk920 on June 21, 2025, 09:40:58 AMIn Europe, math students don't even touch fractions until at least second term Algebra. That alone cuts about 1.5 years off of the time that it takes to teach children arithmetic. To me, that sounds like it is VERY efficient.
Mike
Fractions are more efficient because kids learn faster when they don't teach them fractions?
Or are you suggesting that it would be a good idea to de-emphasize fractions the way Europe did?
Maybe it's just Rambling Old Man Brain here, but I think may be easier for a child to conceptualize "one-equal-part of four-equivalent-parts" before delving into decimalization, because young children haven't yet been taught one hundred.
The other thought is that fractions are used in elementary classroom settings as a a visual and tangible introduction for abstract thoughts of equality, fairness, sharing, and limitations. Sounds crazy, but classroom environments require boundaries that if Student A gets a single book/block/desk/snack, then Student B [C,D...] also gets the same amount of a limited quantity.
Metric doesn't really need fractions; everything is decimalized. You'd need the concept of fractions in a mathematical sense or to explain division but there's not much need for "1/3 of a meter" when 0.333m would likely suffice. Seems odd that in a country like ours with decimalized currency used almost since its founding, we'd have jumped into the metric system almost immediately. But rigid trade and transfer standards were kept and demanding to see the manager overseas three months after you've contractually made your purchase just wasn't that easy two centuries ago.
But why are fractions better for road signs? I think it's no deeper than
"what you're used to" and it would take most people roughly the same amount of adjustment with a little practice. Implying that people can never learn nor change is a mental stumbling block; they do it all the time because they've either created fear or fanaticism about changes, or it's been cultivated in their minds.
I never found fractions themselves difficult, but at first when teachers gave us math problems with mixed numbers I struggled a bit with those until it occurred to me to convert them to improper fractions to simplify things. (For some reason, this thread is now prompting me to remember that my brother at one point didn't understand that "a fourth" and "a quarter" were the same thing. He once asked for "the fourth-pound hamburger" at a restaurant.)
Regarding fractions on road signs, though, most cars' odometers have at most a tenths place (often on the trip meter rather than the main odometer, of course), so I've always though that using anything other than tenths of a mile on a road sign doesn't make a lot of sense, and once you use tenths, you could just say, for example, "1.5 miles" rather than "1-1/2 miles" even though they mean the same thing.
Quote from: formulanone on June 21, 2025, 10:24:44 AMMaybe it's just Rambling Old Man Brain here, but I think may be easier for a child to conceptualize "one-equal-part of four-equivalent-parts" before delving into decimalization, because young children haven't yet been taught one hundred.
The other thought is that fractions are used in elementary classroom settings as a a visual and tangible introduction for abstract thoughts of equality, fairness, sharing, and limitations. Sounds crazy, but classroom environments require boundaries that if Student A gets a single book/block/desk/snack, then Student B [C,D...] also gets the same amount of a limited quantity.
Sure, but you can get the more or less the same point across using division rather than fractions. (Maybe even better—it was embarrassingly late in my school career that I grasped that ⅓ and 1÷3 were the same thing, since the way they taught us in Oklahoma kind of siloed them from each other and never actually explicitly stated that a fraction is just a division problem! And I remember being in fourth grade and getting really frustrated that I tried calculating my own grades and kept getting something like 0.9 when I knew my grade was supposed to be 90%...sigh...)
Quote from: formulanone on June 21, 2025, 10:24:44 AMthere's not much need for "1/3 of a meter" when 0.333m would likely suffice.
By that same argument, there's not much need for "1/3 of a yard" when 0.333 yards would likely suffice. And yet we have the foot.
Quote from: GaryA on June 20, 2025, 08:52:41 PMQuote from: pderocco on June 20, 2025, 03:32:39 PMQuote from: kphoger on June 20, 2025, 01:31:59 PMQuote from: 1995hoo on June 20, 2025, 12:31:32 PMThe Brits have road signs posted in yards. I assume the first one seen below is somewhere in Wales.
Furlongs are better.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/AzzNPRQoJNzwzdge6
and the speed limits are in furlongs/fortnight.
I remember a computer OS parameter measured in "microfortnights" (apparently it was supposed to be seconds, but a bug messed up the timing and they found that this was close)
Microchip areas are sometimes measured in nanoacres, which is nicely anti-metric.
Quote from: kphoger on June 21, 2025, 03:31:46 PMQuote from: formulanone on June 21, 2025, 10:24:44 AMthere's not much need for "1/3 of a meter" when 0.333m would likely suffice.
By that same argument, there's not much need for "1/3 of a yard" when 0.333 yards would likely suffice. And yet we have the foot.
I'm unaware of any type of animal that has three feet.
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 21, 2025, 10:52:51 AMRegarding fractions on road signs, though, most cars' odometers have at most a tenths place (often on the trip meter rather than the main odometer, of course), so I've always though that using anything other than tenths of a mile on a road sign doesn't make a lot of sense, and once you use tenths, you could just say, for example, "1.5 miles" rather than "1-1/2 miles" even though they mean the same thing.
I've always thought this myself. The fact that the MUTCD doesn't allow tenths of a mile, or any other fraction not measured in quarter-mile increments, on signage seems somewhat bizarre... especially back in the days (up to the 90s or so) where most vehicles had mechanical odometers that measured to the tenth that were readily visible on the dash.
Quote from: formulanone on June 21, 2025, 10:24:44 AMQuote from: Scott5114 on June 21, 2025, 09:58:28 AMQuote from: mgk920 on June 21, 2025, 09:40:58 AMIn Europe, math students don't even touch fractions until at least second term Algebra. That alone cuts about 1.5 years off of the time that it takes to teach children arithmetic. To me, that sounds like it is VERY efficient.
Mike
Fractions are more efficient because kids learn faster when they don't teach them fractions?
Or are you suggesting that it would be a good idea to de-emphasize fractions the way Europe did?
Maybe it's just Rambling Old Man Brain here, but I think may be easier for a child to conceptualize "one-equal-part of four-equivalent-parts" before delving into decimalization, because young children haven't yet been taught one hundred.
The other thought is that fractions are used in elementary classroom settings as a a visual and tangible introduction for abstract thoughts of equality, fairness, sharing, and limitations. Sounds crazy, but classroom environments require boundaries that if Student A gets a single book/block/desk/snack, then Student B [C,D...] also gets the same amount of a limited quantity.
Metric doesn't really need fractions; everything is decimalized. You'd need the concept of fractions in a mathematical sense or to explain division but there's not much need for "1/3 of a meter" when 0.333m would likely suffice. Seems odd that in a country like ours with decimalized currency used almost since its founding, we'd have jumped into the metric system almost immediately. But rigid trade and transfer standards were kept and demanding to see the manager overseas three months after you've contractually made your purchase just wasn't that easy two centuries ago.
But why are fractions better for road signs? I think it's no deeper than "what you're used to" and it would take most people roughly the same amount of adjustment with a little practice. Implying that people can never learn nor change is a mental stumbling block; they do it all the time because they've either created fear or fanaticism about changes, or it's been cultivated in their minds.
You don't see decimal points on BGSes (or BBSes, big blue signs) in Europe, either. If something is '2.5 km' away, the BBS will say "2500m". That applies for everything below 10 km.
And yes, the USA's Congress came one vote short of adopting the 'French' system of weights and measures during the Jefferson administration.
Mike
Quote from: roadfro on June 22, 2025, 01:59:35 AMI've always thought this myself. The fact that the MUTCD doesn't allow tenths of a mile, or any other fraction not measured in quarter-mile increments, on signage seems somewhat bizarre... especially back in the days (up to the 90s or so) where most vehicles had mechanical odometers that measured to the tenth that were readily visible on the dash.
I've occasionally seen 1/3 or 2/3. I vaguely recall seeing something like 2/5 or 3/5 somewhere. But those may be gone now, if this is a recent MUTCD rule.
California experimented with tenths (superscripted and underlined) back when they were making black signs.
There used to be a sign on westbound I-66 listing 1/10 of a mile to the next exit. (https://maps.app.goo.gl/wERwQNrEfpnDRsgn6) It's long gone now. I recall originally the sign gave some longer distance that was incorrect and it was patched to say 1/10.
Quote from: formulanone on June 21, 2025, 10:24:44 AMBut why are fractions better for road signs? I think it's no deeper than "what you're used to" and it would take most people roughly the same amount of adjustment with a little practice. Implying that people can never learn nor change is a mental stumbling block; they do it all the time because they've either created fear or fanaticism about changes, or it's been cultivated in their minds.
I agree with you.
That being said, the USA is never adopting the metric system IMO. We had a chance to do so in the 1970s, but never went far enough. It's not happening now.
Quote from: pderocco on June 22, 2025, 03:02:04 PMQuote from: roadfro on June 22, 2025, 01:59:35 AMI've always thought this myself. The fact that the MUTCD doesn't allow tenths of a mile, or any other fraction not measured in quarter-mile increments, on signage seems somewhat bizarre... especially back in the days (up to the 90s or so) where most vehicles had mechanical odometers that measured to the tenth that were readily visible on the dash.
I've occasionally seen 1/3 or 2/3. I vaguely recall seeing something like 2/5 or 3/5 somewhere. But those may be gone now, if this is a recent MUTCD rule.
PA has quite a few X/8 examples plus a few X/10 around Philly. The most notable X/5 examples I am aware of are I-81 NB at US 60 (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7551741,-79.4106346,3a,32.8y,28.12h,92t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sHCT1XzFj048ycJCoyP0Thg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-2.002391469713018%26panoid%3DHCT1XzFj048ycJCoyP0Thg%26yaw%3D28.119243711093517!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDYxNy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D) near Lexington and I-81 SB at US 250 in Staunton (for I-64 (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.1314045,-79.0325897,3a,75y,231.3h,93.73t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s2kq3-H5NchHFrfJ5YyDAsg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-3.727272360487291%26panoid%3D2kq3-H5NchHFrfJ5YyDAsg%26yaw%3D231.30079824357998!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDYxNy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D)). The US 29 BUS Lynchburg Expressway also has quite a few odd examples.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on June 22, 2025, 04:59:19 PMQuote from: pderocco on June 22, 2025, 03:02:04 PMQuote from: roadfro on June 22, 2025, 01:59:35 AMI've always thought this myself. The fact that the MUTCD doesn't allow tenths of a mile, or any other fraction not measured in quarter-mile increments, on signage seems somewhat bizarre... especially back in the days (up to the 90s or so) where most vehicles had mechanical odometers that measured to the tenth that were readily visible on the dash.
I've occasionally seen 1/3 or 2/3. I vaguely recall seeing something like 2/5 or 3/5 somewhere. But those may be gone now, if this is a recent MUTCD rule.
PA has quite a few X/8 examples plus a few X/10 around Philly. The most notable X/5 examples I am aware of are I-81 NB at US 60 (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7551741,-79.4106346,3a,32.8y,28.12h,92t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sHCT1XzFj048ycJCoyP0Thg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-2.002391469713018%26panoid%3DHCT1XzFj048ycJCoyP0Thg%26yaw%3D28.119243711093517!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDYxNy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D) near Lexington and I-81 SB at US 250 in Staunton (for I-64 (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.1314045,-79.0325897,3a,75y,231.3h,93.73t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s2kq3-H5NchHFrfJ5YyDAsg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-3.727272360487291%26panoid%3D2kq3-H5NchHFrfJ5YyDAsg%26yaw%3D231.30079824357998!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDYxNy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D)). The US 29 BUS Lynchburg Expressway also has quite a few odd examples.
I think these measurements are often very inaccurate anyway. I've seen 1/2 mile warnings here in CA that are significantly closer or further than that from the exit. Or maybe there's no standard for what they're measuring to, where the white line begins to drift to the right, where the exit lane has its full width, where the painted gore begins, or where the physical gore begins.
Maybe they decide where to put the sign first, based on the space available, what other things may be in the way, etc., then they crudely measure the distance, and finally round to whatever units they prefer to use.
Any DOT employees have any observations?
Quote from: 74/171FAN on June 22, 2025, 04:59:19 PMQuote from: pderocco on June 22, 2025, 03:02:04 PMQuote from: roadfro on June 22, 2025, 01:59:35 AMI've always thought this myself. The fact that the MUTCD doesn't allow tenths of a mile, or any other fraction not measured in quarter-mile increments, on signage seems somewhat bizarre... especially back in the days (up to the 90s or so) where most vehicles had mechanical odometers that measured to the tenth that were readily visible on the dash.
I've occasionally seen 1/3 or 2/3. I vaguely recall seeing something like 2/5 or 3/5 somewhere. But those may be gone now, if this is a recent MUTCD rule.
PA has quite a few X/8 examples plus a few X/10 around Philly. The most notable X/5 examples I am aware of are I-81 NB at US 60 (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7551741,-79.4106346,3a,32.8y,28.12h,92t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sHCT1XzFj048ycJCoyP0Thg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-2.002391469713018%26panoid%3DHCT1XzFj048ycJCoyP0Thg%26yaw%3D28.119243711093517!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDYxNy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D) near Lexington and I-81 SB at US 250 in Staunton (for I-64 (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.1314045,-79.0325897,3a,75y,231.3h,93.73t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s2kq3-H5NchHFrfJ5YyDAsg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-3.727272360487291%26panoid%3D2kq3-H5NchHFrfJ5YyDAsg%26yaw%3D231.30079824357998!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDYxNy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D)). The US 29 BUS Lynchburg Expressway also has quite a few odd examples.
What's intriguing about this one in the Philly area is it's a new overlay of the previous distance of 500 Feet, replaced between October 2022 & October 2023 as they expanded the lane at that time. https://maps.app.goo.gl/SmNccfjVw2zv586L6 . What's also intriguing is the distance between this sign and the end of the lane is about 2,550 feet - closer to 1/2 mile (2,640 feet) than 3/8 mile (1,980 feet), so it would've been completely appropriate to just use the more common 1/2 mile distance.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 21, 2025, 12:23:01 PMQuote from: formulanone on June 21, 2025, 10:24:44 AMMaybe it's just Rambling Old Man Brain here, but I think may be easier for a child to conceptualize "one-equal-part of four-equivalent-parts" before delving into decimalization, because young children haven't yet been taught one hundred.
The other thought is that fractions are used in elementary classroom settings as a a visual and tangible introduction for abstract thoughts of equality, fairness, sharing, and limitations. Sounds crazy, but classroom environments require boundaries that if Student A gets a single book/block/desk/snack, then Student B [C,D...] also gets the same amount of a limited quantity.
Sure, but you can get the more or less the same point across using division rather than fractions. (Maybe even better—it was embarrassingly late in my school career that I grasped that ⅓ and 1÷3 were the same thing, since the way they taught us in Oklahoma kind of siloed them from each other and never actually explicitly stated that a fraction is just a division problem! And I remember being in fourth grade and getting really frustrated that I tried calculating my own grades and kept getting something like 0.9 when I knew my grade was supposed to be 90%...sigh...)
Teaching physics at OU, I once had a student ask me, in all seriousness, if a millimeter was the same thing as a centimeter. And this was a pre-med student. Makes one wonder about the state of health care in Oklahoma...
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 22, 2025, 03:46:14 PMQuote from: formulanone on June 21, 2025, 10:24:44 AMBut why are fractions better for road signs? I think it's no deeper than "what you're used to" and it would take most people roughly the same amount of adjustment with a little practice. Implying that people can never learn nor change is a mental stumbling block; they do it all the time because they've either created fear or fanaticism about changes, or it's been cultivated in their minds.
I agree with you.
That being said, the USA is never adopting the metric system IMO. We had a chance to do so in the 1970s, but never went far enough. It's not happening now.
In terms of trade and product specification, metric has made gradually way into reforming many everyday items, especially those which may be sold worldwide. But for all goods?...there's a terrific way to go; we'll probably see both units in use for packaging/labelling on consumer items for at least another century, which is mostly how things have been going for the last 30-40 years.
Road signs could phase in both units, but as soon as the idea of additional costs are weighed into the process, that's when the masses lose their minds, and the concept is portrayed as wasteful.
Honestly, I'd get used to it, but would probably still accidently say "mile" instead of "kilometer", or "feet" for "meters". I know I do when work over in Canada.
Quote from: formulanone on June 22, 2025, 08:10:55 PMRoad signs could phase in both units, but as soon as the idea of additional costs are weighed into the process, that's when the masses lose their minds, and the concept is portrayed as wasteful.
And I'm not sure that such is even unique to the US. It seems that every country that has "slow rolled" metric has eventually stopped. The same thing happened to the UK - the road signs never switched over. The majority of the world that did fully switch (or which switched the stuff everyone sees, even if old units are still used in less visible contexts) jumped in head first and changed everything before public opposition had a chance to take root.
Quote from: pderocco on June 22, 2025, 03:02:04 PMI vaguely recall seeing something like 2/5 or 3/5 somewhere.
Historically at least, Minnesota loves fifths of miles.
Personally, I think it's better than something like
this (https://maps.app.goo.gl/FoqxZme9f6MgjitM6), because I have no intuitive concept of how far 2000 feet is. But fractions are easy for me to conceptualize, if I think of a quarter-mile as two city blocks.
Quote from: pderocco on June 22, 2025, 12:11:49 AMI'm unaware of any type of animal that has three feet.
Not looking very hard...
(https://images.ctfassets.net/sfnkq8lmu5d7/4lXkTqBBDlNLBzPXIIDNZe/69220f9877f234057d8ccb6cdb0cec8f/Hero_-_Keeping_Your_Three-Legged_Dog_Healthy.jpg)
Well, when a dog or a cat loses a leg (it doesn't matter which one), after the wound heals, the animal won't even miss it. It will go on with life as though it were still there.
Mike
While switching to metric for road uses is overall more useful than US/Imperial, the actual unit of the mile is actually very useful.
At any rate, US and Imperial units have been redefined to metric (the mile and kilometer are effectively a 5/8 ratio, but the actual definition puts the mile to a specific metric length just over 1.6km), and a lot of items are in metric already, most notably 2L soda bottles.
Quote from: Bickendan on June 23, 2025, 09:45:52 PMWhile switching to metric for road uses is overall more useful than US/Imperial, the actual unit of the mile is actually very useful.
At any rate, US and Imperial units have been redefined to metric (the mile and kilometer are effectively a 5/8 ratio, but the actual definition puts the mile to a specific metric length just over 1.6km), and a lot of items are in metric already, most notably 2L soda bottles.
In fact, in the USA, 'one inch' legally = '25.4 mm'. Do the arithmetic for the rest.
Mike
Depending on the contractor or the sign maker, construction zones pretty much use feet or fractions interchangeably. Same with local municipalities (Stop Ahead -- 500 Feet).
Never could understand why it is such a cardinal sin to use feet on BGSs along controlled access highways instead of fractions for shorter distances.
Quote from: Bickendan on June 23, 2025, 09:45:52 PMthe actual unit of the mile is actually very useful
Yes.
In rural areas in this part of the country, section line roads are based on a mile grid. One road = one mile.
In urban areas in this part of the country, major city streets are based on a mile grid. One major thoroughfare = one mile.
So, if I'm still going to benefit from thinking of road distances in miles, then I don't see how changing road signage to kilometers wouldn't hurt rather than help.
Quote from: thenetwork on June 24, 2025, 01:45:23 PMNever could understand why it is such a cardinal sin to use feet on BGSs along controlled access highways instead of fractions for shorter distances.
I figure that, on a freeway, if the distance is less than a quarter-mile, then the distance is pretty much irrelevant by that point. The distance is realistically "NOW!".
Quote from: thenetwork on June 24, 2025, 01:45:23 PMDepending on the contractor or the sign maker, construction zones pretty much use feet or fractions interchangeably. Same with local municipalities (Stop Ahead -- 500 Feet).
Never could understand why it is such a cardinal sin to use feet on BGSs along controlled access highways instead of fractions for shorter distances.
California uses some oddly-specific distances in feet (like 2134 or something like that) on yellow signs when warning of substandard clearances on freeways. I've seen non-binary fractions (such as "1/3") used on blue signs (rest areas come quickly to mind). There are a few one-off exit signs that are in whole hundreds of feet, the CASR-17 "Santa Cruz" sign on "North" (West) bound I-280 in Santa Clara county, for example.
I'm a metric advocate (and, since the FAA went to Celsius for all temperatures, have NO need for Fahrenheit at all), but notice that, if you are willing to go down to inches, a mile can be divided in to whole numbers of inches by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12. Without inches, you only lose divisibility by 9. Except for the rods and chains used in surveying, I haven't the least idea why you'd need evenly to divide by 11.
I'm not sure what was used when we were part of colonial Spain and independent Mexico, but it sure seems that some of the distances between things, especially along the coast and the Bay, are close to whole kilometers apart.
Quote from: Bickendan on June 23, 2025, 09:45:52 PMthe actual unit of the mile is actually very useful
Quote from: kphoger on June 24, 2025, 02:37:23 PMYes.
In rural areas in this part of the country, section line roads are based on a mile grid. One road = one mile.
Similar with railroads. When the Western Union started laying out its telegraph lines, they tried to standardize on 250-foot spacing of telephone poles. Locomotive engineers on the B&O Railroad quickly found that they could estimate the distance past each milepost simply by counting the telephone poles (anyone care to guess?). The method was so effective that when the B&O implemented railway signalling* in the early 1890s, they standardized on 20 poles per mile, which staggered just a little bit from the existing Western Union poles. But this way, train crews could accurately estimate the mileage down to 5/100th of a mile.
*Or should I have said "signaling", since the British word "signalling" was used by the C&O Railway (and perhaps, all of the Van Sweringen Lines, but I can't prove it).
Quote from: michravera on June 24, 2025, 03:47:17 PMCalifornia uses some oddly-specific distances in feet (like 2134 or something like that) on yellow signs when warning of substandard clearances on freeways.
Or there are
the ubiquitous weight limit signs in Texas (https://maps.app.goo.gl/XvhrqsqbyaxS5rjp7) for exactly 58,420 pounds.
These hark back to 1951, when SB 57 increased the allowable GVW from 48,000 pounds (24 tons) to 58,420 pounds based on AASHO's formula, in order to encourage trucks to be equipped with an additional axle and thereby eliminate overweight axles. The federal maximum was later increased further in 1956, and Texas followed in 1959 by increasing theirs, but then they had to sign 20% of their highway system for all those bridges that weren't rated for that new higher-higher limit.
Quote from: kphoger on June 24, 2025, 02:37:23 PMIn rural areas in this part of the country, section line roads are based on a mile grid. One road = one mile.
I wonder, if the metric system had been adopted back in the Jefferson administration, if the Northwest Ordinance would have called for surveys and land sections based on kilometers?
Quote from: GaryV on June 24, 2025, 04:47:47 PMQuote from: kphoger on June 24, 2025, 02:37:23 PMIn rural areas in this part of the country, section line roads are based on a mile grid. One road = one mile.
I wonder, if the metric system had been adopted back in the Jefferson administration, if the Northwest Ordinance would have called for surveys and land sections based on kilometers?
What else might have made sense? Perhaps doubles or 2.5 km? Perhaps sectioning everything into 100x100 m plots? A chain is quite close to 20 m (about one-half percent high). I'm sure that it would have been adjusted to be EXACTLY 20 m, if it had been required for the survey. I'm not sure what surveyors use in metrics countries that still have to be surveyed. 10 m chains seem short (but usable in difficult terrain) and 100 m seems too long.
Quote from: michravera on June 24, 2025, 05:23:30 PMI'm not sure what surveyors use in metrics countries that still have to be surveyed. 10 m chains seem short (but usable in difficult terrain) and 100 m seems too long.
I'm no expert, but I'm happy to pretend I am one after doing a very quick Google search. :awesomeface:
A 10-meter chain, made of fifty 20-centimeter links. Thus, it's just shy (by a couple of inches) of half the length of a Gunter's chain.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on June 24, 2025, 03:49:46 PMSimilar with railroads. When the Western Union started laying out its telegraph lines, they tried to standardize on 250-foot spacing of telephone poles. Locomotive engineers on the B&O Railroad quickly found that they could estimate the distance past each milepost simply by counting the telephone poles (anyone care to guess?). The method was so effective that when the B&O implemented railway signalling* in the early 1890s, they standardized on 20 poles per mile, which staggered just a little bit from the existing Western Union poles. But this way, train crews could accurately estimate the mileage down to 5/100th of a mile.
There was a musical number in the 1952 movie "Everything I have Is Yours" called 17000 Telephone Poles, with Monica Lewis counting the poles as they pass in a bus, measuring the distance to home. So that would have been an 850-mile bus ride. But there's also a line about "500 miles of wire". But hey, it's just a dumb song, so I doubt anyone did the math.
Quote from: pderocco on June 24, 2025, 11:20:12 PMQuote from: Dirt Roads on June 24, 2025, 03:49:46 PMSimilar with railroads. When the Western Union started laying out its telegraph lines, they tried to standardize on 250-foot spacing of telephone poles. Locomotive engineers on the B&O Railroad quickly found that they could estimate the distance past each milepost simply by counting the telephone poles (anyone care to guess?). The method was so effective that when the B&O implemented railway signalling* in the early 1890s, they standardized on 20 poles per mile, which staggered just a little bit from the existing Western Union poles. But this way, train crews could accurately estimate the mileage down to 5/100th of a mile.
There was a musical number in the 1952 movie "Everything I have Is Yours" called 17000 Telephone Poles, with Monica Lewis counting the poles as they pass in a bus, measuring the distance to home. So that would have been an 850-mile bus ride. But there's also a line about "500 miles of wire". But hey, it's just a dumb song, so I doubt anyone did the math.
Maybe 350 miles of the journey had poles with no wire. Or for part of it they had installed new poles and not yet removed the old ones.
Or they did the math but decided 'seventeen' sounded better in the lyrics.
Quote from: algorerhythms on June 22, 2025, 07:57:24 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on June 21, 2025, 12:23:01 PMQuote from: formulanone on June 21, 2025, 10:24:44 AMMaybe it's just Rambling Old Man Brain here, but I think may be easier for a child to conceptualize "one-equal-part of four-equivalent-parts" before delving into decimalization, because young children haven't yet been taught one hundred.
The other thought is that fractions are used in elementary classroom settings as a a visual and tangible introduction for abstract thoughts of equality, fairness, sharing, and limitations. Sounds crazy, but classroom environments require boundaries that if Student A gets a single book/block/desk/snack, then Student B [C,D...] also gets the same amount of a limited quantity.
Sure, but you can get the more or less the same point across using division rather than fractions. (Maybe even better—it was embarrassingly late in my school career that I grasped that ⅓ and 1÷3 were the same thing, since the way they taught us in Oklahoma kind of siloed them from each other and never actually explicitly stated that a fraction is just a division problem! And I remember being in fourth grade and getting really frustrated that I tried calculating my own grades and kept getting something like 0.9 when I knew my grade was supposed to be 90%...sigh...)
Teaching physics at OU, I once had a student ask me, in all seriousness, if a millimeter was the same thing as a centimeter. And this was a pre-med student. Makes one wonder about the state of health care in Oklahoma...
The solution is to toss out cm altogether. They're not particularly useful, and mainly taught because they're close to inches.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on June 30, 2025, 02:38:30 PMQuote from: algorerhythms on June 22, 2025, 07:57:24 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on June 21, 2025, 12:23:01 PMQuote from: formulanone on June 21, 2025, 10:24:44 AMMaybe it's just Rambling Old Man Brain here, but I think may be easier for a child to conceptualize "one-equal-part of four-equivalent-parts" before delving into decimalization, because young children haven't yet been taught one hundred.
The other thought is that fractions are used in elementary classroom settings as a a visual and tangible introduction for abstract thoughts of equality, fairness, sharing, and limitations. Sounds crazy, but classroom environments require boundaries that if Student A gets a single book/block/desk/snack, then Student B [C,D...] also gets the same amount of a limited quantity.
Sure, but you can get the more or less the same point across using division rather than fractions. (Maybe even better—it was embarrassingly late in my school career that I grasped that ⅓ and 1÷3 were the same thing, since the way they taught us in Oklahoma kind of siloed them from each other and never actually explicitly stated that a fraction is just a division problem! And I remember being in fourth grade and getting really frustrated that I tried calculating my own grades and kept getting something like 0.9 when I knew my grade was supposed to be 90%...sigh...)
Teaching physics at OU, I once had a student ask me, in all seriousness, if a millimeter was the same thing as a centimeter. And this was a pre-med student. Makes one wonder about the state of health care in Oklahoma...
The solution is to toss out cm altogether. They're not particularly useful, and mainly taught because they're close to inches.
I don't like centi either. Fortunately, no one bothers with deci, deka, or hecto.
It's always annoyed me that one of the two standard unit systems is CGS, or centimeter-gram-second, while the other is MKS, or meter-kilogram-second. So why not MGS, or meter-gram-second? I always think of the prefix on the unit as part of the number, so 33km is 33k meters, not 33 kilometers. As soon as you multiply it by something else, the prefix changes, while the real unit doesn't.
IIRC, in the "trades", metric sizing uses magnitudes of 1,000 (i.e. mm, m, km, etc.) when going up and down the scale, which honestly makes a lot of sense. For example, in electrical applications, you won't see "centivolts" as 10 millivolts honestly just makes a lot more sense.
The hectometer seems like it would be a halfway-useful measurement. But it really isn't ever used, except of course that a hectare is one square-hectometer.
Quote from: kphoger on June 30, 2025, 03:33:26 PMThe hectometer seems like it would be a halfway-useful measurement. But it really isn't ever used, except of course that a hectare is one square-hectometer.
A hectare is basically two football fields. An "are" is a 10 m x 10 m square. That, conveniently, is a square the size of one of those metric surveying chains which were mentioned earlier in the thread.
The two prefixes that I *NEVER* see used are those for 10000 and 100000. 10000 would be hand in Japan (which has a number separately named for 10000, which, unfortunately, sounds similar to the Latinesque word for 100). Multiples of 10000 would be handy one the way to 1000000, if we did more things in multiples of 100. I can't think of a single case where I have naturally found it convenient to work in multiples of 100000. Besides, we hardly ever get 5 digits of precision on anything. 4 digits sometimes. 3 digits more commonly. 2 is often not enough. That's the reason for using multiples of 1000.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on June 30, 2025, 02:38:30 PMThe solution is to toss out cm altogether. They're not particularly useful, and mainly taught because they're close to inches.
If you ask someone from a metric country how tall they are, they usually answer in cm. So clearly they are perceived as having some utility that is not derived from burger units.
Quote from: michravera on June 30, 2025, 07:02:29 PMThe two prefixes that I *NEVER* see used are those for 10000 and 100000.
That's because there aren't any. Kilo is 1000, and is followed by mega for 1,000,000.
Don't forget kibi, mebi, and gibi, which are powers of 1024.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 30, 2025, 11:12:19 PMQuote from: michravera on June 30, 2025, 07:02:29 PMThe two prefixes that I *NEVER* see used are those for 10000 and 100000.
That's because there aren't any. Kilo is 1000, and is followed by mega for 1,000,000.
Well, myria- used to be the prefix for 10,000, but it was eliminated in the 1960s, apparently for the mundane reason that there were too many other prefixes that started with
m- (mega-, milli-, and micro-).
Decimega- should mean 100,000 of something.
Decakilo- should mean 10,000 of something.
And/or we should bring back the myriad.
I'm wondering what a system based on purely powers of 2 would be.
The closest power of 2 Planck lengths to a human height (arguably the most natural starting point) is 2^116, which is 1.34 meters or 4'5". This unit of 2^116 would have a name.
The unit of volume would be that cubed, where a Length™ cubed would be 2.42 m^3, and smaller units closer to liters would be 1/4096 that (2^112 on a side), equivalent to 0.591 liters or almost exactly 20 US fluid ounces.
If we use density of water as a baseline like we do for metric units, the "0.591 liters" would become 591 grams, or 1.3 pounds as the base unit of mass.
Time would be a bit more tricky, since the year:day ratio isn't a power of 2.
If the Planck time is used, 2^144 ≈ 1.20 seconds, of which there are 71863 in a day.
If a day is divided into 2^16 (65536) seconds, ignoring Planck units, one Time™ is about 1.32 seconds.
The calendar would be similar to ours, since there's no way to force powers of two onto a 365.25:1 ratio.
(Side note: Google Calculator doesn't recognize "Planck time", but "Planck length/c" works perfectly fine.)
Quote from: hotdogPi on July 01, 2025, 09:46:29 AMTime would be a bit more tricky, since the year:day ratio isn't a power of 2.
Just ignore measurements of time. It's not like there are US Customary hours and Metric hours—let alone months and weeks. Some wackos tried that in the past, and it didn't work out.
With the way things have been going recently in Canada, should some of those western provinces eventually gain independence and then join the USA, I would make several reasonable adjustments in the MUTCD to accommodate that. Ie, I would adopt the 'red circle' for km/h speed limit signs (New Mexico, you can get with the program with your state route markers, perhaps going to a square with "NEW MEXICO [Sun symbol]" at the top), 'arrow' style one way street signs without the words"ONE WAY", etc.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on July 01, 2025, 12:26:05 PMWith the way things have been going recently in Canada, should some of those western provinces eventually gain independence and then join the USA
Saying this shit on Canada Day? May as well tell every Canadian to go fuck themselves.
Quote from: mgk920 on July 01, 2025, 12:26:05 PMWith the way things have been going recently in Canada, should some of those western provinces eventually gain independence and then join the USA, I would make several reasonable adjustments in the MUTCD to accommodate that. Ie, I would adopt the 'red circle' for km/h speed limit signs (New Mexico, you can get with the program with your state route markers, perhaps going to a square with "NEW MEXICO [Sun symbol]" at the top), 'arrow' style one way street signs without the words"ONE WAY", etc.
Mike
Metric speed limit signs are actually a thing: https://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=us11&state=NY&file=102_6697.JPG
Quote from: mgk920 on July 01, 2025, 12:26:05 PMWith the way things have been going recently in Canada, should some of those western provinces eventually gain independence and then join the USA, I would make several reasonable adjustments in the MUTCD to accommodate that. Ie, I would adopt the 'red circle' for km/h speed limit signs (New Mexico, you can get with the program with your state route markers, perhaps going to a square with "NEW MEXICO [Sun symbol]" at the top), 'arrow' style one way street signs without the words"ONE WAY", etc.
Quote from: vdeane on July 01, 2025, 12:41:34 PMMetric speed limit signs are actually a thing: https://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=us11&state=NY&file=102_6697.JPG
But those signs haven't been included in the MUTCD as approved since the 2003 edition, though, right?
Those signs have black circles, not red circles (unlike those in most of the rest of the world).
Mike
Then what does Canada have to do with it? Canadian speed limit signs don't have red circles either. UK speed limit signs in m.p.h. do have red circles.
The UK is the only country in the world that posts 'MPH' speed limits with red circles. Ireland converted theirs to km/h a decade or two ago. Converting the Canadian 'km/h' signs to red circles will eliminate a possible confusion with square 'MPH' signs and state route markers in the USA. BTW, speed limit signs en Mexico are also red circles, but they do say "km/h" at their bottoms.
Mike
Western Canada isn't going to become part of the United States.
The United States isn't changing its speed limit sign.
Quote from: mgk920 on July 01, 2025, 12:26:05 PMI would make several reasonable adjustments in the MUTCD
Quote from: mgk920 on July 01, 2025, 03:11:52 PMConverting the Canadian 'km/h' signs to red circles will eliminate a possible confusion
The MUTCD does not govern road signs in Canada.
Quote from: kphoger on July 01, 2025, 09:54:13 AMJust ignore measurements of time.
I do this a lot, and it seems to make people really upset and say things like "You were supposed to be there at six, where were you?"
Quote from: mgk920 on July 01, 2025, 12:26:05 PMWith the way things have been going recently in Canada, should some of those western provinces eventually gain independence and then join the USA . . .
With the way things have been going in America, I think it's more likely that it will have fewer states rather than more in the future.
Quote from: mgk920 on July 01, 2025, 03:11:52 PMThe UK is the only country in the world that posts 'MPH' speed limits with red circles. Ireland converted theirs to km/h a decade or two ago. Converting the Canadian 'km/h' signs to red circles will eliminate a possible confusion with square 'MPH' signs and state route markers in the USA. BTW, speed limit signs en Mexico are also red circles, but they do say "km/h" at their bottoms.
Arguably, Canada's signs already distinguish themselves from US-specification signs because they say "MAXIMUM" rather than "SPEED LIMIT." There would be a case to be made that the different wording should be one way of calling the motorist's attention to the fact that the sign uses a different unit of measure (never mind the practical absurdity of thinking that a sign reading "MAXIMUM 110" means you can go 110 mph).
Quote from: kphoger on July 01, 2025, 03:35:49 PMQuote from: mgk920 on July 01, 2025, 12:26:05 PMI would make several reasonable adjustments in the MUTCD
Quote from: mgk920 on July 01, 2025, 03:11:52 PMConverting the Canadian 'km/h' signs to red circles will eliminate a possible confusion
The MUTCD does not govern road signs in Canada.
His point was that there is a secessionist movement in Alberta that wants the province to apply for statehood. That sort of speculation isn't totally unprecedented. I recall during the lead-up to the 1995 Quebec referendum, at least one of the premiers in the Atlantic provinces suggested that if the "oui" vote prevailed, his province might have to explore statehood.
So he was speculating on what to do with road signs if the Alberta secession did come to pass.
Quote from: LilianaUwU on July 01, 2025, 12:32:02 PMQuote from: mgk920 on July 01, 2025, 12:26:05 PMWith the way things have been going recently in Canada, should some of those western provinces eventually gain independence and then join the USA
Saying this shit on Canada Day? May as well tell every Canadian to go fuck themselves.
I know, right? :no:
Quote from: hotdogPi on July 01, 2025, 09:46:29 AMIf we use density of water as a baseline like we do for metric units, the "0.591 liters" would become 591 grams, or 1.3 pounds as the base unit of mass.
If we're going all in with the Planck stuff though, we might as well just use the Planck mass. The nearest power of 2 multiple to the kilogram is 2^26, which is about 1.460 current kilograms.
Quote from: kphoger on July 01, 2025, 09:30:56 AMDecimega- should mean 100,000 of something.
Decakilo- should mean 10,000 of something.
And/or we should bring back the myriad.
You might already know this, but this was allowed at some point. In particular, it gave rise to dimi-, which was short for decimilli-, which is the fractional counterpart to myria-.
Additionally, because why not, there were the prefixes double- and demi-, which were for multiplying or dividing by 2.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on Today at 02:20:56 AMdemi-
This is still a prefix, just not really used for units of measurement.
A
demigod is a deity who is only partly divine, in some contexts the offspring of a god and a human (half god).
A
demi-glace is a glaze that has been reduced by half.
And, for something even more math-related, a
demisemihemi
demisemiquaver is technically the British name for a musical 256th note, which has six flags/beams. And yes, they actually exist in real life, including sheet music from Vivaldi.