In Panama, which is a metric country (speed limits in km/h, distances in km,
most products in metric values), petrol/gasoline is sold in "gallones". I
assume these to be US gallons (3.78 L), and are probably a holdover from the US
presence in Panama.
John F-L
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeremiah MacGregor
To: U.S. Metric Association
Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 11:29 PM
Subject: [USMA:44302] RE: Caribbean
Except that in the UK you don't need to worry about the difference because
you fill up in litres.
Jerry
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Humphreys <barkatf...@hotmail.com>
To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu>
Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 2:19:05 PM
Subject: [USMA:44205] RE: Caribbean
Agreed.
However - coming from the UK the cost to fill up the tank was enough to make
smile whether it be a US *or* UK gallon!!! :-)
BTW - Barbados pumps are in litres.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:25:58 -0400
From: spam.t...@verizon.net
To: usma@colostate.edu
Subject: [USMA:44197] RE: Caribbean
One of the more confusing items of measurement in the British Caribbean is
the units in which petrol (gasoline) is sold. With few exceptions, pumps are
metered in gallons but it is not clear whether the gallon is the UK or the US
one. And of course there is quite a difference in size which in turn has a
significant impact on the amount of money you pay when the price is around $6
per gallon.
At most service stations I ask which gallon is being dispensed. I have yet
to receive a reply more informative than a shrug.
If you buy milk, the units of sale are occasionally litres but far more
frequently, the US gallon and fractions thereof.
Stephen Humphreys wrote:
Most areas of the caribbean I mentioned are frequented most by Brits
(except the Bahamas). Canadians make up the next group then Americans and
finally Europeans.
Watching the planes coming in across the south coast of Barbados is a give
away - 2 Virgin 747's a couple of long haul BA Boeings and several charters -
then the 3 or 4 Air Canada flights followed by a few American Airways flights
daily.
Except for the Bahamas the areas of the Caribbean I mention are very
'British'.
I suggest that the measurement usage (which, by the way, probably ranks
quite lowly as a major concern in paradise) is due to British influence and US
goods (the supermarkets tend to use local and US produce - so you see the
familiar US packaging).
BTW - it's also one of those areas where countries are 'officially metric
but practically imperial' - very like the UK. There are loads of examples -
enough to bore the hell out of you!!! ;-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: carlet...@comcast.net
To: usma@colostate.edu
Subject: [USMA:44148] RE: Caribbean
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 10:08:40 -0400
My guess is that the Caribbean area is like that because of all the
American tourists. Countries less dependent on American tourism – that is,
countries with their own economies, such as Europe – don’t feel they have to do
this.
Carleton
From: owner-u...@colostate.edu [mailto:owner-u...@colostate.edu] On Behalf
Of Stephen Humphreys
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 10:02
To: U.S. Metric Association
Subject: [USMA:44145] RE: Caribbean
The Caribbean I have seen is mixed or less metric than even the UK.
This applies to St Lucia, Grenada, Bahamas, Barbados (although their road
signs, if you can find them, are metric), Antigua and Montserrat. Places I have
been to or regularly go to.
Unfortunately sometimes assumptions are made where the best basis for fact
is literally going to these places (hence John P Schweisthal [Jerry] never
having visited the UK for example).
Also there is a common mistake to only include "the big ones" when talking
commonwealth - from experience the smaller players are more interesting (and
house the most friendliest people on earth too!)*
Steve
* Disclaimer -this is not to say that people in the big Commonwealth
nations are not friendly etc - although this one wants to leave one of them for
a smaller one!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: j...@frewston.plus.com
To: usma@colostate.edu
CC: usma@colostate.edu
Subject: [USMA:44141] RE: Stephen and other off-topic contributors
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 08:49:53 +0000
Can I just intersperse some comments in these statements? Some are based
on my own experience, but some are also based on outside observation during the
time I lived in Canada. If anything I say is incorrect, corrections welcome!
I confess that some Google research would have been advisable, but I am away
this weekend, so am getting this off before we leave.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeremiah MacGregor
To: U.S. Metric Association
Cc: U.S. Metric Association
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 3:55 AM
Subject: [USMA:44139] RE: Stephen and other off-topic contributors
I believe that the UK got as far as it did for reasons that don't apply
to the US.
1.) They are close to Europe and do a lot of business with Europe and
needed to be on the same page. It would not be feasible for the UK to have a
different measurement system then their trading partners nor for the population
not to be able to function on the job that produces the goods that will be
exported.
Basically true, but I seem to remember that, in 1965 when the decision
was officially made to go metric, there was a general consensus that
metrication was the way the world was going (or was already there), and that
this was not just a Europe thing. Britain has always been a world-wide trading
nation, and in the 1950s and '60s, coined the slogan "Export or die". Going
metric was part of the awareness that the country depended on world-wide trade
in order to pay off its war debts.
2.) The British Commonwealth is practically fully metric and that too
would have an effect on what measurements the UK uses.
Australia was probably the first Commonwealth country to go metric, but
the UK's decision in 1965 preceded many other Commonwealth countries, including
Canada, South Africa (which was part of the Commonwealth), other African
nations (e.g. Kenya), the whole of the Caribbean, what is now Malaysia, and
many other places too numerous to mention.
3.) The UK is small in comparison to its trading partners compared to the
US.
True, although this is a relatively recent phenomenon. Back in 1965, the
UK had quite a prominent position in terms of world trade.
4.) The US is mostly isolated from the rest of the world.
Yes, very true unfortunately! Something that President Obama is aware
of? ("The world has changed, and we must change with it.")
5.) US trade is virtually one way. The US imports produced goods, but
does not export. As long as the US can survive being the "ultimate consumer"
and can continue to run high trade deficits then there is no reason for the US
to metricate.
I once read that 90 to 95% of all US-based economic activity (i.e.
production of goods and services, but excluding imports and other off-shore
activities) remains inside its borders, which is far higher than anywhere else
on earth. That was some years ago, and I would imagine that it is no better
today.
But, this system is highly strained. In the news recently, China has
openly defied the US by questioning the role of the dollar in international
trade and calling for a basket of currencies for the world to use instead of
the dollar. Sooner then Washington and Wall Street realize, China will get its
wish.
The outcome will mean the US can no longer operate as the ultimate
consumer and will be forced to run a more balanced economy. To do so, it will
have to produce in order to trade for what others produce and in order for its
goods to be accepted, it will have to show a willingness to cooperate and adopt
the metric system.
If memory serves correctly (and increasingly it doesn't as I get older!),
the US was once quite open to producing for the world, and improving its world
image. In 1971, I lived in Boston, MA, working alongside a local architecture
practice on a major project (Tufts New England Medical Center), and remember
all the roadsigns in the city, which were of European style (e.g. No Entry
signs as a red disc with a horizontal white stripe, then unknown in the US;
speed limit signs consisting of a white circle with a red band around the edge;
etc). In talking to my architect colleague, he explained that America was
very concerned with its image in the world, and this was part of that process
(and being trialled in Boston). Also to be part of that process was conversion
to the metric system (he was one of its promoters), and I guess what he said
was borne out when the Metrication Board was established in 1975.
It will be a very simple choice. Either adopt the metric system or be
shut out. What choice will America make?
The key is to get the American in the street to realise that such a
choice has to be made. I would wager that most Americans still believe that
the US doen't need to metricate, and that the rest of the world will just have
to adapt to America's use of customary units.. At what point will the (rude)
awakening occur? - John F-L
Jerry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "br...@bjwhite.net" <br...@bjwhite.net>
To: jeremiahmacgre...@rocketmail.com
Cc: U.S.. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu>
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 11:24:17 PM
Subject: RE: [USMA:44135] RE: Stephen and other off-topic contributors
All that being said, I'd be THRILLED if we in the US were as far along as
the UK regarding metrication.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [USMA:44135] RE: Stephen and other off-topic contributors
From: Jeremiah MacGregor <jeremiahmacgre...@rocketmail.com>
Date: Fri, March 27, 2009 8:20 pm
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu>
Martin,
Even though you are not American, there should be no reason you
shouldn't contribute. We can learn a lot from you. We can learn from the
British experience as to what does not work and to the Australian experience as
to what works. I'm sure you have been a valuable asset in providing ideas for
metrication in the US.
However, there are those from the outside that do not belong. This
forum does not need to hear the tired opinions of those who will use this forum
against those who believe in metrication. Those opposed will come here
appearing as angels of light but are in reality demons of darkness.
This is a forum that promotes metrication and I'm sure you agree that
to give voice to those that do is counter productive and in no way promotes
metrication. I hope though that when you say you won't hold back, that you
mean it enough to strike hard at those who will use this forum to spread their
anti-metricisms even in a subtle form.
Jerry
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beyond Hotmail — see what else you can do with Windows Live. Find out more!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Windows Live Hotmail just got better. Find out more!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Windows Live Messenger just got better. Find out more!
