Dear all: It's not often I agree with Stephen Humphreys, but on this occasion I think he's right. I once wrote an article for the UKMA Newsletter, suggesting that we might need to make more use of what I call the 'vernacular' in our use of SI for the everyday person. That using metric must become as natural as it seems for people brought up on imperial/USC to continue using those units. Hence I suggested that we could describe our height as 'one-seventy-eight' (1.78 m or 178 cm - your choice), our weight as 75 kaygees (I really hate kaygees, but recognise that it makes using metric less intimidating or clinical), our speed as 130 'kays' (or klicks') and so on.
When it comes to km/h, that is what the entire world uses for measuring speed, rightly or wrongly. Maybe it is 'wrong', but are you going to change the entire world in this regard? As the US hardly uses metric in the everyday sense (agreed that there is a lot of hidden metric), then there is little chance the rest of the world is going to take much notice if the US starts pontificating that we should be using m/s rather than km/h, and even less chance that the rest of the world is going to actually change. Regardless of what measuring units we use, most of us relate to them in a comparative or relative sense only, not in absolute terms. We know that we take a size 8 shoe, or that we (at least the ladies do!) fit into a size 14 dress, and so on, without ever knowing exactly what those numbers mean. And we currently measure speed on that basis. We know (at least those of us living in those countries which measure our speed in km/h, which is virtually the entire world USA and UK excepted) that 50 km/h is a typical urban speed, that 80-100 km/h is a typical two lane highway speed and that 100-130 km/h is a typical freeway/motorway speed. We don't need to actually visualise how many metres per second that represents, and even if we did, we probably wouldn't be able to make practical use of it. On the other hand, when planning journeys, a typical suburban/rural average speed is say 60 km/h, which is 1 km per minute. So a 20 km journey will take 20 minutes. On longer journeys, where we might measure our time in hours, we might be able to average 100 km/h, so a 400 km journey will take 4 hours. Km/h allows these calculations to be made; m/s doesn't. I think if we want the general populace to embrace metric, we have to accept such 'vernacular' in its use. The clinically correct stuff we can reserve for professional usage. Oh, and as a surveyor working in the UK, I can assure everyone that I was indeed 'clinically correct' in my usage of SI in my professional work. For everyday usage, I find I am quite happy to 'lighten up' and use the 'vernacular'. John F-L ----- Original Message ----- From: Stephen Humphreys To: U.S. Metric Association Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 8:13 PM Subject: [USMA:47012] Re: FW: Special Employee Advisory: Message from Joe Boardman I fully understand where you are coming from but even in 'fully' metric countries km/h is used. I cannot see that changing but furthermore I would not recommend pushing clinical use of si on non metric people. Remember that in effect you have to 'sell' this change so being critical about specifics should really be low on your priorities. Of course this just my opinion > From: mech...@illinois.edu > Subject: Re: [USMA:47008] Re: FW: Special Employee Advisory: Message from Joe Boardman > To: barkatf...@hotmail.com; usma@colostate.edu > Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 10:04:08 -0500 > > Stephen, > > The point you always seem to miss is that the question is not the traditional units habitually used since the 18 century or earlier, but the best units from SI for use in the future. > > ---- Original message ---- > >Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:07:22 +0000 > >From: Stephen Humphreys <barkatf...@hotmail.com> > >Subject: [USMA:47008] Re: FW: Special Employee Advisory: Message from Joe Boardman > >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu> > > > > I admire your scientific brain Martin ;-) but I'll > > bet you a large sum of money that most (British) > > people would quickly understand 95 mph and have a > > 'feel' for what that looks like over "50 m/s based > > upon some maths" even though what you say > > technically makes a lot of sence. > > > > Of course, 'practice' often proves things and if you > > ever hear one of the bowlers/batters for the England > > and Wales side talking about fast-bowlers and > > spin-bowlers then you note they will always use > > mph. In fact my quote below about Flintoff came > > from an Aussie cricketer(!). Note sure whether the > > aussie chap in question used mph because they knew > > it was SkySports interviewing them or not, however > > whenever I have heard a feed from Australian criket > > games I have often heard both mph and km/h > > (admittedly more km/h from Australian broadcasts > > than mph). Incidentally they refer to km/h as > > 'kays' - eg "He bowled that one at 130 kays". > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------ > > > > From: vliets...@btinternet.com > > To: usma@colostate.edu > > Subject: [USMA:47007] Re: FW: Special Employee > > Advisory: Message from Joe Boardman > > Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 06:36:44 +0100 > > > > On the other hand being told that the ball is coming > > at you at 50 m/s and knowing that the pitch is just > > 20 m long tells you that you have 0.4 s to work out > > what to do with the ball. (A little less because you > > are in front of the wickets) > >.. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Do you have a story that started on Hotmail? Tell us now
