|
Dear Mike & John
I wouldn't use 0,8 km, I would always write 800 m, you have to scale
between 1 and 1000
btw, you'll never see any decimal distance signs in germany either you see
full kilometer or e.g. 2200 m instead of 2,2 km.
bye
PS: John, are you german?
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Gesendet: Samstag, 21. Juni 2003
00:00
Betreff: [USMA:26164] Re: Irish speed
limits
Wouldn't the sign 1/2 mile (800 m) be better? Takes up one less space
than (0,8 km). I agree though, it's a great idea, wish they would do it all
over the US. All of my cars have km odometers, no car has 1/4 mile, etc.
Mike Payne
Potomac Falls VA 20165
----- Original Message -----
Sent: 20/5/03 06:19:22
Subject: [USMA:25817] Re: Irish speed
limits
You should send this information to the U.S. Congress, who probably are
unaware that a change, such as speed limits, to SI can be a "non-event" with
no increase in fatalities, etc.
It's great to read all of these comments, but you're preaching to the
choir. We should be letting the powers that be know all of this and lobby
for the change. Maybe letters to the editor in newspapers could also help
spread the word.
There is absolutely no reason for not changing highway stuff to metric
in the U.S., except that people are ignorant about SI and need to be taught.
People are afraid of what they don't understand. Since the government
doesn't seem to want to do much about it, it has to be up to us.
If we could get the speed limits and distance signs metricated, THAT
would be a wonderful statement to the American public that yes, metric is
coming but it won't kill you.
I got the New Hampshire DOT commissioner to start putting kilometres,
albeit parenthetically, after the miles on new distance signs across
the state by writing letters and giving good reasons to do it. Being near to
Canada seemed to be the biggest trump card--I told them that the Canadian
tourists may be affected by many younger drivers who are unfamiliar with
miles. Having a distance sign in an American state that says "Exit 2--
1/2 mi (0.8 km) is a small thing but it's something
positive.
Pat Naughtin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
on
2003/05/20 10.08, Joseph B. Reid at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
Stephen C. Gallagher asked in USMA 25799:
>
>>
Joe,
>> I wasn't a driver then, so can you tell me
whether
>> there was any significant resistance to this change
and/or
>> any incedents of people peeling tthe decals off.
Obviously it
>> there couldn't have been too much of a resistance
since
>> the change is still in effect.
>>
>>
I remember some people in the US making the silly argument
>>
that if speed limits were changed from 65 mph to 100 km/h,
>>
that some people would start thinking that the limits were now
>>
100 mph. Tell me that they didn't use that copout in Canada.
>>
>> Stephen Gallagher
>
>
> A professor of
psychololgy at Queen's University, Kingston, Ontari! ! o,
>
prophesied in August 1977, that there would be a carnage on the
roads
> when the speed limit was raised from 60 MPH to 100 km/h over
the
> Labour Day weekend. My memory is that it was a non-event, and
that
> there was no change in the accident rate. That shows that
Canadians
> either realized that the chnage in speed limit was
trivial, or, more
> likely, that Canadians don't pay attention to
speed limits but use
> their judgement as to what is an appropriate
speed in the
> circumstances.
In 1982, Kevin Joseph Wilks
wrote a report with the title:
Metrication in Australia
This
report was subsequently published by the Australian Department
of
Industry, Technology and Commerce (DITAC) in 1992. This report had
this to
say about 'Road Traffic Regulations'.
One of the most
important and publicly visible of the metric changes was the
change in
road speed and distance signs and the accompanyin! g ! change in
road
traffic regulations. M-day for this change was 1 July 1974 and, by
virtue of
careful planning, practically every road sign in Australia
was converted
within one month. This involved installation of covered
metric signs
alongside the imperial sign prior to the change and then
removal of the
imperial sign and the cover from the metric during the
month of conversion.
Except on bridge-clearance and flood-depth
signs, dual marking was avoided.
Despite suggestions by people opposed
to metrication that ignorance of the
meaning of metric speeds would
lead to slaughter on the roads, such
slaughter did not occur.
A
Panel for Publicity on Road Travel, representing the various
motoring
organisations, regulatory authorities and the media, planned a
campaign to
publicise the change, believing that public education, not
the confusion
that would result from dual sign posts, would be the most
effective way of
ensuring publi! c sa! fety. The resulting publicity
campaign cost $200 000 and
was paid for by the Australian Government
Department of Transport.
In addition, the Board produced 2.5
million copies of a pamphlet, "Motoring
Goes Metric", which was
distributed through post offices, police stations
and motor registry
offices.
For about a year before the change, motor car
manufacturers fitted dual
speedometers to their vehicles and, after
1974 all new cars were fitted with
metric-only speedometers. Several
kinds of speedometer conversion kits were
available.
As a result
of all these changes, conversion on the roads occurred
without
incident.
Coordinated with the road change, tour guides,
road maps and street atlases
were produced in metric and, of course,
traffic regulations in each State
were amended to metric
measurements.
The opportunity was also taken to change the design
of road signs to conform
to internationally recognised s! tandar!
ds.
The change to metric on the roads quickly led to changes in the
units used
by motor car enthusiasts and engine power in kilowatts (kW)
quickly replaced
horsepower and newton metres (Nm) replaced foot pounds
as the unit of
torque. The kilometre, though mispronounced kilom'etre
more often than not,
soon become the unit of distance and the 'k', as
in "doing 100 k", became
the jargon for kilometre.
After
consideration of all aspects, the litre per hundred kilometres
(L/100
km) was adopted as the preferred unit of fuel consumption. This
was the
system most frequently used in metric countries. The
arithmetical process
was neither harder nor easier than that of
calculating miles per gallon or
kilometres per litre and was more
universally meaningful. As it is a
compound unit, the public has found
this a more difficult conversion to
which to adjust than miles to
kilometres or gallons to litres.
Claimed fuel consumption! was sta!
ted in L/100 km by all Australian motor car
manufacturers and its use
as a unit was gradually established.
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin
LCAMS
Geelong, Australia
John
Do you Yahoo!?
The
New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
--- Michael Payne
--- EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet.
|
