On a passenger railroad-oriented list to which I also belong, an article was quoted which included mention of "kph". I pointed this out, and received this reply from another list member who in the past has espoused very conservative opinions.
Fire away, all. Carleton From: all_abo...@yahoogroups.com <mailto:All_Aboard%40yahoogroups.com> On Behalf Of abyler Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 22:47 To: all_abo...@yahoogroups.com <mailto:All_Aboard%40yahoogroups.com> Subject: Re: [A_A] Full steam ahead for California bullet train --- In all_abo...@yahoogroups.com <mailto:All_Aboard%40yahoogroups.com> , "Carleton MacDonald" wrote: > > Also, the speed is expressed incorrectly - it should be "350 km/h" - there > is no such thing as a "kph". [his answer:] Sure there is. Its not like km/h is a normal SI measurement. The silly and useless SI Metric system would insist on us using m/s. kph is the colloquial Anglosphere abbreviation for kilmoeters per hour. Kilometers per hour is just a bastardized bending of metric system rules to accomodate something like a traditional customary speed measurement most people can relate to and actually use, just like the metric "pound" (= 1/2kg); "livre" in France, "pfund" in Germany, "pond" in the Netherlands and Flanders, "libra" in Iberia and Italy, "jin" in China; and the metric "ton" (=1000 kg); the metric cup (=250 mL); the metric teaspoon (=5 mL); the metric horsepower (750 kgf-m/s). See, that's the problem with the SI metric system compared to English customary units which is based on normal and practical human experience instead of esoteric physics. People cannot relate to the true SI metric units for most applications, so they don't use them. Just one more reason so many railways systems (and international aviation and shipping and meterology) have stuck with English units or older versions of metric where the units make more sense for engineering purposes and practical thinking by human beings.
