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
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!)*
*
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 -----
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
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>
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.
Beyond
Hotmail — see what else you can do with Windows Live. Find out
more!
Windows Live Hotmail just got better. Find
out more!
|
