A reader on the UKMA site "Metric Views" has made the following excellent point (imagine US spelling): http://metricviews.org.uk/2010/12/does-the-failure-of-the-english-world-cup-bid-have-any-lessons-for-supporters-of-completing-metrication/comment-page-1/#comment-21810
"I notice that unfortunately the current NIST style guide (LC 1137) does NOT recommend “km/h” as the symbol for “kilometre per hour” . See http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/Metric/metrsty3.cfm Also, SP 811 quite correctly recommends metres per second (m/s) for velocity in scientific contexts, and only makes a passing reference to km/h for vehicle speeds (paragraph 8.1)." LC 1137 does NOT condone KPH (or kph); it simply fails to address velocity or improper abbreviation. LC 1137 has the short title "Metric Style Guide" and the long title, "Metric Style Guide for the News Media." As the most common news media metric errors are the specific use of kph, and, more generally, ignoring symbols and making up random abbreviations, this guide should really be updated to address these points. As we have some NIST readers here, I hope they will take this request under consideration, especially as AP is preparing their next edition of the AP Style Guide, which MAKES reporters do it wrong. If NIST revises it, they are free to reword as they think best. A starting point only is: Unit names should be spelling out in full, or represented by the symbols assigned to the unit names and prefixes. No arbitrary abbreviations should be used for metric unit names. For example, use km/h not kph for kilometers per hour.
