# Road signage



## ScraperDude (Sep 15, 2002)

So far having lived in Kentucky and Ohio both states have metric and english mesurements for distance and speed. 

Can anyone list more?


----------



## Ning (Jul 18, 2004)

I'm glad to see, Kentucky and Ohio are turning to the french system of mesurements


----------



## ScraperDude (Sep 15, 2002)

ha ha Arizona has an entire interstate thats all metric mesuremnts


----------



## Tonka Truck (Jan 26, 2005)

Puerto Rico, a United States territory, Posts distances in kilometers, but speed limits in MPH.


----------



## Boris550 (Sep 21, 2004)

I've seen a few in Nevada...and California for that matter...

I'm glad that Canada is all metric...


----------



## DrJoe (Sep 12, 2002)

Tonka Truck said:


> Puerto Rico, a United States territory, Posts distances in kilometers, but speed limits in MPH.


Why?? Do they like confusing people or something.


----------



## Æsahættr (Jul 9, 2004)

All imperial here in MN.  (I think)


----------



## reluminate (Aug 3, 2004)

I never even knew that highways with metric signs existed in the US. Here in NJ, and the entire northeast for that matter, I have never seen any metric signs, except a few closer to the Canadian border.


----------



## sargeantcm (Mar 15, 2005)

New Hampshire started putting signs on all new construction in dual units, I'm not sure if that's still the standard but I think we're still doing it. Ironic considering we were the third to last state to ditch metric and turn back to imperial for design work.

I also know the northern end of I-87 in New York is dual units, in fact bi-lingual as well.


----------



## FM 2258 (Jan 24, 2004)

I like the U.S. Customary measurements better for our highways and everything else. Screw the Metric system.


----------



## ScraperDude (Sep 15, 2002)

This web page has images from around the US of metric signs.
Go look


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

FM 2258 said:


> I like the U.S. Customary measurements better for our highways and everything else. Screw the Metric system.


Why because everything American is better? :|


----------



## FM 2258 (Jan 24, 2004)

LtBk said:


> Why because everything American is better? :|


Yes, everything in the United States is better. That's why everyone wants to come here.


----------



## Jai (Jan 5, 2003)

It'd make sense for states bordering Canada and Mexico to have metric signage, but Ohio?


----------



## TheTramp (Dec 2, 2004)

Arizona has road signs in metric system, if you drive south from Tucson.


----------



## demanjo (Dec 9, 2003)

FM 2258 said:


> Yes, everything in the United States is better. That's why everyone wants to come here.


Im sorry
But that is one of the most ignorant and arrogant things i've ever heard. I love you for it though, because YOU satisfy the American Stereotype that occasionally exists in my mind.

Imperial is nonsensical and redundant. Metric is logical and the way of the future. I think it is absurd that the US still used Imperial.


----------



## rt_0891 (Mar 13, 2005)

Yeah for metric. :cucumber:


----------



## FM 2258 (Jan 24, 2004)

demanjo said:


> Im sorry
> But that is one of the most ignorant and arrogant things i've ever heard. I love you for it though, because YOU satisfy the American Stereotype that occasionally exists in my mind.
> 
> Imperial is nonsensical and redundant. Metric is logical and the way of the future. I think it is absurd that the US still used Imperial.


Why is metric the way of the future? I think Imperical is better. The world isn't divided up in 1s, 10s and 1000s. Things are imperfect and I think Imperical (U.S. Customary or whatever) fits our country better. 

Plus when you grow up with a certian measurement you just grow fond of it. When I drive on the Interstate I already know that 1mile I have time to think about exiting, 1/2 mile I better start thinking about getting in the right lane, 1/4 mile I should be in the right lane and at the "-->" the exit is there. 

When I was driving to El Paso the sign said "El Paso 518", yeah, I know what 518 miles is but if it said some thing like "1000 km" me and most other people would convert that shit to miles before we comprehend what it really is. 

So when I look on this forum and someone posts something about a 400m skyscraper, I honestly have hardly a clue what they mean so I go to www.google.com, look up a converter and convert that to feet......and get 1,312.34 ft which in my head makes much more sense than 400m. I know meter is around a yard but I don't use yards that much since I use feet much more often. 

I also think it's funny and ironic how people put down Americans when we boast about how great the U.S. is because when people tell an American the U.S. isn't all that we honestly don't care and just laugh it off. I mean, how can you say the U.S. is not the best? It might be ignorant or arrogant but we honestly don't give a shit what anyone else thinks. 

If some worldwide law was made that said you had to pick one country and never leave it for the rest of your life I bet many people would pick the U.S. You'd be stuck here for the rest of your life but you can still visit places in the U.S. like the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, Alaska, Hawaii, American Samoa, Saipan, Guantanamo bay and some other territories I can't think of off hand. Plus we pretty much own Afghanistan and Iraq right now but that's a different story. 

Anyway, yes I may be an arrogant American but back to the topic at hand, I think the metric system is best used for soda bottles. I know what 1, 2 and 3 liter bottles are but when it comes to milk I like gallons. Let the U.S. keep our measurement system, look how far we've come using it.


----------



## HKT (May 17, 2003)

FM 2258 said:


> I like the U.S. Customary measurements better for our highways and everything else. Screw the Metric system.


But the foundation of physics is based on the Metric system.


----------



## FM 2258 (Jan 24, 2004)

HKT said:


> But the foundation of physics is based on the Metric system.


Maybe so but for all drivers in the United States, we're just used to our customary system. If we changed over to Metric for our highways we'd be screwed. We'd have to replace all our exit numbers, billboard will have to change their exit numbers. Distances would have to be replaced, our maps would have to be redone. Our cars are based on miles so we'd be in a mess if we have to convert our car mileage into kilometers. We buy gas by the gallon and everyone here knows what a gallon is. Our speed limits are in miles and people would be weirded out if we saw something like "Speed Limit 100 kilometers/hr"....it's like "What?", just give me miles. I weigh 230 lbs, we just know LBS stands for pounds, why? Most people don't know but if you told someone kilograms you'd be speaking another language. 

You'd tell someone..."Los Angeles is only 55 kilometers away..." and I bet you'd get this question next "How many miles is that?" 

So miles, feet, gallons, inches and whatever else is just engrained into our society and it's not going to change. Maybe it is like language. I think English is better than French or Spanish, why? I can understand it and it makes more sense to me since I understand it. Ask a Spanish speaking person and they'd think Spanish is much more efficient and better. 

So if we tried to change our highway system to the metric measurements, it would not go too well in the U.S.. I know 5280ft = 1 mile or freezing at 32 degrees may not line up perfectly as 1000meters = 1km or freezing = 0 degrees but even with temperatures we know that 90=hot, 80=very warm, 70=very nice, 60=cool, 50's=getting cold (In Texas) and under that it's just COLD. Our measurement system isn't holding us back from anything so why change it? Like I said before we're doing very very well as a country using our measurement system and we'll continue to use it for a long time to come.


----------



## Nephasto (Feb 6, 2004)

FM 2258 said:


> Why is metric the way of the future? I think Imperical is better. The world isn't divided up in 1s, 10s and 1000s. Things are imperfect and I think Imperical (U.S. Customary or whatever) fits our country better.


You may like the imperial system and be used to it, and i understand why you wouldn's want to switch to imperial, being used to imperial.
But by saying metric isn't a more exact and a more advanced system, your simply being dumb, because it it, and that's a FACT. Not a subjective matter.
That's why scientists in US use the metric system, like others mentioned.
Because 1 km = 1000 meter = 100000 cm... And 1m^3 = 1000 L... and so on, and so on.

So please don't make a fool of yourself saying that imperial system is as good or better as as metric system, because it isn't... it's much worse.

Still, for what you use it on a daily basis, imperial system is enough, and works very well, so, as I've said, you may like it, and I understand why you wouldn't like it to change.... 
It's never easy to change our habits.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

eddyk said:


> I havnt seen a single metric sign in the UK....our country is mixed with metric and Imperical!
> 
> We buy our petrol in gallons and our drink in liters!


I buy my petrol in litres and my drink in pints! 

Oh, and I'm 1.80m tall and 70kg, and I don't measure things in inches...


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

czm3 said:


> On a side note, Great Briton changed its imperial system to meet metric standards. Talk about a mess. In the US (the original imperial system) a gallon is 3.8 liters, and a pound is 454 grams. In GB, that same "gallon" is 4 liters and that same "pound" is 500 gram. Talk to an older butcher in GB and you wont hear the end of it.


Great *Britain* didn't change the imperial system to meet metric standards - a UK gallon was always different to a US gallon because in the UK there are 20 fluid ounces to the pint rather than 16 as in the US, which means a UK gallon is 4.546 litres as opposed to 3.785 litres in the US.

A UK pound is also 454 grams.


----------



## czm3 (Dec 4, 2004)

CharlieP said:


> Great *Britain* didn't change the imperial system to meet metric standards - a UK gallon was always different to a US gallon because in the UK there are 20 fluid ounces to the pint rather than 16 as in the US, which means a UK gallon is 4.546 litres as opposed to 3.785 litres in the US.
> 
> A UK pound is also 454 grams.


Oh snap, I stand corrected. I must be wrong, but I have some recollection of there being a system change in the UK about 30 years ago.

regardless, thats off topic. Few would argue the virtues of the metric system, but no one has yet come up with a real reason why the US should switch.


----------



## Guest (May 19, 2005)

^^^
Why should the US switch? To get with it maybe? Just like the learned US scientifc community has. Change can be a good thing you know. Imagine the ease of teaching measurements at school. A liter of water weighs 1 kg, 0 degree C is the freezing temp of water (why is 32f equal), 100 degree C is the boiling point of water, The Kelvin degree is exactly the same amount as a Celsius degree, 100cm makes a meter (12in makes a foot, why?), and we can go on and on and on. It is simply a more logical and better thought out system so therefore it is silly not to adopt it just like the US scientific community has.


----------



## Syd-Hk (Apr 21, 2004)

the world changed to the french metric system because its so much easier to learn and use.

unlike trying to remember weird things like homeriods said, metric is easily converted from one unit to another, and most of them are in units of to 10^x . Also metric prefexs help.

i get lost in imperial measurements....


----------



## czm3 (Dec 4, 2004)

Again, two responces preaching the merits of the metric system. Like I said before, I see the logic in the metric system. Please stop talking about it.

The only responce I got to my question is so the US can "get with it." Oooohhh, what a great reason! Like you said (and I did earlier) the US scientific comunity has gotten "with it" as have the engineers etc.

Why does everybody else need to "get with it????" Our imperial system works fine, and obviously people here have no trouble knowing that a pint of fluid is a pound (16oz). The imperial system can be taught and learned just like the metric system. Meanwhile we have 300 million people that have measuring cups, clothes, cars, and just about everything else in imperial. Also while it is easy to teach a school child about the metric system, good luck teaching it to a disenfranchised 55 year old who doesnt want to change. The is no overwhelming need for the system to be changed, it works fine the way it is.

Now if someone has a thought that is more than to "get with it" please share, I am all ears.


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2005)

lol. I really don't understand the resistance to change. It's simple, if a better system comes along and makes more sense then why not change? That's all we are saying. It is like the decimal system for currency. Australia changed to decimal for currency in 1966 for logical reasons and nothing more. 12 shillings made a pound I think and I don't know how many pents made the next unit. It was weird and basically adhoc. 

It's the same with imperial measurements obviously. Australia made the change to metric in 1972. Why? Simply because it made more sense. This is the only reason why and this is not an emotional persuasive reason. So, when I say "get with it" I mean in the context of adopting a system that is simpler to understand, more logically laid out, and just makes a lot more sense. Just like deciaml curreny did over none decimal currency.

Old people don't like change, but change, if good shouldn't suffer because old people don't like it. You can run concurrent for sometime you know. Get with it simply means those who can accept change when it makes more sense and when it is an improvement over the old.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

czm3 said:


> we have 300 million people that have measuring cups, clothes, cars, and just about everything else in imperial.


But all the immigrants from Latin America and Asia must understand metric as it was used in their original countries.

The imperial system is ridiculous, even most people who say they prefer it and know it well can't tell you how many feet are in a mile or how many noggins are in a quart.

To see the real arcane complexity of the system just take a look at these links hno:

http://www.answers.com/topic/imperial-unit

http://www.answers.com/topic/u-s-customary-units?method=5


----------



## kavok (May 4, 2005)

As a person who designs highways and signs them in the US, I can say that I was disappointed the US switched back to Imperial from Metric. There was a big push in the 90s to switch to metric, and all highways began being designed that way until they made us switch back. Designing in metric was much, much easier and simpler. For a while there we still signed the road in Imperial Units, but the whole thing was designed in metric for all practical purposes.


----------



## Guest (May 22, 2005)

Yes, and just how many of those imperial units of measurement do people use in their day to day life or sincerely even know:

* 1 poppy seed = 1/4 barley corn = 2.11 mm
* 1 barleycorn = 1/3 inch ~= 8.467 mm
* 1 inch = 25.4 mm = 2.54 cm
* 1 foot = 12 inches = 304.8 mm = 3.048 dm
* 1 yard = 3 feet = 0.9144 m = 9.144 dm
* 1 rod, pole or perch = 5 1/2 yards = 5.0292 m
* 1 chain = 4 poles = 20.1168 m
* 1 furlong = 10 chains = 201.168 m
* 1 mile = 8 furlongs = 1.609 344 km
* 1 league = 3 miles = 4.828 032 km

Maybe inch, foot, yard, mile? Furlongs in horse racing maybe? League is quite redundant.

With metric, due to the logic, it is easy to learn each scale of measurement since there is firstly, consistency in naming standards and secondly, consistency in each level or scale due to powers of 10. Ram memory for example, technically not metric, borrows from metric in that it is strictly powers of 2 but at their 10th iteration. 2^10 (1024) = KILObyte, 2^20 (1048576), MEGAbyte. It also uses naming prefixes the same as metric. Obviously for computers the power of 2 is significant.

My point being, it is a consistent and logical scale. Imperial is not. We all know this and therin lies the reason why it is a good reason to change from imperial to metric.

Put it this way, if we were to sit down around a table and think up a system to replace Imperial that made more sense and was easier to learn (our reasons for change) it would be metric.


----------



## Rail Claimore (Sep 11, 2002)

The US scientific community and engineering companies use metric now, and have done so for decades.

It's the US common culture that sticks to imperial because the measurements themselves for the circumstances tend to be more convenient and most conversions aren't necessary. Americans have a clearer picture of how long a mile is as opposed to km, and I actually find it easier to measure the height of people by feet and inches because most people are either 5'X" or 6'X." You don't have to convert miles into feet much at all, nor gallons into quarts or whatever. The only conversion of great importance in everyday life is feet to inches, and that's easy enough (1 = 12).

Now granted, I know a lot of the rough conversions from imperial to metric as it is (1 mile = 1.6 km, 1 gal = roughly 4 liters, etc.), so I would not care as much as most Americans if we converted, and every once in a while in most states, you'll find random road signs with metric measurements. There's one on I-24 right outside of Chattanooga. In fact, in grocery stores, most food products are put in metric as well. A coke can is 12 fl oz and 355 ml, etc. The US is slowly converting as it's not government endorsed, but rather embraced by private enterprise, something Americans tend to feel more comfortable with for better or for worse.


----------



## Guest (May 22, 2005)

I'm a proud Central American who uses the metric system, but I'm cool with the imperial one, cause part of my family is from the U.S. I guess you get used to the system you grow up with, whether it's metric (honestly the best), imperial, measuring with a rock or a stick, ...

But if either the metric or the imperial system had to take over the world, it would definitely be the....metric one!
But everyone should feel free to use the system they personally are OK with.


----------



## czm3 (Dec 4, 2004)

Jonesy55 said:


> But all the immigrants from Latin America and Asia must understand metric as it was used in their original countries.


Ha!! Try selling that one to the American public. I personally am not resistant to change, but many people (everywhere in the world) are. Everybody on this thread who doesnt like the US using the metric system doesnt actually live here. As mentioned earlier, its been tried, and the repeated attempts have failed. The imperial system is fine, and people here have the attitude that if it aint broke dont fix it.

In fields where metric truly is advantagous (where lots of calculations need to made) the US is already using the metric system. Farthermore, like someone else said, every product sold in a US grocery store has the metric measurements next to the imperial ones. If youre a tourist who cant figure out what it means to be 80 miles from the city, just look at your speedometer. It will have KM under the miles and if you look at 80 mph you'll see the 120 km/h that will tell you how far you have to go.

I wouldnt mind seeing the metric system here, but it will never happen, people here are too set in their ways.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

czm3 said:


> Ha!! Try selling that one to the American public. I personally am not resistant to change, but many people (everywhere in the world) are. Everybody on this thread who doesnt like the US using the metric system doesnt actually live here. As mentioned earlier, its been tried, and the repeated attempts have failed. The imperial system is fine, and people here have the attitude that if it aint broke dont fix it.
> 
> In fields where metric truly is advantagous (where lots of calculations need to made) the US is already using the metric system. Farthermore, like someone else said, every product sold in a US grocery store has the metric measurements next to the imperial ones. If youre a tourist who cant figure out what it means to be 80 miles from the city, just look at your speedometer. It will have KM under the miles and if you look at 80 mph you'll see the 120 km/h that will tell you how far you have to go.
> 
> I wouldnt mind seeing the metric system here, but it will never happen, people here are too set in their ways.


Sounds like a similar situation to the UK.


----------



## Rail Claimore (Sep 11, 2002)

Jonesy55 said:


> Sounds like a similar situation to the UK.


I have found from Britons my age that most of them know quite a lot of imperial measurements for everyday tasks like Americans... they say someone is 5'10" or whatever and weighs 170, and some know how long a mile is relatively speaking. However, they tend to be more aware of the metric system than we are and use it a lot more. It seems that while Britain and the US are both behind most of the rest of the world, it seems Britain is about 15-20 years ahead of the US in making a gradual conversion.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

Rail Claimore said:


> I have found from Britons my age that most of them know quite a lot of imperial measurements for everyday tasks like Americans... they say someone is 5'10" or whatever and weighs 170, and some know how long a mile is relatively speaking. However, they tend to be more aware of the metric system than we are and use it a lot more. It seems that while Britain and the US are both behind most of the rest of the world, it seems Britain is about 15-20 years ahead of the US in making a gradual conversion.


Unfortunately though, the UK is only making a half-hearted attempt to convert - most people my age, who will have been taught metric all through school, still talk in feet/inches, stones/pounds, miles etc. because outside of school that's how their parents, the media etc. still speak...


----------



## sonysnob (Dec 12, 2004)

From a highways perspective having the US switch to metric makes little sense. Imperial works very well (as well as metric imho) from a highway standpoint, and the actual switch from imperial to metric would likely cost a fortune. (Look into how much highay guide signage actually costs and you will know what i mean).

However, switching to metric still might make a fair amount of sense for other reasons. It has been suggested that school children in the US are forced to learn about fractions too early, causing students to have more difficulty with the concept that they otherwise would later in life. Countries still using imperial measures need to teach children fractions early in life, since they are so prevelant in the imperial system. Other metric countries have started teaching fractions later which apparently has proved to be most beneficial, resulting in overall better math skills.

Personally I think the US would be wise to switch to metric even despite the large cost of doing this. Most other Western Countries have switched to metric, and the results have proved favourable, it seems that American residents would also benefit from this switch.

Cheers!


----------



## TipNTop (Sep 19, 2002)

I used both at the university: The subject is in imperial units, I calculate with metric system then I write the answer in US units. Very interesting! 

The metric system is based on the observation of our environment.
The imperial system is based on the observation of "me" (very practical to measure a body...and that's all). 

According to you, which will disappear?


----------



## capslock (Oct 9, 2002)

I find it quite amusing the mix in the building industry here in the UK. Architects, engineers and even contractors use metric for everything. The clients and agents etc all use imperial. It depresses me a little that I know off by heart that 1 sq.m. is 10.764 sq.ft.

I had a situation only yesterday when I gave the density of a development in terms of residential units per hectare. The client emailed me back requesting it in square feet per acre, i.e. the length of a legionnaires foot squared per area of field one man can plough in a day.... when you think about it it is ridculous.


----------



## Drunkill (Jul 31, 2004)

Metric is SI, so if your learning somthing in the scientific area of study you have to use it, unless you want to be ignorent.

I don't understand Imperial, it's not logical, I know more about Chains and leauges and fathoms then Imperial, from books and stuff.
And about the cost, it wouldn't cost much, when a roadsign needs to be replaced just chuck up a Metric one instead, when foods get a new package design just convert the diet table into metric ect.


----------



## desirous (Jun 10, 2006)

CharlieP said:


> One thing (of many!) that bugs me about most UK newspapers is that they always talk about "sub-zero" temperatures when we have a cold snap, but then trumpet the fact that it's "101.4 degrees!!" in a heatwave. Fucktards.


Fucktards make the world revolve.

I think they say "101.4 degrees" to trump the same temperature "39 degrees" they have in France.


----------



## RKS (Sep 14, 2002)

what are the physical definitions of foot (inch, yard) and fahrenheit?


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

RKS said:


> what are the physical definitions of foot (inch, yard) and fahrenheit?


In the UK and USA at least, a foot is defined as exactly 0.3048 metres (so an inch is 0.0254 metres, or 25.4mm, and a yard is 0.9144 metres). A degree Fahrenheit is defined as five-ninths of a Kelvin.

EDIT: Just remembered that there is a slightly different definition for the "survey foot" in the USA, namely 1200/3937 metres. Note however that in both cases the definition of the foot is derived from the SI metre


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

Drunkill said:


> I don't understand Imperial, it's not logical, I know more about Chains and leauges and fathoms then Imperial, from books and stuff.


Chains and fathoms *are* Imperial units:

1 chain = 100 links, 66 feet, or 22 yards, or 11 fathoms.
1 fathom = 6 feet or 2 yards.


----------



## jamesinclair (Mar 21, 2006)

Anyone have the story on why the US started making highways imperial and then stopped? Who was responsible?


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

jamesinclair said:


> Anyone have the story on why the US started making highways imperial and then stopped? Who was responsible?


I think you have it confused. US highway signs have historically always been in US customary units (which in terms of distance are the same thing as Imperial), with a few, mostly temporary, metric exceptions...


----------



## jamesinclair (Mar 21, 2006)

CharlieP said:


> I think you have it confused. US highway signs have historically always been in US customary units (which in terms of distance are the same thing as Imperial), with a few, mostly temporary, metric exceptions...


I must have been asleep when i wrote that

According to this thread, there was a time when US highway laws directed new roads to be built to metric standards (1993). Why was this changed back to imperial?


----------



## salvius (Aug 4, 2004)

Wilhem275 said:


> The one which could be divided in an easier way, in 10, 100, 1000... to get always the same units
> Units have to be used by common people, not _defined_. Who minds of the scientific definition of the meter in everyday life! :scouserd:
> 
> 
> ...


No kidding! Imperial conversion, when I have to do it, drives me BONKERS! Very colourful example too, made me laugh.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

I have another example similar to the one Wilhelm275 posted. Today somebody was joking about how he would probably "drink his body weight in beer" on a stag weekend, so I instantly wondered how much beer that was.

Well, in S.I. units it's easy. I weigh 70kg, so that would be about 70 litres of beer.

In imperial I weigh about 11 stones, which is 154 pounds, which is (and I had to think for a minute how many ounces were in a pound) 2,464 ounces. 2,464 fluid ounces equals 123.2 pints. Not quite as easy!


----------



## miamicanes (Oct 31, 2002)

I know _one_ thing that killed kilometers in the US: the government's habit of rounding speed limits _down_ to the nearest whole multiple of 10. I *guarantee* that there would have been a groundswell of popular support for metric signage had the metric speed limits been higher than the imperial ones.

The funniest one I read about, though, was a "44km/h" sign that was vandalized into oblivion within a matter of _days_ by enraged drivers (this was back when the speed limit was still 55mph and about as close to universally detested as a law could get).


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

44mph? Where was that? That's such a random-seeming number!


----------



## Æsahættr (Jul 9, 2004)

I've kindof wrapped myself around the centigrade system. kindof


----------



## miamicanes (Oct 31, 2002)

> 44mph? Where was that? That's such a random-seeming number!


I think it was 30mph. Had they marked the metric speed limit as *50*km/h, people would have been happy.


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

Oh right, 44kmh. That's 27.5mph, isn't it?


----------



## Nutterbug (Feb 3, 2005)

czm3 said:


> Remember our R&D and Science uses the metric system like everybody else, so why make my grandmother learn that her quart is now 0.91 liters?


Because the grandmothers of the world are on their way _out_. Don't hold back the kids of the world and accustom them to obsolete, archaic units to keep them compatible with them.

On the other hand, we can destroy all the modern technology in the world, so that the grannies won't have to stand puzzled, confused and dumbfounded whenever they have to withdraw money from a newly upgraded bank machine.

Mind you, I'm one of those hyperprogressivists who types on a Dvorak keyboard. I have a feeling I'm quite alone on this.


----------



## Nutterbug (Feb 3, 2005)

AndySocks said:


> In America we're used to imperial, and I don't know where the pro-metric lobby gets its jollies, but it should quit trying to make the entire world think alike. Celebrate our differences, fools.


The Romans, their European subjects, and their modern descendants in the Western world should have continued to use Roman numerals, whereas only those Arab Islamic ************* and terrorists should use decimal digits.


----------



## nysgreg (Mar 19, 2006)

http://www.metricsucks.org/ramblings.html

I LOVE this website

_What would life be like if the English standard system didn't exist?

The Indy 500 would be the Indy 804.67; there would also be the Daytona 804.67

A football field would be 91.44 meters long

Jules Verne would never have written 96561 kilometers under the sea

A 9 pound hammer would be known as a 4.0823 kilogram hammer

Peter Piper would have had to pick 7570.8 cubic centimeters of pickled peppers

14515 kilograms and what do your get? Another day older and a deeper in debt.

Top fuel drag racers would be doing the 0.40234 kilometer in under 5 seconds

Give him 2.54 centimeters, he'll take 1.6093 Kilometers

You'd have to order 236.58 milliliters of coffe_


----------



## Æsahættr (Jul 9, 2004)

Nutterbug said:


> Because the grandmothers of the world are on their way _out_. Don't hold back the kids of the world and accustom them to obsolete, archaic units to keep them compatible with them.
> 
> On the other hand, we can destroy all the modern technology in the world, so that the grannies won't have to stand puzzled, confused and dumbfounded whenever they have to withdraw money from a newly upgraded bank machine.
> 
> Mind you, I'm one of those hyperprogressivists who types on a Dvorak keyboard. I have a feeling I'm quite alone on this.


How much do they cost???


----------



## will.exe (Aug 9, 2006)

Jai said:


> Metric measurements is ok, I guess
> 
> But the Celcius so-called "temperature scale" is dangerous and evil


Celsius is better than Farenheit in that it is based entirely on water (ie: 0 degrees is the temperature water freezes at, while it boils at 100)...but it still makes no sense to have negative temperature because--and i am getting very scientific here--it doesnt make sense to have negative particle movement.

In short: temperature should be measured in Kelvin 

It is now 301 degrees outside


----------



## Ning (Jul 18, 2004)

nysgreg said:


> http://www.metricsucks.org/ramblings.html
> 
> I LOVE this website
> 
> ...


It's completly silly. If the English standard system didn't exist, these expressions would not have existed... It would have been Indy 800. A football field would be 90 meters long, etc.... And I feel francophobia on this page http://www.metricsucks.org/history.html

"It is IMPOSSIBLE to divide a meter by three, because you get
0.333333333 etc meters"

Are these guys completly retards ? It's just like saying you can't divide a mile by three, because you get 0.333333333333 miles. :scouserd:


----------



## will.exe (Aug 9, 2006)

FM 2258 said:


> Why is metric the way of the future? I think Imperical is better. The world isn't divided up in 1s, 10s and 1000s. Things are imperfect and I think Imperical (U.S. Customary or whatever) fits our country better.


Until you can spell "imperial" correctly, i will continue to question your credibility.

What many people here fail to realize is that the metric system has not completely taken over in many countries (well this is from a canadian's perspective). We measure speed and distance in kilometers, volume in litres. Officially we measure weights in grams/kilograms, but everyone still measures themselves by feet/inches (i am 6'1"), and pounds for weight. I have yet to meet someone who is 214cm tall and 70kg.


----------



## Nutterbug (Feb 3, 2005)

lotrfan55345 said:


> How much do they cost???


Nothing at all. The Dvorak keyboard layout option is available on the operating system with the exact same keyboard that you already have. You'll just have to familiarize yourself with the key arrangement of the characters, since the keycaps won't match them.


----------



## miamicanes (Oct 31, 2002)

Well, even in the non-metric USA, metric measurement firmly exists in some applications:

* measurement of weights where greater precision than a half ounce is required (grams or milligrams)

* measurement of volumes where precision greater than a half ounce is required (milliliters or cubic centimeters)

* basically, wherever an imperial unit specific to the use in question doesn't exist and fractions would otherwise be necessary. In America, there's nothing unusual about specifying the displacement of an engine in liters, but expressing its power in horsepower. Diamonds are weighed by the carat, but dimensioned in millimeters.


----------



## smartlake (Jul 11, 2004)

Ning said:


> It's completly silly. If the English standard system didn't exist, these expressions would not have existed... It would have been Indy 800. A football field would be 90 meters long, etc.... And I feel francophobia on this page http://www.metricsucks.org/history.html
> 
> "It is IMPOSSIBLE to divide a meter by three, because you get
> 0.333333333 etc meters"
> ...


Obviously you don't understand that those expressions are jokes.

A while back (I am not sure if it is still in effect) the US gov't decided to convert everything into the metric system. In school, we are definitely taught the metric system. Since 7th grade, ALL measurements for ANY science class must be in metric, I am sure that this is consistent with most schools in the US. Even with that, I still cannot relate 300m to whatever its US customary system equivalent is. With temperature, I am a little better, because I remember that 98.6' = 37'.

Also, for the Britons, about what percentage of the time (in normal, non-scientific, everyday life) do you use the imperial system? I thought that only the US used the imperial system. That's pretty bad, too, as my grandma was born in the UK.


----------



## jamesinclair (Mar 21, 2006)

smartlake said:


> Also, for the Britons, about what percentage of the time (in normal, non-scientific, everyday life) do you use the imperial system? I thought that only the US used the imperial system. That's pretty bad, too, as my grandma was born in the UK.


Most of the time. Its worse than the US too. They weigh themselves in stone, but luckily avoid slugs.

Of course, Im sure you grandmother will be able to recite the old money system, which was also not decimal based. Some things take time, unless the government wants to go as far as to ban the mention of the imperial system in media and so on. Obviously, theres no real need to do so.

Nobody is being hurt because theyre using the imperial system in daily life. Pounds, farenheight, inches, its fine. The problem comes when you need it for industry or science, when inches just arent convenient and you need something smaller or bigger.


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

i have never seen a single sign in metric system..


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

el tico said:


> I'm a proud Central American who uses the metric system, but I'm cool with the imperial one, cause part of my family is from the U.S. I guess you get used to the system you grow up with, whether it's metric (honestly the best), imperial, measuring with a rock or a stick, ...
> 
> But if either the metric or the imperial system had to take over the world, it would definitely be the....metric one!
> But everyone should feel free to use the system they personally are OK with.


In Nicaragua they still using the imperial system, i heard that the nicaraguan government wanted to switch to the metric system but people got confuse so they preffer the imperial system.


----------



## gladisimo (Dec 11, 2006)

alex537 said:


> i have never seen a single sign in metric system..


Interestingly, there are metric distance signs on the 580 between the 880 and the 680 in California, I have no idea for what reasons, but the "distance to city" signs have mileages in miles and kilometers


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

gladisimo said:


> Interestingly, there are metric distance signs on the 580 between the 880 and the 680 in California, I have no idea for what reasons, but the "distance to city" signs have mileages in miles and kilometers


i havent seen it yet.


----------



## Billpa (Feb 26, 2006)

Here are some examples of signs that use both metric and English measurements in Maine and New Hampshire...


----------



## Zaki (Apr 16, 2005)

Man its just hte stupid old people holding the US back from joining the rest of the world. Most of my cousins in the US have no problem understanding metric since you can't do science without metric and hence they are quite proficient with it. And also, all you people saying its the US's business whether they switch to metric or not, you really need to go learn how this world works. Since the US uses imperial, students all over the world taking engineering are also forced to learn imperial in order to take out the risk of not understanding a measurement if something comes from the US. And learning to use such an illogical system where they basically just came up with random numbers for moving between units is very annoying.


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg (Jan 28, 2007)

I don't make a big deal out of it. I was born and raised in a country that adopted metric system some 80 years ago, so I think in metres, kilogrammes, litres, etc. After coming to the US, I found out that I would be perfectly fine staying metric since all the products sold in stores have metric units, and at home we always measure everything in metric system. Besides, I replaced my Imperial speedometer with the one that measures only in metric, so no matter where I drive, my speed is always in km/h


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg (Jan 28, 2007)

alex537 said:


> In Nicaragua they still using the imperial system, i heard that the nicaraguan government wanted to switch to the metric system but people got confuse so they preffer the imperial system.


Dude, are you really from Nicaragua? :lol: Because you know... Nicaragua has been metric for about 100 years! All the signs there are posted in metric units:


----------



## gladisimo (Dec 11, 2006)

Same for me, I've lived in both places, and I can readily interchange the two systems (weight, length, volume)... all you really have to remember is 1 mi = 1.6 km, 1 kg = 2.2 lb, 1 gal = 3.9 L, 1 in = 2.54 cm, and that's pretty much it, I guess I can do mental calculations for rough estimates pretty well.


----------



## xzmattzx (Dec 24, 2004)

Delaware uses metric "mile markers" on Route 1, the expressway going from the Wilmington/Newark are to Dover. President CLinton decided to use Route 1 as one of the test sites into using the metric system on roads back in the mid 1990's, when Route 1 was built. Exits are not numbered in increments or by mileage, but by kilometers. I believe that distances were also in kilometers ("SMYRNA 5 KM", for example), but those were switched to miles if they were.


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg (Jan 28, 2007)

*Gladisimo*
Being comfortbale with both systems is understandable, but do you think in metric or customary units? For instance, when someone says "50 metres", would you immdeiately know how far it is? Same for 150 feet? As for me, I still need 1-2 seconds to convert from feet to metres in order to understand what length it is.


----------



## gladisimo (Dec 11, 2006)

Interesting notion, I suppose for me, it depends on the context of what is being measured. For example, for volumes, I often think in gallons for fuel, rather than liters, but for most other things (mostly for drinks and engine displacement, I'm used to thinking in liters and milliliters. For lengths, I'm almost indifferent in terms of height, (I'm both 5'10" and 178 cm) and for distance I'm more used to miles and inches, while for weight, I'm more used to pounds. 

I suppose this is a result of the context of daily life I'm exposed to, since drinks usually come in 500mL or 2 L bottles, whereas distances are measured in miles, and height in feet and inches, while weight around here are usually in pounds.


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

Alex Von Königsberg said:


> Dude, are you really from Nicaragua? :lol: Because you know... Nicaragua has been metric for about 100 years! All the signs there are posted in metric units:


but they use pounds haha


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

I've never had a problem alternating, I have to use the metric system extensively in science.

The reason why not much people support going metric is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is the reason. People don't want to change to a new system that is different than the one that they learned when they were little. It will take years for the transition, if it ever happens, to be successful.


----------



## CrazyCanuck (Oct 9, 2004)

The U.S. will not switch unless they have to right now. It would cost an absolute fortune to change all the signs, text-books etc...

The most logical way of doing it would be state by state, all at once would be too much.


----------



## Nutterbug (Feb 3, 2005)

CrazyCanuck said:


> The U.S. will not switch unless they have to right now. It would cost an absolute fortune to change all the signs, text-books etc...
> 
> The most logical way of doing it would be state by state, all at once would be too much.


You'll have to count on some of the more progressive and cosmopolitan states (eg. California) to take the first steps on this, and the hick red(neck) states to catch on last.

I wonder if it would be in violation of any federal laws for any states to go ahead and change their street signs and school curriculum to metric.


----------



## gladisimo (Dec 11, 2006)

They teach metric in science, by the way (no math books, but any quantifying science, eg Chemistry. Physics use both systems)


----------



## Brendan (Feb 24, 2006)

DrJoe said:


> Why?? Do they like confusing people or something.


It's like asking Americans why they use the imperial system, very confusing confusing to the entire rest of the world.


----------



## Chicagoago (Dec 2, 2005)

^ I think right now we just have the "sorry, it's not our problem" take on the situation. It takes some sort of incentive to make people go through a change like that, and today we just don't have anything MAKING people want to change.


----------



## FM 2258 (Jan 24, 2004)

Billpa said:


> Here are some examples of signs that use both metric and English measurements in Maine and New Hampshire...



That's interesting but as a U.S. driver I would totally ignore the metric measurement. I "know" and can "feel" what a mile is like but if you tell me 1.6km I have to convert that shit back to miles.


----------



## go_leafs_go02 (Jan 16, 2007)

Canadian here, who gets influenced by the american media enough to be able to convert most.

however, you ask for my height or weight in metric. I honestly couldn't tell you. Temperatures I think in Celsius but can get over to Fahrenheit with relative ease. Distance, metric of course (Getting used to distances in the longer mile is a pain in the butt, merely cause its much longer than a km)

I think metric in the USA will happen eventually, as the younger generation gets educated and familiar with metric, some states (like the aforementioned California) may make the switch on their own, causing other states to follow suit eventually leading to one state to be the only imperial state left and be the stubborn one out, but yet celebrated and noted for staying with tradition (kinda like Saskatchewan in Canada not participating in daylight savings time)


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

I don't see the logic in the mile-system, there are no 1000 yards in a mile but some 1760. That's doesn't make sense. The metricsystem is more logical i guess, a 1000 meters is one kilometer.

But, i can imagine, when a whole country is adjusted to the mile system, you don't throw that easily overboard, and pick the metrical system.


----------



## FM 2258 (Jan 24, 2004)

Chris1491 said:


> I don't see the logic in the mile-system, there are no 1000 yards in a mile but some 1760. That's doesn't make sense. The metricsystem is more logical i guess, a 1000 meters is one kilometer.
> 
> But, i can imagine, when a whole country is adjusted to the mile system, you don't throw that easily overboard, and pick the metrical system.


It's not logical but it's what works for the U.S. It's like saying English is more logical because it only has 26 letters in the alphabet vs. the many characters in the Chinese "alphabet." If you grew up speaking Chinese (Mandarin/Cantonese) it would be easier than English. When we grow up thinking 1 mile = 5280 feet, it's easier to comprehend than 1km = 1000m. 

In the U.K. I was surprised to see that they also use miles on their highways but instead of measuring in fractions and feet, they used yards for exits and other short distance measurements. Since I'm not used to seeing "yards" on the highway here in the U.S, it was still hard for me to get a feel for how much time I had when the sign said the exit was 200yds. Now tell me the exit is 1 mile, 1/2 mile, 2500ft, or 1000ft and I know exactly what you're talking about.


----------



## gladisimo (Dec 11, 2006)

FM 2258 said:


> It's not logical but it's what works for the U.S. It's like saying English is more logical because it only has 26 letters in the alphabet vs. the many characters in the Chinese "alphabet." If you grew up speaking Chinese (Mandarin/Cantonese) it would be easier than English. When we grow up thinking 1 mile = 5280 feet, it's easier to comprehend than 1km = 1000m.
> 
> In the U.K. I was surprised to see that they also use miles on their highways but instead of measuring in fractions and feet, they used yards for exits and other short distance measurements. Since I'm not used to seeing "yards" on the highway here in the U.S, it was still hard for me to get a feel for how much time I had when the sign said the exit was 200yds. Now tell me the exit is 1 mile, 1/2 mile, 2500ft, or 1000ft and I know exactly what you're talking about.


That's why they try to standardize it in terms of science, when having those kind of units would be immensely frustrating to work with. 

I think your example is perfect, it 1) illustrates the inconvenience of the Imperial system, since a mile is 1760 yards, its harder to get a feel for how much 200 yds. is, than if it were base 10, and 2) it shows that even with the same measurement system, the acclimatization of the way in which those units are portrayed and used also plays a factor.


----------



## Zaki (Apr 16, 2005)

Well to all the people in the US, saying they are just used to it, didnt they have same opposition in the UK when the UK currency wasn't base 10 and instead had some random numbers going from pence to dines to pounds and shit. Once the change was forced on them, people (even the old people) got used to it and realized how much more logical base 10 is and how much easier it makes everyday work. And on top of that, foreigners could ifnally understand british money. US using imperial is the same problem. The majority of the world can hardly understand it and the only way to really get a sense of it unlike base 10 is if you were brought up with it.


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg (Jan 28, 2007)

FM, have you ever driven anywhere except USA and UK?  Based on your own account, you get extremely frustrated if the distance is in kilometres and if there are more major cities indicated on the directional signs than you are used to


----------



## gladisimo (Dec 11, 2006)

Zaki said:


> Well to all the people in the US, saying they are just used to it, didnt they have same opposition in the UK when the UK currency wasn't base 10 and instead had some random numbers going from pence to dines to pounds and shit. Once the change was forced on them, people (even the old people) got used to it and realized how much more logical base 10 is and how much easier it makes everyday work. And on top of that, foreigners could ifnally understand british money. US using imperial is the same problem. The majority of the world can hardly understand it and the only way to really get a sense of it unlike base 10 is if you were brought up with it.


then the problem is that there is not enough of a drive for the system to change, i suppose, its not a major problem that needs to be addressed immediately


----------



## thainotts (Jun 26, 2006)

FM 2258 said:


> Why is metric the way of the future? I think Imperical is better. The world isn't divided up in 1s, 10s and 1000s. Things are imperfect and I think Imperical (U.S. Customary or whatever) fits our country better.


Sorry, but the truth is, the world is divided into 1s, 10s, and 1000s. The reason metric makes sense is because humans use the decimal system. This reason alone makes metric much more systematic and easy to use. Let me ask you this, when you learnt the multiplication tables, which did you find easiest except for the 1s row? The 10s, because all you have to do is add zeros.

And the argument that the system fits your country better is all in your mind. As you've said yourself, you've been raised on it, and it makes sense for planners to build things to whole number measurements, so what is 1 mile turns out to be 1.6.... kilometers doesn't happen because metric "doesn't fit."

But its the US's choice anyways. You can't blame them for loving or being raised in the Imperial System. That's the only legitimate reason you can claim for choosing miles over kilometers.


----------



## thainotts (Jun 26, 2006)

FM 2258 said:


> It's not logical but it's what works for the U.S. It's like saying English is more logical because it only has 26 letters in the alphabet vs. the many characters in the Chinese "alphabet." If you grew up speaking Chinese (Mandarin/Cantonese) it would be easier than English. When we grow up thinking 1 mile = 5280 feet, it's easier to comprehend than 1km = 1000m.
> 
> In the U.K. I was surprised to see that they also use miles on their highways but instead of measuring in fractions and feet, they used yards for exits and other short distance measurements. Since I'm not used to seeing "yards" on the highway here in the U.S, it was still hard for me to get a feel for how much time I had when the sign said the exit was 200yds. Now tell me the exit is 1 mile, 1/2 mile, 2500ft, or 1000ft and I know exactly what you're talking about.


A little tidbit of info: Chinese, in fact, will sometimes use a character to mimic a sound instead of abstractly representing that character's meaning. Also, Chinese characters are composed of smaller elements that can add to the meaning, therefore, if you're able to break down the composition of a character, you can sometimes deduce the logic behind it.

As for the English alphabet, I once read an analysis that presents a spectrum of entirely phonetic to entirely symbolic languages. English was nowhere near being entirely phonetic, so to compare English with the metric system is fallacious.

Anyways, languages are a different issues entirely, but it was an interesting comparison you've made, FM. BTW, I've got no problem with the US not being metric, its entirely their choice.


----------



## ADCS (Oct 30, 2006)

thainotts said:


> Sorry, but the truth is, the world is divided into 1s, 10s, and 1000s.


Nah, it's divided into halves, thirds, quarters, eighths, etc. much more easily than tenths. If we had a different number of fingers other than ten, we would certainly use a different base counting system, not to mention a different form of the metric system (though it would probably be similar in mechanism). Face it, mathematically, ten is not a very useful number, evenly divisible only by itself, two, five and one. Twelve, for example, is evenly divisible by itself, six, four, three, two and one.

The customary system makes a lot of sense for the time it was invented, with the units based on easily identifiable everyday things, and then pared down to the ones most readily useful (we use feet and not hands because feet are more useful). Not only that, but they use the most common ratios, very important for a time when there weren't calculators. You have a foot-long length of string, you know how long a foot is, four inches (fold into three), three inches (fold into four), two inches (fold into three, then fold again), etc.

Metric might make more sense today, but before the modern era, customary/imperial, at least in linear measurement, kicked its ass. That's why no one used base 10 until the French.


----------



## Nutterbug (Feb 3, 2005)

^ With the advent of binary logic based technology, you suppose we'll switch over to a numeric system with a base that's a power of 2?


----------



## ADCS (Oct 30, 2006)

Nutterbug said:


> ^ With the advent of binary logic based technology, you suppose we'll switch over to a numeric system with a base that's a power of 2?


Nope, we've been using our fingers to count for too long. Besides, do you think anyone could read this: 100011101011011010011001, without having to think about it?


----------



## Nutterbug (Feb 3, 2005)

ADCS said:


> Nope, we've been using our fingers to count for too long. Besides, do you think anyone could read this: 100011101011011010011001, without having to think about it?


How about base 8 or 16?


----------



## ADCS (Oct 30, 2006)

Nutterbug said:


> How about base 8 or 16?


Then the metric system doesn't work so well, and we're back to where we are today.

Nope, horribly inefficient base 10 is going to have to stay.


----------



## gladisimo (Dec 11, 2006)

ADCS said:


> If someone is, say, 195 cm, I'll just say he's about 6' or so, since that's pretty close.


In small numbers it matters, but not in bigger cases! 195 cm is actually 6'4/5, which when you're talking about height of a person, makes quite a difference!


----------



## ADCS (Oct 30, 2006)

Alex Von Königsberg said:


> You've got to be joking. Don't tell me it is easier to calculate 3/4 + 3/8 than 0.750 + 0.375.


Sure it is. 3/4 is 6/8 which plus 3/8 equals 9/8, or 1.125. Sure, putting the decimals in the calculator is easier, but when working by hand, fractions win out almost every time. That's why after we started Algebra in school, we never worked in decimals in math class again. 



> In small numbers it matters, but not in bigger cases! 195 cm is actually 6'4/5, which when you're talking about height of a person, makes quite a difference!


OK, you're right there. Those three extra inches do come into play, especially in height. 



> If we assume that most liquids have the density of water (1 g/cm³) then you can momentarily convert mL into grammes and litres into kg. If you come to a store, you wouldn't ask for a "1/8 kg of cheese". You would say you need "150 g of cheese".


That's how it was done in Mexico. However, given my already-stated love for fractions, I'm sure I'd still do it with fractions even if we converted. :nuts:


----------



## ADCS (Oct 30, 2006)

For the record, I appreciate these discussions. I certainly wouldn't have much of a problem if the US converted to metric; however, I think that healthy debate is very important, and that it helps us all understand each other better.


----------



## Maxx☢Power (Nov 16, 2005)

Alex Von Königsberg said:


> Distances under 1 km (short or long) are measured in metres, no exception.


I use hectometres and dekametres


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg (Jan 28, 2007)

MaxxPower said:


> I use hectometres and dekametres


:crazy2: :laugh: You've got to be the first one who does it.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

Alex Von Königsberg said:


> :crazy2: :laugh: You've got to be the first one who does it.


We have hectometer posts along the motorway, instead of milemarkers. But Decameters?


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg (Jan 28, 2007)

Chris1491 said:


> We have hectometer posts along the motorway, instead of milemarkers. But Decameters?


I meant units that you use in your daily life. You would never say "3 hectometres" when you are giving directions to someone. Instead, you would say "300 metres", right? :lol:


----------



## Jimmy81 (Jan 30, 2007)

ADCS said:


> No, I agree. As I said, metric probably makes more sense today, with calculators and all. A foot has no real relation to anyone's foot size, it's mostly derived from a bunch of measurements that once had to do with someone's foot size. It's just as arbitrary as a meter.
> 
> One more thing, why is being able to move the decimal point all that important? In physics class, I would be docked points if I put 2.5 km/s as opposed to 2500 m/s (just for an example, not real life in the least bit). Same as if I put 25 cm/s as opposed to 0.25 m/s. It's almost as if the SI actually got rid of the biggest advantage of the metric system! Only way it really helps is when you have to convert to the base measurement, which in a real-life situation, isn't really all that important often.
> 
> The biggest true advantage of the metric system is that most of the other units of measurement in a scientific context are based on metric measurements.


One reason why you probably got docked points off is
1) Because you didn't give the right units that was given in the question in the first place.
or 2) you didn't use the correct number of significant digits.

That's why metric continuous to be consistent.


----------



## ADCS (Oct 30, 2006)

Jimmy81 said:


> One reason why you probably got docked points off is
> 1) Because you didn't give the right units that was given in the question in the first place.
> or 2) you didn't use the correct number of significant digits.
> 
> That's why metric continuous to be consistent.


Then again, that's pretty pointless, isn't it? 2.5 km is the same as 2500 m, so why the need for conversion? It's just anal-retentive people having to get everything exactly right, and getting pissed off if it isn't, not to mention lording it over those who don't nearly care as much. Oh, and sig figs... show me a normal, non-science enthusiast who can even figure out how to do them right.

Besides, we are talking in an everyday context, not the highly specialized scientific realm, of which I have already stated SI is better for.


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg (Jan 28, 2007)

ADCS said:


> Besides, we are talking in an everyday context, not the highly specialized scientific realm, of which I have already stated SI is better for.


Believe it or not, outside of the USA people actually live in this so-called "scientific realm" doing decimal calculations and other related things. And you know what? They consider it an everyday life :lol: 

Besides, what do you usually do if a fraction's denominator is not a power of 2? Something like 5/11 + 7/9.


----------



## Avatar (Sep 11, 2002)

^^ haha so true, its about time metric was adopted everywhere regardless of the problems it would cause in the US.


----------



## Nutterbug (Feb 3, 2005)

Why stifle progress for the sake of the old dinosaurs?


----------



## ADCS (Oct 30, 2006)

Alex Von Königsberg said:


> Believe it or not, outside of the USA people actually live in this so-called "scientific realm" doing decimal calculations and other related things. And you know what? They consider it an everyday life :lol:
> 
> Besides, what do you usually do if a fraction's denominator is not a power of 2? Something like 5/11 + 7/9.


Honestly, does it matter if it is represented as 2500 m or 2.5 km? You know what is being talked about either way, so the conversion is pretty much unnecessary. Give me an everyday occurrence where you would HAVE to convert between different scales. It's pretty rare, isn't it?

5 times 9 is 45. 7 times 11 is 77. 45+77 is 122. So it's 122/99. Which may seem unwieldy, but in a mathematical context is a hell of a lot more precise than 1.23232323232323232323..., especially when you have to do more work with the numbers. Besides, if we are talking about everyday measurements, 7/11 in. would be as absurd as measuring something as 113567 μm. Sure, there are areas where you would need that precision, but generally that is very specialized. Something that needs to be about that long would be standardized to 5/8 in. Just as the 113567 μm would be standardized to 114 or 115 mm. 



> Why stifle progress for the sake of the old dinosaurs?


Why "progress" when it is unnecessary? To make everyone else happy? What's wrong with sticking with something that works for you?


----------



## Nephasto (Feb 6, 2004)

ADCS said:


> Give me an everyday occurrence where you would HAVE to convert between different scales. It's pretty rare, isn't it?


Foe example when you are on a freeway and you see a sign stating the next exit is in 300m. You automatically know that's 0.3 Km's, so you know how much is it.

If you have a sign stating the distance for the next exit in feet, you have no idea what part of a mile does that represent... and as you're used to distances in miles for roads, that sign in feet will confuse you... unlike the metric signs in roads where distances are measured in km's.


That's just an everyday exemple... there are tons of others.


----------



## Nutterbug (Feb 3, 2005)

ADCS said:


> Why "progress" when it is unnecessary? To make everyone else happy? What's wrong with sticking with something that works for you?


Why invent automobiles when horse carriages work?


----------



## Nephasto (Feb 6, 2004)

How do you measure for example distances in a house or so in the US?
In metric, for a roam, it could be something like 4.5 x 5.6 m^2.

How do you do in there? I guess you measure it in feets... But feets and fractions of feets, or do you also use inches, like you do when measuring a person's height? :nuts:


Another great thing about metric scale is that we just need 1 scale in our rulers.
If someone who works with furniture is measuring a new piece, he willl just measure it with a ruler marked with mm's and cm's... and he can measure any distance with it.... be it 1.2m, 27 cm or 17mm.

How do you do in there? The rulers must have diferent scale I guess. 1 with inches... and another with feet, if you need to use feet. And what unit do you use for measures below inches?


----------



## Nephasto (Feb 6, 2004)

Nutterbug said:


> Why invent automobiles when horse carriages work?


Exactly. 
The right answer for the reply ADCS made to your post. kay:


----------



## Nutterbug (Feb 3, 2005)

ADCS said:


> Then again, that's pretty pointless, isn't it? 2.5 km is the same as 2500 m, so why the need for conversion?


Would you like to say it's 384,400,000 meters to the moon, or the diameter of a hydrogen atom is 0.000000000005 meters everytime?



ADCS said:


> It's just anal-retentive people having to get everything exactly right, and getting pissed off if it isn't, not to mention lording it over those who don't nearly care as much. Oh, and sig figs... show me a normal, non-science enthusiast who can even figure out how to do them right.
> 
> Besides, we are talking in an everyday context, not the highly specialized scientific realm, of which I have already stated SI is better for.


Isn't it more educationally beneficial for a school age child to be more in tune with the scientific community than with grandma and grandpa?


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

Nephasto said:


> And what unit do you use for measures below inches?


Millimetres. One inch is 25,4 millimeters, makes sense, right? :nuts:


----------



## ADCS (Oct 30, 2006)

Nutterbug said:


> Why invent automobiles when horse carriages work?


Not even the same sort of thing. Horse carriages don't work nearly as well as cars do for most things we need to do on a daily basis. For most things, the two measurement systems work just as well. Otherwise, the US would be an undeveloped cesspool (which it's not, obviously).



> Would you like to say it's 384,400,000 meters to the moon, or the diameter of a hydrogen atom is 0.000000000005 meters everytime?


That's silly and pedantic. Just as silly as saying it's 1,191,286,089 feet to the moon. No one works in those sort of scales (except in a scientific context, as I keep stating). Most people would immediately work with kilometers when talking about something as far away as the moon, a meter being exactly 1/1000 of a kilometer is not relevant information, unless you do have to convert, which in a scientific SI environment, is useful (*which is why it is good for science and American scientists use it exclusively*).



> Isn't it more educationally beneficial for a school age child to be more in tune with the scientific community than with grandma and grandpa?


They certainly deal with grandma and grandpa more often than the scientific community. Most of them are not going to be scientists; those that do will learn SI.

You have to understand, for most Americans (and a good bit of the British, as well), this is akin to us telling the rest of the world that they are stupid for not speaking English exclusively. Not nearly on the scale of that, but the same sort of offense.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

i wonder what is next to that bridge to make a 40km/h/25mph speedlimit.


----------



## Billpa (Feb 26, 2006)

Chris1491 said:


> i wonder what is next to that bridge to make a 40km/h/25mph speedlimit.


If you look in the background, it appears the road's about to make a serious curve to the left...


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg (Jan 28, 2007)

It is an interesting question. I didn't take this photo, so I don't know why the speed limit was 40 km/h.

There is a difference between the USA and Europe in a way the speed limit is set. In Europe, the speed limit may be lowered outside of populated areas to reflect the change in landscape such as the presence of dangerous curves, the width of the roadway, etc. In the USA, on the other hand, the speed limit outside of villages remains the same (e.g., 90 km/h), and should there be a curve or bent, a warning sign will be posted advising to drive with a certain speed. The official limit, however, will remain 90 km/h. 

Also, within the National parks in the USA, the speed limits may be very low even though the road condition allows to drive at a much higher speed. This might just be the case.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

There are advisory speed limits in Europe too. 

In the Netherlands, this is signed this way:









note; this is not a minimum speed! (as seen in Portugal)


----------



## Nutterbug (Feb 3, 2005)

pwalker said:


> Alex, where was this taken? Looks like E. Washington.
> 
> I don't think this is that common in Washington, maybe up near the Canadian border, but I don't see a lot of signs like that.


Probably (hopefully) the start of a phase-in, coming soon to a sign post near you.


----------



## ADCS (Oct 30, 2006)

Nutterbug said:


> Probably (hopefully) the start of a phase-in, coming soon to a sign post near you.


Here's a page you would like, then.


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg (Jan 28, 2007)

*vs.*









How large should a US sign be, so that the numerical part will be equal to that of the European sign? It seems like a lot of wasted space to me. Why not to do like Canadians, at least?


----------



## acorn (Apr 18, 2007)

lotrfan55345 said:


> All imperial here in MN.  (I think)


In the US we use the SAE system ( smaller gallons 3.78 L ) not the Imperial system (bigger gallons 4.54 L & different measurements of force ) . In 1962 we set up metric equivilents , so technically we are tied to the meteric system .


----------



## Nutterbug (Feb 3, 2005)

Alex Von Königsberg said:


> How large should a US sign be, so that the numerical part will be equal to that of the European sign? It seems like a lot of wasted space to me. Why not to do like Canadians, at least?


If you saw that sign on the Trans-Canada Highway in the Fraser Valley, I think it means the number of East Indian farm workers you can fit into a van. :lol:


----------



## mgk920 (Apr 21, 2007)

Alex Von Königsberg said:


> *vs.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


These signs with a circle around 'km/h' speed numbers were just adopted for the first time in the latest USA Federal Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices ('MUTCD') update that was approved within the past two years. I'm glad that they adopted that circle and I consider it to be a very good first step. Previously, 'km/h' limits were to be displayed in the same manner as 'MPH' speeds, but only with a little 'km/h' under the numbers.

Now, perhaps that circle can be made red and some of the 'wordiness' removed in the next update. However, I think that the reason why the people maintaining that book are a bit skittish on that is that might conflict with the MUTCD's standard state highway route marker sign, which is a circle (but less than half of the USA's states use a circle to denote state highway numbers) and especially New Mexico's state highway route sign, which is a red Zia 'Sun' symbol circle around the numbers and they do look a lot like Worldwide standard speed limit signs. I'd like to see the Federal MUTCD go to a square for their 'standard' state route signs, like those used in Maine, Massachusetts, Texas, Illinois, Indiana and a few others.

We can only hope and lobby the right people.

 

Mike


----------



## Nutterbug (Feb 3, 2005)

n/m


----------



## ADCS (Oct 30, 2006)

mgk920 said:


> These signs with a circle around 'km/h' speed numbers were just adopted for the first time in the latest USA Federal Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices ('MUTCD') update that was approved within the past two years. I'm glad that they adopted that circle and I consider it to be a very good first step. Previously, 'km/h' limits were to be displayed in the same manner as 'MPH' speeds, but only with a little 'km/h' under the numbers.
> 
> Now, perhaps that circle can be made red and some of the 'wordiness' removed in the next update. However, I think that the reason why the people maintaining that book are a bit skittish on that is that might conflict with the MUTCD's standard state highway route marker sign, which is a circle (but less than half of the USA's states use a circle to denote state highway numbers) and especially New Mexico's state highway route sign, which is a red Zia 'Sun' symbol circle around the numbers and they do look a lot like Worldwide standard speed limit signs. I'd like to see the Federal MUTCD go to a square for their 'standard' state route signs, like those used in Maine, Massachusetts, Texas, Illinois, Indiana and a few others.
> 
> ...


I think the big difference is that in most states, speed limits are not codified under the prohibitory road regulations, as the red circle would indicate. They are regulatory, which is why it is in a black-and-white rectangle.

I do like the design, and think that it would be good if they used the circle for both standard and metric signs, just switching out MPH and km/h at the bottom, then getting rid of the words SPEED LIMIT at the top. We can work on the red circle way down the line. Of course, if the US does metricate, just get rid of the standard part of the last sentence.

The Canadian signs are as such to qualify as being bilingual, if I remember correctly.


----------



## Nephasto (Feb 6, 2004)

Chris1491 said:


> There are advisory speed limits in Europe too.
> 
> In the Netherlands, this is signed this way:
> 
> ...


Minimum speed signs are round (like the one from the bottom seen in my avatar), unlike those rectangular ones, which indicate the recommended maximum speed limit(not maximum legal speed limit).
We have them both in Portugal (and in the rest of the european countries, I suppose).


----------



## mgk920 (Apr 21, 2007)

ADCS said:


> I think the big difference is that in most states, speed limits are not codified under the prohibitory road regulations, as the red circle would indicate. They are regulatory, which is why it is in a black-and-white rectangle.
> 
> I do like the design, and think that it would be good if they used the circle for both standard and metric signs, just switching out MPH and km/h at the bottom, then getting rid of the words SPEED LIMIT at the top. We can work on the red circle way down the line. Of course, if the US does metricate, just get rid of the standard part of the last sentence.
> 
> The Canadian signs are as such to qualify as being bilingual, if I remember correctly.


Dimensional limits signage is very similar in the RotW (Rest of the World), too, using a red circle with in-pointing arrows and the height/width limit (ie, '3,9m') or, if it is a weight limit, with a look identical to the speed limit signage except with the weight limit (ie, '15,0t') inside the red circle.

One could look at them as being 'prohibitory' signs (even though they are technically 'regulatory'), even in the USA, as they say that (whatever) beyond those limits is 'prohibited'.

I like that sign logic, too, and think that the 'blue disc = mandatory' signage should also be adopted here. I especially like the RotW's 'keep right/left' sign - it is far, far, far better than the messy sign now used in the USA.

Mike


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg (Jan 28, 2007)

Oh yeah, mate! European sign is much more recognisable from larger distance. And much more obvious too.








vs.


----------



## ADCS (Oct 30, 2006)

mgk920 said:


> Dimensional limits signage is very similar in the RotW (Rest of the World), too, using a red circle with in-pointing arrows and the height/width limit (ie, '3,9m') or, if it is a weight limit, with a look identical to the speed limit signage except with the weight limit (ie, '15,0t') inside the red circle.
> 
> One could look at them as being 'prohibitory' signs (even though they are technically 'regulatory'), even in the USA, as they say that (whatever) beyond those limits is 'prohibited'.


Yeah, I agree that it could be seen either way, but then again, you are getting into the funny territory of de facto versus de jure. Many states literally cannot have prohibitory speed limit signs, since they have _prima facie_ speed limits. In Texas, for example, it is not illegal to drive faster than 70 mph on such posted highways if you can prove to the judge that it was reasonable and prudent to do so. The fact that this never happens notwithstanding, for speed limits to be posted as prohibitory would be completely inappropriate.

I'm not as sure about height and weight limits, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were the same logic (it being prohibited internationally to drive vehicles exceeding the limits, while not specifically legally prohibited in the US)


----------



## Billpa (Feb 26, 2006)

Alex Von Königsberg said:


> Oh yeah, mate! European sign is much more recognisable from larger distance. And much more obvious too.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I like the North American arrow around the median sign...but I think it should be used with an arrow pointing down like the blue sign you're showing. I would use a yellow diamond with a large arrow pointing in the same direction as the European sign. I would place the yellow diamond close to the ground, as well.


----------



## RSG (Jul 7, 2006)

Everyone in the world should use the metric system. It makes more sense.


----------



## ADCS (Oct 30, 2006)

RSG said:


> Everyone in the world should use the metric system. It makes more sense.


PSST... that was two pages ago... :nuts:


----------



## Avatar (Sep 11, 2002)

LOL it might have been two pages ago but its not something that should be swept under the carpet. 

ADCS, you're crazy. It's time the US got with the program and stopped burying its head in the sand on the issue of metric and imperial. You justify the US not adopting it because imperial works, and you're scientists are the only ones needing to use metric SI units?

Newsflash ... everyone else seems to be using it, from primary school students to aeronautical engineers. It is standard and it's crazy to think the US persists with such an archaic measurement system such as imperial.


----------



## PLH (Mar 9, 2007)

POLAND:

Highways:



















Expressways:


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

New Jersey:



























New York Thruway:









County Road:









US Highway variant:









Pennsylvania Turnpike:









Ohio Turnpike:









Connecticut Turnpike:









Merritt Parkway, Connecticut:









Massachusetts Turnpike:









Spaulding Turnpike, New Hampshire:









Florida Toll Road:































































Denver Ringroad:


















Kentucky Parkways:


























































































Dallas North Tollway


----------



## KIWIKAAS (May 13, 2003)

Wow Chris! Great rundown on US route markers.


----------



## KIWIKAAS (May 13, 2003)

New Zealand

State Highway









Direction sign with state highway and local route shields










Tourist route markers

Thermal Explorer Hwy 








Alpine Pacific Triangle 








Forgotten World Hwy








Inland Scenic Route 72 








Pacific Coast Hwy








Surf Highway 45








Southern Scenic Route








Twin Coast Discovery Hwy


----------



## KIWIKAAS (May 13, 2003)

*Australian route markers*

National Highway










National M (motorway/ freeway/ expressway) route










National Route


















State route
(This marker is no longer used in Tasmania, South Australia, and Victoria)










Alphanumeric M (motorway/freeway/expressway) route in Victoria, South Australia, and Queensland










Alphanumeric A (highway/main route) route in VIC, South Australia, NSW, Tasmania










Alphanumeric B (highway/ route) route in VIC, South Australia, Tasmania










Alphanumeric C (highway/ route) route in VIC, South Australia, Tasmania










Metroad (metropolitan route) NSW,QLD










Tourist route










Old Freeway markers (no longer in use)


----------



## FM 2258 (Jan 24, 2004)

Chriszwolle said:


> Texas style:
> 
> 
> Farm-to-Market Road




I love the Texas farm road sign.


----------



## Czas na Żywiec (Jan 17, 2005)

Wow, it must have taken you a lot of time to track down all those signs, thanks for sharing!


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

Nice collection and a good idea for a thread! Where's that Bush Tpk?


----------



## ADCS (Oct 30, 2006)

Verso said:


> Nice collection and a good idea for a thread! Where's that Bush Tpk?


Dallas suburbs. Don't worry, it's for the first President Bush.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

My state in the US (Connecticut) has a dull sign marker. :|


----------



## Patrick (Sep 11, 2002)

wow! that a many markers there in the us!

Germany

Autobahn

















Schnellstraße









Bundesstraße









Europastraße


----------



## jchernin (Jul 21, 2005)

maybe im biased but...

i always liked the ca style of the federal route markers (which doesnt have a corny black background), plus ca is the ONLY state marker that isnt a square

its makes it nice and consistent: all route markers (including of course interstates) are SHIELDS, not just signs


----------



## martien (Aug 3, 2005)

Mexican Federal Highways


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

This is an example of a numbered route for HK


----------



## RoadUser (Aug 10, 2007)

Israel:

Motorways:










Intercity highways:











Regional highways:











Local highways:










Toll road:










The symbol in the circle is the sign for Israel's currency, the Shekel.


----------



## PLH (Mar 9, 2007)

RoadUser said:


> Toll road: (...)The symbol in the circle is the sign for Israel's currency, the Shekel.


It might seem to be incomprehensible for foreigners - does it have a 'Toll road' badge as well or not?


----------



## RoadUser (Aug 10, 2007)

PLH said:


> It might seem to be incomprehensible for foreigners - does it have a 'Toll road' badge as well or not?


There is actually only one toll road in Israel - Road 6, a north-south motorway which at present is about 90km long and is being extended both northwards and southwards. 

As well as the above symbol it also has verbal signs at all of its entrances explaining the system. The toll system is completely electronic - a picture is taken of your license plate and you get a bill in the mail.

You can read about it here (not completely up to date):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_6_(Israel)

and here:

http://www.derech-eretz.com/Eng/aboutproject.asp


----------



## PLH (Mar 9, 2007)

RoadUser said:


> The toll system is completely electronic - a picture is taken of your license plate and you get a bill in the mail.


That is a really good idea - unless You cover Your licence plate


----------



## x-type (Aug 19, 2005)

Croatia:

european route











autocesta/motorway











državna cesta/state road (1, 2 or 3 digit)











županijska cesta/county road (allways 4 digit)











distance marker at motorway










distance marker at state road










distance marker at county road











we have also local roads, but their numbers (5 digits) are only symbolic, they never appear in public nor at signs.
also, some expressways aresigned with B-number (B8 and B9), but i cannot find those signs  (they are the same as for motorway, but blue, and not A, but B)


----------



## Tauernautobahn (Mar 11, 2008)

delete


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

Slovenia:

motorway (avtocesta):









expressway (hitra cesta):









main road (glavna cesta) and regional road (regionalna cesta); 689 is regional:









local road (lokalna cesta):


----------



## Tauernautobahn (Mar 11, 2008)

*Austria*

*Europastraßen/European roads*









*Autobahnen/motorways*

















*Schnellstraßen/expressways*







or

















*Landesstraßen "B" mit Vorrang/country-roads "B" with precedence*

















*Landesstraßen "B" ohne Vorrang/country-roads "B" without precedence*









*Landesstraßen "L"/country roads "L"*


----------



## CborG (Dec 2, 2003)

The Netherlands:

Motorway:









National road:









S-road (Mainly Amsterdam)









R-road (road in touristic area's)


----------



## Patrick (Sep 11, 2002)

*as for text on signs: left-aligned or centered?*

what do you prefer in case of look and readabilty?

left-aligned (or right-aligned in countries where you read from right to left) text or centered text on highway signs?


examples for left-aligned text:









by ABRob

























all 3 by me, hosted at the Autobahnatlas









www.autobahn-bilder.de


















examples for centered text:









by Phalc


































mixed:








by Phalc










sidenote: all pics without a source mentioning have been posted by other users in the Signs-Thread


Feel free to post more examples


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

I prefer the mixed one:


----------



## Tom 958 (Apr 24, 2007)

Centered for the mainline, left-aligned for right-side exits, right-aligned for left-side exits.


----------



## radi6404 (May 13, 2007)

Ofcourse left alligned, what else.


----------



## Patrick (Sep 11, 2002)

i agree with radi.

it's easier to read.



Tom 958 said:


> right-aligned for left-side exits.


i've never seen that before. is it common in the uk e.g.?


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

There is a left hand exit near Sindelfingen.


----------



## Patrick (Sep 11, 2002)

neuss has one, too. you were there :tongue2: and i meant the right-aligned text on such exits. gärtringen is centered .








www.autobahn-online.de


----------



## ABRob (Feb 10, 2008)

If the text is to the right of the arrow left-aligned, if the text is to the left of the arrow right-aligned and if the text is above the arrow(s) centered.


----------



## Tauernautobahn (Mar 11, 2008)

Patrick said:


> i agree with radi.


me too


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

I prefer left-aligned, although centered doesn't bother me every now and then, especially when mixed. I've never been thinking about this.


----------



## Patrick (Sep 11, 2002)

ABRob said:


> If the text is to the left of the arrow left-aligned, ...and if the text is above the arrow(s) centered.


if the two types of layout are mixed, it's ugly imo 








by Phalc

arrow to the left as a standalone sign is ok, though 

*edit: oooops, i changed exactly right and left to the contrary on what abrob said, i've seen that two late, sry*


----------



## Majestic (Jan 22, 2007)

I don't see a significant difference but if I were to choose I would take *left-aligned.*


----------



## FM 2258 (Jan 24, 2004)

I like centered since that's what we have in the United States.


----------



## Ron2K (Dec 28, 2007)

Tom 958 said:


> Centered for the mainline, left-aligned for right-side exits, right-aligned for left-side exits.


That's what I prefer too - mainly because that's what we have over here. Only difference is that it's left-aligned for left-side exits because we drive on the left. Right-side exits are extremely rare, and I'm not sure how they're handled because Durban doesn't have any. There are some at the N2/M3 interchange in Cape Town though.

Here's one from Durban (taken from the SA Highways thread), clearly showing the text alignment on signage.


----------



## Jeroen669 (Nov 29, 2006)

Left-aligned, definitely.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

*Poll added!* all vote


----------



## RoadUser (Aug 10, 2007)

For ordinary Latin-alphabet only signs, I'd say that left-aligned makes more sense, typographically speaking, than centered.

However, here in Israel we have the added challenge that all of the signs are in three languages, two of which are written from right to left, and one from left to right. I doubt that there was any alternative but to center the text:


----------



## J N Winkler (May 14, 2007)

Does anyone have a link to the Croatian traffic signing regulations, or some other document which has pattern-accurate figures for traffic signs in Croatia--preferably as vector images within PDF files? I don't mind if it is in Croatian, but don't know enough of that language really to get started with Google.

I'd be much obliged.


----------



## seawastate (Feb 25, 2008)

*What does this sign mean?*










Post any other examples of confusing signs you see.


----------



## Norsko (Feb 22, 2007)

J N Winkler said:


> Does anyone have a link to the Croatian traffic signing regulations, or some other document which has pattern-accurate figures for traffic signs in Croatia--preferably as vector images within PDF files? I don't mind if it is in Croatian, but don't know enough of that language really to get started with Google.
> 
> I'd be much obliged.


http://www.tisak-dada.hr/signalizacija/znakovi_opasnosti.html

The different cathegories of signs is listed in green to the right


----------



## Scion (Apr 26, 2008)




----------



## gannman1975 (Jan 17, 2008)

Scion said:


>



The sign should have a right-angled arrow - that would eliminate the confusion - it is supposed to mean that US 202/NY 35 is the next right after the one-way intersection. I'm very sure many people have made that right too early.


----------



## Hezery99 (Jul 3, 2008)

Hi everyone, my name is Hezery and I'm new here... nice knowing all of you!

These are the route markers for Malaysian expressways and highways:-








- Toll expressway (lebuhraya), usually accompanied with the expressway logo which is similar with the Swiss autobahn logo. All toll expressway codes bear the capital E followed by the assigned numbers.








- Federal highways (laluan persekutuan). Federal route codes can also be written as FTxx (xx stands for route number), for example Federal Route 1 can also be written as Federal Route FT1. In Sabah, all federal highway codes start with the capital A followed by the assigned numbers.








- State highways (laluan negeri), starting with the state code letter followed by the assigned numbers. The state codes are as follows:-

A - Perak (can also mean "federal highways" in Sabah)
B - Selangor
C - Pahang
D - Kelantan
J - Johor
K - Kedah
M - Melaka
N - Negeri Sembilan
P - Penang
R - Perlis
SA - Sabah
T - Terengganu


----------



## DanielFigFoz (Mar 10, 2007)

Hello, welcome to SSC!

Unfortunatley not Portugal nor the UK have such markers.


----------



## Mateusz (Feb 14, 2007)

Czech Republic:








]
Motorway sign









Motorway number 









European road number










Expressway sign









Expressway number


----------



## Onur (Dec 2, 2004)

Turkey;

State Road









European roads and Motorways









Kilometerstone;








Route No - Part No | Kilometer


----------



## RipleyLV (Jun 4, 2008)

delete


----------



## RipleyLV (Jun 4, 2008)

Latvian road markers

Ekspressway sign (Ātrgaitas ceļš):









Main road number (Autoceļš):









European road number:









1st class road number (1. šķiras valsts autoceļš):


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

^^ The expressway sign is funny.


----------



## Tritons (Jul 7, 2008)

What's the story behind Utah's state route marker? Looks like a beehive.


----------



## Dan (Jun 16, 2007)

It is a beehive. It's the symbol of the state... all of the original mormon settlers saw themselves as living in a 'beehive', ie everyone working together toward the better good of the society.


----------



## ElviS77 (Aug 3, 2007)

54°26′S 3°24′E;21405436 said:


> In addition to the signs given by Norsko we have the following signs:
> Markers for a road leading to a route:
> 
> 
> ...


To make things even more complicated, the national road administration system is going through a major makeover at present. The main consequence out on the roads, is that the term "riksveg" - national road - will disappear altogether from 2010: Instead, the "stamveg" - trunk road - will be the national road system and the current "riksveg" and "fylkesveg" - county road - networks will merge into a "regionveg" - regional road - system. The most obvious problem is that national roads are currently numbered en route whereas county roads aren't... I have yet to see a reasonable suggestion on how to merge them.

In addition, even though many national, trunk and European routes are in a pitiful state, they are (with a couple of touristy exceptions) paved. The county roads, however, not so much... The general state also varies considerably from county to county, so we are in for a big mess.


----------



## Gareth (Apr 27, 2004)

Can someone tell me why so many countries, mostly in Europe, have two grades of Motorway; that being the normal motorway signed ones and the ones with the car. What's the difference and are the distinctions really necessary?


----------



## Mateusz (Feb 14, 2007)

The first one is a motorway, the second one is expressway  There are some difference between them, technical ones. for example in Poland the speed limit on motorway is 130 km/h, on expressway 110 km/h and 100 km/h on single laned expressway. Motorway is wider, width of lane on motrway is 3.75 m and on expressway 3.5 m, hard shoulder is also more narrow on expressway and curves as well, on expressway there can be at the grade level crossings, but rarely. I think that just are main difference between motorway and expressway in Poland  In different countries they are various


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

In the Netherlands, we have a motorway and a motorroad. The latter usually features grade-separation, but usually not a median and one lane per direction and a speed limit lower than 120km/h.


----------



## Dan (Jun 16, 2007)

Yeah, the ones with the car symbol in Sweden are often just one lane on each side (or 1+2). They are of higher quality than regular highways but much below full motorways.


----------



## Gareth (Apr 27, 2004)

Do these roads ban the usual things, like pedestrians, learner drivers, low power vehicles etc?


----------



## Mateusz (Feb 14, 2007)

Gareth said:


> Do these roads ban the usual things, like pedestrians, learner drivers, low power vehicles etc?


Yes  They do, that is what they meant for, motor-only traffic

But they don't ban learner drivers in Poland


----------



## Mateusz (Feb 14, 2007)

PLH said:


> POLAND:
> 
> Highways:
> 
> ...


And in addition 










European route 











Droga krajowa / National road











Droga wojewódzka / Voivodship road


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

^^ Learner drivers are nowhere banned in the Netherlands. However, slow vehicles and non-motorized vehicles are not allowed to enter.


----------



## ElviS77 (Aug 3, 2007)

Chriszwolle said:


> ^^ Learner drivers are nowhere banned in the Netherlands. However, slow vehicles and non-motorized vehicles are not allowed to enter.


Much the same in Norway. Bans used to be at the discretion of the local police, which meant that you could use motorways in some counties and not in others. Rather confusing, so the system was changed.


----------



## x-type (Aug 19, 2005)

in Croatia also learning drivers are not banned at motorways. and difference between motorwayand expressway here is: 3.75-3.5 wide lanes, expressways don't have sos lane, 130/110 km/h speed limit, shorter entrance and exit ramps at expressways, more narrow curves at exit ramps at expressways, more often exits


----------



## rpc08 (Mar 28, 2008)

*Portugal*

Highways









Expressways









Markers:










1st: Highway/Motorway
2nd and 3rd: Expressways (IP and IC)
4th: National Road
5th: Local Road


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

ADCS said:


> Nah, it's divided into halves, thirds, quarters, eighths, etc. much more easily than tenths. If we had a different number of fingers other than ten, we would certainly use a different base counting system, not to mention a different form of the metric system (though it would probably be similar in mechanism). Face it, mathematically, ten is not a very useful number, evenly divisible only by itself, two, five and one. Twelve, for example, is evenly divisible by itself, six, four, three, two and one.


Somebody always mentions the easy divisibility of 12 as one of the advantages of the Imperial system, but the foot is about the only Imperial unit that divides neatly by 12!

1/12 of a mile is 2/3 of a furlong, or 6 2/3 chains, or 146 2/3 yards.
1/12 of a furlong is 5/6 of a chain, or 18 1/3 yards.
1/12 of a chain is 1 5/6 yards.

1/12 of an acre is 403 1/3 square yards.

1/12 of a UK ton is 13 1/3 stone, or 186 2/3 pounds.
1/12 of a US ton is 166 2/3 pounds.
1/12 of a stone is 1 1/7 pounds.
1/12 of a pound is 1 1/3 ounces.

1/12 of a gallon is 2/3 of a pint.
1/12 of a UK pint is 1 2/3 fluid ounces.
1/12 of a US pint is 1 1/3 fluid ounces.


----------



## Mr. Pollo (Jan 26, 2006)

In cities along US - Mexico border, people form both sides have to deal with constant conversions between metric / imperial.

when mexicans go to the US and drive, buy gas or want to know the temperature, they must switch to imperial.. and same with americans going south of the border. for instance, with the recent dramatic increases in US gas, americans cross to, say, Tijuana, and must calculate how many liters of gas per dollar... and mexicans go for grocery shopping to San Diego, and get several gallons of juice or milk.

the point is, people on both sides of the line are constantly converting measures, and therefore they do it automatically... just a little practice is needed.

but i totally support the idea of a merticized world


----------



## Nutterbug (Feb 3, 2005)

mr pollo said:


> In cities along US - Mexico border, people form both sides have to deal with constant conversions between metric / imperial.
> 
> when mexicans go to the US and drive, buy gas or want to know the temperature, they must switch to imperial.. and same with americans going south of the border. for instance, with the recent dramatic increases in US gas, americans cross to, say, Tijuana, and must calculate how many liters of gas per dollar... and mexicans go for grocery shopping to San Diego, and get several gallons of juice or milk.
> 
> ...


Can worldly, cosmopolitan, progressive and heavily Mexican influenced states like California switch to metric on their own, or does federal law prohibit individual states from acting alone on these things?


----------



## mgk920 (Apr 21, 2007)

Nutterbug said:


> Can worldly, cosmopolitan, progressive and heavily Mexican influenced states like California switch to metric on their own, or does federal law prohibit individual states from acting alone on these things?


There are *NO* legal restrictions on doing so, only the political will (or lack thereof). There is also a very strong inertia at work here, as well as the question of who would pay for it.

Mike


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

I found out the exit numbering of the Delaware Route 1 is also based on kilometers


----------



## G5man (Jul 28, 2008)

Any pics of the signs with metric on them?


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

^^ It looks like this on the DE-1


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

And like this on the Southbound I-19


----------



## mgk920 (Apr 21, 2007)

Title 15 United States Code, Section 204 (enacted on 1866-07-28), reads:

"§ 204. Metric system authorized

It shall be lawful throughout the United States of America to employ the weights and measures of the metric system; and no contract or dealing, or pleading in any court, shall be deemed invalid or liable to objection because the weights or measures expressed or referred to therein are weights or measures of the metric system."

For a brief discussion on this, see:
http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/laws/metric-act.html

Thus, for example, you can file a property deed measured in meters and hectares in ANY local registrars' office in the USA and if they object, you have sound legal footing under which to go by.

:cheers1:

Mike


----------



## G5man (Jul 28, 2008)

Never knew that, thanks guys.


----------



## go_leafs_go02 (Jan 16, 2007)

So do you think the Imperial system is here to stay? Or would a state like California seek to convert over to metric, and doing that would lead to likely a nationwide conversion over to metric?

I, as a Canadian, who goes to the USA frequently, and understands imperial measurement and can convert distances and temperatures, and gas prices in his head, still wishes the US would go Metric. honestly, simply highway driving, using the shorter kilometers just is better, it makes distances seem shorter, I don't know why. It just does.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 23, 2005)

seawastate said:


> Post any other examples of confusing signs you see.


The section of railway coming up is single track. The driver of the locomotive MUST obtain the " staff" or token before entering the single track section.There is only ONE " staff" so if you have it there cant be another train in the one track section.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 23, 2005)

I dont have a picture but here's a weird piece of signage from the State of Maine.
Driving EAST on US 1, I turn RIGHT on to Maine 187. The first sign I see is " Maine 187 NORTH".
Confusing to say the least. Maine 187 is a loop down to the coast. At its other end, where it rejoins US 1, the sign says " Maine 187 south." Bureaucracy at its most stupid !


----------



## ElviS77 (Aug 3, 2007)

Alex Von Königsberg said:


> It is an interesting question. I didn't take this photo, so I don't know why the speed limit was 40 km/h.
> 
> There is a difference between the USA and Europe in a way the speed limit is set. In Europe, the speed limit may be lowered outside of populated areas to reflect the change in landscape such as the presence of dangerous curves, the width of the roadway, etc. In the USA, on the other hand, the speed limit outside of villages remains the same (e.g., 90 km/h), and should there be a curve or bent, a warning sign will be posted advising to drive with a certain speed. The official limit, however, will remain 90 km/h.
> 
> Also, within the National parks in the USA, the speed limits may be very low even though the road condition allows to drive at a much higher speed. This might just be the case.


¨

Exactly the same situation in Norway. Even more so, actually, since the system always have been built around the urban and non-urban limit (50 and 80 kph respectively). And whereas exits, junctions, schools etc very often leads to speed limit reductions (80 to 60, 50 to 40 or 30), dangerous curves etc never do. There has been a slight change to this thinking as high-risk sections see a speed limit reduction, typically 80 to 70, but this is almost always due to high AADT on an inadequate road, not curves, narrow points etc. Quite weird.


----------

