When "imperialists" say "I'm 6 ft 1", how much is that precisely ?
No one knows for the simple reason that you JUST CAN'T know !
I'll clarify myself: 6'1" can be either 185.42 cm (this is EXACTLY 6'1") or 186 cm or 187.5 cm or even 184 cm...

The difference in between 6' and 6'1" is 2.54 cm !!! This is huge ! I'm 1 metre 85 tall and my bro is 1 metre 83. If we would say our height in imperial we would both be 6 ft tall, although most people can actually SEE that I'm the taller.

It's crystal clear that the imperial system doesn't come up to the mark when it comes down to peoples heights.

^It is customary to measure human height down to the nearest quarter-inch.

Strange custom, never heard it after 2 years in the US.
Maybe the people I know are not custom enough ? I guess they're too "off the shelf".

Ralf

I don't follow COnrad's muddled thinking.

If I say that I am 6'0" talland it is implied that I am measuring tio the nearest inch, then my accuaracy is 1 part in 72.

If I say that I am 183cm tall and it is implied that I am measuring to the nearest cm, then my accuracy is 1 part in 183.

If I am measuring to the nearest quarter inch then my accuracy would be 1 part in 288.

I could of course go on adn since the yard is defined as being 0.9144 metres exactly, the choice of unit does not affect your accuracy, rather the choice of measuring instrument.

Most people either round their height to the nearest half or quarter inch. However, people often, especially men, add an inch or two to their height or round upwards eg. he may be 5'10½, but that becomes when he tells people, 5'11 perhaps, or 6'.

Vanity of vanities, all is vanity, saith the preacher.

But which of you, by taking thought, can add one cubit to his stature?

(Sorry, couldn't resist it)

Conrad, I'm going to bully you by reminding you that most people measure their heights in ft/in including young children in Britain. You would be laughed at if someone asked you your height and you told them in metric. Don't put it past anyone (geeky enough to measure themselves in metres) to round it to the nearest decimetre.

1.83m takes too long to say whereas 6ft does not. most people are not even fussed about the precise detail unless for some reason it's necessary.

For years I put myself as 5'10"

Imagine my surprise the other day, when challenging someone who quote his height much taller than he actually was (he is a shortar*e), to find I'm actually exactly 5'11".

This might be because the last time I measured how tall I was was prob in my early teens.

I feel less fat now.

You are completely right, Frederick. Even though the metric minds do not like the "imprecision" of our units, the fact is it really *ISN'T* required to know your height below around one inch. It is the same in metric countries as I tried to explain a while back on the "MetricSucks" board. However, if required, Imperial too can be given precisely. For example, I say I am 'Six-one' but I very well may be 'Six-and-point-seven-two-nine' or exactly 'Six-foot-and-eleven-sixteenths'. However, in the REAL WORLD it is not only difficult to measure yourself or be measured to a highly precise level (eg. milimetres or sixteenths/hundreths), but is completely unrequired. I simply cannot think of a situation where I would need to know that I am actually 6'1.5799820274808052747023840 inches tall.

I happened to go to the sugery today for my health check and was horrified to be told that I am 1.83 metres tall and weigh eighty something kilograms. Fortunately, the scales also showed my weight in stones and pounds so I know that I really weigh 13 1/2 stone, but I have to guess my height because I could not see the scale behind my head.

A S tallett

6 foot. Or, assuming that the doctors didn't round your height metrically, 6'0.4724409"

You height is 1.83m, as you said.

Ralf

yes.... and six foot.


6' vs. 1.83m. And Imperial is cumbersome?

{Strange custom, never heard it after 2 years in the US.}

You haven't been paying too much attention then.

MikeW,

maybe you're expanding a rare occasion into a rule just to make a point ?

Ralf

I'd say that heights are most often given to the half inch (that's how I give mine, as 5'7½") but going down to the quarter inch if it's right on the boundary between the half and whole inch. That gives an effective precision just slightly better than measuring in whole centimetres. There's not much point in going for more accuracy than that, because a person's height actually varies quite a bit throughout the day.

I forgot to tell: most "metric" people round off their height to 0.5 cm.

That sounds like a dishonest attempt to go one better. Nowhere in this or the other threads, so far as I can see, has any metric person given his height to better than a whole centimeter. You yourself at the top of this thread gave you and your brother's height as 185 and 183 centimetres. Heights in passports, medical records, etc., are given to the nearest centimetre. And, as I pointed out earlier, human heights just aren't stable enough to make it worth going to higher precision.

Interesting thing going on as I read this post.

Some younger members of staff are in the middle of the office discussing world records.

They're saying things like "9 foot tall? Jeez!", "just two pounds in weight, blimey". No mention of metric.

None of them are over 25

One is South African (the only male), Two are ozzies, One is English and One is a Kiwi.

Just thought you'd like to know (especially the Brits here that pretend to casually measure their heights in metric)

I pointed out that human height changes throughout the day once on the metricsucks board. I was laughed away. Now I have been vindicated in all my arguements on that. Hurrah!

Referring back to Conrad's opening point on this thread, it's highly relevant that the Traffic Signs Regulations 1994 stipulate that metric heights for bridge heights and road widths specify that only one decimal place shall be used. So, '2.1m' is permitted; '2.13m' is forbidden. In fact, '2.13m' is sometimes seen on British signs (illegally) as it's the metric equivalent of 7 feet.

The reason for this relates to the '4-second rule' - see separate thread on this board. The human mind can absorb two figures *much* quicker than three.

So, 6' 3" is comprehensible in much quicker time than, say, 191 cm. It's the same in labelling jars or tins of food e.g. we can distinguish between 8oz., 10 oz., 12 oz. etc. much quicker than between say, 250g, 350g, 450g or 330ml, 500ml, etc.

The Traffic Signs Regulations confirm the relative incomprehensibility of metric units to the human mind.

In case anyone thinks this is the fault of the Traffic Signs Regulations, drive in any continental European country (as I have just done) and the metric signs are also just to one decimal place. This is therefore *nearly 4 times* less precise than Imperial's use of inches on road signs, one-tenth of a metre being over 3.9 inches.

I would also note that having been in an area of high mountains with the peak heights in metres and walks in the area described in terms of how many metres you climbed, the British tradition of measuring heights in feet is *over three times* more accurate than the continental habit of measuring to the nearest metre.


Tony Bennett

<<
In case anyone thinks this is the fault of the Traffic Signs Regulations, drive in any continental European country (as I have just done) and the metric signs are also just to one decimal place. This is therefore *nearly 4 times* less precise than Imperial's use of inches on road signs, one-tenth of a metre being over 3.9 inches.
>>

This precision is pretty useless unless it is accurate. When a road is resurfaced, the material used is often more than one inch, but is usually considerably less than 0.1m. This suggests that indicating the clearance of a bridge to the nearest inch is poor practice.

I don't claim to be an expert in road resurfacing, but invariably when I have seen roads being resurfaced, the existing layer is scraped or burnt off to begin with, leaving a rough surface into which the new macadam is laid, enabling it to bond better. Thus the new surface is usually at the same level as the old one. Plus every new layer of macadam gets worn down very gradually through traffic use

Tony Bennett

Here on the Isle of Wight they're apt to forget about that, so after resurfacing the drain grids are often at the bottom of a hole. Mind you, they tend to forget resurfacing altogether, except where it's not needed!

There's a gym challenge between teams in the office here and sometimes extra points can be gained by answering questions over email.

The latest one was "guess the weight of [the two owners of the gym] ?"

They're all discussing it here, many ages many nationalities.

No-one has said "kilogram" except me.

I shouted across to them "It's a trick question! They're after the weight in nasty metric KG!", to which they laughed.

The team nearest me has settled on 24 and three quarter stone.