In yesterday's "Daily Telegraph" I was absolutely appalled to see a quarter-page advert by Garden Time of Totton, Southampton. It was promoting their tomato plants and seeds.

Amongst other retrograde, nineteenth-century, Victorian features of this advert were:

* A picturte of a giant tomato surrounded by what was clearly a tape-measure marked in inches (worse still, divided into outmoded eighths), showing the circumference of a tomato being so many inches

* The following sentence: "...until you've tried it, you simply can't imagine how mouthwateringly delicious a tomato can be...each super-succulent fruit can be up to a whopping 12, 13...or even 14 inches or more around"

* The following sentence: "...each plant grows to a well-shaped bush about 35" tall"

* The following claim: "You'll harvest pound upon pound of great-tasting tomatoes from every single plant".


Don't these people realise that Harold Wilson democratically decided we should go metric 38 years ago?

Don't they realise what harm they are doing postponing the day when Britain finally goes metric?

Do they realise that their adverts are totally incomprehensible to all those millions of children and young people only educated in mertic units?


And what, may I ask, is the government doing about it? So far they've only managed tinkering amendments to the legislation by making it a measly level 5 crime to sell in pounds and ounces and making it a crime to mention pounds and ounces after 2009 - SIX years from now, for goodness sakes!!!

It's beyond belief that people like this advertiser are still living in the nineteenth century and being ALLOWED TO GET AWAY WITH IT.

Surely the government should pass a law making it a crime to print stuff like this - this is the TWENTY-FIRST century after all, never mind the twentieth. And have they no respect for European Union Directives?

I'm going to report this to the U.K. Metrication Association.

If anyone wants to complain to Garden Time about selling this stuff by using references to inches and pounds, you can contact them on 08700 50 77 91.

They also have a website: www.windsorproducts.com

Let's hope that their decision to fly in the face of Britain's democratic decision to metricate earns them their just desserts.

John Davies

How I agree with John Davies.

My Sunday has been completely ruined as a result of watching the Boat Race.

I sat back to watch it, but there were all these references to how many miles the race was.

To cap it all, Oxford won the boat race by ONE FOOT!

I thought Britain's Universities were supposed to be up-to-date, but NO!

Why don't they outlaw measuring by feet in the Boat Race as well as banning them from mentioning pounds in shops?

Criminal penalties soon stopped most of them selling by the pound.

We'll never go completely metric at this rate

I agree with the previous posters.

All today, the BBC has been playing a dramatic report from BBC war reporter John Simpson, who got a shrapnel wound in his leg this morning when a misdirected American bomb landed close to him.

As at least 12 bodies were immediately visible to him, plus many more wounded, the whole thing was understandably very vivid; indeed, he described it as 'a scene from hell'.

He then went on to refer to burning bodies on the ground '10 to 12 feet away from me'. What use is that to all the metric-educated people listening? (it doesn't really matter about all the others because they are the past).

It's all very well the BBC going metric on their weather forecasts and their news editors converting all those old Imperial measurements coming in to their newsrooms to metric so that the news is as metric as they can make it.

They really must train their on-the-spot reperters to be ready to use metric in any situation, even the gravest and most immediate crisis. As I was told in the Boy Scouts: "Be Prepared".

Fred Ashley

Have these people using imperial harmed you in any way? Why are you all so aggravated?

Oops! Bud - I think you've just fallen foul to not understanding the British sense of humour and in particular "Irony"!

Ok, re-read the above posts from the first one downwards and imagine each "poster" to be a middle-aged bearded (yes including the woman!) left leaning liberal with a copy of the "guardian" under his/her arm and a plethora of leftwing badges on her dungarees/ his suede jacket. Imagine each poster saying the words with spittle occasionally spraying out of his/ her mouth. Imagine each one to have an old fashion "posh" English, even military, accent!

I think then you'll realise the joke and then you'll realise that Tony's been a busy boy!!!

-- it had me in stitches!

I must say that I spotted it as well.

BTW, I was very pleased to hear the Oxford President Matt Smith say that he was surprised at their victory because his team were:

"seven kilos to a man lighter".

It is hardly surprising that the boat race competitors speak of their wights in kilograms. One of the teams (I think that it was Cambridge) have people from five different countries - UK, Germany, US, Canada and Australia. Of these countries three use kilograms (at least offially) while only one (UK) has a history of using stones and pounds.

Ever watched the rugby (re: Stones and Pounds)?

<<
Ever watched the rugby (re: Stones and Pounds)?
>>

Yes, I have - I also played in one of the teams at school. Only four of the major rugby-playing countries use stomes and pounds - England, Ireland,Scotland and Wales.

I can tell you for a fact that stones and pounds have never been used in South Africa - prior to metrication weigth was measured in pounds only and since then it has been in kg.

I believe that the same is true of all the rugby-playing countries that are in the COmmonwealth while France and Italy have been metric for over 100 years!

<<
Ever watched the rugby (re: Stones and Pounds)?
>>

Have a look at the profiles section on www.sarugby.net

All the player's heights are in cm and weights in kg.

I think you can safely add to the list the USA Rugby International team.

Can't see them using metric.

Martin, if you hate imperial so much why don't you go back to S.Africa thus relieving yourself of all the stress?

It's obviously a very important issue to you personally?

<<
I think you can safely add to the list the USA Rugby International team.

Can't see them using metric.
>>

I can't see them using *stones* and pounds either!

No, that's because they only use "pounds" in the USA. Simply divide it by 14 to get the equivelent stones and pounds

They don't really bother playing rugby either.

Not when they have the "excitement" of so-called "football".

By the way SteveH, what do you do when mention is made of the 22m line and when the penalty kick distances are given in metres ?

Rugby, both league and union, have been metric for quite a while now. Hadn't you noticed ?

The commentators tend to talk in English when not "concentrating" !

However when you listen to them talk about weight and height....


P.S. Give the American rugby team a chance - they're actually getting quite good.

Yes Americans play Rugby and Americans play football. Both games are completely customarily measured.

Football:
100 yards long
2 10 yard end zones
53.5 yards wide
10 yard first down

Rugby:
110 yards long
75 yards wide
25 yard in-goals

Note: Your "standard pitch" for a rugby field of 69 meters is just the original 75 yards converted.

As for heights and weights for the USA Rugby team, they are given on the website in feet-inches and pounds with *achem* no metric equivalents.

It isn't too difficult to spot that the first 3 postings on this thread originated from a hot-headed anti-metric.

The ranting is quite typical.

They also contain mis-guided assumptions about the views and motivations of pro-metrics.

I have yet to see anyone on the pro-metric side advocate laws that criminalise the use of imperial measures in circumstances that are not normally the subject of legal regulation.

MattS wrote

<<
Rugby:
110 yards long
75 yards wide
25 yard in-goals
>>

In the United Kingdom there are two codes of rugby -Rugby Union and Rugby League. I know very littel about about Rugby League, but`a certain amount about Rugby Union.

Until abouit 1970 a Rugby Union field was laid out using imperial measures, but the sport adopted metric units in teh early 1970's. The length and width of the fiedl are not fixed. However the 5yd line became the 5m line, 10 yd line became the 10m line and the 25yd line became the 22m line. It was not just a name change, the changes were actually refelcted on the pitch.

Pip - I think people realised that those first 3 posts were joke!

Also your comment "I have yet to see anyone on the pro-metric side advocate laws that criminalise the use of imperial measures in circumstances that are not normally the subject of legal regulation"

made me laugh - EVEN the creepy last bit.

Martin: Believe me they did not dig up every rugby pitch in every school and field in britain just to re-lay a metric one - please don't be silly.

Just listen to the BBC when the rugby is on to "see through" stupid metric translations made for political purposes!

Good question tho: How come rugby was attacked by the mindless metric morons but football (soccer) wasn't?

(no-one is allowed to print some fifa stuff showing metric equivalents down to the nearest decimetre, y'hear? lets keep the question/answer sensible!!!)

<<
Martin: Believe me they did not dig up every rugby pitch in every school and field in britain just to re-lay a metric one - please don't be silly.
>>

No they did not. Rugby, cricket and football fields are usually marked out prior to each match. I know - when I was at school I had the dubious honour of being selected to join the squad to mark out the rugby field every Saturday morning in mid winter. (Every new boy at the school had that honour). As a cricket umpire, I checked the markings on the cricket pitch prior to each match.

If you watched the Scotland-Italy rugby match you could see faint football field markings that were left over form the previous sports fixture.

No Steve, you do not dig up the fields, youjust put the whitting down in a different position.

Or rather - you put the paint down in the imperial position and call it "metric"! (you know what I mean!)

The laws of rugby do not specify the exact size of the field. That was kept the same. However a new line was marked out 5m from the touch line instead of 5yds.
Within a few weeks the 5yd line was no longer ot be seen. (Actually, it was probably at teh start of a new season).

Anyway, it was not necessary to digf up the field as you suggested!

Eleanor,

I hope I won't spoil your day when I tell you this, but did you see the London marathon on Sunday?!

It was unbelievable. They managed to contrive it so that the winner of the men's marathon won by *TWO FEET*!

Can you credit it?!!!

Last week Oxford win the boat race by one foot, now some runner wins the London marathon by two feet.

I mean, they could have said 'two-thirds of a metre', or '60 or 70 centimetres', even a 'metre' would surely have been near enough - or to avoid mentioning 'f--t', they could have declared it a dead heat. The question we now all need to ask ourselves is...*why didn't they, eh*?

Before we know where we are, they'll be saying the golf was won with a nine-foot putt, the rugby will have been won with a kick from 45 yards, the FA cup with a shot from 30 yards, the cricket with a six that cleared the boundary rope by a couple of feet (or a leg-break that turned nine inches), and the 3.30 at Newmarket by a furlong.

Not to mention the flick from eight inches which won the National Tiddleywinks Championship, the 9lb. carp that won the fishing competitition, nor the cake you had to guess weight of at 4lb. 5 oz.

As well as allowing the parents of all those babies weighed on those nice new NHS weighing scales in kilograms to announce their weights in pounds and ounces in the classifieds. It doesn't make sense. All it needs is a stroke of the Ministerial pen to change some piffling regulation somewhere so that newspapers don't publish this stuff any more.

Harold Wilson announced back in 1965 that we were going metric - and he was the democratically elected Prime Minister of these islands. I ask you, 38 years later and people are still winning boat races by a foot and marathons by two feet!

Somebody must be rigging these sports results. Give me a call and we'll see what we can do to put a stop to this for once and for all.

There's a lot of support for us on this board, you know; around half of them want to see a *complete end* to all this nonsense.

Give them an inch,

Sorry, to put it another way, if the government had an ounce of sense,

Well, you know what I mean, we should come down on them like a ton of bricks


[cardiac arrest]

LOL
===

John said:

"...the rugby will have been won with a kick from 45 yards..."

Both rugby union and rugby league is done in metres now. Commentators (particularly in Rugby League) refer to distances in metres. Watch Super League on Sky Sports and after every tackle, a distance is shown how far the team has run in METRES.

And as you know the like of rob howley et at always talk about yardage and mix in yards with metres during commentary.

With football ("soccer", for US readers) you'll notice yards being spoken, written and "computer etched" onto the pitch.

Much like pack weights, individual weights and heights are mentioned in imperial in Rugby!

BTW, that marathon? Well just like any marathon it is in miles and yards (I can already hear Ralf frothing at the mouth as he thinks the metric "equivelent" is the original version!)

John,

I hope you're recovering by now. I 'phoned the hospital to check how you were; they said you had a bit of a temperature; I asked how much and they said 'just over 100'. I looked that up and I see it's about 38 in 'our' language.

Well, I've got a bit of good news for you. My charlady always brings the 'Daily Mail' with her to read when she has her 5-minute break for elevenses after she's done the hoovering, and I had a sneak look today after she started on the polishing. The 'Mail' is cracking on metrication...at last things are going our way!

Admittedly their headline: "The Easter Sunny: Stay Close to Home for a Weekend in the 70s" was bad, and so was their second paragraph: "Seaside resorts and tourist attractions are preparing for an influx of visitors as temperatures soar towards the 80s".

But guess what!!! ust two paragraphs further down, they *mentioned metric measurements*! Yes! The Mail!! What they said was:

"...many areas will enjoy temperatures above 68f (20c) over the next few days, rising further from Good Friday..."

The next paragraph wasn't so good: "...it will be the hottest Easter since at least 1984 when the mercury reached 79f in places...", but again in the very next paragraph: "By contrast, stiff sea breezes on the Spanish costa and unsettled weather in the Greek islands are expected to keep temperatures there below 70f (21c)".

It may only be in brackets, but its's a start.

I spoke to a friend of mine in the European Commission today. He said that when they get this European Constitution through next year, they'll be able to do what they like - including metricating everything that moves (and road signs that don't move). He said that the Brits will be told that they haven't got a written Constitution and as they are a bit soft in the head and don't know their history any more they'll fall for it!

I've found this delightful Italian restaurant near me which used to do 8 oz. rib steaks and now does them at 200 grams - and they've not increased the price either! Also, you can pay in euros if you want to. I'll take you there when you're discharged - my treat, OK?


Love,

Eleanor

Just though I'd put my ore in ere (my 2 foot one that is).

If you metric monsters don't lay off our feet and inches an all that, I'll come round there and spank yer with me yard stick!

That'll ert your pride as well as yer arse!

Did anyone hear about the trouble "Eric" (or "EUric" as he likes to be known) got in?

He was admitted to hospital after being found on 7ft of , er, um, stuff for 2 weeks.

Poor bloke.

It was on SkyNews and every-mer-thing

Ho-hum, very amusing.

By the way, a marathon is defined as 42195m.

The original version was actually 'about 25 miles', based on the Greek story. The Olympic marathon organisers in London in 1908 found their a distance of 26 miles only reached the entrance to the stadium and so it was decided to add 385 yards so that it finished at the Royal Box.

This distance was adopted as official and was later metricated. So there was never actually a precise distance until 1908, since when it has been converted into a value which will probably be the most enduring of all.

The metric and Imperial figures differ by 11.2mm which I think most marathon runners can live with.

The marathon is measured in miles and yards.

You've obviously spluttered into your trade friendly coffee having known the metric equivalent thinking that the greek Gods used your precious system and therefore we, the users of imperial, are obviously wrong.

This is the same reasoning and shortsighted thinking that makes you think that a football ("soccer", USA) pitch is measured out in metres, and not yards. Oh, and probably cricket too.

Quite sad really.

Tell you what, shall I pretend to be equally silly and say that it's impossible for an aeroplane to fly using metric measurements for height? There! that should make you lot feel better!

(giggle)

Steve, as you well know my point is that until 1908 there was no marathon definition until 26-385 was set, since when this has been reset at 42195 which is an equally arbitrary amount.

This is now the official IAAF definition and will continue to be so for some time to come.

The only "real" definition is the distance between ancient Athens and Marathon, obviously.

Ralf

He didn't die apparently.

Dear Eleanor,

Thanks *so* much for your lovely invitation. It made me feel ten feet tall - of course, I'll be delighted to accept.

Anyway, I'm miles better now, though I've put on the odd pound or two what with being so inactive in hospital. I'm dying for a pint, however - they won't let me have a drink while I'm on this medication.

Still, it's given me chance to decide about my new car - I think I'm going for a 2-litre Rover (try converting *that* to Imperial); it does around 35 miles to the gallon, which is pretty good for that size engine. And it's got acres of room in the boot.

I've had a few ideas on how to stop British people using Imperial measures. One of the biggest problems is people obstinately refusing to give their height in centimetres. Clearly the Traffic Signs Regulations must be amended ASAP to ensure that all those old feet and inches signs come down quickly. And while we are at it, let's convert all distance, height and weight signs and all the speed limit signs as well.

Then I think we must ban newspapers (and magazines) from referring to suspects in feet and inches. It might lead to a few burglars and robbers getting away with it, but I find there's always a bit of a price to pay for progress. It could be made a crime to describe a suspect in Imperial measurements. After all, just as we went metric on goods in the supermarket to ensure that prices could be compared across Europe, the same argument applies to suspects. Some of the suspects may in fact be from abroad, and those who may have seen them might be from abroad themselves, or be visitors from an E.U. country where they only understand metric.

And rather like the 'pounds and ounces' legislation which bans them being mentioned after 2009, we must do the same with feet and inches. In other words, no nonsense of allowing the Imperial to be in brackets afterwards.

I understand from my civil servant mole that the best way to achieve this would be is to *licence* all newspapers and magazines - I mean, that's what we want anyway since the democratically-elected sov... correction, government should approve what they print - in the same way as they licence so much else these days. At the same time, you set up a Metrication Commission with vast powers - a bit like the Commission for Racial Equality, the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Electoral Commission, that sort of thing - unelected quangos with highly-paid officials doing the government's bidding, accountable to no-one and with no Parliamentary scrutiny.

They would have powers, quite simply, to specify what measurements could be used throughout the newspaper or magazine and could vet each issue prior to publication. That would cover things like babies' weights as well. Simply tell the newspaper that if they breach the conditions of their licence, they may go out of business.

Always works! Look what they did to that chef on the telly, Antony Worrall Thompson on the BBC, who preferred Imperial measurements and used them on his programme. They just said: 'Use metric measurements on your cookery shows, or we'll find someone else to do them'. Worked a treat.

I also think a great deal of damage has been done by J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter books using Imperial measurements all the way through [she's a Patron of the BWMA by the way]. Again, it seems to me that authors have a responsbility to the public at large. I don't see that we can allow authors a free hand to delay the future like this. Again, the solution is licensing authors. Some may argue that this is against free speech. But with freedom comes responsibility, don't you agree?

I think a Publications Commission could solve this. All the things that are frowned on now - sexual and racial stereotyping, opposing large-scale immigration, people still defending Section 28, national flags and anthems, monarchists, Conservative voters (all those opposed to progress, if you look at it) - could be covered by the Publications Commission giving guidelines as to what can and cannot be said. Scripts could be monitored before publication. Unauthorised publications would of course carry severe penalties.

Anyway, we can discuss all this when we meet. I suggest next Wednesday and I'll pick you up at 19.75 hours. You can take a bottle of wine with you so I'll bring along a bottle (that's 70 cl) of some Ventimiglia Bianco I got from Waitrose. I'll be off the medication by then so will be able to drink a toast to the future work of the Metrication Commisssion.

Yours for a metric future,

John

Isn't this joke wearing a bit thin?

What, about a sixteenth of an inch thin?

(P.S. Delia Smith never touches metric, not with a 2 metre bargepole!)

Even in an English lonboat (width 7ft which is much narrower than most continental canals), a 2 metre bargepole would be useless. I would much prefer a five metre bargepole.

Note to all:

See how martin and I almost switched sides for a brief moment?

Perhaps we were infiltrating to get secret information?

Shhhh!

BTW: HAPPY ST GEORGES DAY TO ALL THE ENGLISH POSTERS HERE!!!

And to you Steve.

Have a nice Cider to celebrate.

Being Welsh I will just have to have one on your behalf!

SteveH: Ironically, the only British chef we see on TV in the US is Jamie Oliver, who uses only metric.

Yes, he's also known as a "tw*t" in the UK.

You will learn to dislike him, believe me!

(unless the reason for US TV taking him on is because of his "cheeky cockney accent").

Stick to Delia Smith! That's what I say!

P.S. Jamie Oliver's flipping book uses both metric and imperial (there's no BBC diktat).

I should know - my girlfriend went and bought it when he was popular (the first two months of his "show")

Bah!

Anywayz gavna, orf dahn the apples and pears now for a tomtit bifore i'ze l'be going ahhht with the trouble and strife (or something like that)

Not one television cook on the entire American cable food network, or the ones on public television ever use metric for anything. 95% of all American cookbooks don't give any metric measures. I have the latest Good Housekeeping cookbook and it's all American customary. In fact, try searching the recipie sections on both Good Housekeeping's site and Better Homes and Gardens' site and you won't find metric recipies.

Some years ago my wife had a subscription to the Cordon Bleau cookery magazine (International Edition). The recipes there had thing like "A stick of butter". What is a "stick of butter"? I searched through the magazine, bt I could not find any indication of what was meant.

In earlier years, butter was usually packed in 1/2lb or 1lb packs, now it is packed in 250g or 500g packs.

One stick (also called a quarter) of butter is:

1/4 lb.&
1/2 cup &
8 tablespoons

It's actually rather convenient. Butter comes by the one pound box with 4 sticks. Each stick has the tablespoon divisions indicated on the wrapper and if you want so many tablespoons, you cut the stick at the appropriate line. If the recipe calls for an amount in cups, rather than tablespoons, the equivalents are indicated right on the wrapper (1/4 c = 4 T). If it calls for weights, the it's also easy since one tablespoon of butter is also 1/2 an ounce, and the stick is 1/4 pound.

....and not a scale in sight!

This is the first time that I have ever heard of this. It seems to be an American speciality, but if you have nbever been to an American supermarket, how are you meant to know?

I havew bought groceries in England, Holland, Germany, Italy and South Africa but have never seem butter packaged in this way.

This brings me back to one of the advantages of the metric system - in Italy I saw signs that had something "50 km/h" on then - even SteveH should be able to understand that if he thought hard enough. However, "kilometres per hour" is written "chilometri alla ora" in Italian, but since the Italians adopted an internationally agreed form of representing a speed, I understood it instantly.

50kph is about 30 isn't it?

What's "kph" Steveh ?

how "km/h" tends to get represented in the very few times it gets used up and down the land which annoys pro-metric people a treat.

Sort of answers a question I was hoping for really!

Sneaky ain't I?

Right, to the pub.....

This is from the History of Butter Packaging by Milton Parker.
Packaging of Quarters. . .
"It was not until 1906 that Swift & Company commenced to manufacture butter in their first Creamery located in Hutchinson, Kansas. The Swift distributing plant in New Orleans was serviced from the Hutchinson plant and a large volume of business was developed.
Early in 1907 a letter was received from the manager of the New Orleans unit stating that the Chef of the Checker and Chess Club would like to be supplied with butter in ¼ pound prints which would enable him to slice off for table use without waste or delay.
No one connected with the Hutchinson plant has ever heard of packing butter in quarters; pounds were the smallest unit packaged.
Never the less with a pail of warm water and a good clean knife the regular pound print was laid on a parchment covered table and quickly cut into four equal portions, wrapped separately and then placed in a regular Brookfield butter carton. The sample shipped to New Orleans was satisfactory in every way and the regular order for the Checker and Chess Club was filled by hand cutting and wrapping for many months.
Later in the year the Sales Manager at New Orleans wrote asking if we could supply quarters in cartons on a volume basis. He went on to say that he believed if butter were available to the grocery trade in quarters that quite a large segment of consumers would buy a stick at 10¢ when their economic condition would not permit the purchase of a full pound.
Our butter at that time was cut out of Friday Boxes and by experimentation we soon found we could cut quarters in volume.
The net result was that we began shipping quarters in cartons in ever increasing quantities throughout the south, not only from Hutchinson but other cutting plants as well and in a few short years butter in quarter cartons was made available throughout the entire selling territory. The idea was not patented and the introduction of quarter-cartons to the distributive trade was quickly followed by other manufacturers.
While it has been established that prior to 1907 butter had been packed in ¼ lb prints it was specially prepared for dining cars and hotel trade in a limited way and packed parchment wrapped 12 lbs to a box. I believe Swift & Company were the first to pack quarters individually wrapped and cartooned for the vast distributive trade throughout the United States. The original economic reason for the introduction of quarter cartons has long since been lost sight of because the housewife today finds this a most acceptable form of purchasing butter – time saving in putting on the table and economical too."

Thus, since 1907 butter has been available in 1 quarter pound "prints" with the volume and weight of each print easily and quickly obtained since each tablespoon of butter weighs exaclty 1/2 ounce.

The above is me.

As an interesting side note. Americans, in my opinion, will loath the conversion of their recipes to metric units because of your stupid scale. I don't know very many kitchens with scales, and I don't know many people who will want to fool with one when baking or cooking.

When I cook/bake, I use the following measuring devices (I've included US ounce equivalents for comprehension):

1 set of measuring spoons on a ring from which I can make all desired measures i.e.
1 Tablespoon (1/2 fl. ounce)
1 Teaspoon (1/6 fl. oz)
1/2 Teaspoon (1/12 fl. oz.)
1/4 Teaspoon (1/24 fl. oz.)

1 measuring cup or set of cups (depending on which you prefer) they show:
1 Cup (8 fl. oz)
3/4 Cup (6 fl. oz)
2/3 Cup (5 1/3 fl. oz.)
1/2 Cup (4 fl. oz.)
1/3 Cup (2 2/3 fl. oz)
1/4 Cup (2 fl. oz)

I never use a scale for anything. *Everything* is done with volumes which I think makes cooking a lot easier.

<<
What's "kph" Steveh ?
>>

Steve, look at your car's speedo and tell me what is written there. It will almost certainly say "km/h" along with mph.

BTW, if the Italians used their equivalent of "kph", they would write "cao" which is totally meaningless to any non-Italian. The symbol "km/h" is of course universal.

MattS wrote

<<
As an interesting side note. Americans, in my opinion, will loath the conversion of their recipes to metric units because of your stupid scale. I don't know very many kitchens with scales, and I don't know many people who will want to fool with one when baking or cooking.
>>

My mother had a set of kitchen scales as far back as I can rememberand I seem to recall having seen a set of scales in my grandmother's house as well.

One of my parents wedding presents was a cookery book (in Dutch), and I remember my mother converting from metric to Imperial all the time. As soon as South Africa went metric (I had been working for two years then), I bought my mother a set of metric weights. She still has her original scalepan and the metric weights that I bought her.

Martin, you've missed the point.
Yes, my car has "km/h" on the speedo written in barely legible tiny writing in a dark colour under neath the white MPH readings. When the arm goes round it covers the km/h bit on its journey.
Yes I know that's what it says.

What *I* was saying is that in the ultra rare occasions when you actually see it written, say, in a advert for a treadmill or when it's hand written by some bod, you'll usually see "kph" - which irritates the metric fanatics a treat (I've seen a metric fanatic write mph as mi/h btw!)

Metric fanatics also hate it when we say (phonetically) "kihh - lomm - mitter" instead of "killo - meeter".

To metric fanatics its a world of rules rules rules - there's really nothing comfortably humanistic about metric.

If someone said "I'm about 13 stones" a pro-choicer will seldom say "stone, my friend, it's 13 stone" just coz of a silly little "s". See where I'm coming from now?

Now, am I five foot eleven or five feet eleven?

Hmmmm......

No Steve, you have missed the point. The point that I was making was that if the Italians were to write "cao" on their signs (chilometri alla ora), then nobody apart from Italians would understand he abreviation. They have however chosen to use the internationally accepted symbol "km/h" which everybody understands.

It is worth noting that the text "km/h" is usually coupled with some other text such as [the Italian equivalent of] "In foggy conditions". Since the text "50 km/h" is extremely international, I olny had to work out the first part and, knowing that "nebulous" meant "foggy", I was able to deduce the meaning of the text. The associated warnign sign helped of course.

The only reason that km/h is universal is because it was forced on the world. Any units could be universal. At one point all Imperial/Customary units were universally recognized.

I really have no trouble recognizing metric measures around the world, so why should the rest of the world not have any trouble recognizing American Customary measures so long as they are precisely defined?

It doesn't say "in foggy conditions" on my speedo!

<<
I really have no trouble recognizing metric measures around the world, so why should the rest of the world not have any