The following has been seen today on Blackpool Borough Council's website:

"As part of the National Cycle Network, Blackpool Borough Council has installed a Cliff Top Cycle Route (No 62). The route starts from the North Pier and runs along part of the Promenade and then onto the Cliff Tops to the northern boundary (approx 6.7 km long). The Jubilee CycleWay can be accessed and exited at various points along its route. There are facilities to stop and park your cycle and enjoy the sea views.

Links: Sustrans..."


COMMENT: Clearly a metric-thinking Council, out of step with the general public as well as being law-breakers. Surprising the Council links its site to Sustrans, because 99% of all Sustrans literature, and all National Cycle Network signs elsewhere, are just in miles and yards

<<
COMMENT: Clearly a metric-thinking Council, out of step with the general public as well as being law-breakers. Surprising the Council links its site to Sustrans, because 99% of all Sustrans literature, and all National Cycle Network signs elsewhere, are just in miles and yards
>>

Clearly out of step with ARM!

The trouble with ARM types is that they think that shallow straw polls that show people converse in miles, yards automatically means that they cannot deal with or hate metric.

People aren't stupid. If they see a trend toward replacing miles, yards with km, m they know that's because metric is the new trend and generally will take it in their stride. They are not hung up on all this nonsense about it being a French demonic system or part of some great political conspiracy!

Same is true of Sustrans. They just want to encourage people to use the good old bike instead of cars all the time. They have mcuh bigger fish to fry than whether we use miles or km. On my brief visit to thier site I noticed their maps cater for both.

They won't get upset by Blackpool Council mentioning them just because they sign in km. Far more important to them is the fact that Blackpool give them a mention at all, and encourage people to go take a look.

Best of luck to them I say.

<<
People aren't stupid. If they see a trend toward replacing miles, yards with km, m they know that's because metric is the new trend and generally will take it in their stride.
>>

And if people see a trend towards speaking French in England will they just go along with it because it's the new trend?

<<People aren't stupid. If they see a trend toward replacing miles, yards with km, m they know that's because metric is the new trend and generally will take it in their stride.>>

I think you underestimate the average Brit - and why we did not change in the same way as Australia (for example) did.
Apart from the cost and the absolute lack of public support, that is!!!

<< They are not hung up on all this nonsense about it being a French demonic system or part of some great political conspiracy!>>

Yes - that's true - they'd just (in reality) say "Why change a decent and working system?". You see, most will take your point of view (sort of) and have little interest. This extends to the notion that they see miles and km as different systems of which "miles" they are used to. They won't see - as ordinary people- "km" as being better - because their interest in those two words "miles" and "km" don't extend that far. You appear to have countered your argument *with* your argument!

<<<On my brief visit to thier site I noticed their maps cater for both.>>>

Shock horror, mate! Surely you find this abhorent! After all *how on earth* are we going to "move on" if we keep getting the power to choose!?!?

<<
They are not hung up on all this nonsense about it being a French demonic system or part of some great political conspiracy!
>>


Most of the work in developing the metric system, especially in the field of electricity was done by the Brits. In the 1850's British scientists had all but hi-jacked control of the metric system (or at any rate, its development). Both the curretn Director-General of teh BIPM and his predecessor are British.

Take a tip.
You ain't gonna sell it with that sort of stuff. No matter how many times you try to "Britishize" the metric system.

Try another marketing route.

How about

Britain 6
France 3

And they account for 58,000,000 other Brits do they?

Anyway - the British Lions don't tour the northern hemisphere.

Re my words:
<<
People aren't stupid. If they see a trend toward replacing miles, yards with km, m they know that's because metric is the new trend and generally will take it in their stride. They are not hung up on all this nonsense about it being a French demonic system or part of some great political conspiracy!
>>

I am amused at the feeble attempts to try and twist them. I thought I made it clear that I was crediting the average Brit with some astuteness and not being gullible enough to swallow some of the garbage being peddled about metric.

<<<not being gullible enough to swallow some of the garbage being peddled about metric>>>>

Do you have any examples of this?

It's not exactly "bent banana" material, is it?

Martin, the British scientists you listed above who have SI units named after them all have one thing in common. They have units named after them that are NOT used in daily life, only in science. The portion of the SI system that is used in daily life consists of units that are not named after people, but are based on pre-SI units that were used in France, Germany, etc., but not the UK, at the time SI was devised.

Bud,

At least one of the units mentioned is used in everyday life in Britain - I have a 100W lightbulb in the light above my head. IU don't know about hte United States, but light bulbs are specified in Watts in the UK.

Other SI units that you allege are only used in science that are in common use in the UK are Volts and degrees Celsius.

Yes, light bulbs in the US are specified in watts.

There is a difference between seeing a unit and using a unit. Although most Americans and Britishers "see" watts on their light bulbs, they don't "use" watts in daily life. In fact, I would be willing to wager that most Americans don't even know that the watt is a unit of power. They simply consider it a label on a light bulb.

The volt isn't named after anybody, and I believe Celsius was French or German, but I know he wasn't English.

Bud wrote

<<
The volt isn't named after anybody, and I believe Celsius was French or German, but I know he wasn't English.
>>

1. Check the biography of Count Alessandro Giuseppe Antonio Anastasio Volta - see
http://www.italian-american.com/volta.htm

2. Celsius was Swedish. I never said that he was English.

Interesting, I never heard about Count Volta.
But the fact still remains that there are no SI units in common non-scientific use that are named after British people.

What about James Watt?

I guess that depends on whether or not you consider the watt to be in common non-scientific use. I consider it to be a scientific unit, because in daily life most people only encounter it as a label on light bulbs, and have little concept of what it means. Like I said earlier, most common people would be hard-pressed to tell you that it measures power. But if you feel that people in everyday life regularly "use" the watt, then I guess you have a point.

Bud,

You are persuing an extremely subjective argument. For example, I regularly use the location markers on the sides of the motorway when I am driving, but I beleive that not many people do so. (I have ever since I was a child - I was only a passenger then).

The markers in the UK are in very small figures - one has to be in the left-hand lane to read them (Bud - remember, we drive on the left here). The figures give metric units (and have been doing so for over 25 years).

In most other countries they are much more prominent, with Italy being one of the best - see http://www.cbrd.co.uk/reference/international/italy.shtml for some photos. (BTW, the 11.1km distance marker were to show 11.8km, the top row would contain "VIII" and the bottom row "11". A matter, I suppose of "When in Rome ...".

Back to my initial statement - who is a user?

The answer to your question depends on how you define user. I would argue that a unit is used by a population when it is understood and regularly encountered by a significant portion of the people. Of SI units, the general population would be users of the metre and kilogram, and the scientific community would be users of the watt, newton, etc.

Yes, this entire topic is very subjective. If you insist that the watt is in general non-scientific use among a significant portion of the British population, then you are right in saying that one SI unit in common daily use is named after a Britisher.

<<<You are persuing an extremely subjective argument. For example, I regularly use the location markers on the sides of the motorway when I am driving, but I beleive that not many people do so. (I have ever since I was a child - I was only a passenger then).

The markers in the UK are in very small figures - one has to be in the left-hand lane to read them (Bud - remember, we drive on the left here). The figures give metric units (and have been doing so for over 25 years).

>>>>

With respect, Martin, you keep coming up with that one. Try not to put it across as something even a handlful of Brits know.
Those markers are not for "normal user consumption" (apart from the fact that they show an arrow to the nearest phone box).
They are tiny numbers and I'm surprised you can ever see them from the left lane.

I suggest keeping your eyes on the road instead and also avoid the non-legal activity of switching to and from lanes to the inner lane just to read almost unreadable markers.

The singposts that show yards and miles on them are solely designed for conveying information to the road driver, and it seems to work well too, contributing to Britain having the safest road stats in the world. those tiny ones at the side of the road are designed for stationary rescue workers, not you.

Steve,

Similar roadside posts are widely used in Italy, for example, roadside hoardings advertise the XYZ Resaurtant at km 19.67 on the Via Salaria. This makes it very easy to find the restaurant.

If somebody breaks down on a motorway in the UK and they are reluctant to walk to the nearest roadside phone (eg a lone woman at night), then if they know about the existance of the pillars, they can give their position to the emergency services quite easily via a mobile phone. I would go as far as to say that in this circunstance Her Majesty's Government are neglecting their duty by not publicising the roadside posts

Oh pleeeease!

What sort of scenario is that?

Those numbers are for emergency workers only - your notion is bizzare at best.

Think of the logic you are saying.

If a "lone woman breaks down in the middle of the night", she can do one of many things:

1) Walk to the phonebox which will probably be a 5 minute walk - bearing in mind motorways are well lit and hardly the place for "attacker men" to hang out (has there ever been a case where a woman has been attacked on a m/way?).

2) Phone the AA/RAC etc from a mobile phone, and say one of many things:

i) I'm on the motorway between X-town and Y-town
ii) I'm on the motorway and I've just passed the X-town turn off
iii) I'm between jnc n and n of the M-way
iv) etc etc

3) Wait for a patrol car.


BTW - your idea presumes the lovely young lady has a mobile phone.


P.S. Can you answer my question under the "UKMA" post please?

SteveH wrote

<<
Those numbers are for emergency workers only - your notion is bizzare at best.
>>

I was involved in a traffic jam on a motorway a few years ago when the motorway was closed for three hours following a fatal accident. One of the motorists who was also held up broke his ankle while answering a call of nature in the bushes at the edge of the motorway. It took the anbulance a long time to get to him becuase of the traffic that was cuaght up in the traffic jam. The irony was that a residential road ran parallel to the motorway from which the ambulance crew could have accessed the injured party. However, directing the ambulance crew to that road was difficult.

Now, suppose that he had suffered a heart attaqck rather than a broken leg. In such instances minutes can cost lives and teh ambulance crew would have had no compumction in cutting through the motorway fence with bolt cutters, provided they knew where to cut. In such circumstance a call to the emergency services "I am on the M40 at kilometre 55.8, London-bound ...." would have directed the emergency services to the exact point. In passing I would point out that I have seen kilometre markers on Dutch 1:50000 maps, so tehre is no reason why similar markers could not be noted on UK maps.

The hard shoulder would be the fast and most direct method of getting to the accident, that's what its there for.

If I witnessed an accident I would *NOT* leave my car to wander around in confused and dangerous traffic just to read off the little metric writing on those sticks. I would stay in my car and say something like "I'm northbound on the M40 and I went passed junction 5 about 2 miles back".
Now seeing as almost 100% of British people use miles solely - in the realms of road travel - then both the emergency staff and myself will be "in tune" with each other in my description. Plus I won't have been run about in the meantime PLUS I won't have to get in the way of the emergency ambulances on the hard shoulder just so that I could cleverly read kilometres off of those sticks on the side of the road.

In reality, martin, you are replacing "common sense" with "clever-dick". Having issues with Britain's retention of imperial should not get in the way of common sense no matter how heartwarming it must be to see little metric words on the side of a British motorway.

P.S. Can you PLEASE answer my question under the "UKMA" post PLEASE?

When you see light bulbs, do you think, if it is a 60 watt bulb, for instance, "Oh my God, that is 60 newtons through the metre per the second squared LA ha LALA de dah LALALALALA *song and dance routine*"??? I agree with Bud, all of these technical units- be they Imperial or Metric- I think most people od not understand:

Volts
Watts
Amp[ere]s
BTUs
BTU/h


What do they mean? (I know what they mean, but do most folks? I would say most likely not)

By the way, I know it is a bit of a cheat, but the metrical units we lack in English have more or less been adapted into English- for instance the [air] watt, and the poundmole. Irregardless, the watt being related to metric units liek the newton and metre is irrelevant in every day life, as the unit stands alone and without any real relationship to those units of length or force or mass. Thus, using PSI, ounces, Feet etc along with amps and watts is no problem (as I recently pointed out in my coke machien example- coke machine had four units on the side of it- two metric electrical, plus PSI and ounces)

Bryan, if you take any SI unit, such as amp, volt, watt, joule, or whatever, and reduce it down to its definition in terms of the fundamental SI units, you will see that they are dependent on the kilogram and meter. For example, the watt is a kg-m^2/s^3. We don't usually think of it this way, but there is an underlying connection that is very useful to scientists.

But, like I said earlier, this is irrelevant to most people.

I'm sorry but I don't quite understand the relevance of your post, bud.

I was responding to your statement that the watt "stands alone and without any real relationship to those units of length or force or mass."

In the everyday world, to metric users and Imperial users, these units are not concieved of in terms of how they relate to length and mass.