I am a college student working on a mechanical engineering degree currently. All my life I have heard "the US is going to switch to metric in ten or so years". My father told me that when he was in school in the 1960's teachers told him the same thing. Isn't it obvious after 40 years, that the majority of the people in the US don't want to switch to metric. First of all our nation has much bigger problems to deal with. The war in Iraq and our never ending national deficit are just two examples of bigger problems. Plus, most consumable items are dual labeled, the US uses metric for many overseas, and some domestic applications already. I believe the US already uses enough metric. Why waste millions or even billions of dollars switching the country to metric? The current measurements work just fine. Why fix something that isn't broken? The US isn't going to suddenly become a better country if all it's roads are marked in kilometres instead of miles. Anyone who is intelligent enough to be able to learn to read can learn the US system of measure. Chances are those who dont know their USC measurements dont know metric much, if any better anyway. The reason for this is that they are all busy watching junk like American idol.

<<<All my life I have heard "the US is going to switch to metric in ten or so years".>>>

This is precisely what I've heard all my life (replace US with UK).

Trouble is our Govt is hell bent on completing that task.
Trouble for the govt is that "people" aren't.

SteveH wrote

<<
Trouble for the govt is that "people" aren't.
>>

Steve, I think that most people don't really give a **** one way or the other provided that it doesn't cost them any hassle or money. The real villains are the newspapers and the politicians whose motive is self-publicity rather than doping what is good for the country.

In fact this morning I was giving one of my collegues my assessment of Harold Wilson:

<<
What Harold Wilson did was always good for Harold Wilson,
was often good for the Labour Party
and was sometimes good for Britain
>>

The same applies to most politicians.

"rather than doping what is good for the country"

Freudian slip there me thinks.

Your quote about Harrold Wilson was a good one. I don't think the same can be said about Thatcher though. Rejecting payrises through her career she put Britain first and everything else last - including her own health.

re (martin): "rather than doping what is good for the country".

REPLY: If a comma is inserted into the above, viz.,

"rather than doping, what is good for the country",

we appear to have an example of government policy. By de-classifying cannabis they have promoted cannabis abuse and as a direct consequence further promoted the abuse of other even more harmful drugs.

I think this may have been a digital slip by Martin rather than a Freudian slip. In true Martin style, I would suggest that the juxtaposition of the 'p' key to the immediate right of the 'o' key leads one to conclude that the likeliest explanation for 'doping ' is not Freudian but the fact that Martin's index finger hit the right-hand side of the 'o' key and, a few nanoseconds later, landed on the 'p' key. And of course 'doping' would not have been picked up by Martin's spellchecker, either.

Incidentally, wills never have a comma in them because the insertion of a comma can drastically change the meaning of a sentence. Hence the long and convoluted sentences one finds in wills

I was looking around online and i found out the US has something called the USMA (US Metric Association). While looking thru their sight I saw some pictures of highway signs in the state of Arizona. They were in metric only! Aren't metric only highway signs illeage in the US!? I thought any highway signs that had metric on them had to have english on them as well. Also I've looked around online quite a bit and while I have seen many pro metric organizations I have yet to see more than one anti metric site. Is this true with your experience?

What does BWMA stand for?

British Weights and Measures association.

<<I saw some pictures of highway signs in the state of Arizona. They were in metric only! Aren't metric only highway signs illeage in the US!?>>

Ironically metric signs are unlawful here in the UK but not so in the US! Bizzare!

<<while I have seen many pro metric organizations I have yet to see more than one anti metric site. Is this true with your experience? >>

Minorities always have more pressure groups, its par for the course. See if you can find anarchist/ fascist/ communist discussion forums - I'd bet a large amount of money that there are more of them than there are mainstream (Labour/ Tory/ Liberal) sites.

Highway signs in the US are under the control of the individual states, not the federal government. I don't think too many states have strict laws on the matter, because when the highways were built there was no question that miles would be used, and the pressure from Congress to switch to kilometers has now subsided.
Miles are predominant in all states. The signs you see in pictures are the exception, not the rule.

Interstate 19 is one of the failed metrication attempts by a state highway administration. The ironic thing is that the distances to exits are in metric, the speed limits in mph and there are mile posts. There seems to be no rhyme or reason why Arizona hasn't changed the signs to miles or to kilometers.

According to recent news reports, Arizona is slowly changing the signage back to miles.

http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/metro/6429.php

A while ago, on one of the other boards, there was a discussion about how much it would cost to replace Britain's road signs with ones showing kilometers. Here is a rough calculation.
The article linked above regarding I-19 says that to replace all the signs with metric at once would cost $1 million. I-19 is 63 miles long. Britain has 371913 km or 231096 mi of roads. The cost of replacing all the signs is roughly
231096 mi x $1 million / 63 mi = $3.6 x 10^9.
That is a lot of money. I realize that this is a very rough calculation, because roads may have more signs in one country than another, the cost of signs and labor may be different, etc., but I think this should at least provide an order of magnitude estimate.

3.6 Billion is just one of many reasons why Britian should never switch it's signs to metric. If that estimate is for Britian then I would shudder to think what such a thing would cost the US. I don't think Imperial road signs will hurt Britian in the long run anyway. If anything it will help preserve Britian'c culture and identity.

A while ago, on one of the other boards, there was a discussion about how much it would cost to replace Britain's road signs with ones showing kilometers. Here is a rough calculation.
The article linked above regarding I-19 says that to replace all the signs with metric at once would cost $1 million. I-19 is 63 miles long. Britain has 371913 km or 231096 mi of roads. The cost of replacing all the signs is roughly
231096 mi x $1 million / 63 mi = $3.6 x 10^9.
That is a lot of money. I realize that this is a very rough calculation, because roads may have more signs in one country than another, the cost of signs and labor may be different, etc., but I think this should at least provide an order of magnitude

metre:
It sounds outragously over the top, but having no figures to refute it, we let it pass.
If a large country with an extensive road net and a small population, at that time only 9 million could afford it, Britain sure can. New Zealand also managed it with 3 million people. Besides, for every loss you gain in savings with increased exports, doing away with continuous conversions, standardisation, big runs of manufacturing batches, not wasting childrens valuable time, dual labelling and the list goes on.

<<
Besides, for every loss you gain in savings with increased exports, doing away with continuous conversions, standardisation, big runs of manufacturing batches, not wasting childrens valuable time, dual labelling and the list goes on.
>>

metre, can you explain to me how changing the signs from miles to kilometers would do accomplish any of the things you listed above? (except "standardization", which I can see).

Just because New Zealand and Canada could afford it doesn't imply that it was beneficial.

Bud wrote

<<
A while ago, on one of the other boards, there was a discussion about how much it would cost to replace Britain's road signs with ones showing kilometers. Here is a rough calculation.
>>

Bud's calculations are flawed in many respects:

1. I19 is a motorway (I believe). One cannot compare motorways and country lanes .

2. Britain would never mketricate everything at once - a substantial number of signs would only be metricated as the sign reached the end of its useful life.

3. Many signs can be manufactured with plates that can be removed at short notice. This will allow "instant metrication" of certain classes of signs while reducing the expense dramatically.

4. At least some of the expense will be on high-level planning. Since this will be done across the entire UK, that cost will be spread over manu more signs.

5. The cost *per capita* of metrication in the UK, Canana, Ireland New Zealand or the US shoudl be the same. (Costs only escalate if a small country is able to import its requirements but a large country cannot).

<<<...Here is a rough calculation.
The article linked above regarding I-19 says that to replace all the signs with metric at once would cost $1 million. I-19 is 63 miles long. Britain has 371913 km or 231096 mi of roads. The cost of replacing all the signs ...>>>

I also note that roads in the US tend to have less numeric based signs than those in the UK - this would need to be "added on".

I'll ignore the silly argument of countries that are (in population terms) over 20 times smaller than the UK and have dissproportionately less roads than us *before* you consider the population argument!

I prefer it the way it is now, you know like, "the suffering we and our children are going through because of the words 'mile', 'yard', 'feet', etc". And we'll just have to put up with our low standing in the economic world tables due to this, ahem, "mess".

In the US, the system of expressways is called the Eisenhower Interstate and Defense Highway System. This does not inlcude all the freeway mileage in the US but is a large portion of it.

There are as of October 2002, 46,726 total miles in the system.

Using Bud's figures:
$1 million for 63 miles on I-19.
To replace the signage in just the American Interstates would cost:
$1 million * 741 = $742,000,000.00
Which is about 424,000,000 pounds

Britain has 2,086 miles of Motorways.
Using Bud's figures:
$1 million for 63 miles on I-19
To replace the signage on just the British Motorways would cost:
$1 million * 33.11 = $33,111,111.00
Which is about 19,000,000.00 pounds.

There are:
60,094,648 people in the UK
290,342,554 people in the US

$742,000,000/290,342,554 = $2.56 per person or about 1.46 pounds per person.
$33,111,111/60,094,648 = $0.55 per person or about 32 pence per person.

Thus using Bud's figures and comparing only the Interstates to the Motorways it's $2.00 cheaper for the British person than the American person.

<<Britain has 2,086 miles of Motorways>>

There are two points I'd like to add here:

1) The vast majority of "number" type signs in Britain will be on the A- and B- roads and this includes a lot of twisty little roads that have been around for centuries.

2) Signs apart, britain uses loads of matrix speed signs, for variable speed limits. On top of this, the M25 (the busiest road in the world and don't I know it) utilises a very very expensive speed regulation system that is as fine grained as "each lane speed limit" (when utilised). I cannot remember how much these cost but they're very sophisticated and are meant to prevent "bunching". In order to make it work these signs have individual speed cameras behind them. These signs can only cope with two digits.

And then there's the recalibrating of the equipment!

And will they close the M25 while they change all this?

And if so then you can add to that cost the industries that use the M25 for haulage, who'll have to find a different route.

It's not all black on white, you see.

And it not all fast straight roads.

I'll try and get a website showing the M25 control system

Some interesting facts and figures:

http://euclid.colorado.edu/~rmg/roads/records.html

Something to laugh at:

http://speedlimit.dreamwater.org/gallery_funnies.html

http://www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk/gatso10.htm

and

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1017242.stm

Martin, in response to your points:


1. I19 is a motorway (I believe). One cannot compare motorways and country lanes .

If you come to the US, you will see that only motorways really have distance signs on them. And the number of distance signs is much less than even country roads in other countries. (I don't know about the UK in particular, but I do know about Canada, India, and Mexico. And from what you told me a while ago, I know that there are distance signs on country roads.)


2. Britain would never mketricate everything at once - a substantial number of signs would only be metricated as the sign reached the end of its useful life.

In that case, we would have half the signs in one system and half in another for many years. This may cause traffic accidents. At the least, all the signs on motorways and most speed limit signs would have to be changed at once. Signs on minor roads could be left for later, but I don't think they make up the bulk of road signs in the country.


3. Many signs can be manufactured with plates that can be removed at short notice. This will allow "instant metrication" of certain classes of signs while reducing the expense dramatically.

In a developed country, most of the cost of replacing the signs would be in the labor involved, not the metal and paint on the sign. I don't have figures on these plates, because I have never seen them, but I really can't imagine that they would reduce costs enough to justify the conversion.

4. At least some of the expense will be on high-level planning. Since this will be done across the entire UK, that cost will be spread over manu more signs.

Agreed, but again I don't think it will make as much of a difference as you claim.

5. The cost *per capita* of metrication in the UK, Canana, Ireland New Zealand or the US shoudl be the same. (Costs only escalate if a small country is able to import its requirements but a large country cannot).

I agree with that.

Re: Losses? April 27 2004, 7:37 AM


<<
Besides, for every loss you gain in savings with increased exports, doing away with continuous conversions, standardisation, big runs of manufacturing batches, not wasting childrens valuable time, dual labelling and the list goes on.
>>

metre, can you explain to me how changing the signs from miles to kilometers would do accomplish any of the things you listed above? (except "standardization", which I can see).
Let me just say, car odometers, vehicle literature and fasteners all in metric. Each of these saves money on an ongoing basis.

Just because New Zealand and Canada could afford it doesn't imply that it was beneficial.
What a funny observation. Why would any country go metric if there are no benefits. Seems an inherent flaw in your thinking.

I keep on having problems on International.
Half my mposts never show up.

One must note that in addition to the freeways and interstates in the US one must also consider evey state, county, and city roads as well. To the best of my knowledge the US has a better road infrastructure than any other nation. Also I dont see that Britian has lost much money from having it's road signs in Imperial in the past, so what would another century matter? Drivers from other countries have had to 'deal with' miles in the past. Why can't they continue to do so?

Freedom and diversity don't fit in with the EU master-plan, I'm afraid.

Even pro-metrics concede that, on balance, there is little to be gained from switching - other than to "complete the process" or "be like europe", neither of which are necessairly benefitial anyway, barring the fact that the former is nigh on impossible

"To the best of my knowledge the US has a better road infrastructure than any other nation"

I really hate the lack of roundabouts.

If you make a mistake on a motorway it seems so convoluted to get back to where you wanted to be, and the fluidity of a "4 stop" is non-existant.

But - the "left on a red" rule is bleedin' marvellous! They should have that over here.

Steve-It's a "Right on Red rule", i.e. most cases you can make a right turn on a red light. We're on the "correct" side of the street over here.

I would agree with Roth's statement. The US, being as vast and travelled as it is has an enormous amount of roadways. Consider the following:

10,194,967 miles of roadway
4,179,936 miles of if unpaved
6,015,031 miles of it paved
143,917 miles of expressway

Now imagine having to change all that roadway over to metric and the expense involved in it. Even on smaller state and local roads every distance sign would need changing as well as every speed limit sign.

On the expressways, they have mile markers for every mile of road in each state. The exit numbers are done according to the mile marker of the road. That is, if an exit is 15 miles from the start of the road in that state, the exit is numbered 15. Not to mention the distance to exit signs which read something like, "Exit 2 miles", "Exit 1 mile", "Exit 1/2 mile", "Exit 1/4 mile" and so forth, or the distance signs, or the speed limit signs or, etc.

In the US it's right on red, but for steve it would be left since the Brits drive on the left side of the road. Steve by the way you should watch what you say, 'Big Brother' might be watching.

I don't think you can turn either direction on a red light in Britain (or any country except the US and Canada).

dont see that Britian has lost much money from having it's road signs in Imperial in the past, so what would another century matter? Drivers from other countries have had to 'deal with' miles in the past. Why can't they continue to do so?

metre:
The world is not a museum, even if people like you want it to be one.

3,600,000,000 April 27 2004, 4:14 AM


3.6 Billion is just one of many reasons why Britian should never switch it's signs to metric. If that estimate is for Britian then I would shudder to think what such a thing would cost the US. I don't think Imperial road signs will hurt Britian in the long run anyway. If anything it will help preserve Britian'c culture and identity.


Respond to this message

metre

Losses? April 27 2004, 6:14 AM


A while ago, on one of the other boards, there was a discussion about how much it would cost to replace Britain's road signs with ones showing kilometers. Here is a rough calculation.
The article linked above regarding I-19 says that to replace all the signs with metric at once would cost $1 million. I-19 is 63 miles long. Britain has 371913 km or 231096 mi of roads. The cost of replacing all the signs is roughly
231096 mi x $1 million / 63 mi = $3.6 x 10^9.
That is a lot of money. I realize that this is a very rough calculation, because roads may have more signs in one country than another, the cost of signs and labor may be different, etc., but I think this should at least provide an order of magnitude

metre:
It sounds outragously over the top, but having no figures to refute it, we let it pass.
If a large country with an extensive road net and a small population, at that time only 9 million could afford it, Britain sure can. New Zealand also managed it with 3 million people. Besides, for every loss you gain in savings with increased exports, doing away with continuous conversions, standardisation, big runs of manufacturing batches, not wasting childrens valuable time, dual labelling and the list goes on.


Respond to this message

Bud

Re: Losses? April 27 2004, 7:37 AM


<<
Besides, for every loss you gain in savings with increased exports, doing away with continuous conversions, standardisation, big runs of manufacturing batches, not wasting childrens valuable time, dual labelling and the list goes on.
>>

metre, can you explain to me how changing the signs from miles to kilometers would do accomplish any of the things you listed above? (except "standardization", which I can see).

Just because New Zealand and Canada could afford it doesn't imply that it was beneficial.


Respond to this message

martin

Re: Losses? April 27 2004, 9:23 AM


Bud wrote

<<
A while ago, on one of the other boards, there was a discussion about how much it would cost to replace Britain's road signs with ones showing kilometers. Here is a rough calculation.
>>

Bud's calculations are flawed in many respects:

1. I19 is a motorway (I believe). One cannot compare motorways and country lanes .

2. Britain would never mketricate everything at once - a substantial number of signs would only be metricated as the sign reached the end of its useful life.

3. Many signs can be manufactured with plates that can be removed at short notice. This will allow "instant metrication" of certain classes of signs while reducing the expense dramatically.

4. At least some of the expense will be on high-level planning. Since this will be done across the entire UK, that cost will be spread over manu more signs.

5. The cost *per capita* of metrication in the UK, Canana, Ireland New Zealand or the US shoudl be the same. (Costs only escalate if a small country is able to import its requirements but a large country cannot).


Respond to this message

SteveH

Re: Losses? April 27 2004, 1:27 PM


<<<...Here is a rough calculation.
The article linked above regarding I-19 says that to replace all the signs with metric at once would cost $1 million. I-19 is 63 miles long. Britain has 371913 km or 231096 mi of roads. The cost of replacing all the signs ...>>>

I also note that roads in the US tend to have less numeric based signs than those in the UK - this would need to be "added on".

I'll ignore the silly argument of countries that are (in population terms) over 20 times smaller than the UK and have dissproportionately less roads than us *before* you consider the population argument!

I prefer it the way it is now, you know like, "the suffering we and our children are going through because of the words 'mile', 'yard', 'feet', etc". And we'll just have to put up with our low standing in the economic world tables due to this, ahem, "mess".




Respond to this message

Anonymous

Re: Losses? April 28 2004, 8:08 AM


Re: Losses? April 27 2004, 7:37 AM


<<
Besides, for every loss you gain in savings with increased exports, doing away with continuous conversions, standardisation, big runs of manufacturing batches, not wasting childrens valuable time, dual labelling and the list goes on.
>>

metre, can you explain to me how changing the signs from miles to kilometers would do accomplish any of the things you listed above? (except "standardization", which I can see).
Let me just say, car odometers, vehicle literature and fasteners all in metric. Each of these saves money on an ongoing basis.

Just because New Zealand and Canada could afford it doesn't imply that it was beneficial.
What a funny observation. Why would any country go metric if there are no benefits. Seems an inherent flaw in your thinking.

I keep on having problems on International.
Half my mposts never show up.



Respond to this message

MattS

American Interstates vs. British Motorways April 27 2004, 2:23 PM


In the US, the system of expressways is called the Eisenhower Interstate and Defense Highway System. This does not inlcude all the freeway mileage in the US but is a large portion of it.

There are as of October 2002, 46,726 total miles in the system.

Using Bud's figures:
$1 million for 63 miles on I-19.
To replace the signage in just the American Interstates would cost:
$1 million * 741 = $742,000,000.00
Which is about 424,000,000 pounds

Britain has 2,086 miles of Motorways.
Using Bud's figures:
$1 million for 63 miles on I-19
To replace the signage on just the British Motorways would cost:
$1 million * 33.11 = $33,111,111.00
Which is about 19,000,000.00 pounds.

There are:
60,094,648 people in the UK
290,342,554 people in the US

$742,000,000/290,342,554 = $2.56 per person or about 1.46 pounds per person.
$33,111,111/60,094,648 = $0.55 per person or about 32 pence per person.

Thus using Bud's figures and comparing only the Interstates to the Motorways it's $2.00 cheaper for the British person than the American person.



Respond to this message

SteveH

Re: American Interstates vs. British Motorways April 27 2004, 2:51 PM


<<Britain has 2,086 miles of Motorways>>

There are two points I'd like to add here:

1) The vast majority of "number" type signs in Britain will be on the A- and B- roads and this includes a lot of twisty little roads that have been around for centuries.

2) Signs apart, britain uses loads of matrix speed signs, for variable speed limits. On top of this, the M25 (the busiest road in the world and don't I know it) utilises a very very expensive speed regulation system that is as fine grained as "each lane speed limit" (when utilised). I cannot remember how much these cost but they're very sophisticated and are meant to prevent "bunching". In order to make it work these signs have individual speed cameras behind them. These signs can only cope with two digits.

And then there's the recalibrating of the equipment!

And will they close the M25 while they change all this?

And if so then you can add to that cost the industries that use the M25 for haulage, who'll have to find a different route.

It's not all black on white, you see.

And it not all fast straight roads.

I'll try and get a website showing the M25 control system


Respond to this message

SteveH

Re: American Interstates vs. British Motorways April 27 2004, 3:17 PM


Some interesting facts and figures:

http://euclid.colorado.edu/~rmg/roads/records.html

Something to laugh at:

http://speedlimit.dreamwater.org/gallery_funnies.html




Respond to this message

SteveH

and I've found some examples of the M25 system April 27 2004, 3:49 PM


http://www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk/gatso10.htm

and

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1017242.stm


Respond to this message

Bud

Re: and I've found some examples of the M25 system April 27 2004, 9:12 PM


Martin, in response to your points:


1. I19 is a motorway (I believe). One cannot compare motorways and country lanes .

If you come to the US, you will see that only motorways really have distance signs on them. And the number of distance signs is much less than even country roads in other countries. (I don't know about the UK in particular, but I do know about Canada, India, and Mexico. And from what you told me a while ago, I know that there are distance signs on country roads.)


2. Britain would never mketricate everything at once - a substantial number of signs would only be metricated as the sign reached the end of its useful life.

In that case, we would have half the signs in one system and half in another for many years. This may cause traffic accidents. At the least, all the signs on motorways and most speed limit signs would have to be changed at once. Signs on minor roads could be left for later, but I don't think they make up the bulk of road signs in the country.


3. Many signs can be manufactured with plates that can be removed at short notice. This will allow "instant metrication" of certain classes of signs while reducing the expense dramatically.

In a developed country, most of the cost of replacing the signs would be in the labor involved, not the metal and paint on the sign. I don't have figures on these plates, because I have never seen them, but I really can't imagine that they would reduce costs enough to justify the conversion.

4. At least some of the expense will be on high-level planning. Since this will be done across the entire UK, that cost will be spread over manu more signs.

Agreed, but again I don't think it will make as much of a difference as you claim.

5. The cost *per capita* of metrication in the UK, Canana, Ireland New Zealand or the US shoudl be the same. (Costs only escalate if a small country is able to import its requirements but a large country cannot).

I agree with that.



Respond to this message

Roth

Metrication April 28 2004, 5:51 PM


One must note that in addition to the freeways and interstates in the US one must also consider evey state, county, and city roads as well. To the best of my knowledge the US has a better road infrastructure than any other nation. Also I dont see that Britian has lost much money from having it's road signs in Imperial in the past, so what would another century matter? Drivers from other countries have had to 'deal with' miles in the past. Why can't they continue to do so?


Respond to this message

SteveH

Re: Metrication April 28 2004, 6:31 PM


Freedom and diversity don't fit in with the EU master-plan, I'm afraid.

Even pro-metrics concede that, on balance, there is little to be gained from switching - other than to "complete the process" or "be like europe", neither of which are necessairly benefitial anyway, barring the fact that the former is nigh on impossible


Respond to this message

SteveH

Re: Metrication April 28 2004, 6:34 PM


"To the best of my knowledge the US has a better road infrastructure than any other nation"

I really hate the lack of roundabouts.

If you make a mistake on a motorway it seems so convoluted to get back to where you wanted to be, and the fluidity of a "4 stop" is non-existant.

But - the "left on a red" rule is bleedin' marvellous! They should have that over here.


Respond to this message

MattS

Red April 28 2004, 7:42 PM


Steve-It's a "Right on Red rule", i.e. most cases you can make a right turn on a red light. We're on the "correct" side of the street over here.

I would agree with Roth's statement. The US, being as vast and travelled as it is has an enormous amount of roadways. Consider the following:

10,194,967 miles of roadway
4,179,936 miles of if unpaved
6,015,031 miles of it paved
143,917 miles of expressway

Now imagine having to change all that roadway over to metric and the expense involved in it. Even on smaller state and local roads every distance sign would need changing as well as every speed limit sign.

On the expressways, they have mile markers for every mile of road in each state. The exit numbers are done according to the mile marker of the road. That is, if an exit is 15 miles from the start of the road in that state, the exit is numbered 15. Not to mention the distance to exit signs which read something like, "Exit 2 miles", "Exit 1 mile", "Exit 1/2 mile", "Exit 1/4 mile" and so forth, or the distance signs, or the speed limit signs or, etc.



Respond to this message

Roth

Left on Red April 28 2004, 9:12 PM


In the US it's right on red, but for steve it would be left since the Brits drive on the left side of the road. Steve by the way you should watch what you say, 'Big Brother' might be watching.


Respond to this message

Bud

Re: Left on Red April 29 2004, 12:15 AM


I don't think you can turn either direction on a red light in Britain (or any country except the US and Canada).


Respond to this message

metre

Museum April 29 2004, 6:43 AM


dont see that Britian has lost much money from having it's road signs in Imperial in the past, so what would another century matter? Drivers from other countries have had to 'deal with' miles in the past. Why can't they continue to do so?

metre:
The world is not a museum, even if people like you want it to be one.




Current Topic - USA is Metric Enough

Do you think it's a waste of time that Welsh children learn how to sing Welsh songs? Or that Irish children are still taught Gaelic? What about other old traditions, shall we just get rid of them too?

Roth: Eric/Metre is an idiot, but you might have gathered this.

<<Steve-It's a "Right on Red rule", i.e. most cases you can make a right turn on a red light. We're on the "correct" side of the street over here>>

Ok, I meant the other way around.
And we drive on the "proper" side of the road!! ;-)

We do -sort of- have a left on a red, but it requires a filter light, a little green arrow pointing left. That's about as close as it gets.
The tories once said they'd introduce left on a red, and increase m/w limits to 85mph. They're (obviously) appealing to the motoring public vote.

Just out of curiosity, what is the current speed limit, and how well enforced is it?

Sorry for going off topic.

85 sounds awfull fast for the small roads that Britian has.
I've been to Britian before ( around the london area) and none of the roads appeared to be wide enough to have people drive that fast.

"m/w" - I was referring to the motorways.

Currently the speed limit is 70mph - based upon the fact that when motorways were invented very few cars did more than 70mph.

My car will do 70mph at 2,500 revs/min! Things have changed.

As far as enforcing the speed law on the m/w, well different areas apply different strictnesses. If you're in the west country you could get pulled over for doing 75/80.

If you're in North Wales you can be be arrested for thinking about going 90mph BEFORE you get in your car (joke).

However, generally, a police officer is more likely to pull over a bloke doing 70mph blocking the over-taking lane on a m/w than the hords of cars wanting to do 85mph that have queued up behind him. (In the UK you cannot pass a car on its left hand side on a motorway unless the road is congested)

Hence I hate this "slow lane, medium lane, fast lane" stuff that people still refer to! There is only one lane, the left-most one - the rest are there to go faster than this lane IF there is a car in this lane (and this applies to lane 2,3,4 etc).

Those in the UK will probably have guessed by now that my biggest pet-hate are "middle-lane-drivers"

That's so bizzare. In the US, all states allow you to drive in any lane of a multi-laned expressway. There are a few states that have pass on the left only laws, but you may pass at any time, congestion or no congestion.

As far as speed limits, it's state set for different roads. Maryland (where I live) sets the top limit at 65 mph, but people will drive 80 frequently. Some states, like Delaware still have theirs at 55 mph. Other states further west have higher limits. West Virginia has 70 and some places in California, the limit is 90. Montana has no top limit at all and the rule is "any speed reasonalbe and prudent".

Originally when the Interstate system was built, there was no manditory speed limit. The original speed limits were set down at 55 mph during the oil embargo in the 1970s.

<<<That's so bizzare. In the US, all states allow you to drive in any lane of a multi-laned expressway. >>>

This is what differentiates a motorway from a freeway. Visualise it from a helicopter and you can see why our way could be desirable.
Firstly, you only really need give way (yield?) to the faster traffic which just happens to be next to your ear. This makes things simpler and safer.
Secondly, slow vehicles can stick to the first lane and never get in the way of anyone.
Thirdly, trucks stay out of the right-most (UK) lane.
Fourthly, to exit the motorway you'd decrease your speed steadily while climbing down into the leftmost lane inadvance of the 3-2-1 100yd marker boards to the exit where you will be down to a reasonable speed.
Of course this is only the rule when the motorway is free flowing. When things get congested you can hop lanes as much as you like to get ahead - but this is generally frowned upon.

I think all(?) of Europe follow this method too. Not long ago you'd have to give way to someone JOINING the motorway in france! Now *THATS* bizzare!

<<There are a few states that have pass on the left only laws, but you may pass at any time, congestion or no congestion.>>

In florida I noticed signs that said "Slower drivers drive on the right"

Yes, it's "yield" here. Generally in the US expressway traffic has the slow traffic to the right most lanes and the fast traffic to the left most lanes, but these are not hard and fast laws in most places. The exception you mentioned was Florida and in other places where you have to climb long slopes, they like to keep the slow traffic to the right. To exit, a similar procedure is followed but we generally have the following signs, 2 miles, 1, 1/2, 1/4 and sometimes 1,000 or even 500 feet.

We call the US left lane the "fast" or "hammer lane", the middle lanes are called "squeeze lanes" and the right lane is the "slow" or "shoulder lane". Trucks may travel in any lane provided there are no lane restrictions on trucks. Generally (on a 65 mph road) it's 85 mph to the left and 65 to the right; most people "speed". Its usual to hop lanes back and forth in the US no matter how freely the traffic is flowing, and if traffic is backed up as it generally is here where I live (we have the second worst in the country) it's almost expected you hop lanes to get ahead and if you don't you're not a normal driver.

Even though there are usually no rules here for which lane to stay in, it is intuitive for slower drivers to stay towards the outside (right) and for faster drivers to go inside (left). In the end, although there are always people moving around, the structure looks very much like it does in Europe, where it is mandated by law.
MattS, I would be interested to know where in California the limit is 90, as I have never seen anything higher than 70.

Museum April 29 2004, 12:31 PM


Do you think it's a waste of time that Welsh children learn how to sing Welsh songs? Or that Irish children are still taught Gaelic? What about other old traditions, shall we just get rid of them too?

metre;
You and your compatriots can't get it into your heads that measurements fulfill only one purpose, to measure. Languages are never discarded because they are old fashioned. Languages die for one reason only, usually an overwhelming economic impact of another culture, like English on Welsh, or Gaelic. Gaelic will never replace English again, but that does not mean some people can learn and use it.
Go back some threads and you will find it all explained.

SteveH wrote

<<
I think all(?) of Europe follow this method too. Not long ago you'd have to give way to someone JOINING the motorway in france! Now *THATS* bizzare!
>>

Technically that is the case in all European countries except:

1. United Kingdom
2. Irish Republic
3. Roads that are designated as "Priority Roads".

BY an large, most Continental countries designate one or another raod at a junction as being a "priority road". In Germany, for example, all inersections where at least one road has a speed limit in excess of 30km/h, you can be sure that one of the roads has been desginated a "priority road" (ie, you treat it the same as in the UK apart from driving on the otehr side of the road). In residental areas where the speed limit is 30km/h, no roads are designated as prioroty roads, so you just have to drive slowly (and not run over any children).

Surely you mean 30 MPH (ie 50 km/h)?

Steve, I meant 30km/h.

Such speed limits are relatively common on non-through roads in housing estates. (Much like Britain's 20mph zones)

<<That's so bizzare. In the US, all states allow you to drive in any lane of a multi-laned expressway.

As far as speed limits, it's state set for different roads. . . and some places in California, the limit is 90. Montana has no top limit at all and the rule is "any speed reasonalbe and prudent".

Originally when the Interstate system was built, there was no manditory speed limit. The original speed limits were set down at 55 mph during the oil embargo in the 1970s.>>

A few comments. First, 50 States means 50 ways, so it is important to realize that generalities at best mean "most states."

However, in most states, "multi-lane" means more than two lanes in each direction. On expressways with three or more lanes (per side) any lane and passing on either side is permitted, although there may be signs instructing trucks and slower traffic to keep right. With two lanes (per side) it is "keep right, pass left." This distinction is not enforced well, and it is not clear many drivers are aware of it.

California does not have a speed limit of 90; it is 70 on a few Interstate segments, otherwise 65 max. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/roadinfo/70mph.htm

States may set their own expressway limit in rural or sparsely populated areas, Michigan is 70, as are many states, a few such as Nebraska are 75. Montana is "reasonable and prudent." "Densely populated" areas (don't ask me to define it, I know it when I see the "double nickel") have an expressway limit of 55 in all states; I assume it is either the result of Federal pressure or regulation.

Almost all states had their own speed limit before the oil embargo and national 55 limit. Michigan was 70 and we returned to that after Federal 55 was lifted. Nevada was the only other "reasonable and proper" state pre-embargo.